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.
All I see in this @JK6661 are series of generally unsupported statements with no meaningful connection between them. If this is the best that you can come up with then I'm less convinced than I was before I started reading it.
We don't. The term we use is God, not 'a' god, which then differentiates the power that brought everything into existence the one universe, from a superstition.How do you get from the universe has a cause to a god as that cause?
It's simple. Something is not nothing. 1 is not 0.All I see in this @JK6661 are series of generally unsupported statements with no meaningful connection between them. If this is the best that you can come up with then I'm less convinced than I was before I started reading it.
You have offered statements. I declare they are unsupported. You could provide support.What you see is a series of reasons why I believe the cause of the universe is God. If you decline to engage with/dispute my reasoning by making affirmative statements of your own, then I guess we have nothing to discuss.
That is even less enlightening than the text I have provisionally dismissed. This section of the forum provides an opportunity for Christians to offer arguments for their religion. You and jk6661 are not doing an inspiring job of that so far. I'm ready to entertain logical and evidence based arguments. I haven't seen in any yet. I wait with interest.It's simple. Something is not nothing. 1 is not 0.
Ok, why do you believe this? I do appreciate the thought out response.I want you to know that I truly believe that God has me up all night writing this post especially for you.
Without knowing the details of every case that could be presented for the cause of division, I think this is mostly a semantical argument. Temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with eternal things and spiritual matters, so metaphors are often used. According to scripture the Word of God is the energy that God created with, and Jesus the man, is the same Word of God only now made flesh John 1. Not claiming to speak for anyone, but I think some feel there is a distinction to be made between the spoken Word that created and the Speaker Who spoke the Word, while others feel that the Word spoken still represents in Person the One Who spoke it.
Not all truth is self evident. How the universe came into existence or what atoms are made of are not self evident. Or do y9ou mean something different. I do agree that all truth will not contradict each other.The key point is that the term Truth means something that exists for every person on some level of cognizance, which we learn of, and that we don't make up, and that this is self evident even because it's synonymous with the reality we experience. What is True is always reasonable being that it is self evident, and subsequently it will not contradict it's self, which is why only what is true fits in the puzzle of the bigger picture, which is why when we reason upon what is not true it ends in a contradiction in our psycholinguistics.
All truth? I don't think so. We cannot know if Solipsism is true or not, we cannot know if god does not exist, we cannot know what happened before the expansion of the universe for example.Truth is knowable.
Making a claim that right/wrong exist as energy needs to be substantiated by good evidence. They exist as ideas, do you mean the energy we use to think?Look at these dichotomies and look at the similarities in their positive and negative aspects: True/false, trustworthy/untrustworthy, right/wrong, reality/unreality, knowledge/ignorance, light/darkness, sight/blindness, reasonable/unreasonable, merciful/merciless, Selfless/selfish, kindness/cruelty, faithful/unfaithful, empathy/malevolence.
These are all substantive matters that are a part of the reality we experience. If I don't see them as particles it doesn't mean they don't exist as a part of reality in some other form of energy.
I don't believe things that are only "physically visible". I believe things when I am convinced by good evidence based on my standard of evidence. Do you believe there is a True moral action in every situation? I don't. Everything is not ultimately True or False cosmically.I say this because if we limit ourselves to only believing in what we can see or 'physically visible' as constituting reality, we're changing the term Truth to a subjective view of truth. In other words it's only an opinion that Truth is something only true when we see it. What is thought for example and where does it come from (a rhetorical). We don't think to think to introduce most of the thoughts we think. We're processing things we didn't decide to process most of the time.
Not sure what this means.Look at the dichotomies again and see that the battle between the two are happening in the mind. It's important to note that all the negatives usurp from the positives just as a lie exists only to subvert a Truth. All the negatives are corruptive in some aspect with the exception of some nuances of ignorance.
Then why do you try to show what is eternal below:So what about this dichotomy of eternal/temporal? Is it a true dichotomy? What I mean, is that we can safely reason with certainty that truth/reality precedes us in existence and also safely presume it exists after we're gone. But while we know that some truths are not forever and temporal, such as preferences or the hairs on my head, we can't know that any Truth is 'Eternal'. It's just not possible to prove something as eternal by definition. Let that sink in as apart of our reality and as being true and reasonable. We can surmise that there are constants of Truth that our ancestors have learned and that our great great great grandchildren will learn these same truths, but we will never prove what is Eternal as being eternal by definition of the term.
How do you know this?One thing is certain, if there is a Truth Eternal that can be seen in the glimpse that is our temporal experience, then it would be seen in the things that are most important in Life and enduring and are usurped from as in the dichotomies above.
Just because it it the highest value you can think of does not make it so. This is a subjective assessment. Also, I don't believe there are any truths that will be true forever.Empathy is of the highest value in mankind I can think of.
This is just an assertion at this point. The meaning for the term God is whatever people believe to be true about that god. People have believed in gods that did not create everything.But regardless of whether or not God is a person, this is why the term 'Eternal' is an identifier for the term 'God' in the abstract of the eternal question of what is 'Truth'. And this is why the only true meaning for the term God has to be the axiomatic power perceived in "There is a Power that brought everything into existence".
No, everything you have stated so far has not been substantiated by good evidence to be true. Until then, this conclusion is subjective.Now we can reason that there is a reality bigger than we know and the psycholinguistics reveal ignorance and knowledge of it only because it happened according to the course of the energy that created all things.
More assertion.And we are a part of that reality created with an intelligence capable of knowing it's own self, and humanity is joined in knowing one another through empathy, which is why righteousness is by grace through faith that all are faithful through empathy. The first immoral lie would have to subvert the faith that holds humanity together as one, for there to be corruption and division in humanity. The first immoral lie would seek to subvert faith in the empathy we witness between us.
Agree.Respectfully I feel that you thought I made a claim that I never actually made.
Post #59: Until you can demonstrate there is a moral truth that is a fabric of the universe then I have no choice but to reason morals.
It probably wouldn't work for a sadist. The moral truth above is relative as in degrees of what must be perceived as goodness when reasoning. When examining what is fairness one would be judging themselves according to how they judge others. The defiled conscience projects it's own wickedness on to others, while the pure of heart projects the same purity onto others.
Then I will remain with "I don't know' as my stance. We should not believe anything until we have good evidence to believe it to be true.As I said, no one can prove something is eternal by definition. It's only through ignorance of this, that one can ask to prove God exists by displaying some substantive physical trail of particles or energy in time and space, which still wouldn't prove anything is eternal.
In the end you are saying that you cannot give good reasons to believe God exists but you do anyway for other reasons. If God exists, he should be able to show me he exists even if he is eternal.Moreover 'to know' has more than one meaning. To know God in Christianity is to know His Person. Wherefore a Christian like myself who can see the futility of trying to prove God exists Eternal using the corrupt image of a thing, also understands the why and how it is by faith and not superstition, that we comprehend/perceive Him, and 'Who' He is, in what is the good we know to be true within us. God has made it so that only those who perceive the good as God can see the act of love displayed by the Christ on the cross and believe/trust in him. It's the Word of God inside us (Rhema) from the beginning of the creation that recognizes the Christ as the Word of God made flesh (Logos). We are the part of creation that is self aware for this purpose, to know God and worship Him as God.
God's eternal nature may not be able to be demonstrated but his existence should be able to be demonstrated.I know what you meant by the statement. It still ends in a contradiction wherefore it's not reasonable and can't be true in it's supposition. God is eternal which can't be proven and He is Spirit which must be known personally as empathy, bigfoot isn't.
Stop here. I am not refusing to believe anything. I cannot believe anything which I am not convinced by evidence. Where is the evidence for Spirit or spiritual things? You claim you have no evidence yet you believe in them.I hope you can somehow come to realize that if you only trust what you can see with carnal eyes, then you're stuck in a bubble that prevents you from knowing God. If you refuse to believe in Spirit and not define it, then you can't discern spiritual things.
I don't know it because I have not seen any good evidence that spiritual energy exists.If you can see empathy moving people, and see that love sacrifices itself for others, then you're looking right at spiritual energy and don't even know it.
This is getting a little silly. I can know myself, I know myself better than anyone on this planet. You need to start providing evidence for your claims. What is the evidence that Gods word exists?If you reduce it to a chemical process in the brain, then you can reduce it to energy and just keep moving the goal posts for eternity because you don't know God personally inside your own self.
Know thyself. You can't know who you are if you don't know God's Word inside you.
Ok.The battle is in the mind and it's happening in our heads. Here is an assertion: There's an enemy in Satan that speaks in our thoughts and lies to us so that we can't see/believe in God or think that we do when we actually don't. I challenge you to prove that there are no lies floating in your mind and that you'll not need to know God to see them. Deception is so simple when Satan can change a definition of one single term so that we think it means something that it doesn't mean at all. Faith is not superstition, it's how we know God personally as what is good in us.
Where is this evidence?The only assertion I made is that God is Spirit according to scripture, and I gave evidence of that.
I never said I need a train of particles. You said that about me. I need good evidence to believe a claim.If you once truly believed that this is a great Love seen in the lamb that suffered the cross, who do you think talked you out of believing that, by convincing you that we have to see a trail of particles to the eternal for that Love to exist as God?
Great, provide evidence for this please.What matters is that such a Love exists and that it precedes us, and will exist after we can't see it, and that it's of the highest value as mankind's goodness which joins humanity in one.
I can agree that "proving" something is eternal may not be possible. However, that doe snot mean whatever is eternal cannot be "proved' to exist.I feel you are being unreasonable until you can admit that proving or testing the Eternal is impossible and that this is self evident and true.
I want to see who god is. I want to know what is true and not true. The fact remains if god exists he has the ability to show me he exists.Then you would admit that God would have to show it's self and a thing can't do that. In other words it's perfectly reasonable that only those who valued God in regarding the good inside themselves as God, and not regard Him as a thing, should be permitted to truly believe in God's son. It's perfectly reasonable that only those who would want to see 'Who' God Is, should get to see 'God'.
Yes of course.Your beliefs about anything in scripture don't reflect anything about reality merely because you hold them: you need to substantiate them.
And yet Jesus substantiates scripture in his role as the Messiah.Jesus' existence in history is not the claim I'm remotely debating, so maybe read my post a bit more carefully before spouting more nonsense
Yes it does. I wasn't referring to you personally when I said "someone", but it's understandable how you could have taken it that way, because you said this in post #62: I never said being a Christian didn't mean you don't believe in God as Creator and such, that's a patent strawman.You not intending it doesn't mean you didn't do it regardless.
I didn't say that God exists as a concept because of scripture, I said it's defined in scripture as meaning the Creator as in wind means air blowing. That's a Huge difference. And God by definition as the 'source' is being investigated on some level independently of scripture even when we investigate the source of the energy of anything which is included in everything.And no, the source of the wind is not the same as God as a "source" because one can be investigated and demonstrated independently of scripture, whereas by your own admission, God only exists as a concept because of scripture.
This is the only universe we know of in whatever ability we have to know it, so monotheism is a constant in that regard. That's self evident to me.God as monotheistic is not any more compelling than god as part of a pantheon, the point remains that you haven't shown that this is somehow objective, when God has to be conceived of by a human mind and thus isn't an objective mind independent thing like rocks, trees, etc
I understand that's how you see it, but you're mistaken. Yours is the circular logic in that you assume I appeal to scripture rather than verify the reality of the Spirit of Christ through personal observations.Except you're assuming that initial power with no evidence beyond appealing to a book that already assumes it. Do you not understand circular logic as a fallacy? Because that's what you're doing
That says nothing to negate the fact that I'm here and have an intellect.Having intellect does not mean that the conclusions reached must all be true, that's pure relativism
This is why the term God is an axiom. Otherwise I could not consider that it's a circular reasoning that is the cause of your concept that you conceived wherein it's Isaiah's concept that he conceived.He cannot speak about God revealing without a CONCEPT of God to begin with, you're putting the cart before the horse and trying to avoid the contingency of God as a concept from human minds
There were witnesses.Then you genuinely may have an issue, because that can just as easily be understood as schizophrenic positive symptoms of auditory hallucinations. I have no reason to say you are lying, but I can assert with reasonable confidence you are likely mistaken, if not possibly bordering on schizophrenia
The point remains that you're admitting that all this stuff about God emerges in your brain, not from outside of it in a way you perceive, but that it's your brain working in different ways. How is that supporting anything besides that God is a product of your brain?
Realizing that your using scripture to verify reality and that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with eternal things, the issue whether taken as a metaphor or not, was about sowing distrust in a station of innocence, and thereby undermining the faith that God loved us as Himself.Except pretty sure the Genesis story suggests it was merely not being obedient to God, nothing about empathy, just being stupid enough to believe a talking snake and eating a fruit
Realizing that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with the Eternal, Empathy precedes in existence and will proceed after I am gone which is my faith. Empathy is experienced as the goodness in mankind that joins all people in one faith. The fact that Love is worth living for and dying for which gives life meaning that we should walk in it, is evidence of a purpose for our existence which would coincide with God's purpose of knowing Him and being worshipped in Spirit in relation to that experience.And where is your evidence that empathy must require your god at all except by self referential question begging of God as empathy? Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're doing is astonishing
Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning. If I am understanding you correctly, I can safely agree with what you're saying in sentiment regardless of whether I agree with your terms. The term idea is faulty since empathy is not an idea. And subsequently I can point out that when I read Isaiah saying God creates good and evil I don't see that as in contradiction of your sentiments above. Nor does it conflict with good and evil being a knowledge that is realized by definition. Nor does it change the fact that a lie must usurp from the Truth even as distrust usurps from trust.They realize the idea in terms of conceiving of it, the idea doesn't have substance itself, like things we call rocks, trees, etc, that could exist apart from humans ever existing.
They can be experienced and not be something in themselves, you're confusing a descriptive and normative understanding of morality's ontology. One is describing something mind independent in that quality, the other is describing a quality that is assessed by facts that would be the case regardless of observations by others: someone feeling pain and suffering inflicted by another needlessly is evil because that suffering is not something that is good for the person.
Experiencing something does not mean the thing has a mind independent existence, you're making a leap in logic there, especially with an abstract concept like good and evil, versus concrete things
If we consider where the term Eternal must apply it would not apply to darkness, which is evidence of God.Except there cannot necessarily be an absolute absence of light, that metaphor falls apart with consideration of the science regarding that.
I don't believe evil is even reasonable because of empathy, hence I can comprehend that distrust could be sown by a lie and evil can be justified in action to the deceived.Empathy can restrain evil, but acting like there is a substance for evil or that evil exists in itself rather than being an assessment we make of actions
Let's stop returning to this strawman. I demonstrated why it's an axiom by examining the implications of not believing in it as good, not by using scripture.There is logical inconsistency in appealing to this thing without arguments for why it is the case, but merely asserting it is an axiom based on a book that already assumes this thing to be the case, which is, again, circular logic
And let's not dismiss enlightenment through resorting to ad hominem attacks. Since humility is admitting you're wrong just admit you were wrong about this.No, it isn't as black and white as you want to think, that's more signs of mental instability when you engage in split thinking. Humility is not the same as self deprecation, humility is admitting your flaws, not making up flaws where there may be none
I just said the good things in life to draw a distinction between bad things in life. No reason to read more into it than that.That changes nothing in regards to your seeming idea that the good must be defined in terms of pleasure or other feelings
While Hope can be seen as optimistic one cannot be optimistic that empathy will fail.That's not empathy, that's optimism: empathy is the understanding of others as like yourself and that sense of their feelings and experiences being similar but distinct. You're expanding one concept far beyond what would be reasonable to try to reduce everything to that, instead of considering that it may be more complicated
I don't know where you got the idea that I don't consider goodness to be a descriptive term for empathy. And I don't know how you can presume that I don't realize that it requires a mind to understand anything. I didn't say you said people invented goodness, I said that I don't need scripture to realize that there is a such thing as goodness which I didn't invent. This obviously means my mind didn't make it up.I didn't say people invented goodness, goodness is a descriptive quality, it's something utilized for understanding our actions. We cannot speak of goodness as a mind independent property, because goodness requires a mind to understand it at all, that's the fundamental misunderstanding you make
It's not even imaginary to begin with, empathy is real.No, that's more argument from ignorance that suggests something must be so because you personally cannot imagine otherwise
If refuse to admit that God means the power that brings me into existence as an axiom in scripture that's arguing out of ignorance too. There's nothing wrong with appealing to others who speak of God before I was even born to understand what the term meant to them.I didn't claim God doesn't exist, so you're talking to the wrong person anyway. That's still a blatant argument from ignorance: people's consensus in itself is not evidence of the truth of their claims, that's an argument from popularity as well. I also never said it was impossible, I only said that appealing to the popularity or commonality is not good reasoning if your conclusion was true
We've been through this before. I said that the empathy we see and feel is perceived as of the highest value in mankind without any contestation coming from you. But you err if you think there was no counter narrative to deal with to come to that conclusion.But you failed to consider that merely being convincing is not indicative that the position you hold is correct: rhetoric is not more important than logic
I've taken full responsibility for my argument. Resorting to an ad hominem would be crossing the line where critical thinking turns into cynicism. For example, the proposition that it's arrogant to assume that the power that brought all things into existence including myself is not a Person but beneath me as a thing is a pretense of humility only made clear by following the implications of believing otherwise.Humility cannot possibly be pride except when it's a pretense of humility. Genuine humility is antithetical to pride and my admitting I could be wrong is not arrogant, you trying to essentially deflect any responsibility from your argument and make it about my claims, which is dishonest
Since it could be true as you say, it's not credulity to not want to count them as liars.They can believe all they want, that doesn't make it true, you're going based on mere credulity again
Temporal terms are not well equipped to articulate eternal things. What does progress and perfection even mean if perfection is a concept of something corruptible (a rhetorical). So yes I believe that there is an attitude attainable where everyone is satisfied and pleased and at peace in doing so.Except perfection entails completion and thus no progress, which is a whole other issue (see my signature for thoughts on perfection)
No, you cannot necessarily be beyond reproach of all people, that's like expecting you can satisfy and please everyone
I'm referring to events where there are self evident factors such as other witnesses to the event. Otherwise, yes of course I can wonder if I'm deluding myself and it has nothing to do with humility.I don't take your experiences as truth, only that you believe them. That isn't substantive, that's pure subjectivism without any consideration and humility that you could be wrong. Do you really not think that your "hearing" God could be your own deluding of yourself in an emotionally vulnerable state?
Well you projected a knowledge of abuse out of somewhere, and moreover you could have just typed 'No' in the definitive rather than type I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance.Not sure where you'd get the idea I've been abused, but I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance
I think I can understand where you're coming from, but I would need to evaluate an actual situation, to sort out the nuances of where your terms makes sense and where they don't. You need to consider that I reason that I'm carrying a cross that is about forgiving people their trespasses because we all start out in a blindness which requires mercy and understanding. I would assume you're referring to when mercy is not logical as being what you mean by empathy in excess, however I would not articulate it that way in thought or spoken words.It isn't a contradiction to value empathy, but acknowledge that it must be in moderation or it is misusing the value the virtue possesses. Empathy in deficit is arrogance and aggression, empathy in excess is being submissive and passive.
What is your evidence for this claim? You believe God has existed eternally right? That is just as much impossible as an infinite causes.William Crag on reasonablefaith.org addresses this question well, so I will quote him:
"The cause of the universe must be itself uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible.
This is mere assertion. Just because WLC cannot think of another reason for the universe to exist doe snot mean that His reason is true. There is no way to know what caused the universe to exist since there may be a cause that we cannot think of that is the answer.It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.
Finally, the Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe. This is because if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?
The answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator."
We should not believe something because it is most probable. We should believe something is true when it has good evidence to be believed as true. I agree we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. But we can believe things with high levels of certainty. I believe the universe had a cause, I do not think we have the ability to believe what that cause is. So I remain at I don't know as my answer.Me again. In metaphysical discussions, we must remember that there's no such thing as absolute proof (anyone who demands it doesn't know what they're talking about.) All we can do is say that X is logically more probable than not. Based on the argument above and my previous comments, I think it is logically more probable than not that (1) the universe had a cause; and (2) that cause is God as described in the Bible.
So you call whatever brought the universe into existence God? How is this useful? It is just a name game.We don't. The term we use is God, not 'a' god, which then differentiates the power that brought everything into existence the one universe, and not a superstition.
No, we call 'Who' brought this universe into existence God. It's useful so we know Who we're talking about when someone asks why do you believe God exists. No it's not a Name game except to the devil.So you call whatever brought the universe into existence God? How is this useful? It is just a name game.
You said it was the energy that created the universe. So now it is a who. Ok, both need to be demonstrated to be true.No, we call 'Who' brought this universe into existence God. It's useful so we know Who we're talking about when someone asks why do you believe God exists. No it's not a Name game except to the devil.
You have offered statements. I declare they are unsupported. You could provide support.
You assert a connection between the statements. I dispute that there is any meaningful connection. You could demonstrate the connection.
Thus, there is plenty to discuss, but the onus is on you to respond.
What is your evidence for this claim? You believe God has existed eternally right? That is just as much impossible as an infinite causes.
There is no way to know what caused the universe to exist since there may be a cause that we cannot think of that is the answer.
We should not believe something because it is most probable. We should believe something is true when it has good evidence to be believed as true. I agree we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. But we can believe things with high levels of certainty. I believe the universe had a cause, I do not think we have the ability to believe what that cause is. So I remain at I don't know as my answer.
And yet Jesus substantiates scripture in his role as the Messiah.
Yes it does. I wasn't referring to you personally when I said "someone", but it's understandable how you could have taken it that way, because you said this in post #62: I never said being a Christian didn't mean you don't believe in God as Creator and such, that's a patent strawman.
I felt we were in agreement and had no reason to imply that you were that "someone" in post #60 because you had said this in post #58: Of course the scripture founded on the idea of God revealing it would have God as a presuppositional axiom...
I didn't say that God exists as a concept because of scripture, I said it's defined in scripture as meaning the Creator as in wind means air blowing. That's a Huge difference. And God by definition as the 'source' is being investigated on some level independently of scripture even when we investigate the source of the energy of anything which is included in everything.
This is the only universe we know of in whatever ability we have to know it, so monotheism is a constant in that regard. That's self evident to me.
I understand that's how you see it, but you're mistaken. Yours is the circular logic in that you assume I appeal to scripture rather than verify the reality of the Spirit of Christ through personal observations.
That says nothing to negate the fact that I'm here and have an intellect.
This is why the term God is an axiom. Otherwise I could not consider that it's a circular reasoning that is the cause of your concept that you conceived wherein it's Isaiah's concept that he conceived.
There were witnesses.
Realizing that your using scripture to verify reality and that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with eternal things, the issue whether taken as a metaphor or not, was about sowing distrust in a station of innocence, and thereby undermining the faith that God loved us as Himself.
Realizing that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with the Eternal, Empathy precedes in existence and will proceed after I am gone which is my faith. Empathy is experienced as the goodness in mankind that joins all people in one faith. The fact that Love is worth living for and dying for which gives life meaning that we should walk in it, is evidence of a purpose for our existence which would coincide with God's purpose of knowing Him and being worshipped in Spirit in relation to that experience.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning. If I am understanding you correctly, I can safely agree with what you're saying in sentiment regardless of whether I agree with your terms. The term idea is faulty since empathy is not an idea. And subsequently I can point out that when I read Isaiah saying God creates good and evil I don't see that as in contradiction of your sentiments above. Nor does it conflict with good and evil being a knowledge that is realized by definition. Nor does it change the fact that a lie must usurp from the Truth even as distrust usurps from trust.
If we consider where the term Eternal must apply it would not apply to darkness, which is evidence of God.
I don't believe evil is even reasonable because of empathy, hence I can comprehend that distrust could be sown by a lie and evil can be justified in action to the deceived.
Let's stop returning to this strawman. I demonstrated why it's an axiom by examining the implications of not believing in it as good, not by using scripture.
And let's not dismiss enlightenment through resorting to ad hominem attacks. Since humility is admitting you're wrong just admit you were wrong about this.
I just said the good things in life to draw a distinction between bad things in life. No reason to read more into it than that.
While Hope can be seen as optimistic one cannot be optimistic that empathy will fail.
I don't know where you got the idea that I don't consider goodness to be a descriptive term for empathy. And I don't know how you can presume that I don't realize that it requires a mind to understand anything. I didn't say you said people invented goodness, I said that I don't need scripture to realize that there is a such thing as goodness which I didn't invent. This obviously means my mind didn't make it up.
I didn't claim it was imaginary: you don't appear to understand my use of English words, which is baffling in terms of how much you've invested into this discussion. Empathy is real and I don't need your perspective that seems to suggest it's some independent substance to conclude that it is real and important.It's not even imaginary to begin with, empathy is real.
If refuse to admit that God means the power that brings me into existence as an axiom in scripture that's arguing out of ignorance too. There's nothing wrong with appealing to others who speak of God before I was even born to understand what the term meant to them.
We've been through this before. I said that the empathy we see and feel is perceived as of the highest value in mankind without any contestation coming from you. But you err if you think there was no counter narrative to deal with to come to that conclusion.
I've taken full responsibility for my argument. Resorting to an ad hominem would be crossing the line where critical thinking turns into cynicism. For example, the proposition that it's arrogant to assume that the power that brought all things into existence including myself is not a Person but beneath me as a thing is a pretense of humility only made clear by following the implications of believing otherwise.
Since it could be true as you say, it's not credulity to not want to count them as liars.
In our psycholinguistics the bad usurps from the good, not the other way around.
Temporal terms are not well equipped to articulate eternal things. What does progress and perfection even mean if perfection is a concept of something corruptible (a rhetorical). So yes I believe that there is an attitude attainable where everyone is satisfied and pleased and at peace in doing so.
I'm referring to events where there are self evident factors such as other witnesses to the event. Otherwise, yes of course I can wonder if I'm deluding myself and it has nothing to do with humility.
Well you projected a knowledge of abuse out of somewhere, and moreover you could have just typed 'No' in the definitive rather than type I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance.
I think I can understand where you're coming from, but I would need to evaluate an actual situation, to sort out the nuances of where your terms makes sense and where they don't. You need to consider that I reason that I'm carrying a cross that is about forgiving people their trespasses because we all start out in a blindness which requires mercy and understanding. I would assume you're referring to when mercy is not logical as being what you mean by empathy in excess, however I would not articulate it that way in thought or spoken words.
If something is more likely than not, I choose to believe it, at least to the extent of saying it's more likely than not. You can always establish an unreachable threshold of "good enough" evidence (a favorite technique of atheists and agnostics on the internet). I'm not going to play that game with you.
Likelihood is not defined merely by credulity or popularity, but actual demonstrable factors for something being the case or not.
You misunderstand. I am not saying an infinite regress is the answer. I am saying jumping to a god is the answer to the problem of infinite regress is not sound reasoning. Also, if an infinite regress is impossible then an infinite god is impossible as well.For a discussion of some of the problems with infinite regresses, see The Logic of the Infinite Regress | Steve Patterson. You may still disagree, but these are my reasons and I stand by them.
No it is how sound reasoning works. I cannot conclude A because I cannot think of another reason it could not be A. How do you know there is no other reason that you don't know about?This statement is also a mere assertion. Do you have a scientific or philosophical argument to back it up, other than appealing to mere speculation?
Ok, I missed the more probable than not. My mistake. How do you determine what is more likely than not? With this, you will not believe true things just because they are not likely. We should have good evidence for something before we believe it. Not just if it more likely than not. That is not a reliable method to determine truth. There are true things that we think are less likely than not to be true.If something is more likely than not, I choose to believe it, at least to the extent of saying it's more likely than not. You can always establish an unreachable threshold of "good enough" evidence (a favorite technique of atheists and agnostics on the internet). I'm not going to play that game with you.
So where is the reasoning beyond human credulity and anthropomorphism or the like that the universe must have an agency behind its existence instead of it being a brute fact that we must accept because the world, like it or not, doesn't follow our inferences in terms of how it works, especially with our tendency to try and see teleologically when teleonomic thinking may be more prudent and warranted.Well, at least we agree on something.
So where is the reasoning beyond human credulity and anthropomorphism or the like that the universe must have an agency behind its existence instead of it being a brute fact that we must accept because the world, like it or not, doesn't follow our inferences in terms of how it works, especially with our tendency to try and see teleologically when teleonomic thinking may be more prudent and warranted.
You misunderstand. I am not saying an infinite regress is the answer. I am saying jumping to a god is the answer to the problem of infinite regress is not sound reasoning. Also, if an infinite regress is impossible then an infinite god is impossible as well.
No it is how sound reasoning works. I cannot conclude A because I cannot think of another reason it could not be A. How do you know there is no other reason that you don't know about?
Ok, I missed the more probable than not. My mistake. How do you determine what is more likely than not? With this, you will not believe true things just because they are not likely. We should have good evidence for something before we believe it. Not just if it more likely than not. That is not a reliable method to determine truth. There are true things that we think are less likely than not to be true.
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?