Evidence for God

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

12.27.2021 10:41PM

-->

@Lunar108

let me say this clearly , as I have mentioned in the post before :
feelings and personal experiences tend to be unreliable for making such a decision .

Your personal experiences will be the only thing you ever have. Get real. If you can't rely on what you experience, what good are you alive?

#152

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,250

12.28.2021 12:43PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Oooh a trick question.

Didn't I already answer that question?

Hmm - you will find it is CIRCULAR REASONING. also known as an axiom.

No, it’s not a trick question. It’s about as straight forward as it gets.

No, I don’t believe you did answer that question.

No, there is nothing about it that is circular. Again, you claimed that the atheist’s primary source is themself, which is supposed to be some kind of problem. However, setting aside what exactly is wrong with this, you ignore the fact that the only way you can interpret your professed ultimate source is through yourself. So how are you any different? Are you not deciding for yourself based on your own reasoning what to accept is true?

#153

ludofl3x

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

ludofl3x

12.28.2021 02:08PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

First you decide if you can handle accepting God exists. Once you decide God exists it doesn't matter which name man has provided. What you want to look for, is things that resonate with you and knowledge you know you can accept as being true. You don't even need religion to become a Theist. Your soul originated with God not with religion. You're just looking to find your way back to your origins being a blind man, all religions can do for you is offer you information that can get you back in alignment with what you already knew. This is all innate to you, you just have to remove the conditioning that has shielded the truth from your soul since you were born.

I really love this post. It says literally nothing of any use to anyone, but with a confidence that makes it comical. Well done. I'm going to try it.

"Let me tell you what my guiding philosophy is, and it is this: never, in life, ever, no matter what, do anything, to anyone for any reason, at any time or in any place, that provides them with any, I mean even just a scintilla. What I'm trying to say, and let me rephrase because I'm seeing some confused faces out there so I'm going to break it down a little further for you, what I'm saying is that there's a way, and it's not easy, to communicate, to others, the ideas that might or might not be of any import. And in this way, we can decide, each of us, individually and only for ourselves, and it doesn't matter if that decision is well informed or correct or wrong or true or false, which means in some way, it's all of those things, depending on your interpretation. Now that you understand, we can move toward that innate one thing that we all know, or at least suspect, but maybe we don't, what might be out there, for each of us to do. Or have. Or experience. Or feel, listen, it's all very simple, and once you figure it out, as you can see I have, then YOUR hogwash spews can attain a concentration, a purity, if you will, as mine do. Peace and love."

#154

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.28.2021 10:17PM

-->

@Double_R

No, it’s not a trick question. It’s about as straight forward as it gets.

No, I don’t believe you did answer that question.

Yes I did. I said the most authoritative source for me that the Bible is correct is the Bible.

I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7080/post-links/303628

No, there is nothing about it that is circular.

Seriously. I trust the bible because the bible tells me to trust it. That is circular. I know the bible is true because the bible tells me it is true. You do know what a circular argument is, don't you?

Again, you claimed that the atheist’s primary source is themself, which is supposed to be some kind of problem.

I never said it was a problem. I just want Atheists to be honest with themselves.

However, setting aside what exactly is wrong with this, you ignore the fact that the only way you can interpret your professed ultimate source is through yourself.

Did you ever read my words? I say Scripture interprets Scripture. I suggest we interpret the harder things and more complex things by using the simpler and easier texts to understand it. I also say there is a proper way - indeed a scientific methodology used to interpret the Bible - the same method used to understand and read all of the older and even modern books. The meaning of the text is to be understood attempting to understand the meaning of the author. It is not to be understood by our own subjective measures.

So how are you any different? Are you not deciding for yourself based on your own reasoning what to accept is true?

On the contrary. I am using the tried and trusted methods of literature experts. We need to understand what the author meant and that includes understanding the idioms of the culture they lived in. It is not my own subjective understanding. When different people from different places come to the same independent understanding - there probably has been a common methodology used. When people simply invent things - which no one else comes to - independently, that is when the problems arise. Novel ideas do abound in churches all over the place. Many unfortunately think all they have to do is read and listen to the voice of the Spirit of God. I think that misses the point of how to read literature. A great book to start is called "How to read a book" by Mortimer Adler. Its free on the internet.

#155

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,250

12.29.2021 12:27AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Did you ever read my words? I say Scripture interprets Scripture.

This is a completely incoherent statement. Scripture is, by definition, words on a piece of paper. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t act. It just is. Interpretation is done by a thinking agent. That would be you.

On the contrary. I am using the tried and trusted methods of literature experts. We need to understand what the author meant…

Yes, and coming to that understanding requires you to use your own judgement and your own reasoning. And this is after you have already used your own judgement and reasoning to conclude for yourself that the literature is where you will find the truth about the universe. There is no way around this, you are your ultimate source. You are no different in that regard from any atheist.

I never said it was a problem. I just want Atheists to be honest with themselves.

I’ve never met an atheist who didn’t acknowledge and ultimately champion this fact.

#156

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

12.29.2021 12:53AM

-->

@ludofl3x

I really love this post.

I'm sure you do.

It says literally nothing of any use to anyone

What do you want.....Ludo? do you want me to feed you some religious dogma? would you like some more religious doctrines thrown at you that you find ridiculous? you seem fixated on the stupidity of the Bible yet there is much more about God and the soul to consider and I tapped into that in this post. I was giving the guy empowerment without subjecting him to any perceived religious authority. Why? because that is what each of you possess. I would think you would like that, but apparently, you're unable to be pleased regardless where there is any freedom and individuality present.

I'd be happy to break down the post for you, I doubt you have any real interest. There is use in that post, and I had more coming if the poster had any interest.

but with a confidence that makes it comical. Well done. I'm going to try it.

Lol, your post was a fail, you probably shouldn't have tried at all. My post contains substance because it is not an artificial pile of crap but steeped in reality and experience.

Topic's author

#157

Debates: 1

Posts: 206

12.29.2021 05:28PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Lol, sounds like you're done having a conversation here.

Sorry I didn't mean to end the conversation but I don't have too much to add to it at the moment, I have read what you said and I will think it over more.

#158

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

12.30.2021 05:13PM

-->

@ethang5

@EtrnlVw

@Tradesecret

@rbelivb

rbelivb 1
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists.[1] However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension?[2] What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison?[3] In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.[4]

[1] I have rarely seen that argument used by itself and I don't remember ever using it.

[2] I have never seen incomprehensibility presented as part of God's definition.

[3] If a world without God is identical with a world with God, then God is irrelevant.

What the difference would be ? That depends on God. How would a world with Ivan differ from a world without Ivan ? It is likely though that the god of the Bible would leave more evidence.

[4] If one expects physical evidence that is missing, then that is good ground for doubt. On what grounds should we accept or reject God's existence then, if not empirical evidence ?

rbelivb 1
However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence.
EtrnlVw 8
You bring up a great point, and after all these years arguing with atheists it is nice to see an atheist come to terms with this. Because part of the problem is that they think there should be some form of physical empirical evidence for God somewhere, they never consider the very nature of God and whether or not God can be compatible with such a form of evidence.[5] Obviously, we would need another approach to such a subject, one that furthers or advances the topic in a rational, appropriate and direct way, one that I've been dealing with since I've started discussing this with atheists.[6]
However, it doesn't seem to matter to them what the nature of God is, and they simply go about repeating the same nonsensical statement.[7]

[5] Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalisation. I have considered God's nature and I am confident other atheists have too.

[6] Convincing oneself that your god doesn't require empirical evidence because that seems to be lacking is not rational, but bias. Moreover, something not requiring empirical evidence does not warrant belief in it.

[7] Read who is writing.

rbelivb 1
Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical
EtrnlVw 8
Correct, theological arguments were never designed to lend proof to God's existence rather it just lends credit to the hypothesis that God's existence is rational and not absurd.

I am confident theists would design arguments that prove God's existence, if only they could.

rbelivb 1
- except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world.
EtrnlVw 8
Honestly though, "design" is a poor choice of wording because it forces the inquirer to focus on flaws of such a design rather than the function of it. We are not looking for perfection in a material world where life and death occur.... birth and destruction because by the very nature of life and death we have imperfection. What we want to focus on is function, processes and whether or not those factors suggest intelligence.[8] Basically, we are correlating the products of the universe with thought and mind, not perfection.

[8] Indeed. That is what those with a desire for god-belief want to focus on. Those with a desire for reality-belief on the other hand don't want to dismiss that what undermines the former.

rbelivb 1
What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God –
EtrnlVw 8
Well, it seems obvious to say it wouldn't exist. In other words, there can be no "world" without a God, it simply is not a possibility.[9] There can be no functioning products without there first being intelligence and thought as an influence upon any working product.

[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

Sum1hugme 12
you can't demonstrate that god exists as anything more than a concept.
EtrnlVw 18
Well, we definitely want to satisfy the intellect thoroughly before we even begin to justify the notion that God exists. I feel confident that Theism as a concept is as solid a proposition as any other worldview interpretation, and really there's only two to pick from lol. Even more, only one of the two match reality.

Theism is very vague.

Sum1hugme 12
there is no reason to claim that god exists in reality
EtrnlVw 18
If there is strong indication and we can correlate the products of the universe with intelligence, then there is no reason to claim that God does not exist in reality.[10] Further, religion and spirituality are very much a part of human reality, observation and experience. It's literally written on the walls of every culture known to man in some form or another. To say there is no experience of God is to deny reality as we know it.[10]

[10] Your fallacies of choice are the non-sequitur and the hasty generalization.

rbelivb 1
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists. However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension? What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.
Tradesecret 20
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing. The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion.[11] And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place. This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.[12]

You may be correct about theist arguments being more rational than empirical. Certainly, they tend to be based in logic rather than evidence and probably for the explanation you give. You raise some interesting thoughts. Thank you.

[11] You are mistaken. “I don't see evidence for God. Therefore God does not exist.” That is actually an argument.

[12] The fallacy you chose to commit is the non-sequitur.

Bones 23
Do you believe in Thor?
EtrnlVw
[ . . . ]
let me say it another way, I can believe in a Creator without any need to assert there must be a God of thunder or lightning lol. I thoroughly understand the nature and phenomenon of weather and why forces of nature occur. I don't need to inject the misconception that thunder and lightning occurs at the hand of any demigod, on the other hand weather patterns exist as a part of a whole that the Creator put together. Climates exist because of the arrangement of our solar system which God created, planets exist because of God, ecosystems exist because of God ect ect....but there is no relation to lightning striking to any spiritual force other than the fact that God established our world.

Aha. You believe in a creator because of the gaps in your knowledge.

When the vikings didn't know about weather phenomena, were they justified believing in Thor ?

FLRW 19
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
ethang5 57
Because God is a sentient person, not an algorithm.[13] There can be no blind tests on an omniscient, omnipresent person, rendering such tests totally uninformative.

[13] How is that supposed to qualify as a possible explanation ? Sentient persons and (the effectiveness of) their behaviours are subject to testing.

Tradesecret 76 to Reece101
On the other hand, if good is defined by humanity with the measure being "whatever the current culture by majority rule thinks is good", then God is not always good. If the current culture holds the view that abortion is good then God is not good. If the current culture deems polytheism and polygamy is good, then God is not good.

It is interesting that your example behaviours are ones that the current culture does not consider good. Basically you are saying that if current culture thinks that bad things are good, then god is not good. According to you, to God is only good that what is really good, i.e. what is in accordance with current culture.

Unfortunately, he is not. God is only good according to himself and his followers.

If according to current culture helping those in need is good, then God is not good. If according to current culture being tolerant of other religious beliefs is good, then God is not good.

Reece101 111
How do you distinguish between them?
ethang5 114
The concept of God is sourced in the mind of a man. All concepts are. God isn't.

The the idea of God people conjured up differs from the real god, who may or may not exist.

Reece101 130
Okay can you tell me what interactions God has with you? I assume It will be on par with your wife.
ethang5 114
Much deeper. God created me with his very "hands". He sustains me. The life force/power in my body and mind are sourced from Him. He soothes me when I'm afraid or dejected, He directs when I'm lost. He protects my loved ones. He gives me peace that passes understanding. He understands me.

God favours non-transferable evidence.

#159

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.01.2022 06:23AM

-->

@Double_R

Did you ever read my words? I say Scripture interprets Scripture.
This is a completely incoherent statement. Scripture is, by definition, words on a piece of paper. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t act. It just is. Interpretation is done by a thinking agent. That would be you.

Ok. The words in the Scriptures don't think. I agree with you. Yet they are the measure by how we understand the rest of Scripture. This is a tried and true method of millions of people around the world. My part in it - is only to recognize that this is the best method of understanding it. Others do it too. It is not subjective. It is a rather objective way to know we are not simply putting our own spin on it.

On the contrary. I am using the tried and trusted methods of literature experts. We need to understand what the author meant…
Yes, and coming to that understanding requires you to use your own judgement and your own reasoning. And this is after you have already used your own judgement and reasoning to conclude for yourself that the literature is where you will find the truth about the universe. There is no way around this, you are your ultimate source. You are no different in that regard from any atheist.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I have been consistently saying there is a proper way to interpret the scriptures. It is not my own reasoning. It is not my own judgment. True, at some point I must make an assessment about whether this method is consistent with my understanding. Yet, that is how all people think. I think there is a natural bias against the scriptures by people who don't believe in God. I suspect they think they are neutral and have no bias - but consistently it seems they are looking for error rather than harmony. That is a difference. I would reject I am my own ultimate resource though. I do take the view that the Holy Spirit - God - enables me as he does other Christians to peruse these documents and do so in a way that provides nourishment and not just words.

I never said it was a problem. I just want Atheists to be honest with themselves.
I’ve never met an atheist who didn’t acknowledge and ultimately champion this fact.

You must live in a sheltered world. I have met many atheists who champion only themselves - and at the end of the day - take the view that truth and honesty are simply means to an end - and what matters is the end - being themselves. It is rare to meet an honest atheist.

#160

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.01.2022 08:08AM

-->

@Tradesecret

So the most authoritative source of any written narrative is itself.

Therefore Middle Earth exists.

Logical consistency as Athias would say.

#161

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,250

01.03.2022 12:57PM

-->

@Tradesecret

This is a tried and true method of millions of people around the world.

You haven’t provided a method. You stated that scripture interprets scripture, which as I explained does nothing to help anyone understand how you come to your conclusions, and certainly does not explain why there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity.

You also haven’t addressed the more important point; even if I grant you that your method for understanding scripture is objectively the best method for understanding it, you still have to determine whether you accept scripture as the authority on what is true. Why should I or anyone else care about what the Bible says? You can have your arguments for why, but you ultimately have to decide for yourself whether to accept it, so you are still your ultimate authority.

#162

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.04.2022 02:16AM

-->

@Double_R

I. Of the Holy Scripture

1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Rom. 2:14–15, Rom. 1:19–20, Ps. 19:1–3, Rom. 1:32, Rom. 2:1) yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. (1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13–14) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; (Heb. 1:1) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: (Prov. 22:19–21, Luke 1:3–4, Rom. 15:4, Matt. 4:4,7,10, Isa. 8:19–20) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; (2 Tim. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:19) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (Heb. 1:1–2)

3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Luke 24:27, 44, Rom. 3:2, 2 Pet. 1:21)

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13)

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13–14, 1 Cor. 2:10–12, Isa. 59:21)

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1 Cor. 11:13–14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40)7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: (2 Pet. 3:16) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Ps. 119:105, 130)

7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: (2 Pet. 3:16) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Ps. 119:105, 130)

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, (John 5:39) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11–12, 24, 27–28) that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; (Col. 3:16) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (Rom. 15:4)

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (2 Pet. 1:20–21, Acts 15:15–16)

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29, 31, Eph. 2:20, Acts 28:25)

#163

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,250

01.04.2022 12:38PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?

#164

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

01.04.2022 06:07PM

-->

@Double_R

'Tradesecret; Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?

I think it must be a joke. It can be the only reason for showing us his own blatant hypocrisy and double standards.

But you shouldn't be surprised by this/his contradiction, Double-R. Not when he freely admits ; " - I never take anything in the BIBLE literally", himself #50.

But then is quite happy and ready to throw reams of verses from scripture in English at you and tell you to "read the BIBLE yourself". And them go on to tell us categorically that to "understand the Old & New Testaments one must be to learned in ancient Greek and Hebrew".

#165

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

01.04.2022 06:09PM

-->

@Double_R

You haven’t provided a method.

Obviously, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian (so this is not really relevant to your point about the Bible), but there are methods of deciding what is useful or true about what religious texts offer in general. The common misconception is that a cultures religious text must all be either true or false and if something appears to be nonsensical or bizarre then the whole thing must be discarded.

Since I'm not a fundamentalist I don't have those fears or limitations to which information I can use or accept. But one thing is good to understand about religious or spiritual literature, that there are features that can be systematically categorized.

When contemplating scriptures in general, whether that be the Bible, the Upanishads, the Sutras, Tripitaka or whatever the case may be there are distinct features and those are literal history, places, events and things. Then there are stories, analogies, metaphors, figurative speech, symbolism and tales. Then we have teachings, and teachings can come in all forms of literature through anyone of the former I mentioned. Then we have what I call applicable principles or practices, these are practical teachings that can be applied to the self which could result in observation.

Typically, some of these features are either useful or simply can be discarded as irrelevant. I don't have any expectations of scriptures that require perfection, to me that is quite absurd so TBH, I tend to use more commonsense rather than being pressured to accept that everything must be true or that if I don't accept everything as true, I must be a heretic or a heathen.

As well, I have no pressure of being swayed by dogma or religious indoctrination so generally speaking, I am free to simply evaluate the contents and make sense of them by taking what is useful and laying aside that which is not.

Basically, by breaking down scripture into categories we can decide what "MUST" be true and what emphasis we put on accuracy in comparing content with reality. Being careful not to define reality where we limit it to our own biases. To be intellectual honest and open minded we must leave room for variations in our interpretations of what reality is and is not, what exists and what does not.

I don't put much emphasis on story telling as being useful, perfect or true, to me they are typically either difficult to judge as being true are obviously simply a tale. To me they are useless in terms of judging what demands of perfection I put on them. In other words, there is really no way for me to know the intent of the authors and whether or not they are trying to pass off falsity as being something true. What I would look for in stories and tales would be any underlying message, principle or metaphors in relation to our experience of life which should typically be pretty obvious. Other than that, I don't care much for stories unless they contain significant meaning.

Literal history should be straight forward, we should be able to match descriptions of literal places, events, people and things with various external sources. Not such a big deal there. I mean, it may not always be black and white but to me it's not something one needs to place much emphasis on perfection in terms of its usefulness.

Now, when we get into teachings and application this is where I start to really pay attention to details and importance because it reflects the heart and core of what it is the source is attempting to offer the recipient. This is also where you need to be the most open-minded about reality because teaching requires a student willing to learn something.

Understanding thoroughly that these features of literal history, stories, teachings and applicable practices will be intertwined throughout the entire piece of literature, this is very common especially in ancient spiritual texts. If one is not aware of this, they quite frankly should be. The Bible, as an example, is notorious for weaving in and out of literary styles and so commonsense goes a long way here. Again, not putting much emphasis on perfection and being free to use that which seems useful.

I can give examples of each feature of course, and since most people here are fixated on the Bible, I'll give a couple examples of each category I mentioned.

Literal history is again, very straight forward we know in the Bible that there are accounts of literal people, places and things as much as we can verify them. If we can't verify them oh well, it's not something we will use to determine whether or not the Bible contains truth.

A story would be as follows....not assuming whether the story is literal or figurative there's not much we can do about that unless we have some documentation confirming whether or not it is literal. For the purposes of this post, it really doesn't matter because a story is a story, there's either something of value within it or there isn't. It's not really the setting or role we are putting emphasis on it is the message behind it.

We can take the story of Noah's flood for example, the story of Job, the story of Samson and Dililah, the story of Moses or Abraham, the story of Jonah ect ect..these are accounts we have no real way to verify so we simply take them as stories. There is no real reason to put any more relevance on them because they are no teachings or applicable practices, they are simply tales that may or may not have significant meaning and again, if they do it should be obvious. Arguing on whether or not they literally happened is IMO silly. It would not be a reflection on whether or not the Bible has something to offer us.

Now let's get into teachings as an example, this is where we want to begin to put more emphasis on the contents and whether or not there is any truth involved or could be involved. A few examples of teachings would be like these passages as an illustration keeping in mind these are just random quotes, but they should reveal some contrast between what we know or do and may not know or do....

Matthew 5

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Colossians 3

2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

Romans 8

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:

James 1

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

John 4

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 3

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Here are a few examples of application/principles that can be applied to the self...these are things that are applicable that should reveal something we don't have that we could have....

Matthew 6

33But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 7

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Matthew 10

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

John 14

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 6

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (Figuratively spoken of course).

John 4

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

#166

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

01.04.2022 06:09PM

-->

@Double_R

Now you may wonder about these passages and what they have to offer the recipient, the point behind teachings regardless of the source is to provide the student something in contrast to how they normally do, think or believe to experience something in contrast to their personal reality. It may seem vague to you at first glance, but that is due to the fact that principles are dynamic, they can be applied in many ways and in many various circumstances or scenarios rather than just one. In return, applicable practices should result in a change in one's reality and potential. If there is a reality we would not normally have immediate access to, there should be a means to interface with that reality in one level or another considering it could exist.

You will notice that for different cultures, religions and scriptures the plots, settings, practices, teachers and teachings have significant variations, but the overall objective is the same. The underlying objective to spirituality is to awaken in the student something they were previously unaware of or something they were lacking that they may obtain. It is a progression, and if a source has something useful it should also be something that is applicable to reality and something the recipient can objectively apply to their selves and to life.

#167

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.05.2022 12:44AM

-->

@Stephen

@Double_R

Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?

Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture. Nor did you recognize it which reveals a lack of ignorance on your part. That surprises me somewhat for mostly you come across as well read. That Stephen did not recognize either that it was not Scripture did not surprise me. The fact that he failed to recognize one of the landmark and most famous documents from English history amuses me but did not surprise me either.

I lifted this section of a document from the Well known and well publicized Westminster Confession of Faith. Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia I did so because the document whether you agree with it or not was well argued over every detail of it by the most learned and intelligent people of the day in the UK for over 5 years. It was debated by politicians and other notable academics in the English Parliament. The document itself is demonstratable that the methodology of interpreting scripture by scripture is a valid and indeed proper one despite your denigration of it.

It is a proper method and people have been doing it for centuries - millennia even. That you disagree is neither here nor for me. I am not going to discontinue doing so simply because you disagree.

#168

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7074-read-this-then-please-tell-me-do-you-still-believe-that-god-exist?page=4&post_number=84

01.05.2022 10:10AM

Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?
Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture. .................. that I lifted from wikipedia. Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia

I read what you say you have lifted from Wikipedia (or more likely herehttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3.i.i.html)- the same Wikipedia that you decry and dismiss when anyone else uses it as any kind of evidence to support their claims. I just love those double standards.

Nor did you recognize it which reveals a lack of ignorance on your part.

Nope. I read your post #162 _ concerning the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith ( which is only a statement of belief ) drawn up by the Westminster Assembly made up of - "learned, godly and judicious Divines to doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England" - that would be Anglican to you, Reverend. A church I am sure that you once told us that you do not recognise being a Presbyterian yourself. "I am a Presbyterian". #116 Wasn't one of these "notable academic "Divines" Philip Nye the vehement anti Presbyterian?

Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand. Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".

And didn't the WCF lose its official status with the restoration of English Monarchy? And was WCF only retained, although reformed and tinkered with, by the Presbyterians of Scotland?

Never mind it goes nowhere in showing "Evidence for God" as is the topic of the OP, does it?

just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.

What you posted were 57 quotes directly from scripture regardless of who may have been discussing them at the time.

Tell me Reverend, when these so called " Divine learned and intelligent people of the day" were forming this Stuart period document, were they referencing scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English? And did these "Divines", unlike you, take the bible literally?

It was debated by politicians and other notable academics in the English Parliament.

"Notable" you say, lets have their names then?

Westminster Assembly, (1643–52), assembly called by the English Long Parliament to reform the Church of England. It wrote the Larger and Shorter Westminster catechisms, the Westminster Confession, and the Directory of Public Worship. The assembly was made up of 30 laymen (20 from the House of Commons and 10 from the House of Lords), 121 English clergymen, and a delegation of Scottish Presbyterians. Although all were Calvinists in doctrine, the assembly represented four different opinions on church government: Episcopalian, Erastian, Independent, and Presbyterian. From July 1, 1643, until Feb. 22, 1649, it held 1,163 sessions in Westminster Abbey, and it continued to meet occasionally until 1652. The works produced were generally accepted by Presbyterians throughout the world, although Presbyterianism in England was suppressed when episcopacy was re-established in 1660.

Right mixed bag there Reverend, and so many "notables" from nearly 400 years ago to choose from. I wonder was Matthew Hopkins one of those 30 laymen?

And you may have missed this too;

#169

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,250

01.05.2022 12:52PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.

It’s not a direct quote from scripture, that is blatantly obvious, but you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on.

The document itself is demonstratable that the methodology of interpreting scripture by scripture is a valid and indeed proper one despite your denigration of it.

Using scripture to validate scripture is called circular reasoning, a violation of the most basic principal of logic. If you insist on sticking to that then you are by definition irrational and therefore incapable of having a logical conversation.

#170

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

01.05.2022 02:00PM

-->

@Tradesecret

@Double_R

Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.

It’s not a direct quote from scripture, that is blatantly obvious,

Apart from the fact the he did quote scripture 57 times regardless of who was discussing it at the time the Westminster Confession of Faith document was formed. He's omitted the fact that this near 500 old document that he cites (with which he included verses from scripture) was actually revoked with the restoration of the Monarchy in England with the introduction of Act Rescissory which repealed all legislation that was in that document.

Evidence for God (debateart.com) #168

But you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on., that is blatantly obvious, but you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on.

Not to mention he is using - unreliable ambiguous - scripture lifted directly from the same - unreliable ambiguous - scripture and cites same unreliable and ambiguous - scripture as its source.

#171

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7074-read-this-then-please-tell-me-do-you-still-believe-that-god-exist?page=4&post_number=84

01.05.2022 11:47PM

-->

@Stephen

I read what you say you have lifted from Wikipedia (or more likely herehttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3.i.i.html)- the same Wikipedia that you decry and dismiss when anyone else uses it as any kind of evidence to support their claims. I just love those double standards.

LOL! Please produce a link to me decrying wikapedia? I have my own copies of the WCF. It does not really matter where I get it from - it is public and well documented. You didn't recognize it. You were caught out lying again and being dumb and that is why are you screaming like a cut snake. LOL.

Nor did you recognize it which reveals a lack of ignorance on your part.

Nope. I read your post #162 _ concerning the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith ( which is only a statement of belief ) drawn up by the Westminster Assembly made up of - "learned, godly and judicious Divines to doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England" - that would be Anglican to you, Reverend. A church I am sure that you once told us that you do not recognise being a Presbyterian yourself. "I am a Presbyterian". #116 Wasn't one of these "notable academic "Divines" Philip Nye the vehement anti Presbyterian?

LOL @ your own foolishness. I have no particular issue with the Anglican Church. Where ever did you get such a view that I don't recognize it? Please provide a link to where I have said I don't recognize it? Or apologize for lying. I don't recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as having any binding authority over me. It is a different denomination but the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopalian church are on good terms. The WCF was a more a puritan document than anything else. Of course it is a statement of belief. I never said otherwise. I said it was a document that was produced over 5 years and debated by the most learned gentlemen of the time in the UK. I said it provided evidence that the interpretation of scripture by scripture was a valid interpretation at that stage - and by people thereafter. My view on this point is NOT novel.

Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand. Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".

So what? It does not change what I said. Your drawing attention to Matthew Hopkins is simply attempting to draw attention from the fact that you lied and that you are dumb. Non-sequitur even.

And didn't the WCF lose its official status with the restoration of English Monarchy? And was WCF only retained, although reformed and tinkered with, by the Presbyterians of Scotland?

Again - irrelevant. It does not need an official status. The fact is it was debated for over 5 years - and is a legitimate statement of belief of the most notable people at the time in the UK. the Scottish Presbyterian - state church still hold it as their statement of faith. Yet it contains a declaratory statement. So what?

Never mind it goes nowhere in showing "Evidence for God" as is the topic of the OP, does it?

No and I never suggested that it did. My point was towards Double D - demonstrating that scripture interpreting scripture is a valid and recognized methodology. Your brain must be really hurting today.

just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.

What you posted were 57 quotes directly from scripture regardless of who may have been discussing them at the time.

Tell me Reverend, when these so called " Divine learned and intelligent people of the day" were forming this Stuart period document, were they referencing scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English? And did these "Divines", unlike you, take the bible literally?

Sorry old chap - you lied and you simply showed your ignorance. It is not direct scripture. It is not even regurgitated scripture. They are statements which are based on scripture - and the references - were not in the original but added later. But you know that too? They did not take the bible literally - as a genre. They took the bible literally as opposed to allegorically. We have discussed this but you seem to want to just shut your eyes and pretend it never happened.

It was debated by politicians and other notable academics in the English Parliament.

"Notable" you say, lets have their names then?

Westminster Assembly, (1643–52), assembly called by the English Long Parliament to reform the Church of England. It wrote the Larger and Shorter Westminster catechisms, the Westminster Confession, and the Directory of Public Worship. The assembly was made up of 30 laymen (20 from the House of Commons and 10 from the House of Lords), 121 English clergymen, and a delegation of Scottish Presbyterians. Although all were Calvinists in doctrine, the assembly represented four different opinions on church government: Episcopalian, Erastian, Independent, and Presbyterian. From July 1, 1643, until Feb. 22, 1649, it held 1,163 sessions in Westminster Abbey, and it continued to meet occasionally until 1652. The works produced were generally accepted by Presbyterians throughout the world, although Presbyterianism in England was suppressed when episcopacy was re-established in 1660.

Right mixed bag there Reverend, and so many "notables" from nearly 400 years ago to choose from. I wonder was Matthew Hopkins one of those 30 laymen?

And you may have missed this too;

They were notable and respectable people at the time. Reading our culture back into theirs is simply ignorance and wokism. Their time consisted of lots of things we would find abhorrent in our society. Yet we ought not judge their culture by ours to suggest it was better or worse. We can judge our culture next to theirs only if we believe in an absolute standard of morality. You don't - so you don't get to make such a call - you don't believe in absolute morality.

It is only by absolute standards - morality that stands as morality in every generation that is able to be used - as a standard against other cultures.

#172

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.05.2022 11:50PM

-->

@Double_R

Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.
It’s not a direct quote from scripture, that is blatantly obvious, but you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on.

The document itself is demonstratable that the methodology of interpreting scripture by scripture is a valid and indeed proper one despite your denigration of it.
Using scripture to validate scripture is called circular reasoning, a violation of the most basic principal of logic. If you insist on sticking to that then you are by definition irrational and therefore incapable of having a logical conversation.

My point initially was about axioms. You didn't read properly. That is on you. Of course it is circular. I already said that. Look up above. I said all axioms are circular. Circular arguments are generally not helpful - but everyone uses an axiom - which is intrinsically a circular argument. Logical reasoning - for example - why would we use logic as an axiom - or a basis for anything? How can we trust logic? Because it is logical. How do you prove logic is reasonable or logical without using logic? Impossible and absurd. Yet we do it all the time.

#173

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,250

01.06.2022 12:46PM

-->

@Tradesecret

This is what’s referred to as the nuclear method - if you can’t substantiate your position then just blow up all knowledge so that it’s all the same.

I don’t categorize logic itself as an axiom but even if we do, then not all axioms are created equal. We presume the validity of logic because we have no other choice. Any attempt we make to invalidate logic requires the use and therefore acceptance of it, so there is nothing that could come before it. Logic is therefore foundational, and everything else that comes, comes after it and as a result of it.

So to claim that because we all accept logic that we’re all doing the same thing is absurd, and certainly does not justify any argument you have made.

#174

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,124

01.06.2022 08:57PM

Any system of reason depends on axioms, which are unprovable within that system. (See Gödel for why.) So, since axiomatic reasoning follows what those axioms entail, all reasoning is axiomatic.
By contrast, circular reasoning is a fallacy. (It is also called "begging the question", though I prefer using that term to refer to unconsidered implications.) It starts from that assumption, and then concludes that assumption. The statement is logically vacuous.

#175

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

01.08.2022 02:56PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

@Tradesecret

@rbelivb

@Lunar108

rbelivb 64
by definition this is such an abstract concept that we have no way to know that whatever our intuitive idea about God really has any relation to what God "really is."
EtrnlVw 137
What is your own intuitive idea about God? my next question would be.....does your own intuitive idea about God have any relevance to whether or not God actually exists? what I'm trying to get it is, the point that you are making is moot, irrelevant. We can believe all sorts of crap about God, but God still exists. The only thing that our personal belief (about God) changes is our personal perception of God, but God still exists despite what we think about it.
Let's say for example, that there were rumors going around about you that may not be accurate. What effect does that have on reality other than someone's opinion about you? the point I'm making, is that if God exists it doesn't really matter what anything thinks about God....what God "really is". Either God exists or God does not, our opinions about what God is or is not has no bearing on reality.

It is not entirely true that God is independent of our view of him/her/it. Humans are defining God and God's existence depends on that definition. Christians often explicitely give God attributes by definition. For example, God is love. With that definition, God exists. However, when adding incompatible attributes by definition, like it being omniscient, then God does not exist. Thus, whether God exists depends on how he is defined.

You are arguing from the point of view that there is some real god out there, something unique that remotely resembles a god, and reject all attempts at defining God in another way. However, if God does not exist, then our view of him defines him, like it does for any fictional character.

Either way, given that God is an absentee landlord, reality depends much on our opinion of him.

rbelivb 142
Believers have "faith" because their concrete ideas about God are mere arbitrary imaginings with no basis in experience nor in reason.
EtrnlVw 143
Lol, sounds like you're done having a conversation here. Let me know when you want to know something instead of asserting it. BTW, faith is not a "belief", it is the trust and confidence in how much you know something that supports a belief through experience and reason. Without reason or experience there can be no faith, because trust and confidence require both of those factors. I'm telling you this from a spiritual perspective, this idea that faith means to belief in anything without reason or evidence is a useless term. The more reason and substance one has to accept something as true, the more faith they have. The less reason and evidence a person has to believe something the less faith they have.

The meaning of the term faith is a matter of convention. I take faith to mean the part of belief or assumption that is not supported by evidence. So the more evidence one has for X, the less faith one needs to believe X or to rely on X.

Lunar108 148
which god should you follow ? how do you decide ?
EtrnlVw 149
First you decide if you can handle accepting God exists.[13] Once you decide God exists it doesn't matter which name man has provided. What you want to look for, is things that resonate with you and knowledge you know you can accept as being true. You don't even need religion to become a Theist. Your soul originated with God not with religion. You're just looking to find your way back to your origins being a blind man, all religions can do for you is offer you information that can get you back in alignment with what you already knew. This is all innate to you, you just have to remove the conditioning that has shielded the truth from your soul since you were born.

[13] Why should you approach the problem from a Christian perspective ? Why not start by deciding whether you can handle accepting that Vishnu and compagnons exist ?

Tradesecret 162 to Double_R:
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13)

What evidence can you present that God is the author of the Bible ?

Double_R 161 to Tradesecret :
You haven’t provided a method.
EtrnlVw 165 :
Obviously, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian (so this is not really relevant to your point about the Bible), but there are methods of deciding what is useful or true about what religious texts offer in general. The common misconception is that a cultures religious text must all be either true or false and if something appears to be nonsensical or bizarre then the whole thing must be discarded.[14]
[ . . . ]
Basically, by breaking down scripture into categories we can decide what "MUST" be true and what emphasis we put on accuracy in comparing content with reality. Being careful not to define reality where we limit it to our own biases. To be intellectual honest and open minded we must leave room for variations in our interpretations of what reality is and is not, what exists and what does not.[15]
[ . . . ]
We can take the story of Noah's flood for example, the story of Job, the story of Samson and Dililah, the story of Moses or Abraham, the story of Jonah ect ect..these are accounts we have no real way to verify so we simply take them as stories. There is no real reason to put any more relevance on them because they are no teachings or applicable practices, they are simply tales that may or may not have significant meaning and again, if they do it should be obvious. Arguing on whether or not they literally happened is IMO silly. It would not be a reflection on whether or not the Bible has something to offer us.[16]

[14] A common misconception among Christians is that if a claim in a book can be interpreted such that it is correct, then the claim must be correct.

[15] Requiring to do that verification is a big drawback.

[16] I agree if we start from the assumption that the Bible was written by humans alone, in which case it has little value to the man in the street. However, some people claim it was written or inspired by God. In the latter case it should not contain any errors.

EtrnlVw 8
Well, it seems obvious to say it wouldn't exist. In other words, there can be no "world" without a God, it simply is not a possibility.[9] There can be no functioning products without there first being intelligence and thought as an influence upon any working product.
Amoranemix 158
[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
EtrnlVw
[no response]

What a surprise.

Amoranemix 158
Aha. You believe in a creator because of the gaps in your knowledge.
When the vikings didn't know about weather phenomena, were they justified believing in Thor ?
EtrnlVw
[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

Stephen 168
Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand. Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".
Tradesecret 171
So what? It does not change what I said. Your drawing attention to Matthew Hopkins is simply attempting to draw attention from the fact that you lied and that you are dumb. Non-sequitur even.

You made an appeal to the authority of notable people of the 17th century while withholding the time period. Apparently Matthew Hopkins was also notable. Why should we accept the authority of such people ?

Double_R 169
Using scripture to validate scripture is called circular reasoning, a violation of the most basic principal of logic. If you insist on sticking to that then you are by definition irrational and therefore incapable of having a logical conversation.
Tradesecret 171
My point initially was about axioms. You didn't read properly. That is on you. Of course it is circular. I already said that. Look up above. I said all axioms are circular. Circular arguments are generally not helpful - but everyone uses an axiom - which is intrinsically a circular argument. Logical reasoning - for example - why would we use logic as an axiom - or a basis for anything? How can we trust logic? Because it is logical. How do you prove logic is reasonable or logical without using logic? Impossible and absurd. Yet we do it all the time.

Using logic to prove logic is not necessarily circular. One could for example use one theorem to prove another.

There is empirical evidence for logic. If modus ponens were false, we would have noticed.

#176

thett3

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,005

thett3

01.08.2022 03:01PM

-->

@rbelivb

If God wanted to make His presence obvious and objectively provable, He would. But He does not, because if there is a God He must value human choice. I think the Bible shows this aspect of God quite clearly. Throughout history there have always been plausible arguments for and against God, and they're never going to get resolved whether He exists or not. If He does exist, He clearly doesn't want His existence to be overwhelmingly obvious. If He does not, I don't know if our human brains are ever going to be able to understand how something came from nothing and/or how something has always existed. There will always be an opportunity for the God of the gaps. It will be an open question now and forever--on Earth at least.

I believe in God because I feel God in my heart. My religion works for me. I can make plausible sounding arguments, but that isn't why I believe. If you want God in your life He will come, but it's probably not going to be through a syllogism.

#177

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.08.2022 10:52PM

-->

@thett3

Currently, a GOD is not known to actually exist.

And true....If you wanna create spiritual, you'll create spiritual....But in your head.

So that sensation in your heart.

Could be serious.

Go see a Cardiologist.

#178

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,124

01.08.2022 11:08PM

The concept of God is incoherent. God is conceived of as a (supernatural) being that is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all good, all just and all merciful. These attributions appear to create logical difficulties, sometimes singly, sometimes when taken together, though it is in some cases necessary to add facts about the world (such as the existence of evil) to create the incoherence. In such cases, it is the whole picture of the nature of God plus aspects of reality that is held to be incoherence. The concept of God was created by early man as an opiate to ease the pain when his children were eaten by wolves. God must have had a plan for that to happen.

Topic's author

#179

Debates: 1

Posts: 206

01.09.2022 08:37AM

-->

@thett3

I believe in God because I feel God in my heart. My religion works for me. I can make plausible sounding arguments, but that isn't why I believe. If you want God in your life He will come, but it's probably not going to be through a syllogism.

I didn't mean to imply that everything we believe needs to be established through a syllogism. However, the feeling in your heart is unstructured and lacks semantic content. Therefore, you cannot deduce the cause of that feeling from the feeling itself. If you have a general feeling of love or being watched over by a larger being, and you refer to this feeling as "God" - then the relation between the meaning you personally ascribe to God and the religious concept of God still remains completely indeterminate. And, since the religious concept of God is by definition beyond human comprehension as you describe, then the emotion you feel - being a bounded and finite feeling, cannot be ascribed to God, any more than its opposite. Maybe God is most present when you feel bad, when you have a sense of utter meaningless, or maybe God is not present through any feeling at all - you have no way to establish any of these possibilities over another. The feeling could also be caused by some other invisible pagan spirit or demon which watches over you and causes emotions but does not have the other attributes of the Christian God.

#180

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322