Welcome Guest!
What Is True?
- Thread starter ambush80
- Start date
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
So the Father sends himself wherever the Father wills himself to go that he has given himself.
And then you break it it down into a more romantic sounding pile so it doesn't sound as stupid.
If you see it that honestly you should honestly be able to see that have a problem.
No.( for about the 348th time)
Jesus is the only way to eternal life. He is the only one that can cause the dead to live.
If you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father.
Does that make more sense to you? I Doubt it. But oh well.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Then you can see why I dont believe you either
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
"He goes wherever He will to ALL that the Father has given Him"
I am just using you own exact words...
It must have sounded bad to you too if you had to rephrase it.
Because you are spiritually dead?
Not bad at all.Both true.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Because for the reasons you find all the others beliefs false, I find yours equally as false.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Says The argument from ignorance expert
None of the others have Jesus. That's why.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
And you are full circle to the first unprovable claim.
And so the conversation goes....
Let me know when you have something that will impress me.
Im gonna clean some Glocks.
Miguel Cervantes
Jedi Master
When you come upon something you never new before but are amazed, impressed, intrigued, is that not a "personal" revelation for you?
What does it matter the source of the "revelation"? To humor your question, Christians vet the source of "revelations" newly learned by comparing them to the scripture for the vetting of the truth. Just as you may use other sources to vet whatever new thing you learn in order to verify they are possible.
How do we vet NASA's claim that an EmDrive engine, which violates every theory of Newton's Laws of Physics, will actually work?
That is an abstract argument. Why would I presume to compare a man's opinion, though he has written a few books, from just a few years ago to a text that has stood the test of time for possibly 3000 years, according to science, not my opinion.
http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html
I don't debate God, Time or Wind. What's the point?
What you believe is your business, I see no point in arguing what I believe through my life experiences vs what you believe. There are no winners in such a debate.
Are your challenges rooted in trying to convert a Christian? or in hopes of finding there is an omnipotent God?
What is your point in issuing such challenges, other than antagonistic motives?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Mig, What is the point of a person going on any forum and discussing things?
ambush80
Senior Member
Can we agree to use this definition going forward, since it's the one pertinent to the sub-forum?
"2.
the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world."
I've never had a confirmable revelation of this type. I used to think that I heard God talking to me but I realized that it was indistinguishable from my own thoughts.
Scripture is the only way to confirm all the supernatural claims found in.....SCRIPTURE. Does that sound like good vetting to you?
Build the sucker. It's all talk until you can put your hands on it and it flies.
I know you're not hinging the validity of the Bible on it's age. There are religious books way older than the Bible. Welder would say "Well, they don't have Jesus" to which someone will reply to his deaf ears "Well, you don't have Zoroaster!".
If you don't debate God then you can't play in the "Prove What You Believe" sandbox.
I want to hear your life experiences that point you towards God. If that's the best proof you have then put it out there. I want to know what's true. I want to understand how people get to their concepts of truth. Honestly, do get "antagonism" from me, not genuine curiosity?
An answer from a Christian that would reflect what I believe to be true would be:
"I know that my beliefs don't make logical sense."
"I know that my version of truth isn't the one in the dictionary, it comes from a personal place."
"I know that people of all other religions have come to their conclusions the same way that I have to mine."
"I realize that what I believe can't be confirmed to be true. (same with Multiverse theory, by the way, though the methods of reaching those conclusions are vastly different)."
"I realize that the methods that I've used to come to my conclusions aren't scientific."
Believers who can admit those things and still maintain their faith are beyond reproach and not subject to Apologist debate. It's pride that causes someone to argue the inarguable. It's humility to say "I don't know". When people come in here and assert something to be true they will have to prove it with methods in line with Apologetics.
ambush80
Senior Member
I would find satisfaction in having a conversation with someone who struggled with the same issues about faith that I did and came to a different conclusion using the same methods of reason and rationality. Peterson came close and that's what I, and many other non-believers find engaging about him. I still don't buy what he's selling but his understanding of and ability to expound on the utility of God and Christianity is compelling to me.
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
“You can’t prove a negative.”
People who are searching for excuses to believe silly things frequently make this statement. A theist makes a positive assertion, and then declines to provide a basis for it. You deny their assertion (rightly so, what with no basis and all), but your denial is deemed invalid because it is impossible to prove a denial.
There is so very much wrong with this situation, it will take a while to wade through it.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages. That’s the answer to this statement in theory.
However, in practice, there is usually a lot more happening with the person who makes such a proclamation. The person who makes this kind of statement has a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.
First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. But this is madness – this also turns its back on productive thinking. This idea is called “solipsism,” and it refers to the notion that every person lives in his own reality, and what is true in his or her life might not be true for others. This is an old idea and it was shown to be ridiculous many centuries ago. Think about it – if it solipsism really was real, there wouldn’t be any books, schools, learning, or science. And people would never be able to communicate effectively.
Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think God exists” and Person B says “I don’t think God exists,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America
Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be.
~graveyardofthegods.com
ambush80
Senior Member
Good cut and paste. Very concise and informative. It would be useful to discuss each paragraph in detail.
Add this to the list of what believers should openly admit to.
Add this to the list of what believers should openly admit to.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
The C/Ps certainly provide a valuable source of getting information in here that would normally be overlooked or not quite worded the way (at least I) wanted.
ambush80
Senior Member
For right now I would be content to focus on the method of gathering information from revelation ("revelation" that I cited). What does it look, sound, feel, smell, taste like? If it's sensed with some other method, what is that method and how is it revealed? What organ senses and deciphers revelation?
