Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you don't think that god or jesus has the ability and/or intelligence to be convincing?
Well, okay. Then I guess the christianity party is over.
Thanks for the clarification.
How exactly would you want God to convince you?
Appear in the sky in the shape of an old man with long gray beard?
Remove all misery of the world in a second?
Make a limb grow on someone who is missing one?
Turn water into wine?
Raise the dead?
Walk on water?
Fly without wings?
Appear in the sky in the shape of an old man with long gray beard?
Remove all misery of the world in a second?
Make a limb grow on someone who is missing one?
Turn water into wine?
Raise the dead?
Walk on water?
Fly without wings?
Not nearly enough.
The Macallan Lalique 50-Year-Old Single Malt Scotch Whisky ($253,291). Maybe. :-)
The question is, if someone is able to raise a dead, would he or she be considered God?
In other words, the "oracle" of raising a dead, proves that an entity is God?
That is a different question. You said Jesus, not someone. And my answer is the same, what would be the best explanation? But as we have no evidence people are raised from the dead outside from naturalism, you are simply arguing from the hypothetical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
You don't have an explanation - no one does.
Believers believe God did it - Atheists believe they know the answer but they don't.
We have over 2000 years of evidence that it is always naturalism. That is the best explanation until you provide better evidence for a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
A belief in the existence God WITHOUT evidence is called Faith.
So Atheists are faithless, just like they are "hopeless" because we don't have an evidence that "hope" exists - neither can't science prove it.
Enjoy your faith, just pray it is not in the wrong god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Probably Atheists are moral-less too, because science can't prove morality. What do you think?
There is a wealth of scientific and philosophical information about morality.
I firmly believe in God and Jesus Christ, and have this faith for over 65 years, not just as a blind faith but an interactive relationship.
I feel sorry for those that refuse them selves the opportunity to know God or afraid to know God seeing their life would certainly be changed.
I didn't refuse myself the opportunity. Nor did I fear it. On the contrary, i embraced it. And of course, as will be true of any path you choose, it "changed my life". It just did not change it for the better in my case. So like all rational persons do, I discarded something that did not help me make sense of my life or predict lived outcomes with reasonable accuracy. Later, I came to understand that it was not substantiatable either.
That your faith works for you doesn't make it right, or that it didn't work for me doesn't make it wrong. Those are the wrong questions, really. But people get invested in their personal rightness, and hilarity ensues.
But I think this is an interesting word " epistemology".
Exactly what kind of "epistemological" evidence you would REQUIRE to justify god-beliefs? Do you have an example, for us to take and proceed?
Epistemology literally means "theory of knowledge" ... especially with regards to methods, validity and scope. It is how one distinguishes justified belief from opinion -- always assuming of course that one even thinks there's a difference or that it matters in the first place. But for purposes of discussion here I'm assuming there's this thing called "truth" that is somehow obtainable or at least approachable, and that truth matters.
So whether they mean to or not, everyone has an epistemology. It might be incoherent, but it is still a stance on what truth is and how one comes by it.
It is important to understand, though, that for any proposition P, the alternative to affording belief to P is not to DISbelieve in P. It is simply not to take any position concerning it at all. The jury is out. We withhold belief pending further evidence or information that would allow us to reconsider whether P is believable or not. Until it's properly believable, it's not actionable.
When "P" is something involving extraordinary or fantastical claims, then the dynamic is a little different because now the bar is much higher. The determination of the existence of my dogs is way less consequential and far more self-evident than, say, the determination of the existence of an invisible, ineffable god demanding my fealty, worship and/or obedience, or ELSE. So then we get into the separate but related question of how much evidence one needs to believe a specific "P". I don't spend much effort looking into the justification or lack thereof for a lot of my mundane day to day beliefs, as they are per my experience not very leaky abstractions and if I'm wrong it's not a big deal. When it comes though to what I'm going to invest a good percentage of my daily time and attention to, and maybe 10% of my gross income to, then yes ... the bar is higher.
That's all. I don't disbelieve in anyone's god, I simply don't believe absent good evidence or maybe at least sound non-fallacious arguments.
Appear in the sky in the shape of an old man with long gray beard?
Remove all misery of the world in a second?
Make a limb grow on someone who is missing one?
Turn water into wine?
Raise the dead?
Walk on water?
Fly without wings?
I have no idea how he would appear. But I presume he has the ability to appear. Or are you saying he doesn't have that ability...that he isn't all-powerful?
Are you saying he can't remove all misery in the world? Not powerful enough? Not all-powerful.
Are you saying he can't turn water into wine? Too tough for him?
Are you saying he can't raise the dead? That some of those Bible stories were false?
Are you saying he can't walk on water? More of those Bible stories were false?
Are you saying he couldn't fly? Not poweful enough.
I have no idea how he would appear. But I presume he has the ability to appear. Or are you saying he doesn't have that ability...that he isn't all-powerful?
Are you saying he can't remove all misery in the world? Not powerful enough? Not all-powerful.
Are you saying he can't turn water into wine? Too tough for him?
Are you saying he can't raise the dead? That some of those Bible stories were false?
Are you saying he can't walk on water? More of those Bible stories were false?
Are you saying he couldn't fly? Not poweful enough.
Well, okay.
I'd just settle for Jesus coming back like he said he would do.
This perpetuation of the end times has gotten ridiculous. All starting from Darby, and Henry Miller and those guys. For those of us who grew up with the Late Great Planet Earth book... It's been 50 some odd years since it was released and it was all based on the Jews reclaiming their homeland and how the second coming would come in "that generation". So I think the author Hal Lindsey was pointing toward 1988 as it was a Biblical generation.
Now fifty years later we see the next crop of Evangelical Christians going on about this being the last days. With a new list of prophecy fulfillments (and certainly a more liberal view of what constitutes a Jewish "generation". Meanwhile, our Late Great Planet Earth generation is getting ready to croak. Then before you know it this current bunch is going to get old and croak... but what do you know. Jesus' second coming will still be around the corner according to the next bunch that comes along.
Hundreds or perhaps thousands of years could still go by before people realize he isn't coming.
Appear in the sky in the shape of an old man with long gray beard?
Remove all misery of the world in a second?
Make a limb grow on someone who is missing one?
Turn water into wine?
Raise the dead?
Walk on water?
Fly without wings?
I would hope that ANYONE you wanted me to worship would have a bit more imagination than that.
Except for the limb growing one, which would at least be a genuine benefit to the limbless person.
Come to think of it, that would be a sign of a deity I could accept. If, for instance, the folks who gave their lives over to a particular deity were in fact happier, healthier, and didn't die after years of medically induced torture treatments for cancer, but rather peacefully passed away in their sleep, everyone would be a believer, wouldn't they?
Don't for one second give me all the reasons why an omniscient, omnipotent, all-caring god chooses to not accomplish this.
Last edited by jacqueg; 06-18-2023 at 01:55 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
