Confusing

[Subduction Zone]

How, please?
Regards

Really? By your definition it means "self evident" means there can be no debate. If you don't understand your own definitions why use them?

 

[paarsurrey]

Really? By your definition it means "self evident" means there can be no debate. If you don't understand your own definitions why use them?

G-d is self-Evident and does not, necessarily, need any evidence, that is my understanding.
That does not mean that there are no rational reasons and arguments favoring G-d.
Even in Science, again my understanding, could not exist unless there are facts that are taken for granted or considered self-evident, in a hypothesis for a certain experiment to be performed for progress of science. Right, please?
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

G-d is self-Evident and does not, necessarily, need any evidence, that is my understanding.
That does not mean that there are no rational reasons and arguments favoring G-d.
Even in Science, again my understanding, could not exist unless there are facts that are taken for granted or considered self-evident, in a hypothesis for a certain experiment to be performed for progress of science. Right, please?
Regards

But he isn't. If God was self evident there would be no need for debate. What you should say is that you have no evidence for a god, but you believe anyway. You have not been able to show that there is even any need for a god, much less why anyone should believe in one.

Anything taken for granted in science are objects that there is no argument about. If a person is holding a brick in his hands not too many people will debate that. Once again at best you do not understand the terms that you are using.

 

[paarsurrey]

But he isn't. If God was self evident there would be no need for debate. What you should say is that you have no evidence for a god, but you believe anyway. You have not been able to show that there is even any need for a god, much less why anyone should believe in one.

Anything taken for granted in science are objects that there is no argument about. If a person is holding a brick in his hands not too many people will debate that. Once again at best you do not understand the terms that you are using.

If it is correct for the human beings to take certain things/facts for granted, and there is no objection to it by people, although such things never claimed to be self-evident. Here is a Being who claims having an attribute of Self-Evident and instead to believe in Him from express signs and symptoms (a group of people called believers), while those who don't want to benefit from this privileged option, they are under no-compulsion to believe in Him, if they don't harm the non-believers, it should be acceptable. Right, please?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Does anybody else find reality confusing with all the religious, atheistic, scientific, etc, claims.....all wanting agreement from the student?

Not really.

The sheer variety of stances and the odd placement of emphasis and significance among them is certainly a challenge, but a solvable one. After about 30 years learning about them I no longer find it very confusing at all, although I see quite a lot of confusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it is correct for the human beings to take certain things/facts for granted, and there is no objection to it by people, although such things never claimed to be self-evident. Here is a Being who claims having an attribute of Self-Evident and instead to believe in Him from express signs and symptoms (a group of people called believers), while those who don't want to benefit from this privileged option, they are under no-compulsion to believe in Him, if they don't harm the non-believers, it should be acceptable. Right, please?

Regards

What makes you think that a god ever claimed to have an attribute that of Self-Evidence. You are now merely digging yourself deeper. Best to quit while you are behind.