Does any supernatural god exist?

[Ajax]

Thanks for your effort to shed light on this for me, but I must reject your opinions as uninformed and untrue. You put me on the spot and force me to choose between what you're claimi9ng and what God has said.

No, that's not true. I used your God's saying and what Christians believe that God is (omniscient).

This is what your "inerrant" Bible says...Are you ready?
Genesis 6:6-7 "And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

This means He was incompetent to create people as he wanted them to be and had a temper tantrum, which is proven, because he also killed all innocent animals and plants. In fact He appears to be the greatest mass murderer of all times, for no reason whatsoever.
Plus, he is not omniscient, because it is again proven that the generations after the flood, were as bad as the previous ones.

God said He is a mystery and His ways are past finding out and He said He hides the truth from unbelievers and only reveals it to His Elect Saints. That explains why you're accusing God of being unrighteous.

OK, this is what theists say, when they can not defend their claims any more... God moves in mysterious ways.

 

[Ajax]

You need to think of a broad canvas laid down by God before he painted His masterpiece.

That is what the chaos refers to.

As for the battle they could have won because God was with them as He stated yet they lost faith that God would give them victory so He didn’t help them.

These are not really difficult concepts to understand.

..in his studio?

For the record, no where is mentioned that God stopped helping them...This is apologetic imagination..
Read my signature..

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is not an error in the Bible.

See, none of you can find any errors with how the Bible is written.

Now if you can prove that God can’t turn a staff into a snake then you will have an actual error but saying you do not believe it is not an error.

I can prove it by virtue that it simply dosent and cannot happen.

Its pretty solid that anyone attempting to throw a rod down and having it turn into a snake is at best very optimistic, but will, not if, but will fail each and every single time.

If it cannot happen now, it cannot of happened then.

Your turn.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because none of the other gods have ever escaped the confines of the imaginations of the dazed and confused. But the One true God came into the world and proved that He is the Creator God. He demonstrated that He has power over everything and everyone, and nothing will escape His judgement.
You can read all about Him in the Bible

The Bible is a book of mythology. Anything else then some old musty tome?

 

[Soandso]

It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field. They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury.

In Matthew, yes. That's not what happens in Acts, though

In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

There is no "in essence" due to the contradiction in Acts. Let's see what Acts actually says:

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

As you can see, it says very plainly that he bought the field himself and then died on that land.

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

It says very clearly here that the priests were the ones buying the land. It doesn't say that they bought it on behalf of Judas. They bought it and turned it into a graveyard for foreigners, where in Acts it says Judas bought it

These are two completely different occurrences that cannot both be true

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've seen threads of...
Theists: Does God Exist?
Atheist: Does God Exist?

IMO That refers to one certain God

So painting with a broader brush, does any supernatural god exist?

So to go even wider, the end question is: Can we know with positvie evidence of an objective reality as such, regardless of it being natural or supernatural?

 

[Nakosis]

I've seen threads of...
Theists: Does God Exist?
Atheist: Does God Exist?

IMO That refers to one certain God

So painting with a broader brush, does any supernatural god exist?

IMO, if a supernatural God existed it wouldn't matter to us since nothing supernatural could affect the natural world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO, if a supernatural God existed it wouldn't matter to us since nothing supernatural could affect the natural world.

That is magical thinking because you believe a defintion of a word determines objective reality.

 

[Soandso]

That is magical thinking because you believe a defintion of a word determines objective reality.

It seems to me that if something's characteristics go against the definition of a word, a different word with a more fitting definition would be more appropriate

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems to me that if something's characteristics go against the definition of a word, a different word with a more fitting definition would be more appropriate

Yes, but the problem is that all defintions are mind-dependent/connected and thus we run into problems if we want to explain something as utterly independent of the mind.

 

[Soandso]

Yes, but the problem is that all defintions are mind-dependent/connected and thus we run into problems if we want to explain something as utterly independent of the mind.

The whole point of words is to communicate a concept. If what you're suggesting is indescribable, then I don't really know what to say. Fuzzy concepts tend to die to irrelevance over time

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The whole point of words is to communicate a concept. If what you're suggesting is indescribable, then I don't really know what to say. Fuzzy concepts tend to die to irrelevance over time

What is your evidence of irrelevance? Remember evidence, not what you feel matters as what you believe the world is. So as for that standard of evidence not just for God, but for all claims, please give evidence.

In other words, if you have positive claims about what the world/the universe/reality/everything is, you should give evidence for that or admit it beliefs without evidence.

 

[Soandso]

What is your evidence of irrelevance? Remember evidence, not what you feel matters as what you believe the world is. So as for that standard of evidence not just for God, but for all claims, please give evidence.

In other words, if you have positive claims about what the world/the universe/reality/everything is, you should give evidence for that or admit it beliefs without evidence.

What? We are talking about words and their definitions. You originally said this:

That is magical thinking because you believe a defintion of a word determines objective reality.

I was pointing out that words are used to communicate concepts. If words no longer adequately convey what a concept means, the word becomes inadequate and a different word has to be utilized instead

If the concept is impossible to describe, then the concept is fuzzy and vague.... Vague concepts tend to die out over time

For instance, a psychiatrist named Wilhelm Reich suggested that orgasms were caused by a mysterious energy in the atmosphere he called "orgone." He thought the energy permeated and moved throughout the universe. I don't know what that means, and it seems neither does anyone else considering it's a word that's become pretty irrelevant in this day and age

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? We are talking about words and their definitions. You originally said this:



I was pointing out that words are used to communicate concepts. If words no longer adequately convey what a concept means, the word becomes inadequate and a different word has to be utilized instead

If the concept is impossible to describe, then the concept is fuzzy and vague.... Vague concepts tend to die out over time

For instance, a psychiatrist named Wilhelm Reich suggested that orgasms were caused by a mysterious energy in the atmosphere he called "orgone." He thought the energy permeated and moved throughout the universe. I don't know what that means, and it seems neither does anyone else considering it's a word that's become pretty irrelevant in this day and age

Okay. So it is only about words and all related to words as concepts. Fair enough.

 

[Soandso]

Okay. So it is only about words and all related to words as concepts. Fair enough.

Yup!

I am curious what you mean by this, though

Yes, but the problem is that all defintions are mind-dependent/connected and thus we run into problems if we want to explain something as utterly independent of the mind.

What does it mean for something to be "utterly independent of the mind?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yup!

I am curious what you mean by this, though



What does it mean for something to be "utterly independent of the mind?"

It is an idea in philosophy for the thing in itself as it is in itself independent of a given mind's experience of it. It is in other words the strongest possible version of objective.
One practical example would be physical reality as utterly independent of the mind.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

In Matthew, yes. That's not what happens in Acts, though



There is no "in essence" due to the contradiction in Acts. Let's see what Acts actually says:

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

As you can see, it says very plainly that he bought the field himself and then died on that land.

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

It says very clearly here that the priests were the ones buying the land. It doesn't say that they bought it on behalf of Judas. They bought it and turned it into a graveyard for foreigners, where in Acts it says Judas bought it

These are two completely different occurrences that cannot both be true

You need to understand what the word bought means in the original language.

It can mean purchase but also acquire or possess.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I can prove it by virtue that it simply dosent and cannot happen.

Its pretty solid that anyone attempting to throw a rod down and having it turn into a snake is at best very optimistic, but will, not if, but will fail each and every single time.

If it cannot happen now, it cannot of happened then.

Your turn.

Because people aren’t Gods and don’t have that power but God does.

An ant can never build an airplane but does that mean airplanes can’t exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because people aren’t Gods and don’t have that power but God does.

An ant can never build an airplane but does that mean airplanes can’t exist?

Even if I grant you that God exists, it doesn't help, because you are only argueing for a creator God. That is not the same as a giver of morality. So it is not certain that the God you believe in for morality is that same as the God that might exists.
That is as close as I can get. I can accept that there might be a creator God, but I have never seen objective evidence for morality.

 

[Soandso]

You need to understand what the word bought means in the original language.

It can mean purchase but also acquire or possess.

Yes, it says that he himself did it with the money he had gotten in Acts. In Matthew, it said that he threw away the money and the priests did it instead

Just to be clear, in one version he keeps the money and uses it himself. In the other he throws the money away and the priests use it themselves. Both of those statements cannot be true. Either one is true, or none is true