Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Sapiens]

What is known is within us. It is you that does not have it, that is why you do not understand this argument. Being ignorant is not something to brag about.

The subject of this thread is "Faith in Christ is Completely Logical," yet your posts are completely illogical, in most cases one variation or another of argument from ignorance.

 

[viole]

Ok, so the FSM and Star Wars... haha. I did not know that is what they were. Very funny. I think Star Wars is a film, so it is hard to see that it can be taken seriously. (I can't believe I'm debating this) and to my knowledge, spagetti cannot fly. Now, in all serousness, perhaps there is another realm and another world where they can. Perhaps all things there are made of spagetti. But in this one, no.
The fundamental idea of God is to say that something exists that is primordial and archetypal before all other things, and that this 'thing' is or has sufficient energy to make everything we see around us. That is a very basic idea. Whereas something coming out of a tin does nothing accept sit on a plate. I know you see the difference. But you are saying that I can't diprove the one as you can't disprove God. But there is more to it than that. I hope you can see that. It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that there could be something that brings into being everything, and yet we cannot see it. That is the essence of the big bang is it not? That is not from spaghetti.
You must also consider that without intelligence (God) then you are ultimately relying on luck. And that just does not work, as much as people like to think it will. Nothing complex appears by luck in this universe. If you throw a pile of bricks out of a plane, you would not expect to see a house when it landed on earth. It never would. To form that, there has to be some guiding principle or process.

Again. The point of the thread is not to discuss the existence of any God, but the rationality of the more specific Christian position.

I am not judge nor jury. i only observe that if that it is the case,then belief in any other thing that has the same objective existence is equally rational.

And that includes FSM, the Force, and blue fairies.

This is a big subject, and i feel you are not interested in it, as you think you already know. The underlying problem also with ''this'' subject is, if he does not open your eyes, it matters not what I say, you still won't believe. It is not like a normal subject. Now I suppose I am ranbling.

So, rationality of Christianity depends on God's will of not opening my eyes?

May ask two questions? Why does He open the eyes only of people which, in general, already live in a Christian area?

Let me leave you with this if you wish to discuss: At the beginning of it all, by necessity, there has to be something. (something is just a word to describe anything in its broadest terms) do you agree with that statement?

It depends. Beginning of things makes sense when you have a spacetemporal context already in place. For instance, I don't think it makes physical sense to talk of a beginning of the Universe, for obvious physical reasons.

Unless you can give me a definition of beginning or causaliy which trascends what we experience everyday in this already existing Universe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[savagewind]

The purpose of these things, FSM, the Force, and blue fairies, is not to bestow peace with freedom to Earth. Is it? Peace with God results in peace with every other soul. The kind of peace people make comes with loss of freedom. The peace of The Christ comes with feedom.

 

[Skwim]

Well... you seem to be saying that everything should be perfect, and yet you are speaking of after the fall, which would not be. So I don't understand your position. The world is not perfect. God is perfect.

And because god is said to be perfect, I'm simply saying that I fail to see the rational (Serenity7855's anyway) in looking upon god's work as "marvelous and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind" in light of the fact that god---being the all powerful creature is---essentially kept others from his big plan of salvation either by not reveling it to them or sending incompetent messengers to explain it.

 

[nazz]

He was made in the image of God for one. What does that mean?

Good question. People have many ideas.

 

[nazz]

Like what?

answered above

 

[nazz]

Aahhh..... but what do you mean by perfect?

I'd go by the dictionary definition but that is irrelevant. I am not the one claiming Adam and Eve were.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So, are you going to revise your original statement that a belief held by a strict minority of people does not entail stupidity or being necessarily wrong?

Ciao

- viole

It would depend on what their belief was. If they say all things come from luck, I would think that pretty silly.

 

[nazz]

The Jews set up 613 rules, not God

You don't believe God gave the laws in the OT? Because that is where the 613 are located.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'd go by the dictionary definition but that is irrelevant. I am not the one claiming Adam and Eve were.

I don't think it is irrelavant. What is perfect to you is not necessarily perfect to another, and certainly not to God. So very relevant.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You don't believe God gave the laws in the OT? Because that is where the 613 are located.

They are interpretations of law. Oe could make them more or less, depending on how you write them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The subject of this thread is "Faith in Christ is Completely Logical," yet your posts are completely illogical, in most cases one variation or another of argument from ignorance.

My comments are logical.... when you understand the language

 

[nazz]

I don't think it is irrelavant. What is perfect to you is not necessarily perfect to another, and certainly not to God. So very relevant.

Again I am not the one making the claim. So the onus is on Serenity to explain what it means to him/her. I am only claiming (correctly) that God never calls his creation perfect.

 

[nazz]

They are interpretations of law. Oe could make them more or less, depending on how you write them.

To some extent that is true. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again. The point of the thread is not to discuss the existence of any God, but the rationality of the more specific Christian position.

I am not judge nor jury. i only observe that if that it is the case,then belief in any other thing that has the same objective existence is equally rational.

And that includes FSM, the Force, and blue fairies.

All gods exist in some realm or another. What we see and are is evolvig consciousness. The example I think are explained. There is a big difference between an energy that might exist that all things can come from, and spaghetti. If this is your argument, it is not much of one.

So, rationality of Christianity depends on God's will of not opening my eyes?

''rationality''??

May ask two questions? Why does He open the eyes only of people which, in general, already live in a Christian area?

Because that is the numan of the land. You forget who is in charge. Why would it happen elsewhere and not there. That would make no sense. Why do cars get mended in garages?

It depends. Beginning of things makes sense when you have a spacetemporal context already in place. For instance, I don't think it makes physical sense to talk of a beginning of the Universe, for obvious physical reasons.

Unless you can give me a definition of beginning or causaliy which trascends what we experience everyday in this already existing Universe.

I thought i made the question broad enough to expect an answer.

 

[Sapiens]

My comments are logical.... when you understand the language

I beg to differ with you. As I mentioned, your entire house of cards rests on an argument from ignorance.

Since you do not seem to understand what that means, here's some help from Rationalwiki:

Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.
—C.S. Lewis

“”[Astrologers will tell you] things like: "Science doesn't know everything." Well, of course science doesn't know everything. But because science doesn't know everything, that doesn't mean science knows nothing. Science knows enough for us to be watched by a few million people now on television, for these lights to be working, for quite extraordinary miracles to have taken place in terms of the harnessing of the physical world and our dim approaches towards understanding it.
—Stephen Fry

 

[Robert.Evans]

And because god is said to be perfect, I'm simply saying that I fail to see the rational (Serenity7855's anyway) in looking upon god's work as "marvelous and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind" in light of the fact that god---being the all powerful creature is---essentially kept others from his big plan of salvation either by not reveling it to them or sending incompetent messengers to explain it.

God is a reflection of his own Self. So what you see is a reflection of something else. The process is fractal. So what we see here, and what we are, is evolving cosciousness expressed in physical form. It is, in short, an evolving mind. Not all of the mind wants to be a part of the whole... that is the way it is. It is all thought processes.
What you have to have is freewill in order that God is truly just. To have this, there are those who will not see.
You will have to ask the question a little better for me to comment further.....

 

[Robert.Evans]

I beg to differ with you. As I mentioned, your entire house of cards rests on an argument from ignorance.

Since you do not seem to understand what that means, here's some help from Rationalwiki:

Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.
—C.S. Lewis

“”[Astrologers will tell you] things like: "Science doesn't know everything." Well, of course science doesn't know everything. But because science doesn't know everything, that doesn't mean science knows nothing. Science knows enough for us to be watched by a few million people now on television, for these lights to be working, for quite extraordinary miracles to have taken place in terms of the harnessing of the physical world and our dim approaches towards understanding it.
—Stephen Fry

The proof is within the person and the evidence is their conviction, their faith. That is not from ignorance, that is from knowledge. It is knowledge you don't posses. It appears to be only this subject where, not knowing is put above knowing.

 

[Sapiens]

The proof is within the person and the evidence is their conviction, their faith. That is not from ignorance, that is from knowledge. It is knowledge you don't posses. It appears to be only this subject where, not knowing is put above knowing.

No, it is knowledge that you claim, but can in no way demonstrate. That is illogical and either fraudulent or delusional.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I beg to differ with you. As I mentioned, your entire house of cards rests on an argument from ignorance.

Since you do not seem to understand what that means, here's some help from Rationalwiki:

Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.
—C.S. Lewis

“”[Astrologers will tell you] things like: "Science doesn't know everything." Well, of course science doesn't know everything. But because science doesn't know everything, that doesn't mean science knows nothing. Science knows enough for us to be watched by a few million people now on television, for these lights to be working, for quite extraordinary miracles to have taken place in terms of the harnessing of the physical world and our dim approaches towards understanding it.
—Stephen Fry

Perhaps you should give evience for luck being the answer