Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Ingledsva]

That is exactly what I said "I think he has a body of flesh and bones" and I qualified it by saying "does a spirit have flesh and bones" meaning that he had a physical body so was not a spirit.

That is exactly what I said "I think he has a body of flesh and bones" and I qualified it by saying "does a spirit have flesh and bones" meaning that he had a physical body so was not a spirit.

You seem to have forgotten the subject.

Someone said a physical God is nonsense. I agree.

Which is why I started off with -

1. Jesus isn't God.

*

 

[Serenity7855]

It's actually quite simple, although we don't have complete understanding, all of those things are wholly biological and detectable. The idea that we have no idea is simply absurd. We do. You ought to stop listening to people who have no idea.

Who is we? Are you claiming the status of a scientist? If you are then why are you not familiar with the general consensus of the scientific community.

Thought

• Thought (disambiguation).
  
  Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Thoughts are the result or product of either spontaneous or willed acts of thinking.
  
  Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins, processes, and effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.

Thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You suggest that I ought to stop listening to people who have no idea, yet it seems that you have either not researched it prior to posting or it is you who is listening to people who have no idea.

I'd actually reject the first part as a valid definition of supernatural, that isn't how anyone uses it. Just because we don't understand something that operates in the natural world doesn't make it supernatural, it makes it not understood. Before we knew what DNA was, that didn't make DNA supernatural. It made it beyond our current understanding. You can certainly go with the second part, that is how the word is typically used, but I don't think you can point to a single thing that actually demonstrably fits that definition. It's like "magic". Conceptually it's fine but it really doesn't help us understand the real world.

Now it is you who seems to be trying to wriggle your way out of this blunder by suggesting that you have a greater authority to define the words "metaphysical" and "supernatural". You are the first atheist that I have seen bringing a dictionary into disrepute in favour of your own definition. If it is all the same to you, I will stick with the dictionaries definition that supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Oh, if it cannot be explained using sciences known naturalistic laws then it is supernatural. As soon as Crick and Watson discovered DNA they ran into the pub next door shouting that they had found the meaning of life. There was no point at which we knew it was there but didn't know what it was. It was discovered. You really need to do some research. Isn't it funny that those atheists on here who know this have not picked you up on this. Isn't that dishonest?

No and I've just pointed out why it's not the case.

No, you haven't. You have just made baseless assertions.

Unknown and supernatural are not the same. Unknown is unknown. You can say nothing about it's actual source because it is, by definition, unknown.

God is unknown by you and your clan, and guess what atheists call Him. Yes, a supernatural, metaphysical being having no evidence to suggest he exists. You are making this to easy.

You can see anything you want, the question isn't what you see but what you can prove and no matter how much you try to wiggle your way out of it, how you try to define your way out of it, it's still your responsibility and the burden of proof will forever be on those who make claims for which they have no evidence.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Even if God slapped you across the face with a wet fish you would still deny his existence. You are one of the fence sitters in the war in heaven. You cannot be saved. That is why I can refute your last point saying that I am shoving my belief down your throat. I do not preach to those who cannot, will not, be saved. I am not here to convert anybody I am here to be tried and tested by those who think they are knowledgeable in the dealings of God but only make fools of themselves by demonstrating their complete ignorance. I have genuinely never been unable to refute an atheists attack on Christianity. Not a single atheists has left me without a logical and rational answer. I have never lost a point to any atheist. What does that tell you. That I am arrogant, not in the least as it is the spirit of God that guides my hands.

 

[savagewind]

No one answered the question. What is the word for how physical matter cooperates and has always cooperated together to make a world that works extraordinarily well together?

No! Not perfectly. But without a plan it is wonderfully amazing. What is it called? Why isn't there a word for it. Is there? We have a word for it.

 

[Serenity7855]

You seem to have forgotten the subject.



Which is why I started off with -

1. Jesus isn't God.

*

John 14:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

 

[Sonofason]

No one answered the question. What is the word for how physical matter cooperates and has always cooperated together to make a world that works extraordinarily well together?

No! Not perfectly. But without a plan it is wonderfully amazing. What is it called? Why isn't there a word for it. Is there? We have a word for it.

Are you referring to "nature"?

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Have you considered that he may nave been in the presence of a great being or energy he didn't understand and used the word 'God'.

As a near death experiencer myself,(MVA, NewCastle Australia 24/02/82) though i do not claim it was HaShem, who greeted me with great love, merely the "Gatekeeper" who led me through Life Review before meeting my grandfather and then being sent back ...

 

[Sapiens]

Created--> Creator. There is a Rolex, by implication. Otherwise we are at the 'poof' argument. Poof argument is great, but no one is giving me arguments.

I hate to tell you but it is MY analogy, it is MY example, created to explain to you what an argument from ignorance is. You have not only demonstrated what it is, you have shown, clearly, that without that logical fallacy you are completely lost. Thanks.

 

[George-ananda]

As a near death experiencer myself,(MVA, NewCastle Australia 24/02/82) though i do not claim it was HaShem, who greeted me with great love, merely the "Gatekeeper" who led me through Life Review before meeting my grandfather and then being sent back ...

G'Day mate. Nice to meet you. Whatever, we are all part of the One!

 

[Desert Snake]

I hate to tell you but it is MY analogy, it is MY example, created to explain to you what an argument from ignorance is. You have not only demonstrated what it is, you have shown, clearly, that without that logical fallacy you are completely lost. Thanks.

By stating that my argument is incorrect, you are making an argument from ignorance as well, since you don't actually know that I'm wrong.

 

[Sapiens]

Of course I know that you're wrong ... it's my example. Once again you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of what the problem with an argument from ignorance is, your working on a whole new phenomena, the argument from illiteracy.

 

[Ingledsva]

John 14:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Dude! Why is it impossible for you to just say - I meant to say ____________________!

Savagewind was talking about GOD. So were the next couple of posts.

Then you said -

"...Savagewind may believe that he is spirit, and that is fine, as that is how he see Him. I think he has a body of flesh and bones based on what Jesus said to Thomas when he asked him to touch him and said does a spirit have flesh and bones, but I do not know that for a surety as I have never seen him...."

This very obviously led us to believe - you think - HE GOD - has a body of flesh and bone. - Especially when you contrasted it to Savagewind's sentence saying God is spirit.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course I know that you're wrong ... it's my example. Once again you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of what the problem with an argument from ignorance is, your working on a whole new phenomena, the argument from illiteracy.

I don't think you really know what argument from ignorance really means. It means there is no logical conclusion to theory in a context from which we don't have proof or a lot of evidence, not that anything you personally cannot configure a sequential chain of possible or likely occurrences is therefore off limits to theory or belief.
Secondly, you are theorizing a state of nothing into something by not having an idea of cause. Again, your blank, your gap, is not my problem. What I observe leads me to certain theories, you don't have to think about these things at all, but you need to have logical reasons to present as refutation.

Then again, think about all the actual 'arguments from ignorance' that science presents, are you saying that they have to be proven? Should I discount them offhand? Why not?
Anyways, I'm leaving the conversation here.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nope, sorry. Based on all of the available evidence, the room is empty. We're not saying with any degree of absolute certainty that the room is empty, we're saying that we see nothing there. It is incumbent on anyone who claims there is anything in the room to present their evidence that it's actually so, otherwise we will continue to find no reason to take your claims seriously.

There is no room. Prove there is an empty room.

 

[Desert Snake]

Because that's what is required to prove something is a fact. You prefer imaginary evidence?

What evidence? You have evidence? Present it then. Why is your lack of evidence or opinion my problem.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think you really know what argument from ignorance really means. It means there is no logical conclusion to theory in a context from which we don't have proof or a lot of evidence, not that anything you personally cannot configure a sequential chain of possible or likely occurrences is therefore off limits to theory or belief.
Secondly, you are theorizing a state of nothing into something by not having an idea of cause. Again, your blank, your gap, is not my problem. What I observe leads me to certain theories, you don't have to think about these things at all, but you need to have logical reasons to present as refutation.

Then again, think about all the actual 'arguments from ignorance' that science presents, are you saying that they have to be proven? Should I discount them offhand? Why not?
Anyways, I'm leaving the conversation here.

There are no such scientific arguments from ignorance.

 

[Serenity7855]

Cephus

let us try and clarify the point by using inductive reasoning.

1. The definition of "Supernatural" is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. in accordance to an accredited dictionary. FACT

2. A "Thought" is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature (see premise 1). It is familiar to everyone, however, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created (see link to Wiki). It is an unknown quantity that falls within the definition of premise 1. FACT

3. In accordance to premise 1 and 2 a thought is a supernatural event, therefore, your statement "You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the metaphysical. You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the supernatural" is a nonsensical prevarication that should insight you into an apology to Savagewind.

Furthermore

1. God is, according to atheists, and unknown Being unexplainable by naturalistic laws. FACT

2. God is therefore a supernatural, metaphysical entity, just as a thought is. FACT.

3. It is a fact that we think, therefore, it must follow that God must be a fact as well and our thoughts a part of our spirit.

It all clicks into place, logically and rationally, it is called the Plan of Redemption.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

Why would you think thought is beyond scientific understanding? That is not something it would even be possible to establish or know.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are no such scientific arguments from ignorance.

What indicates that you don't understand the topic to me is that you think 'argument from ignorance' concept is relative to this debate.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Collins is a Darwinian evolutionist, he is not a “young earth creationist,” nor is he a proponent of “intelligent design.”

Never said he was... so whatever your point is, it is mute on me.

 

[Bunyip]

What indicates that you don't understand the topic to me is that you think 'argument from ignorance' concept is relative to this debate.

Erm...buddy, you brought it up.

What scientific arguments from ignorance?