Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, because I am not a student of the Bible so I only know enough to be dangerous.So now you can answer my question...?
I know my limits.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, because I am not a student of the Bible so I only know enough to be dangerous.So now you can answer my question...?
It should, but not in biology. Other fields of science, such as archaeology and SETI-based astronomy are willing to recognize & attribute the source of even slightly complex patterns exhibiting function as arising from intelligence.You've got the order wrong. In science and all critical thought, conclusions are derived from the evidence, not the other way around.
The conclusion explains the evidence….
But now you realize the importance of context, so your opinions are not quite as 'dangerous'.No, because I am not a student of the Bible so I only know enough to be dangerous.
I know my limits.
It's a personal thing. Maybe one day you will find out or experience something that will change your mind .. maybe not.
No. The OP claimed there was no proof God exists, and I said it depends upon what you count as proof. Then I said you couldn't prove God anyway, because to prove God was true you'd have to prove truth was. I said this knowing that truth could not be proven true in order to make the point that God isn't something you prove or believe in because of proofs.
Its something you believe and then based upon that belief determine what you can about it. God is an axiom not a result, despite what alchemy people might claim about constructing proofs of God. They might claim there are ontologies or other ees to prove God exists, but God's lack of definable characteristics precludes it. There can be no proof and no unproof.
I’m sorry you went to all that trouble. Most of it is nothing but conjecture, and opinions.
https://biblehub.com/1_john/5-19.htmAnd a general unawareness of the veracity of what 1 John5:19 states…
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.
I see the truth of it every day! When I’m on here (RF) and read the variety of opposing POV’s on the same subjects, my appreciation for what I’ve been taught, grows.
i think most Bible believers credit God as being in control…but the Bible presents another view….which I think many aren’t aware of.
You think it impossible to have a faith in something like "a god", because it can't be demonstrated to exist.
You are just being vague and avoiding the issue. Does it include "scientific detection of God", or experiencing miracles first-hand .. or not?
No it isn't. It is only "unjustified" if you want to take the stance of "I won't take anybody else's word for it. I must see it for myself".
I consider myself a "critical thinker" too, but I don't reject the existence of God due to lack of empirical proof.
how can you know what is going on in other people's heads?
As you say, G-d allows satan to commit evil .. in the same way that He allows us...Satan was an angel of Yahweh and agent of Yahweh. He delivered 2 plagues killing 70,00, for Yahweh. He tortured Job when Yahweh allowed him..
If one has a good reason to be skeptical, they will reject,,Critical thinking does take that stand. That's the basic statement of skepticism, one of the most powerful and successful ideas ever to have occurred to man in his intellectual evolution..
That's not true. It is only true for people who have no good reason to believe that God exists.Where you violate the rules of critical thinking is when you accept the existence of a god lacking sufficient empirical support..
There is no "one liner" .. it is something that we have to evaluate for ourselves...as I have stated a few times, there is no sound argument that results, "therefore, God." If you can find one to falsify that claim, now would be a good time to do so..
All you are saying is that one might be wrong in their evaluation.It is for this very reason - that one cannot arrive at that conclusion using fallacy-free reasoning - that anybody that has done so has made a leap of faith..
..and you are still no better off.I had written, "I have the same evidence as that which theists say they use to decide that there is a god," which I outlined. I know what evidence believers have offered in support of their theism and I know what they concluded from it.
Only a creationist would call 364,000 years "sudden" and evidence that a God is in intelligent designer.It should, but not in biology. Other fields of science, such as archaeology and SETI-based astronomy are willing to recognize & attribute the source of even slightly complex patterns exhibiting function as arising from intelligence.
Not so with the extremely complex systems found in living organisms.
if that were so, there’d be no “explanatory deficits” that Gerd Müller keeps highlighting.
In the biological-related sciences, assumptions reign supreme.
For example: evolution of the eye…. Over 13 yrs ago, Eugenie Scott, director of NCSE, stated that the eye took around 100,000,000 years to evolve…
But with more discoveries of studying fossils from the Chengjiang formation in 2017, researchers surmised that the compound eyes of those creatures, arising suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion, provided these organisms with exceptional visual acuity.
Well, with presupposing speculations to make eye evolution fit the facts, 100 million years was reduced to 364 thousand. From trilobites to anomalocaris to Fuxianhuia protensa…across different unrelated species, too, I guess.
I see an agenda being pursued here, at all costs.
So long, my cousin.
I feel like I'm beating the same drum over and over, but.....Only a creationist would call 364,000 years "sudden" and evidence that a God is in intelligent designer.
He, like the other Jehovah's Witnesses at RF, are about as biased as can be when it comes to evolutionary biology. They all agree with this statement: "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose."
If one has a good reason to be skeptical, they will reject
It is only true for people who have no good reason to believe that God exists.
That is not confined to empirical proof. You repeatedly suggest this, as you do not seem to have any other "mechanism" of evaluation.
"does it appear as though pious people that follow Islam are more fortunate in life than those that don't? It appears so."
All you are saying is that one might be wrong in their evaluation. You clearly prefer not to make any judgment, insisting on empirical proof until you do.
You seem to be saying that there is nothing anybody can tell you that will convince you that the existence of God is more likely than not.
You can insist that "critical thinking" cannot result in belief, but that implies that everybody who believes in God does so without using their intelligence .. your opinion only.
That is not to say that everybody who believes in God, does so through a process of "critical thinking".
This is where we disagree most. The problem for gods is that they can be defined and therefore proven or disproven. God has none of the defining attributes of gods, and the first and most well known attribute of God is invisibility. The second is intangibility. A result is that God cannot be detected.A theistic God is defined. Scripture defines the God and theologians make attempts as well. The Gods of scripture can be demonstrated and defined. They have not made any appearances.
Theism can be inferred as well and there is only evidence of probabilities playing out as they should.
Any formal system of truth involving true/false logic is mathematical enough. If you change the context of any ifthen statement it can become false in the new context. Making it true will be more difficult, but I only need to show truth can be made false by a context change. Change the if, and you might change the then; and so logical propositions appear to have the same problem as number systems.Unless God is math Godel doesn't factor in to this.
True, but IMO not all consequences are the same. I think there's a big difference between something like "If X is true, the team I like will lose" and "If X is true, my life will have no purpose".A great example of an appeal to consequences fallacy: "Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."
I could just as easily say "Nobody has a good reason to believe that God doesn't exist", but it would be foolish to say that .. every person has their own reasons for making their own evaluations.Nobody has a good reason to believe that a deity exists..
The world?There is no other method for deciding what's true about the world that generates demonstrably correct conclusions..
Yes, you have.None do. I've explained why..
..because we are not all materialists.You won't address the argument
As you say, G-d allows satan to commit evil .. in the same way that He allows us.
This is where we disagree most. The problem for gods is that they can be defined and therefore proven or disproven. God has none of the defining attributes of gods,
and the first and most well known attribute of God is invisibility. The second is intangibility. A result is that God cannot be detected.
Any formal system of truth involving true/false logic is mathematical enough. If you change the context of any ifthen statement it can become false in the new context. Making it true will be more difficult, but I only need to show truth can be made false by a context change. Change the if, and you might change the then; and so logical propositions appear to have the same problem as number systems.
What is the meaning of life? Can you prove it? Probably not.
That's not true. It is only true for people who have no good reason to believe that God exists.
That is not confined to empirical proof. You repeatedly suggest this, as you do not seem to have any other "mechanism" of evaluation.
There is no "one liner" .. it is something that we have to evaluate for ourselves.
You evaluate as "I don't know", as there is not any empirical evidence that you are aware of.
I evaluate as I evaluate .. and is more than just "a whim" that God exists.
My experience as a Muslim has reinforced my belief .. it starts off as being "is life just a coincidence? NO" ..
..followed by "does Islam make any sense in the 45 years that I've been following it? Without a doubt!" .. "does it appear as though pious people that follow Islam are more fortunate in life than those that don't? It appears so." "if I chose to ignore my belief, would this help me? No"... and so on.
You seem to be saying that there is nothing anybody can tell you that will convince you that the existence of God is more likely than not.
Makes sense. We all have different experiences in life, and belief/disbelief is a personal thing.
You can insist that "critical thinking" cannot result in belief, but that implies that everybody who believes in God does so without using their intelligence .. your opinion only.
That is not to say that everybody who believes in God, does so through a process of "critical thinking".
It is very clear that many do not .. they merely follow tradition, or other intention.
Painting all believers with "one brush" is an error of judgment.
People can have good reason to believe in a similar way that people might not believe.
I could just as easily say "Nobody has a good reason to believe that God doesn't exist"
Your problem is that you assume that you know everything that a person could possibly know on the subject.
The world? God is not a part of "the world".
You have your version of "critical thinking", and I have mine. My version does not depend on empirical evidence alone.
It would be impossible for anybody to believe in God with your version of "critical thinking". ..because as you very well know, God does not appear on TV or in the sky.
yet God is closer to us than our jugular vein
I cannot make an argument in a paragraph and show "therefore God" .. I can only attempt to explain why I believe.
I am well aware that Jews, Christians and Muslims have different ideas about satan. You don't believe in any of them.Satan wasn't "allowed" to do evil in the story, he was SENT to do evil..
No I don't.Aside from the stories you have to give evidence a demon is real as well as this God of stories.