McBell
Admiral Obvious
so then 6 or 7?Very close now
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!
so then 6 or 7?Very close now
Ah, so your flat denial of making a mistake, regardless of how many times it is pointed out and explained to you, is your dishonest way of thinking you have skirted the Ninth Commandment.Obviously a falsehood is a falsehood and if someone in error finds out that they made a mistake they need to acknowledge and own up to it and see it for what it is but until they do see their mistake that is all it is. You are were not correct in your interpretation of the scriptures again.
Now you are bearing false witness.Your response...
Nope it is not. You will not admit it though as it shows that you are living by faith if you do not believe in God or that God does not exist. If you have no evidence for your belief you are living by faith just like those who you claim have no evidence for their belief.
It seems to me that at this point he is trying real hard to convince someone he is right.You're just repeating the same nonsense that has already been addressed.
As I said, I don't know how to explain it any differently.
You don't understand the burden of proof.
You don't understand the difference between believing a claim and not believing a claim.
You don't understand the difference between not believing a claim, and making an opposite claim.
I don't know what else to tell you.
Your response...
Nonsense. Where did I post in what you are quoting from as you say "not believing in anything is believing in anything" when I posted
"Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything" Are you telling the truth. I am not sure what is more amusing you trying to claim I am saying things I am not of your friend
So, is not believing still a belief?Yep. Not believing in God or the existence of God is still a belief no matter how you want to spin it.
Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything.
Or maybe it was for showing that contradicted yourself. And unbeknownst to you, making you being the one to tear apart your own argument.@Ayjaydee giving you a winner for saying things I never said
I'm still waiting for you to show the evidence that I don't believe that I do not believe that a god exist.Not really. You simply gave your opinion for which you have no evidence. Therefore your faith which is not mine but yours.
Thankyou Nakosis someone who is at least being honest in their view which is pretty much the point of the OP.
perhaps you can prove why you think I do not understand it and why you think not believing in God or the existance of God or lack of belief is not a belief?
So your saying most athiests are really agnostic? Interesting I have not heard that one before. Why do they call themselves athiests?
can you prove there is no God
Without definitive evidence you view is no different to anyone elses except it is in the opposite direction.
Wheather these people have had an experience with aliens or not I do not know. I believe they believe their experience. If I am being honest with myself I do not know what experience they had one way or another. That would be my position as I have no evidence to prove them to be wrong.
according to the scriptures no one ever finds God by waiting for evidence that God exists
to me that sounds more simply like a definition of an "unbeliever" (someone that does not believe) rather then an athiest which is generally defined as a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Not really TM you have not addressed anything shared with you in the post you are quoting from. Your just repeating yourself without addressing what I have written to you to show why I disagree with what you have posted
This is one way to disprove that chimps and apes were not common ancestors because we find chimps and apes do not mate. Thus, there were no hybrids. Then, it means that there was no common hybrid ancestor for humans and primates.
I don't think you understand logic. if p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.
Do you understand now that saying "I don't believe X is true" is NOT the same as saying "I believe X is false"?
Prove that you have faith and why it's necessary. If you can't then it is only opinion therefore no faith.Non sequitur therefore not relevent. If you have evience then prove there is not God if not it is only your opinion and therefore faith.
Yes, of course.
Most likely, a falsehood.
Yes, if 'if the universe had a beginning, then God exists' is true, then 'If God does not exist, then the universe had no beginning' is true.
But it is also the case that
If 'if wild monkeys exist, then Shakespeare was a monkey' is true, then 'If Shakespeare was not a monkey, then wild monkeys do not exist'.
In all cases, the p=>q statement is false.
The variation is crucial to evaluating witness testimony. Inconsistencies invalidate it. It isn't just that there is 'some variation'. There are actual strong differences in what they claim to have experienced.
The p -> q statement of if the universe had a beginning, then God exists is definitely true.
Thank you. It's God's word so quite true.
The argument is Kalam Cosmological Argument which is quite powerful. The opposition does not have concrete evidence for big bang which is a theory while Kalam has the CMB.
Where in the Bible was the CMB predicted?Prior to that, the creation scientists didn't have anything to hang our hats on but faith with eternal universe. I wouldn't be able to say anything against it if there was evidence for an eternal universe. However, science backed up the Bible with the discovery of the CMB.
The weaknesses with the big bang are that it violates laws of physics as there was no space nor time. Even Hawking admitted a quantum particle needs space. It also needs time for motion. Moreover, it violates the laws of physics and rules of mathematics applied to the physical world, with its infinite temperature and density. The big bang also lacks detailed explanation unlike God's 7-day creation theory. Thus, it sounds like big bang theory is the falsehood.
If wild monkeys had a beginning, then there was a cause. We can disagree with that, but not the universe having a beginning. One needs space time and a spaceless and timeless, begingless, eternal, and all-powerful God. What caused the singularity?
You do not seem to realize that when you claim that the Big Bang is a theory that you are saying that it has been tested and verified to be correct countless times. That is what a scientific theory is. Non-science sorts tend to get the concept of a theory wrong almost all of the time.Thank you. It's God's word so quite true.
The argument is Kalam Cosmological Argument which is quite powerful. The opposition does not have concrete evidence for big bang which is a theory while Kalam has the CMB. Prior to that, the creation scientists didn't have anything to hang our hats on but faith with eternal universe. I wouldn't be able to say anything against it if there was evidence for an eternal universe. However, science backed up the Bible with the discovery of the CMB. The weaknesses with the big bang are that it violates laws of physics as there was no space nor time. Even Hawking admitted a quantum particle needs space. It also needs time for motion. Moreover, it violates the laws of physics and rules of mathematics applied to the physical world, with its infinite temperature and density. The big bang also lacks detailed explanation unlike God's 7-day creation theory. Thus, it sounds like big bang theory is the falsehood.
If wild monkeys had a beginning, then there was a cause. We can disagree with that, but not the universe having a beginning. One needs space time and a spaceless and timeless, begingless, eternal, and all-powerful God. What caused the singularity?
This is where you are wrong because you cannot answer my questions above. The p -> q statement of if the universe had a beginning, then God exists is definitely true. However, this is not accepted as fact by the non-believers. Notice that it also shows that atheists are wrong if their premise that God doesn't exist is true.
I would agree your example is false, but you are also using a straw man fallacy.
Well obviously a joke after reading your link quite funny. Maybe explained perhaps ny 1/3 of the Irish population getting drunk .
But to your question no. Simply stating that sometimes what people believe is based on what they experience in their lives.
As a Christian I believe that God reveals himself to us if we call on him, although this cannot be proven to those who do not believe in God or His Word so it is a belief by faith just the same as those who do not believe in God base their belief.
I do not know of any religions or people that believe in flying squirrels or any groups of people that have seen them. I would suggest you visit your doctor as soon as possible . (joking).
I see that your inability to understand the written word is still strong. No matter how many times you repeat the same thing over and over again it does not help you. You ignored the fact that there were several definitions and chose only one. That is cherry picking an improper debating technique. I also see that many times you highlighted the word "falsehood". You did tell falsehoods. Let me explain your error a little more. Lying is telling a falsehood with an intent to deceive. I never said that you had the intent.
Subduction Zone said: ↑ Bearing false witness against your neighbor is making false claims about them. It is not necessarily lying about them, though a lie probably would be a false claim. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that even if one believes what one said is true if what one said is incorrect that is bearing false witness. Let's say there was a party that we both were invited to,but I was the only one that went. For some odd reason I remember seeing you there. When asked about it I tell others that you were there. In reality you weren't. Now I did not lie about seeing you there, I really believed that you were there, but since you were not I would have been bearing false witness if I said that you were.
Nope, this is incorrect. Your reasoning appears to be only in the extremes. You are constantly forming black and white fallacies.
You need to learn the difference between lacking a belief and believing in nonexistence.
And having a lot of people beliving that they have been contacted by a being, where they cannot agree on the properties of that being, is evidence that they are mistaken in their belief they have been contacted. The variation is crucial to evaluating witness testimony. Inconsistencies invalidate it. It isn't just that there is 'some variation'. There are actual strong differences in what they claim to have experienced.
Now, I agree that people can have a 'strong feeling of presence of a being of great intelligence and goodness'. And, in fact, I think many people *train* themselves to have exactly that experience. And that invalidates the experience.
I have looked into this a LOT. There are no mathematical models that allow for computation of these probabilities. EVERY calculation I have seen is based on the hypotheses that many stages are probabilistically independent, which we *know* is wrong. We also know that simply multiplying a lot of numbers together *consisently* gives the wrong answer in many situation like what we are considering in the origin of life (feedback loop, complex, interconnected chemistry, etc). NO mathematical model of this situation is anywhere close to giving a prediction for the probability of life arising.
And I see this as all a combination of propaganda (the fool in his heart) and promoting self-hypnosis
Sorry, but this is the standard in *every* other area of study. If I want to claim the existence of a subatomic particle, I have to give *detailed* processes for detecting it. And then, belief is withheld until evidence is in. If I want to claim that some species of frog exists, I have to show good reason for thinking it exists (evidence) and belief will be withheld until a specimen is found. This is NOT simply an 'atheist saying it'. This is the standard universally, except in theology. I wonder why.
Once again, the lack of evidence is enough to withhold belief. This is true in general.
I'm sure you have had some experiences that you found incredibly moving. Of that, I have no doubt. The question isn't the experience, but the interpretation and origin of that experience.
So? The differences are so much that it makes ALL of the testimony unreliable.
Indeed Ayjay you are yet to make one.I dont consider that a discussion
Well, that's the problem. One will not attempt to find a way out if they've already acomplshed deceiving themselves as being correct. That's what happens when you live your life by faith. They will use faith to make themselves believe that the sources they post up are saying the things they believe it is saying.