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!
Is convenience the determiner of what was mined versus what was posted? That statement required no context and the context it was included with is the proper context anyway. The universe does not contain the explanation of its self. The Quantum is no help no matter how weird and ambiguous a scientist can make it. All the evidence that exists suggests the universe is finite and young and is the only universe there is and does not contain its own cause.
The burden of proof is on you to support you claims. You have not. You say that every atom and every abstract thought is evidence of the transcendent....I can simply say "Every atom and every abstract thought is evidence of natrualism" and be just as founded in my statement.
Historical and theological claims have no burden of proof. They have the burden of best explanation for the evidence. The only known source of information is mind, the only candidate for a cause for the universe is supernatural, morality does not come from natural law, it can't. How is that consistent with naturalism?
There is not a meaningful fraction of adherents to other religions that clam to have experienced God directly, compared to Christianity. They do not even make a universal claim promising this. Every other major faith only requires intellectual consent to a proposition.
Fine, get morality from the amoral, consciousness from unconsciousness, rationality from the irrational, life from non-life, a universe from the absence of being, information without mind, purpose from the purposeless, meaning from the ambiguous, and the natural source for billions of claims to supernatural experience. Bonus: explain why men died for a faith that they invented.
This is beyond hypocritical. And bullcrap. But I will give you this chance to support this argument.
First one
No they do not. Faith precludes proof. I do not have faith my brother exists I know he does. Your demand is logically incoherent. Most of life's decisions are made without certain knowledge. Why are you suspending what is used by yourself and every one else every day to make decisions. Double standards are the hallmark of a failed argument.
Of course I do no know. You are just not getting it. Claims to the supernatural are probability clams based on the reliability of testimony and evidence. As an army of specialists in history and legality have wrote exhaustively on, the testimonial evidence in he Bible passes every single test for reliability. Not to mention my and a billions others claims to personal experience with the transcendent. When natural law can't explain an event, it must by definition be caused by a source beyond nature.
I is absolutely impossible for natural law to produce morality. Natural law never brought anything into existence, it never indicates what should be (only what is), molecules do not care. I an prove this. Please prove that natural law has the power to condemn my killing all life in the universe. prove that action is wrong without God.
The absence of something has no evidence to supply. I will illustrate this in the only way it can be.
That is perfectly fine.
My boss is a Phd and worked in information theory. Information is specified complexity. It requires intention and intelligence to generate and requires intelligence to produce a tuned receiver to make the information useful. Imagine information like a blue print. A building has a infinite number of ways to be designed wrong, I takes intent to get the blueprint right. The same is rue in nature, like DNA. There is no known mechanism in nature outside of mind hat an produce information. Nature can copy information it can produce it.
That is universal intuitive concept. Usually things believed in by almost all people in history have basis in truth. Most people believe there is a reason for existence.
The intent for human life. Every one I have ever known has asked themselves what is the meaning of life. It is an intuitive belief and a universal one.
They have not done so specifically concerning experience wit that God in even a meaningful fraction of the numbers Christians have. Look at core Egyptology, paganism, Islam, and Hinduism. It does not make too many experience claims. They are concerned with intellectual consent not conversion by a power beyond nature.
Yes it does exist in other faiths. It does not exist in comparable numbers. Not even remotely in the same ball park. Pick your favorite claims here and we an really get into it.
I agree they do not.
Only for those in your choir.
Your brother existing is a faith based claim?
Now you are just off into left field grasping in the dark for a black cat that is not there.
You are making a false equivilant. I know my brother exists because I have evidence he eixsts. God doesn't have the same evidence. Just because you claim its false doesn't meant it is.
No I get it. Just because I don't agree with your or think your position doesn't amount to anything doesn't indicate that I don't have an understanding of your position.
You have a sever misunderstanding of what morality is. From that stems your misconceptions. Secondly yes morality has sprung from biological evolution. I already posted the link.
Actually if you know the history of the Christian church its been exactly that. Most people were converted at swordpoint. Same with Muslims of the time.
/thread
Do you work for the institute of Christian science or something? Because you throw around your supposided title as a scientist that works with people with degrees and then continue to spout false science and simply incorrect statements about science.
Not true number one and intuitive concepts are not evidence. There is no evidence that we have "purpose". And it seems exceedingly arrogant that people would assume out of the vastness of this universe that we somehow even hold a single iota of importance in that "purpose" if there was one.
We'll you've now met one that dosen't agree with you thus breaking your streak.
Except their not. The christian religion is not unique in the way you are trying to display it. It does not have a higher acess to god or experiences of the supernatural in any measurable way.
I don't make claims. I am simply asking you to back up your statement that Christianity has an overwhelmingly higher number of spiritual claims. Or I am also waiting for a coherent explination of how christian experiences are any more potent than other religous experienes.
Which is why faith is epistemically unjustified; just because faith precludes proof, by definition, does not mean that one doesn't need proof because one can just have faith. Faith, as a propositional attitude, is very weak, precisely BECAUSE it does not admit of proof or evidence.
Then the decision making process you employ for resolving most of your decision is a epistemologically unjustified. I use the exact same standards employed Historians, legal testimonial methodology, and philosophy. I use far better methods than theoretical scientists do. I take the best evidence we have, and look at the best explanation for it. How exactly is that flawed? It is not certainty (except for the fact it led me to experience God directly) but not flawed.
No. Most decisions are not made on the basis of faith.
Now you're changing the subject; we're talking about faith here, and historians, lawyers/judges, and philosophers do not rely on faith in their professional capacity (otherwise they won't have that professional capacity for long).
Buh-dum-cshh!
I'd say that a procedure consisting of ad hoc invalid arguments, misrepresented evidence, and sloppy reasoning is flawed if anything is.
Yes my false equivalent was meant to indicate yours. Why should God have the same kind of evidence if you rightly pointed out I was drawing false equalities.
I do not think you are unintelligent but I do think your not getting this burden stuff.
I have the most scrutinized book in human history containing the most profound 750,000 words ever written. They make thousands and thousands of claims that have been verified. 25,000 historical corroborations alone. Not to mention 2500 predictions of he future. I could go on like this for thousands of examples. In what way does God lack evidence? Not proof, evidence. Did you know that most of the NT scholars from all sides agree to three crucial historical acts?
It does if we can rule out natural explanations. There are many facts that have no natural explanations. Now if not natural, and you for no reason what so ever rule out the supernatural, then what other type of reality exists.
I know more about what evolutionists say about morality than most. I don't need links. They are full of crap, which is why most atheists, naturalists, evolutionists, and non-theists in general that must face theists in public debate concede morality is an illusion without God. Since you disagree I will supply a couple of the biggest names there is in these fields and their claims.
That is not even close to being true. Actually no one has ever been forced to become a Christian, it can't be done. It certainly happened that some have been forced to claim they believe but no one can make a person believe, but even this was a extreme minority. The most often used claim about forced conversion is the inquisitions. Over a 400 year history at most 3000 people were killed. Islam killed more than that in one attack but if you want the truly diabolical killings in the name of a philosophy then the modern atheistic utopians has all religions beat combined and totaled over the entire course of history. No, conversion was not routinely a forced issue in Christianity. Another example, when Cortez was attempting to force conversion of the Aztecs who had been cutting hearts out of their neighbors by the tens of thousands a year, his Catholic priest said it was not God's desire to force faith. He stopped it from that moment. A later Catholic conquest is the only known conquest in history that was abandoned for moral reasons. The Church ordered it's knights to stop attempting to convert any natives.
The monotheistic religions account for 4 billion of the 6 billon people on earth. Hinduism has been dealt with, Buddhism has been dealt with. That leaves at best a few hundred million pagans. If every single one of them claimed to have experienced God that is less than 20% of Christians. However there are far fewer than that who claim the experience. So we are exactly where I said we began.
I have never once claimed to be a scientist. I do work in military science. My science must work. My education must produce truth or I do not get paid and people die. I do not have the luxury of theoretical scientists who never have to produce a single truth, ever. I have a degree in math, and work in cutting edge science. That is all I have ever claimed. If you find any science (I do not remember us discussing much, if any) you think I was wrong about then I will provide the scholarship for it. BTW Christian scientists (the denomination) have little to do with science.
Intuitive and universal concepts almost always reflect truth. My evidence above will be what I wish to discuss to settle the evidence issue.
I doubt your some kind of unique species that has never wondered what I claimed. If you look on almost any top most profound or important questions in man kinds history. You will find, purpose and meaning in them. In fact I do not remember any of the top ten that can ever be answered by science. Almost all of mankind's great questions are in the domain of theology.
It is exactly what I said it was, and for the exact reasons I supplied (which I noticed you did not respond to).
I do not have to discount them. They do so themselves. I gave the doctrines of Islam and I believe even Judaism. That is at least 75% of the theists on Earth or very close to it. I imagine the rest would be the same but at some point I must stop posting doctrines.
I thought I had shown that using doctrine. Do you not remember what I posted, do you disagree with it, or Is this a simple assertion that tries to equalize inequalities that are only equal n your mind. I tell you what lets do it this way. Find me a universal core doctrinal statement from any of the top 5 faiths in the world that claim to offer every adherent experience with God at the doorstep of faith. I will supply Christianity's doctrines that do. If the doctrines do not guarantee it then claims to it are in contradiction to the faith.
No, Buddhists do not claim this experience daily. Buddhism is not even a strict theology, it is far more of a philosophy.
You can find my experiences in many threads and I will supply it again. However before I do, if you cannot supply the doctrines I mentioned then he game is up. If a faith does not offer direct access to God for every believer at the moment of faith then claims to it are irrelevant. I will supply my experience either way but lets do the other first.
What? I was being very generous. Not only is EVERY decision based in part on faith, EVERY claim of EVERY kind is beyond that I think.
They most certainly do rely on faith. You must rely on certain fact or faith to some extent. Are you claiming scholars in those fields are operating on absolute certainties? Come off it.
It quality as humor does not effect it's quality as fact.
I would to.
This is a false dilemma based on equivocation. The absence of 100% apodictic certainty does not qualify something as faith, in the sense of religious faith. What distinguishes our beliefs of everyday experience, the claims of science, and so on, from religious faith, is precisely that the former admits of evidence (if not 100% indubitable proof) whereas the latter does not.
Actually, its humor owes precisely to the level of delusion required to make such a statement.
That is precisely what determines what faith is. Faith is a conclusion not proven to a certainty by the evidence. We only have a few choices.
I see you are attempting to assert reality into existence. Something does not become delusional because you claim it is. You must demonstrate why it is.
