Just when I thought you were completely worthless, I read your little attempt at witnessing at the end and couldn’t help but chuckle.
Thanks for that, laughter is the best medicine. 
As a philosopher and one who is engaged in dialogue, you committed a serious error which exposes the weakness in your thinking. Insults, when one resorts to insults it is an admission of defeat in a philosophical dialogue. 
You understand, your loss is because you left the topic under discussion and turned to one that was not an intelligent topic, insults. 
Jesus, you are officially invited into my life!
Eternal glory in fellowship?
Fellowship is like friendship; it involves communication and sharing of thoughts and feelings. How will you know when someone is your friend? Well, first they would like you in some way, and secondly they would talk with you. I can get this from real people on earth, but I don’t see anyone getting this from God or Jesus. It would be nice if they could get it, but do they? No. Prove me wrong.
Proving you wrong wouldn’t be necessary if you tried it. I very satisfied with my relationship with Jesus. First, you may you are comparing apples with oranges; Christians are not friends, they are brothers in Jesus, much deeper relationship. Secondly, fellowship with God is not the same as fellowship with human beings. The life of a Christian is a life time process, it doesn’t happen over night, (though salvation is an immediate effect)God is always looking to see a Christian become more intimately acquainted. He is purifying my life of sin so I reflect the glory of Jesus. Since you are on the outside looking in, you may not understand the Christian life, God is very involved in the life of a Christian, you don’t see these events occurring; how He takes care of my needs, and gives me guidance. Of course as a Christian I have an enemy who is always trying to make me sin, but Jesus is my advocate and interceeds for me before God’s throne. Third, fellowship with God involves private time to pray, study the Bible, that you won’t see.
I think this would prove you wrong, but unfortunately that may not be enough, but like I said earlier, try Jesus, you’ll like Him. He loves you very much, but if you die in your sins, the story changes, to a God of judgement. “Depart from me, cursed one, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Is that all you have? A belief and a feeling?
All I have is a belief and a feeling? No, my faith is based on historical and philosophical supports. I am a Christian and a Philosopher, neither at the expense of the other. Feelings have little to do with my faith, yes I have beliefs, Justified True Beliefs. But feelings are unreliable and unstable, Christian doesn’t live by feelings, but by knowledge of the word of God. 
Dan, it appears you have a subjectively arrived at list of what you believe God should be. So it seems that if God does not meet with your particular subjective critieria, then you have no choice but to reject him. I’m sure you can see the folly in this. Can’t you?
Meno,
That you would advertise yourself as an intellectual and proceed to spout such utter nonsense is a triumph of contradiction.
Congratulations.
No, I will not grant you a serious discourse until you show you are not just another loony faith based nutbar arguing not with logic, but against it, armed only with a ‘feeling’ presented as some sort of a priori without ever being able to show why.
It’s pathetic and actually insulting. Do better or shut up.
Start here. Let’s see if you are capable of creating a cogent argument WITH support. Bald assertions will be met with more mockery.
Ok, first I will provide some philosophic supports, first Christianity is the most consistent system of thought. My Epistemology is based on God being the source of all truth. That the world is knowable through our senses, because God created us to live in this world. In addition what my senses gather is consistent with is really out there. There also exists a body of knowledge that is non-empirical, which one can obtain knowledge through rational discourse, A Priori knowledge. Mathematics, and Geometry are excellent examples, in particular, Euclid’s 5 postulates, which are accepted without proof. Of any other e is the other`mathematical formula is independent of empirical knowledge. Another example, What is beauty? Platonic Forms have a grain of truth. and can be helpful. My knowledge of reality is based on the existence of God, which of course is a presupposition. Ultimate reality is God and His activity in the universe. The universe is not an eternal self sustaining substance as Spinoza or Hegel would conjecture. It wasn’t constructed out of pre-existent material, like the Platonic form of God. It was created out of nothing. The universe had a starting point and its creator is God. (Of course one would ask, who created God? This leads into the Cosmological arguments, which I’ll deal with later.) Ethics, for me Ethics is a no brainer simply because God has established absolute standards of right and wrong. (It always amuses me how people grapple with moral issues, and because they don’t have an absolute standard on which to base their beliefs, they are at a loss for a clear decision) Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues. Aesthetics is an area that I don’t deal with because it doesn’t carry any serious philosophical issues with it, in fact it is not even have a course devoted to it as in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics have devoted to them. I will return after school is completed today. A Christian’s worse day is always better than an atheists’ best day. Go ahead and mock me, it only exposes your narrow mindedness.
Well lots of people say God created everything – is all-mighty – far more righteous then any human. All of that crap doesn’t add up. It’s rubbish. I can’t prove it all wrong because it was never proven right in the first place. It’s just one big opinion that can’t do anything on its own so it needs tons of people to preach it – otherwise it would not exist or effect anyone. I don’t see any of the rest of “God’s creations” worshiping or preaching. They eat, sleep and reproduce – things like that – but there is no God and religion intertwined into life on earth. People over extend their relativity ideals.
‘Folly’? Normally a folly is when someone says something untrue, or they hurt someone else or themself – etc. To think that an animate being created all inanimate matter/energy is absurd. It’s like saying that light comes from the human eye instead of the stars.
If I say: “God doesn’t give a damn about anyone or anything.” it will have more logical ‘support’ then if I say: “God loves each and every one of us” – because of the amount of substance. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall though because they all defend their precous nothing and say that it is something.
nexusmagazine.com/articles/schumann.html
^
Read this, okay?
Yes, there are higher powers that have a deep effect on us – but they are not life forms are they? Ancient superstition blamed all kinds of things on God antil – way later – there was a scientific explanation for everything.
I think that most Christians have a will to connect with the greatest good in the universe – but they combine this with the premise of angels, demons, God, Satan and Jesus. I think that various cosmic forces and cycles can be tapped into – in some small way – and it effects a persons ‘soul’ – but then their opinions about “God” get mixed in.
Ok. But that sure doesn’t sound like epistimology, which deals with knowledge, not conjecture, such as you have written here.
I would tend to agree, but I’d like to see you prove this.
The reason these things are ‘accepted without proof’ is because they produce acurate results and stand up to testing and scrutiny. Any attempt to tie this to religious belief, in this light, is bound to fail.
You got that right. Baseless presupposition at that.
So many bald assertions in a row…this has to be satire.
So uhh ya…where’s the beef? Where are the philosophical supports?
Where are the historical supports?
Preaching is not evidence.
Laugh as you may, but that is the truth, your lack of response demonstrates that you yield to the truth. In addition, Dan, in Philosophical discourse, passsionate arguments are disallowed and an admission of defeat. Furthermore, any future emotional responses will be ignored, I dialogue only with other serious philosophers engaging in rigorous thought provoking issues. Something you seem incapable of being an active participant. Here’s a question for you Dan, please explain why I said, " Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues." Good day.
You obviously are not serious, you have not made any responses, just sarcasm. This is not philosophy, you are wasting my time. Here’s a good quote for you to live by, “My mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts.” You just want to have a war of words, but that not my interest, you have been a serious disappointment, future responses from you will be ignored.
Thought provoking?
How could God be ‘perfect’ and create all life on earth in imperfect, fallible forms?
If Christianity is the truth – then why are there over 1000 devisions – each claiming to be absolutely right?
If I’m going to go to hell for not fallowing the word of “God” – why will my immortal, eternally burning, non-physical ‘soul’ have pain neurves?
‘Defeat’? 
oooowh! 
stunning logic! You got me!
hahah.
Please, don’t ignore my 3 questions here.
So, I supose that means you can’t suply any ‘philosophical or historical suports’
Gee, I’m so surprised.
Ok…“it doesn’t add up”…My point exactly! That is…the methodolgy you seem to employ in finding or determining truth does not/will not add up regarding God and His word.
Dan, when/if a man reaches a point where he actually rejects God (as appears to be the case with you) it’s time to grow up, and mature your perceptions of God. Many perceptions of God proceed from childhood…which is fine if one maintains faith in God and the truth of His word. I suppose we could consider such childhood perceptions as ‘sub principles’ or at lest avenues to sub principles. The sum of all perceptible sub principles lead us to the most comprehensible or accurate perception/understanding of the primary principle. I think it is by human nature that we fall upon folly/misinterpretation/distortion/inaccracy when attempting to consciously preceive the primary principle. We simply cannot do it! Not consciously anyway. Now, spiritual understanding is another thing entirely. As you read this, you are probably automatically rejecting the term ‘spiritual’, as it is probably tied-in with your rejected perceptions of God.
I’ll attempt to quickly explain what I mean by spiritual understanding in more scientific terms, though it is necessary to view my explanation as analogous at best or as a similtude…
A scientist can conduct an elaborate scientifc obervational analysis of an individual who consistantly hits homeruns, determining and charting the exact mechanics invovled, the proper timing, and virturally every observable or detectable element needed to consistantly hit homeruns, yet when the scientist himself steps up to the plate, possesing presise and elaborate scientific knowledge cannot hit a homerun. On the other hand the individual who actually consistantly hits the homeruns has none of the conscious scientific knowledge the scientist has, yet his ability to hit the homeruns is not deminished. The home run hitter has ‘tacit knowledge’. Tacit knowledge, in this case, proves to be more reliable or functional than scientific knowledge.
The homerun hitter in this senario has preformed some sort of an unconscious blending of all the pertenant sub principles involved in hitting homeruns…this function of ‘blending’ perhaps takes into account non-observable sub principles (not recorded by the scientist), but whatever the case…the homerun hitter is utilizing a sum of sub principles, whereas the scientist only pocesses an aggregate of sub principles, which he himself consciously determines (through hypothisis or whatever) the sum of, or how each of these sub principles interact. Perhaps this conscious determination is not an impossible task to figure out, but obviously considering the various outcomes .000 to 1000 (batting averages) a highly complex matter.
Well I have some superbowl preperation to take care of right now…so maybe more later. Oh, you may want to consider that not all of our perceptions are observable. (How does an ant know how to build the perfect ant hill?)
P.S. I haven’t taken a look at the internet reference you provided yet, but I will.
GO SEAHAWKS!
Bah. Christendom makes absolute claims about God that don’t add up in a reasonable way. If there was a humane and loving God, he would have created a humane and loving eco-system. Evolution makes more sense.
Understanding supernatural things is one of the hardest tasks on earth. I can’t say much for sure, but I can say: “That’s bull shit!” when people make absurd claims.
When God talks – then it is God’s word. If a man talks – it is a mans word. Religious leaders want us all to join their ranks.
I can precieve primary principals okay.
? ‘Spiritual’ is like ‘vital’.
So, ‘spirituality’ is the Scientist and is not the Homerun-Hitter? I already know the difference between observation and experience. What were you really trying to say here?..
Yeah, they very well may not add up. …to you!
Dan, of course I understand your conception of God as humane and loving, this has been revealed to us, but on the otherhand it’s also been revealed that this is not the case with our existence here on earth. This isn’t heaven, this is preparation for heaven so to speak. To be more specific I think we are undergoing a preparation which will allow us to exist together eternally. Logically eternity would require a perfect harmony in-order to avoid a destructive end. If such an end were possible, obviously it wouldn’t be eternity. The Bible indicates that we are being perfected.
Your right on both counts, but if your understanding and your critque of somebody elses supernatural claims is derrived soley from scientific method (whether simple or sophisticated), your understanding will not be accurate or functional for a couple of reasons…
- Science at this point in it’s evolution almost exclusively deals with the natural. However, in cosmology models/theories and in quantum physics science has identified or detected the invisable supernatural realm, but they have not as of yet unvailed it. (i.e. timeless hyperspheres, parallel dimensions, the string theory postulates that our entire universe exists on a paper thin membrane and that our perception of 3D is but an illusion, actual expirmentation with quantum particles have indicated that a single quantum particle can appear to or actually does occupy two different spatial areas at the exact same time)
2)As in the homerun senario of my last post, strictly scientific knowledge is not as accurate or functional as tacit knowledge, at least in some cases.
In the case of theism, theistic tacit like knowledge, in theory could include such scientifically undetectable sub principles as would be gained from an unconscious or semi-conscious spiritual sort of awareness. We do find some evidence of the existence of such spiritual like sub principles…Currently 5 billion of the 6 billion people on the planet have some sort of theistic belief…And through-out history, virtually every discovered ancient society was involved in some sort of theistic belief…And the fact that animals in nature do indeed posess ‘unlearned knowledge’, makes such a claim at the human level at least viable.
Of course you are right., but that does not pre-empt God from using men to accomplish His will.
I read the article. It’s interesting, especially the part about the potential for information to be transmitted via the synchronized brain/SR frequencies. God is said to exist in a timeless state. It’s not by magic that God would communicate with us…it’s by process or something like process (Process is a chronological term and is dependent on time). God accomplishes things by method and/or process, and when He (the term ‘He’ being an anthropomorphism) interacts from the supernatural realm to the natural realm, more than likely there is some scientifically detectable aspect, at least at the natural side of the interaction. Specifically the supernatural realm is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. Now, I am not saying that God actually uses SR frequencies to communicate with us, but I do find it interesting that when processes created and set into motion by God are discovered through the scientific method, some folks view this as an indication of God’s non-existence.