Moderator: felix dakat
Arcturus Descending wrote:Come to think of it, if there is a God, and this God holds to our moral standards, we are all doomed!!
Moreno wrote:You still have not acknowledged that you have made claims. You seem to think that if someone else has made a claim, especially if you consider it one less likely to be true, you do not need to back up your claims. That makes no sense if you think claims bear burdens of proof. Unless you think only theists must back up their claims.Mutcer wrote:Yes, I heard you claim God exists. Not in those precise words.
If I were to posit that a thousand unicorns are roaming the Arctic icecap, if you were to say I don't have sufficient evidence to legitimately make that claim, would the burden of proof be just as much on you to show I didn't have sufficient evidence to make such claim as it is on me to show there are a thousand unicorns roaming the polar icecap?
Mutcer wrote:Arcturus Descending wrote:Come to think of it, if there is a God, and this God holds to our moral standards, we are all doomed!!
What if there is a God, but this God grants an eternity of paradise to those who intelligently, rationally, responsibly and critically evaluate the available evidence, but sends the gullible to a fiery pit of hell?
James S Saint wrote:Mutcer wrote:Arcturus Descending wrote:Come to think of it, if there is a God, and this God holds to our moral standards, we are all doomed!!
What if there is a God, but this God grants an eternity of paradise to those who intelligently, rationally, responsibly and critically evaluate the available evidence, but sends the gullible to a fiery pit of hell?
Simple.. then you would all go to that fiery pit of Hell.
Mutcer wrote: I do intelligently, rationally, responsibly and critically evaluate all the available evidence.
Typist wrote:Mutcer wrote: I do intelligently, rationally, responsibly and critically evaluate all the available evidence.
Ah, then please do intelligently, rationally, responsibly and critically share the evidence that you are in position evaluate what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality.
For starters, you might define reality for us. How big is it? Where are it's boundaries? What lies beyond it's boundaries? If you propose it is infinite in size, wouldn't all statements about reality then require infinite evidence?
If you can't define reality, upon what reasoning would you then claim to know what is or isn't contained within something you can't define???
You are claiming to know. This is a claim. This is YOUR claim. Please provide evidence to support YOUR claim.
If you should instead wish to say the burden lies elsewhere, go sit in the corner and count to some infinite number before posting again.
I am claiming to know what?
I'm not the one who posited an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Christians did.
Typist wrote:I am claiming to know what?
You're claiming to know that human reason is qualified to analyze the question of whether a god exists or not.
I'm not the one who posited an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Christians did.
You're the one positing an equally speculative claim, which you refuse to provide evidence for. There is no fundamental difference between your position and that of Christians.
The only opportunity to deflect this characterization is to stop tap dancing around the challenge, dodging, dodging, dodging, and squarely meet the burden of defending your claim.
Please note: I am only asking you to do the very same exact thing you are demanding of Christians.
It is qualified, as the assertion about God which Christians are making is a scientific claim.
What is my "equally speculative claim"?
If you're talking about my claim that Christians don't have sufficient evidence to support that the God of the Bible exists, see my other threads. Among them:
- the conflict of omniscience and omnipotence
- the evasiveness of Christians
- the problem of evil
Typist wrote:It is qualified, as the assertion about God which Christians are making is a scientific claim.
Ok, I accept calling it a "scientific claim". A claim about the nature of reality. Fair enough. But you still can't just declare reason qualified to address this issue without an investigation.
The Christian claim, and your claim too, are claims about something said to be central to reality. The Christians claim God is central to all reality, and you claim human reason is able to analyze all of reality. So let's try this...
Can you even define reality?
If you can't define reality, if you don't know how big it is or where it's boundaries might be, how do you know that human reason is applicable to all of this something which you can't begin to define?
What is my "equally speculative claim"?
How many times are you going to make me type it? Do you have a reading deficient disorder or something?
If you're talking about my claim that Christians don't have sufficient evidence to support that the God of the Bible exists, see my other threads. Among them:
- the conflict of omniscience and omnipotence
- the evasiveness of Christians
- the problem of evil
One last time.....
I'm talking about YOUR claim.
NOT THE CHRISTIAN CLAIM.
Your claim, that human reason is capable of analyzing questions the scale of the God proposal.
And speaking of evasiveness, you're pretty handy at it yourself.
Defend your claim please.
Mutcer wrote:Typist wrote:It is qualified, as the assertion about God which Christians are making is a scientific claim.
Ok, I accept calling it a "scientific claim". A claim about the nature of reality. Fair enough. But you still can't just declare reason qualified to address this issue without an investigation.
I have conducted an investigation.
- conflict of omniscience/omnipotence/free will [demonstrated to be a false claim]
- problem of evil [demonstrated to be a false claim]
- evasiveness of Christians [demonstrated to be a false claim]
Mutcer wrote:The Christian claim, and your claim too, are claims about something said to be central to reality. The Christians claim God is central to all reality, and you claim human reason is able to analyze all of reality. So let's try this...
Humans can't analyze all of reality. If the Christian God is real, it can't be analyzed, as it can't be observed or scientifically measured.Can you even define reality?
Yes.
re·al·i·ty [ree-al-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.
1.
the state or quality of being real.
2.
resemblance to what is real.
3.
a real thing or fact.
4.
real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5.
Philosophy .
a.
something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b.
something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
James S Saint wrote:If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.
Helandhighwater wrote:James S Saint wrote:If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.
Lol that is blasphemous, you shall burn in hell, sinner.
James S Saint wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:James S Saint wrote:If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.
Lol that is blasphemous, you shall burn in hell, sinner.
What makes you think that I am not?
James S Saint wrote:If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.
Helandhighwater wrote:James S Saint wrote:If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.
Lol that is blasphemous, you shall burn in hell, sinner.
Mutcer wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:James S Saint wrote:If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.
Lol that is blasphemous, you shall burn in hell, sinner.
What exactly do you mean by "burn in hell"?
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users