Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?
Posts
Total:
138
-->
@Reece101
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
God made man in his image. Seeing the variety of personalities on DART. God must be a superphrenic.
-->
@Reece101
Faith is an unconvincing argument. If that is all you have then no the existence of whatever god(s) you are proposing cannot be proven through debate.
-->
@secularmerlin
Faith is an unconvincing argument. If that is all you have then no the existence of whatever god(s) you are proposing cannot be proven through debate.
The evidence for faith is undeniable. 2 billion Christians demonstrate it daily. The object of their faith is equally unequivocal if not unanimous.
-->
@Harikrish
Most people who call themselves Christian do it solely for the community. That goes for many other “religious people” as well. Not much thought has to go into it. It’s could blind faith.
-->
@Reece101
Most people who call themselves Christian do it solely for the community. That goes for many other “religious people” as well. Not much thought has to go into it. It’s could blind faith.
To call things "Christian" or that you have the "truth" is already delusion and ego bc you think you know better than "GOD" ... the creator of everything. Bc guess what.. i find beauty in suffering. And god created me too. You just have to deal with it.
-->
@Outplayz
To call things "Christian" or that you have the "truth" is already delusion and ego bc you think you know better than "GOD" ... the creator of everything. Bc guess what.. i find beauty in suffering. And god created me too. You just have to deal with it.
So God created you to find beauty in suffering? Is that a good thing?
As an atheist I know suffering to a degree is a necessity for us to grow. But I wouldn’t say I find beauty in it. That would just be sadistic.
-->
@Reece101
define suffering
-->
@Outplayz
@Reece101
Whether it be pain or thoughts, suffering is derived from internal data processing, just the same as any other functional process.
The stimulus might be either, externally applied or a self contained dysfunction.
I would suggest that it is more likely that it is the manifest of suffering that might be seen to have beauty, rather than the suffering itself.
Though perhaps beauty can be found in ones own suffering?
As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on.
-->
@zedvictor4
"just the same as any other functional process."
You say this so freely... same as "any function" ... so beautiful although that beauty has an extreme which is ugly on either end.
Human psychology is interesting to say it mildly but that's a digress. To me it's more amazing that it exists. Adding infinitely to that interest that an incorporeal word "god" exists as well. It's almost ironic.
As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on.
Who cares about the debate... really who cares about the "god" platform. If you understand an infinite possibility... whatever you call "you" is most important to that platform... whether spiritual or not that's even true. I'm just sad people are giving boundaries to these possibilities.
-->
@Outplayz
Yep.
What is care, other than an internal data process.
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether it be pain or thoughts, suffering is derived from internal data processing, just the same as any other functional process.The stimulus might be either, externally applied or a self contained dysfunction.I would suggest that it is more likely that it is the manifest of suffering that might be seen to have beauty, rather than the suffering itself.Though perhaps beauty can be found in ones own suffering?As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on.
Where would the beauty be in creating a world without suffering, where everyone was happy, right?
-->
@Reece101
Where would the beauty be in creating a world without suffering, where everyone was happy, right?
Meet some happy Indians.
Meet some happy Indians.
Indian women.
Indian men.
The Ultimate Reality is God.
If you say The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, you don't understand what that means.
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.If you say The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, you don't understand what that means.
If God is the Ultimate Reality then every religion is based on Ultimate Reality.
But we only struggle with Christianity which portrays the God of the Bible as a genocidal lunatic and his son Jesus a blasphemous liar and a lunatic who was crucified for his blasphemous lies. Is that an ultimate reality other religions can accept?
-->
@Harikrish
You don't know how we portray God. You were not even aware of The Orthodox Catholic Church until recently. If you do not know what we believe and teach, why do you make yourself an enemy of what you don't understand?
I could just as easily come at you and your faith with a superficial understanding while boldly making half informed and condemning assertations bereft of any charity. It is very easy. And if I were to do this, we would not ever come to a real dialog.
Now Christ is a mystery to you, but you condemn Him. In so doing, you condemn yourself, but you do not know. On the day that Christ is revealed, you will know.
-->
@Reece101
1 Corinthians 2:5 ESV
Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
***
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
-->
@PGA2.0
I have always been very clear about what evidence I will and will not accept. Scientifically testable and independently verifiable. If your 'evidence' does not this criterion then no manipulation is necessary to dismiss it and no amount of manipulation will render it valid.True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
-->
@secularmerlin
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?I have always been very clear about what evidence I will and will not accept. Scientifically testable and independently verifiable. If your 'evidence' does not this criterion then no manipulation is necessary to dismiss it and no amount of manipulation will render it valid.
Scientifically testable would eliminate origins. All science begins with logic. Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence? It appears so by your statement. Thus, it would be a waste discussing such evidence with you.
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: an outward sign: INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof: TESTIMONY specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview the evidence is more reasonable for the Christian worldview. I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview when you strip away the outer structure to get to the inner nuts and bolts of what holds it together.
For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance, why would you expect to see consistency and uniformity of nature? There is no reason. Strip your explanations back to the basics that it rides upon and there is no intent or purpose to such a universe, yet you consistently see it. In fact, uniformity of nature and consistency is something science is built upon.
1. Why should the past be the same as the present?
2. How do you know it is?
Answer: You presuppose it to be.
If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???
These one time events lack testability in the sense that you can't recreate them. All you can do is speculate about them (unless an omniscient God has revealed), form models based on your starting points, and operate on the assumption that the present is the key to the past.
-->
@PGA2.0
Scientifically testable would eliminate origins.
That's right we do not know our origins.
Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence?
the only evidence it is reasonable to accept is that which is independently verifiable. This is because logic is only efficacious if you have sufficient knowledge. In any case it is not reasonable or logical to accept a form of evidence which has been proven unreliable under laboratory conditions and testimonial evidence has been proven unreliable.
If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview
Atheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews.
I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Atheism is not an attempt to make sense of anything. Like avoltronism it is merely the lack of belief on a particular issue. Different atheists have different reasons for their beliefs.
For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance
This is, as it has always been, a straw man. I no more believe in chance than in fate. I believe in causation because it has been demonstrated. Fate, chance, divine intervention and freewill have not been demonstrated.
Strip your explanations back to the basics
What explanation are you referring to? I readily admit that I do not know our origins. To say otherwise is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. If for example I claimed that some omnipotent being had created the entire vastness of the universe for the sole purpose of using a tiny speck in one corner of a smallish galaxy as a testing ground for humans to see which of them get an eternal hallpass and which will get eternal detention that would be am argument from ignorance.
If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???
I do not look for purpose that is a fools errand. Instead I simply accept that in the absence of inherent purpose we must make our own. In any case it is not the concern of science to find purpose in our lives but only to explain the world around us to the best of our knowledge and based on the best availble evidence.
Ow did you want to talk about sciences best current cosmological models (which cannot explain the origin of the universe and do not claim to) or about the entirely separate topic of avoltronism.
-->
@Harikrish
Meet some happy Indians.Indian women.Indian men.
Meet some happy African men
-->
@PGA2.0
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
- Carl Sagan
An unbeliever doesn’t have to do that.
-->
@Reece101
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!...An unbeliever doesn’t have to do that.
What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?
-->
@PGA2.0
What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?
Not from what I’ve come across.
-->
@secularmerlin
Scientifically testable would eliminate origins.That's right we do not know our origins.
Then you can't trust science about how you got here. You have to rely on faith. The question is whether it is reasonable or blind?
Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence?the only evidence it is reasonable to accept is that which is independently verifiable. This is because logic is only efficacious if you have sufficient knowledge. In any case it is not reasonable or logical to accept a form of evidence which has been proven unreliable under laboratory conditions and testimonial evidence has been proven unreliable.
How do you independently verify origins?
Again, you are here because of only a few possibilities of origins. Either a mindful Being is responsible or some illogical, unreasoning chance happenstance is irresponsible, or you are living an illusion. Maybe you have another possibility?
With a mindful being, you have intent and purpose.
With chance happenstance, you have neither. If that is your scenario, why are you looking for evidence? Why do you want some? Why would there be any?
Furthermore, why is logic, an abstract, possible if all we are is matter? How do you get the intangible from something that is only tangible?
You first have to start with a necessary belief or truth to prove any other belief. Logic is such a necessary belief. Scientism is not.
If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldviewAtheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews.
Yes, it is. It has the same basis any other belief system has. It tries to answer life's ultimate or basic questions such as why are we here? What or who are we, what does it matter, and what happens to us when we die.
I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldviewThis is exactly what I'm talking about. Atheism is not an attempt to make sense of anything. Like avoltronism it is merely the lack of belief on a particular issue. Different atheists have different reasons for their beliefs.
Sure it is or else you hold to no beliefs at all that makes sense. Atheism is a transfer of beliefs about existence, life's most important questions. Although you may have different beliefs you hold to a universe that is uncreated or a belief that is unsure of whether it is created but you chose to believe it is not. That in itself is a belief. No worldview hold exactly the same beliefs about all things or else we would be omniscient beings, which we are not.
For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstanceThis is, as it has always been, a straw man. I no more believe in chance than in fate. I believe in causation because it has been demonstrated. Fate, chance, divine intervention and freewill have not been demonstrated.
There are only a few possibilities for why we exist. How you look at existence shapes how you look at everything else.
There is reasonable evidence for Christianity.
-->
@secularmerlin
Strip your explanations back to the basicsWhat explanation are you referring to? I readily admit that I do not know our origins. To say otherwise is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. If for example I claimed that some omnipotent being had created the entire vastness of the universe for the sole purpose of using a tiny speck in one corner of a smallish galaxy as a testing ground for humans to see which of them get an eternal hallpass and which will get eternal detention that would be am argument from ignorance.
What explanation? Your core beliefs. The origins of what everything else you believe rests upon. If you believe there is no God you are going to live your life differently from someone else who does. You are going to believe that perhaps you frame your own destiny or you decide what is true and what is false (relativism). The problem is without God you are going to live a life that is inconsistent with that belief. You are going to continually borrow from the Christian framework.
As imperfect limited beings, we are all ignorant of something. The Bible claims to be the revelation of the one true God. Now, for your benefit, IF this God is real and true there is an ultimate meaning to life and a reason why we sin/do evil, why we die. Without such a loving, caring God who sustains this universe, the question becomes why is it sustained? Why is the past and present uniform? What meaning is there ultimately. Why are you making meaning up if it doesn't ultimately matter? Again, inconsistency.
If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???I do not look for purpose that is a fools errand. Instead I simply accept that in the absence of inherent purpose we must make our own. In any case it is not the concern of science to find purpose in our lives but only to explain the world around us to the best of our knowledge and based on the best availbleevidence.
A fool's errand is to ignore (be ignorant of) the purpose.
Evidence comes with biases and limited conceptions unless God has revealed it. We interpret data. Without God, it does not come already interpreted. Where you start is where you usually end up unless someone questions the reliability of that interpretation. You, as an atheist, will look for evidence that confirms and supports your worldview. You will attempt to translate everything apart from God.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, although many believe it is blind because they do not trust God's word and have not latched onto the comfort and sensibility of faith in Him.
If you don't believe He exists you will not believe what He says, no matter how reasonable the evidence is. You will try to justify your belief no matter how inconsistent it is with real-life living.
Ow did you want to talk about sciences best current cosmological models (which cannot explain the origin of the universe and do not claim to) or about the entirely separate topic of avoltronism.
I have no idea what avoltronism means.
-->
@Reece101
What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?Not from what I’ve come across.
So, does that mean you are not a believer in God?
-->
@PGA2.0
So, does that mean you are not a believer in God?
No. Why do I feel like it’s a trick question.
-->
@Reece101
So, does that mean you are not a believer in God?No. Why do I feel like it’s a trick question.
It is not a trick question, just a hunch since when you quoted "Corinthians 2:5" you never stated 1st or 2nd Corinthians.
Also your analogy of a dragon and God. There is plenty of evidence for God.
In making sense of anything I begin with God as the reason. If this is God's creation and He has revealed Himself then we must think God's thoughts after Him to make sense of any of it. And we make sense of it when we look to Him first.
-->
@PGA2.0
It is not a trick question, just a hunch since when you quoted "Corinthians 2:5" you never stated 1st or 2nd Corinthians.Also your analogy of a dragon and God. There is plenty of evidence for God.In making sense of anything I begin with God as the reason. If this is God's creation and He has revealed Himself then we must think God's thoughts after Him to make sense of any of it. And we make sense of it when we look to Him first.
Have you heard what begging the question is? It’s when the premise(s) that is meant to support an argument already assumes that the conclusion is true. If you start from a place where the conclusion being argued is already assumed true, then you're not really making an argument at all. There is no supporting evidence.