-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Daniel, would you mind proving your assertions & implications?
How do you now that:
1) Pascal's Wager makes invalid theological assumptions?
2) Your rules for the argument to be convincing are valid?
3) a theologial argument must prove what you say?
4) a theological argument must disprove all other possibilities?
5) people lack a belief?
6) people lacking a belief can see the potential?
7) many believers are constrained by their view?
8) Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind P's W make any sense?
(Can you exclude all other possibilities aside from "this latter case"?)
How do you now that:
1) Pascal's Wager makes invalid theological assumptions?
2) Your rules for the argument to be convincing are valid?
3) a theologial argument must prove what you say?
4) a theological argument must disprove all other possibilities?
5) people lack a belief?
6) people lacking a belief can see the potential?
7) many believers are constrained by their view?
8) Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind P's W make any sense?
(Can you exclude all other possibilities aside from "this latter case"?)
Greetings Daniel,
Would you mind proving for us your claims?
How do you know that
1) He needs to demo this infinite mind is possible?
2) He needs to demo this infinite mind is at least possible?
(how do you know that the alleged need to demo is not at most possible?)
3) The need to demo is needed before drawing conclusions?
4) there is a need to demo?
5) He will suffer a deficit (need) from the lack of a demo?
6) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
7) a claim about God is extraordinary instead of hum drum?
8) How do you know your standard of judgment is correct?
9) causation is very hard to prove?
10) supernatural claims are extraordinary instead of ordinary?
11) your standard should be very high?
Can you really prove any of that or is it all assumption/unproven opinion?
Would you mind proving for us your claims?
How do you know that
1) He needs to demo this infinite mind is possible?
2) He needs to demo this infinite mind is at least possible?
(how do you know that the alleged need to demo is not at most possible?)
3) The need to demo is needed before drawing conclusions?
4) there is a need to demo?
5) He will suffer a deficit (need) from the lack of a demo?
6) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
7) a claim about God is extraordinary instead of hum drum?
8) How do you know your standard of judgment is correct?
9) causation is very hard to prove?
10) supernatural claims are extraordinary instead of ordinary?
11) your standard should be very high?
Can you really prove any of that or is it all assumption/unproven opinion?
1
Hey Atwood,
I get it, you don't need to ask the same question about everything I say; I can't explain the whole of philosophy and logic on this forum. Reason has been work out over hundreds of years, and philosophers have developed an understanding of what constitutes good and bad reasoning, I am just applying this understanding here.
For example, when someone makes an argument and uses an incorrect form such as circular reasoning, logic tells us that the conclusion they draw may be incorrect.
I get it, you don't need to ask the same question about everything I say; I can't explain the whole of philosophy and logic on this forum. Reason has been work out over hundreds of years, and philosophers have developed an understanding of what constitutes good and bad reasoning, I am just applying this understanding here.
For example, when someone makes an argument and uses an incorrect form such as circular reasoning, logic tells us that the conclusion they draw may be incorrect.
and in reason the default position is dis-believe of both claims until they meet their burden.
How do you know that is true?
Daniel, what does "my reasoning" have to do with you proving your assertions?
Again, How do you know that is true? Or do you retract?
So you retract?
What is your proof that "you can't prove a negative"? How do you know that is true?
How do you know that your logical fallacy is a logical fallacy?
How do you know that the article you posted is infallible?
How do you know that it is generally true?
How do you know that axioms have a burden of proof?
How do you know that to say an axiom has a burden of proof is not an oxymoron?
What is your proof that axioms have burdens of proof?
What is your proof for your assertion that God(s) exist' has not met its burden of proof ?
How do you know that "God(s) exist" needs proof?
How do you know that we don't know if it is even possible?
What is your proof of that?
If you don't know if it is even possible,
what is your proof that this is one of the strikes against belief?
I think that you will realize after a while, that you don't have proof for much of anything you assert here.
So tell me, can you affirm the two axioms for yourself
(Is not the argument futile for something you must affirm or deny for yourself, like every axiom?)
1) Axiom 1: The God of the Bible exists.
2) Axiom 2: The Bible is the Word of God.
3) Axiom 3: "I exist"
4) Axiom 4: If A = B, then A + C = B + C.
Try to affirm or deny for yourself directly; let me know how it comes out for you.
1
Come on guys, please decide whether you are using reason in this forum or arguing from personal revelation. Going back and forth between them is just hurting your case.
Atwood, please stop spam posting, I understand you are trying to make a point and I have already responded, just posting essentially the same message over and over is not helping the discussion.
Atwood, please stop spam posting, I understand you are trying to make a point and I have already responded, just posting essentially the same message over and over is not helping the discussion.
You Must Affirm God's Existence for Yourself
I don't think anyone is going to twist your philosophical arm into it.
Convinced against his will,
he is of the same opinion still.
But you can affirm the obvious & self-evident for yourself:
Consider what the Word of God says, as given by prophet Paul on the Areopagus:
"The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth . . .
made of one every nation of men . . . that
they should seek God, if haply
they might feel after him and find him,
though he is not far from each one of us:
for in him we live, and move, and have our being;"
Can you affirm this for yourself?
The reason why I believe in God is because I directly sense his being and presence.
Can you?
I don't think anyone is going to twist your philosophical arm into it.
Convinced against his will,
he is of the same opinion still.
But you can affirm the obvious & self-evident for yourself:
Consider what the Word of God says, as given by prophet Paul on the Areopagus:
"The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth . . .
made of one every nation of men . . . that
they should seek God, if haply
they might feel after him and find him,
though he is not far from each one of us:
for in him we live, and move, and have our being;"
Can you affirm this for yourself?
The reason why I believe in God is because I directly sense his being and presence.
Can you?
Last edited:
Daniel, so you can see that you have made many assertions and implications for which you have given no proof. But you don't really expect us to believe them just because you say them, do you?
You were not asked to explain the whole of philosophy and logic, just to prove your assertions.
(Now you aren't trying to claim the whole of philosophy & logic as yourself, are you?)
How do you know that
1) Reason has been work out?
2) Reason has been work out over 100's of yrs?
3) philosophers have developed a true understanding
(instead of being embroiled in disputes with each other,
as with Wittgenstein's poker.)
4) You may validly claim to tag on the great philosophers' understanding,
5) You are just applying this understanding here,
6) Said understanding is monolithic and undisputable?
7) Who is logic to tell us something?
8) a particular form is incorrect?
9) circular reasoning is incorrect?
10) the subject is best conceived of in binary terms (correct vs incorrect), rather than on a scale of say 0-10 in correctness, 5 being half right?
Would you accept this argument:
"Daniel, you are wrong, & I am right because of 100's of years of great theologians have worked it all out, & they say so & endorse my POV."
Do you really have any proof other than you think so or you say "the entirety of logic and philosophy is monolithic and infallible and it endorses me" -- then you quote the endorsement?
Can you admit you have no proof of anything?
You were not asked to explain the whole of philosophy and logic, just to prove your assertions.
(Now you aren't trying to claim the whole of philosophy & logic as yourself, are you?)
How do you know that
1) Reason has been work out?
2) Reason has been work out over 100's of yrs?
3) philosophers have developed a true understanding
(instead of being embroiled in disputes with each other,
as with Wittgenstein's poker.)
4) You may validly claim to tag on the great philosophers' understanding,
5) You are just applying this understanding here,
6) Said understanding is monolithic and undisputable?
7) Who is logic to tell us something?
8) a particular form is incorrect?
9) circular reasoning is incorrect?
10) the subject is best conceived of in binary terms (correct vs incorrect), rather than on a scale of say 0-10 in correctness, 5 being half right?
Would you accept this argument:
"Daniel, you are wrong, & I am right because of 100's of years of great theologians have worked it all out, & they say so & endorse my POV."
Do you really have any proof other than you think so or you say "the entirety of logic and philosophy is monolithic and infallible and it endorses me" -- then you quote the endorsement?
Can you admit you have no proof of anything?
Last edited:
I may challenge any assertion you make without proof. If you continue to make the same assertions again without proof, you can expect another challenge. Will you keep spamming your unproven assertions?
What is wrong with that demanding proof? If you make an assertion or an implication, should not your feet be held to the fire for proof? Or just admit you have not proof for your claims. But then why make the claims? Don't you realize that Christians like to have sufficient evidence for their convictions? Now you may wish you could control what others post, but it is not likely here.
I suggest that you start proving everything or retracting and refraining.
What is wrong with that demanding proof? If you make an assertion or an implication, should not your feet be held to the fire for proof? Or just admit you have not proof for your claims. But then why make the claims? Don't you realize that Christians like to have sufficient evidence for their convictions? Now you may wish you could control what others post, but it is not likely here.
I suggest that you start proving everything or retracting and refraining.
Since you are unsure, I would suggest looking into the the prophecies in the Scriptures. There is a Biblical timeline that will convince most that God is orchestrating history. There are just to many things that happened on certain dates to be coincidence. If you are interested I can supply some links to some audios that explain this in detail.
Sorry to keep you waiting for a response, 1daniel.
I look at the flowers, trees, plants, with their great variety and complexity, at the effect of the moon upon the tides, the balance of natural things, the working of the human body: the channels within the nose which warm the incoming air before it reaches the lungs, finger prints (not one the same), snow flake structures (each one unique), new birth etc., and I know that it is the work of a superintending power.
When I had a watch with moving parts, and took the back off it, it was found to be a masterpiece of wheels and parts, perfectly balanced to tell the time of day, I did not doubt that it had a maker, and gave him the glory due. Why should I do any less for the maker if heaven and earth and everthing therein?
I give glory where it is due.
I hope that helps.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
I look at the flowers, trees, plants, with their great variety and complexity, at the effect of the moon upon the tides, the balance of natural things, the working of the human body: the channels within the nose which warm the incoming air before it reaches the lungs, finger prints (not one the same), snow flake structures (each one unique), new birth etc., and I know that it is the work of a superintending power.
When I had a watch with moving parts, and took the back off it, it was found to be a masterpiece of wheels and parts, perfectly balanced to tell the time of day, I did not doubt that it had a maker, and gave him the glory due. Why should I do any less for the maker if heaven and earth and everthing therein?
I give glory where it is due.
I hope that helps.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
The spiritual understanding and the worldly understanding are two separate ways of seeing, but with spiritual understanding you can see how the world can reflect the spiritual.
You can look at the Grand Canyon as a way water affects earth, or you can see it as a reflection of the spiritual wonder of the grandeur and beauty of God.
You can have a child, and go to books on how the body works to understand, or you can see it as the start of life that no man can create without God.
You can go to history and see how we developed. Will and Ariel Durant did that and they wrote the Story of Civilization in many volumes. Will was an ex priest, and an agnostic when he started. When he died he had said that no one could study the development of the world and deny God.
A study of the people God called the chosen, from the time of creation until 2014 is proof. They are a unique people and were without a country for about 2,000 years yet did not assimilate. Yet many people, all through the ages and even now, see them as a people to eliminate and not with the spiritual eyes God can give us. There were and are many Hitlers.
There are many places and ways to see God, but anyone who hasn't had God open their spiritual way of seeing are blind to those ways.
You can look at the Grand Canyon as a way water affects earth, or you can see it as a reflection of the spiritual wonder of the grandeur and beauty of God.
You can have a child, and go to books on how the body works to understand, or you can see it as the start of life that no man can create without God.
You can go to history and see how we developed. Will and Ariel Durant did that and they wrote the Story of Civilization in many volumes. Will was an ex priest, and an agnostic when he started. When he died he had said that no one could study the development of the world and deny God.
A study of the people God called the chosen, from the time of creation until 2014 is proof. They are a unique people and were without a country for about 2,000 years yet did not assimilate. Yet many people, all through the ages and even now, see them as a people to eliminate and not with the spiritual eyes God can give us. There were and are many Hitlers.
There are many places and ways to see God, but anyone who hasn't had God open their spiritual way of seeing are blind to those ways.
I have studied some philosophy, but I just put away all my philosophy and apologetic books in order to move. I think there are some wonderful, elaborate reasons why God exists, and cares for us, but I prefer to share my own experience, which has great meaning for me, and has lasted 34 years.
I had a lot of people praying for me to believe, and also witnessing to me. But I did not believe. I was in college, taking science, esp. biology, geography and geology, and I saw a lot of weak arguments for evolution. Like in biology, they told us they date the plants by the rocks. In geology, they told the students they date the rocks by the plants. Some strange circular reasoning, which even as a young person didn't work for me.
Then I ran into quite a few books on evolution vs creation. They lead me to the conclusion that creation was the best paradigm for the reason for the existence for both the earth and the universe. But who was the creator?
So I started with reason, and ran into a DEAD END! Because God requires much more than reason, he requires faith. Faith is defined like this:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
That was something as someone who was UNSURE about faith didn't help me much! And I think it is great that as an UNSURE person, the OP is posting and asking questions.
So for about a year, I searched for who the creator was. I had read the books of many of the world's religions and cults, and they offered no answers for me. So I decided to buy a modern translation of the Bible, and started reading.
Only, I didn't get it! Not at all! I just kept circling things and putting question marks in the margins. The Bible did not seem reasonable and it made no sense.
I gave my testimony elsewhere, but eventually, through the prayers and sharing the gospel by many people, God revealed himself to me and called me to be his child. Now that is not reasonable, but that is the truth! I realized that Jesus Christ was "the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6
I picked up the Bible I had been reading, and it suddenly made sense. I started erasing all the circles and question marks. I had met the Author of the book. Not reasonable, to someone who is unsure, but the truth!
So 34 years later, I am still serving God. The amazing thing, is how he has changed and transformed me into a loving, gentle and kind person, from the very angry, controlling, and selfish person I was. I know that would not have happened without the power of the Holy Spirit working in my heart and life. That is the power of God! And really, the most amazing and reasonable thing, that I never knew about or expected when I first met the Lord.
"Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2
The word "transformed" here is in the imperative passive tense in the original Greek. It means we are commanded to be changed, but it is God that does the changing - and that starts the moment we meet God and he justifies us. Really, it is another illogical paradox.
"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt 19:26
So you can talk about reason, logic, philosophy and apologetics all you want. In the end, it all comes back to God! And unless you are a Christian, that is never going to be reasonable, is it?
Praying for God to reveal himself to you!
I had a lot of people praying for me to believe, and also witnessing to me. But I did not believe. I was in college, taking science, esp. biology, geography and geology, and I saw a lot of weak arguments for evolution. Like in biology, they told us they date the plants by the rocks. In geology, they told the students they date the rocks by the plants. Some strange circular reasoning, which even as a young person didn't work for me.
Then I ran into quite a few books on evolution vs creation. They lead me to the conclusion that creation was the best paradigm for the reason for the existence for both the earth and the universe. But who was the creator?
So I started with reason, and ran into a DEAD END! Because God requires much more than reason, he requires faith. Faith is defined like this:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
That was something as someone who was UNSURE about faith didn't help me much! And I think it is great that as an UNSURE person, the OP is posting and asking questions.
So for about a year, I searched for who the creator was. I had read the books of many of the world's religions and cults, and they offered no answers for me. So I decided to buy a modern translation of the Bible, and started reading.
Only, I didn't get it! Not at all! I just kept circling things and putting question marks in the margins. The Bible did not seem reasonable and it made no sense.
I gave my testimony elsewhere, but eventually, through the prayers and sharing the gospel by many people, God revealed himself to me and called me to be his child. Now that is not reasonable, but that is the truth! I realized that Jesus Christ was "the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6
I picked up the Bible I had been reading, and it suddenly made sense. I started erasing all the circles and question marks. I had met the Author of the book. Not reasonable, to someone who is unsure, but the truth!
So 34 years later, I am still serving God. The amazing thing, is how he has changed and transformed me into a loving, gentle and kind person, from the very angry, controlling, and selfish person I was. I know that would not have happened without the power of the Holy Spirit working in my heart and life. That is the power of God! And really, the most amazing and reasonable thing, that I never knew about or expected when I first met the Lord.
"Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2
The word "transformed" here is in the imperative passive tense in the original Greek. It means we are commanded to be changed, but it is God that does the changing - and that starts the moment we meet God and he justifies us. Really, it is another illogical paradox.
"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt 19:26
So you can talk about reason, logic, philosophy and apologetics all you want. In the end, it all comes back to God! And unless you are a Christian, that is never going to be reasonable, is it?
Praying for God to reveal himself to you!
Great testimony, Angela. I surely was blessed by reading it.
Now IMHO Heb 11:1 no more defines pistis (faith) than "God is love" defines love. Here is my take on it, and pardon me for digressing even where you did not go on this.
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις,
Faith is the reality of things hoped for;
in other words, faith makes things we hope for real.
Objective Faith = pistis = being convinced that something is so. Subjective faith = pistis = trust in, confidence in, dependence on.
Of course not "belief without evidence," as the English word is often distorted to mean. In fact one meaning of pistis is proof.
For me, proper objective faith (is not gullibility or credulity, but it) is the conviction that something is so based on the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident.
Proper subjective faith is trusting the Lord Jesus.
Now IMHO Heb 11:1 no more defines pistis (faith) than "God is love" defines love. Here is my take on it, and pardon me for digressing even where you did not go on this.
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις,
Faith is the reality of things hoped for;
in other words, faith makes things we hope for real.
Objective Faith = pistis = being convinced that something is so. Subjective faith = pistis = trust in, confidence in, dependence on.
Of course not "belief without evidence," as the English word is often distorted to mean. In fact one meaning of pistis is proof.
For me, proper objective faith (is not gullibility or credulity, but it) is the conviction that something is so based on the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident.
Proper subjective faith is trusting the Lord Jesus.