-
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.
2
Why don't you believe?
Would you say your unbelief is reasonable?
A finite mind can define and pass judgment on an infinite mind?
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or False?
Do worms gather around and decide who wins the nobel prize in physics?
Philosphy is silly science.
Would you say your unbelief is reasonable?
A finite mind can define and pass judgment on an infinite mind?
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or False?
Do worms gather around and decide who wins the nobel prize in physics?
Philosphy is silly science.
Last edited by a moderator:
1
I don't believe the positive claim that 'God(s) exist' because, in my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support that claim. In the same way, I don't believe the also positive claim that 'God(s) do not exist' because there is not enough evidence to support the claim. Both claims have the burden of proof because they are each making a positive claim.
Yes is it reasonable because I am using reason to come to it (explained above) and in reason the default position is dis-believe of both claims until they meet their burden. My standard of evidence is reasonable because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Can a finite mind can define and pass judgment on an infinite mind? You would need to demonstrate this infinite mind is at least possible before we can drew conclusions from it.
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or false? Through evidence, and by making and testing predictions. As mentioned above, my standard of evidence would be very high for a supernatural claim, and of course causation is very hard to prove.
Yes is it reasonable because I am using reason to come to it (explained above) and in reason the default position is dis-believe of both claims until they meet their burden. My standard of evidence is reasonable because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Can a finite mind can define and pass judgment on an infinite mind? You would need to demonstrate this infinite mind is at least possible before we can drew conclusions from it.
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or false? Through evidence, and by making and testing predictions. As mentioned above, my standard of evidence would be very high for a supernatural claim, and of course causation is very hard to prove.
S
Here is the Law for you 1daniel...
Ten Commandments:
1. Do not have other gods.
2. Do not make, neither worship an idol.
3. Do not take God's name in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie against your neighbor.
10. Do not covet someone else's property or belongings.
The two greatest commandments that sum up the whole Law:
1. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If you have broken a single command, you break them all (James 2:10). The wages of sin is death and eternal damnation. A single sin against an infinitely holy God deserves an infinite punishment. How many times have you sinned against God? How many times have you broken these commandments?
You will have to give an account for all of them before the great white throne if you do not turn from your sin and believe in Jesus. Claiming you 'didn't have enough evidence' isn't going to fly, you have everything around you to see there is a Maker. The bible is within reach for you to know this Maker, the holy and righteous Triune God. You are without excuse. You need Jesus, without Him you are about to get your just reward for your iniquity and transgression against the Holy One.
Ten Commandments:
1. Do not have other gods.
2. Do not make, neither worship an idol.
3. Do not take God's name in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie against your neighbor.
10. Do not covet someone else's property or belongings.
The two greatest commandments that sum up the whole Law:
1. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If you have broken a single command, you break them all (James 2:10). The wages of sin is death and eternal damnation. A single sin against an infinitely holy God deserves an infinite punishment. How many times have you sinned against God? How many times have you broken these commandments?
You will have to give an account for all of them before the great white throne if you do not turn from your sin and believe in Jesus. Claiming you 'didn't have enough evidence' isn't going to fly, you have everything around you to see there is a Maker. The bible is within reach for you to know this Maker, the holy and righteous Triune God. You are without excuse. You need Jesus, without Him you are about to get your just reward for your iniquity and transgression against the Holy One.
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you know that there is not enough evidence?
How do you know it is not self-evident?
a tautological argument?
What is your proof that you are using reason?
How do you know that using reason proves an argument is reasonable?
Do you claim that reasonable means true?
If so, what is the proof of that?
How do you know that is true?
What is your proof that
1) these are extraordianary claims and not ordinary?
2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?
How do you know that that statement is true?
If something is a brute fact like a nose on a face, does that require a demonstration of its possibility?
How do you know that a demo of possibility is essential to drawing conclusions?
How do you know that demos of possibility are possible?
How do you know that evidence enables you to judge truth?
How do you know that testing predictions enables you to judge truth?
How do you know that your standard should be very high?
Do you have a way to prove the highness of a proof?
How do you know it should be very high instead of moderately high?
How do you know that proof is possible?
How do you know that causation is very hard to prove?
Can you prove that all causations are very hard to prove and not merely moderately hard to prove?
How do you know it is not self-evident?
a tautological argument?
What is your proof that you are using reason?
How do you know that using reason proves an argument is reasonable?
Do you claim that reasonable means true?
If so, what is the proof of that?
How do you know that is true?
What is your proof that
1) these are extraordianary claims and not ordinary?
2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?
How do you know that that statement is true?
If something is a brute fact like a nose on a face, does that require a demonstration of its possibility?
How do you know that a demo of possibility is essential to drawing conclusions?
How do you know that demos of possibility are possible?
How do you know that evidence enables you to judge truth?
How do you know that testing predictions enables you to judge truth?
How do you know that your standard should be very high?
Do you have a way to prove the highness of a proof?
How do you know it should be very high instead of moderately high?
How do you know that proof is possible?
How do you know that causation is very hard to prove?
Can you prove that all causations are very hard to prove and not merely moderately hard to prove?
What is your proof that because we are discussing if it is indeed obvious & self-evident, that implies begging the question?
How do you know that the topic we are discussing is: if it is indeed obvious & self-evident ?
Did the thread start out saying the discussion was over whether it is self-evident?
How do you know that it is possible to discuss whether something is self-evident?
How do you know that axioms are not immediately affirmed or denied without discussion?
Do you mean by "discussion" trying to prove an axiom?
What then make you suppose that axioms are proven, instead of affirmed & used for proof?
If you proved an axiom, would that not destroy the axiom, making the proof the new axiom?
Are you in fact saying that there are no self-evident truths, and therefore all logical proof is fallacious? In which case do you reject the entire field of mathematics?
How do you know that the topic we are discussing is: if it is indeed obvious & self-evident ?
Did the thread start out saying the discussion was over whether it is self-evident?
How do you know that it is possible to discuss whether something is self-evident?
How do you know that axioms are not immediately affirmed or denied without discussion?
Do you mean by "discussion" trying to prove an axiom?
What then make you suppose that axioms are proven, instead of affirmed & used for proof?
If you proved an axiom, would that not destroy the axiom, making the proof the new axiom?
Are you in fact saying that there are no self-evident truths, and therefore all logical proof is fallacious? In which case do you reject the entire field of mathematics?
1) Can you conceive of the effect of theism on a life?
2) Can you conceive of the effect of a denial of theism on a life?
Does your position have a different effect on your life or is it the same as the 2nd?
How do you know what is important?
How do you know that if a claim meets its burden of proof that gives it importance?
2) Can you conceive of the effect of a denial of theism on a life?
Does your position have a different effect on your life or is it the same as the 2nd?
How do you know what is important?
How do you know that if a claim meets its burden of proof that gives it importance?
BACK TO SQUARE ONE. HERE IS "THE QUESTION":
I have some questions about God and why people believe, as follows:
What is the main reason you believe?
Would you say your beliefs are reasonable, i.e. your faith is grounded in reason and you have good reason to believe?
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or false?
Thanks in advance for any responses.
Note to mods: wasn't sure where the best place to post this was, so I chose the closes topic I could find.
I just thought it should be observed that the thread did not propose as a topic:
"Is it self-evident that God exists?"
Thus when i say it is self-evident that God exists, I am not begging the question. And I do not reason in a circle saying that this axiom is true because it is true. I am saying that it is self-evident, thus a starting point.
It really is not something we can argue about, because axioms don't have reasons or proofs; they are immediately obvious. Instead of arguing about it, all are urged to affirm it or deny it for themselves. You are unlikely to be intellectually arm-twisted into affirming an axiom. You see it for yourself or you do not.
I exist.
If A = B,
The A + C = B + C
What is the main reason you believe?
Would you say your beliefs are reasonable, i.e. your faith is grounded in reason and you have good reason to believe?
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or false?
Thanks in advance for any responses.
Note to mods: wasn't sure where the best place to post this was, so I chose the closes topic I could find.
I just thought it should be observed that the thread did not propose as a topic:
"Is it self-evident that God exists?"
Thus when i say it is self-evident that God exists, I am not begging the question. And I do not reason in a circle saying that this axiom is true because it is true. I am saying that it is self-evident, thus a starting point.
It really is not something we can argue about, because axioms don't have reasons or proofs; they are immediately obvious. Instead of arguing about it, all are urged to affirm it or deny it for themselves. You are unlikely to be intellectually arm-twisted into affirming an axiom. You see it for yourself or you do not.
I exist.
If A = B,
The A + C = B + C
Last edited:
FULFILLED PROPHECY
I am not in this thread relying on fulfilled prophecy for my apologetic. However, it is noted that the Bible itself offers this as evidence (see Isaiah 40-50 here & there). Some are persuaded by fulfilled prophecy. If one is interested in pursuing this line of evidence, one might start with reading Ps 22 and Isaiah 52-53 (the section on the suffering servant starts in 52). See if you are convicted that you are reading about the death/crucifixion of Christ written centuries before He was born.
I don't need fulfilled prophecy for an apologetic since it is immediately self-evident to me that the God of the Bible exists and that the Bible is God's Word. And I do not regard this primarily as a topic for argument but the responsibility of every individual to do his own homework, to seek the Lord while He may be found, to see if one can detect the presence of God directly. Since I immediately perceive God's presence even right now in my chair typing, I must believe in the obvious. He who doubts is invited to verify God's presence for himself rather than arguing it. A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Why waste time arguing here, when you can do your own validating. Be alone without distraction. Can you perceive God's presence, feel Him?
Read the Bible. Can you detect God speaking to you? Or does it seem like any ordinary book? Instead of debating, I invite the one who cares to do his own perceiving.
If we were to debate that the sky is blue, I would urge you to go outside and look.
I am not in this thread relying on fulfilled prophecy for my apologetic. However, it is noted that the Bible itself offers this as evidence (see Isaiah 40-50 here & there). Some are persuaded by fulfilled prophecy. If one is interested in pursuing this line of evidence, one might start with reading Ps 22 and Isaiah 52-53 (the section on the suffering servant starts in 52). See if you are convicted that you are reading about the death/crucifixion of Christ written centuries before He was born.
I don't need fulfilled prophecy for an apologetic since it is immediately self-evident to me that the God of the Bible exists and that the Bible is God's Word. And I do not regard this primarily as a topic for argument but the responsibility of every individual to do his own homework, to seek the Lord while He may be found, to see if one can detect the presence of God directly. Since I immediately perceive God's presence even right now in my chair typing, I must believe in the obvious. He who doubts is invited to verify God's presence for himself rather than arguing it. A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Why waste time arguing here, when you can do your own validating. Be alone without distraction. Can you perceive God's presence, feel Him?
Read the Bible. Can you detect God speaking to you? Or does it seem like any ordinary book? Instead of debating, I invite the one who cares to do his own perceiving.
If we were to debate that the sky is blue, I would urge you to go outside and look.
T
Good job Atwood. You solved the problem. When one begins to doubt the self evident, then all things, even the simplest, come into question.
God is indeed Lord of logic and reason as well, and whoever is gifted with those will not be broken. Convert a thinker, and you convert a thousand thinkers, I think. The entire book of Job is Reason 101, if any thinker considers one's self worthy.
God is indeed Lord of logic and reason as well, and whoever is gifted with those will not be broken. Convert a thinker, and you convert a thousand thinkers, I think. The entire book of Job is Reason 101, if any thinker considers one's self worthy.