2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke'God exists.'
'God exists.'
The above declaration is neither true or a fact (brute or otherwise).
For a Christian the existence of God may feel like a fact, like a truth, but this assurity is built upon a foundation of faith, a faith that doesn't require compelling and tangible evidence.'
Well I sorry, but a truth, a fact, does require compelling and tangible evidence and can not be considered as such until it is provided.
-----------------------
The reason God is not real to you is because your unforgiven sins have caused an insulation and barrier between your comatose human spirit and the Spirit of God. Essentially part of your being is dead or deadened.
You are created a three dimensional being and you currently are only functioning on two of these three dimensions.
I am sure of it.
I have no doubt about it because I know what it is like.
The above declaration is neither true or a fact (brute or otherwise).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that you do not have a direct substantiation of God's existence and that for you all you can say is "Where's God? I know nothing of God."
I am sure of it.
I have had the experience.
5 edits
Cont. for Ghost
For a Christian the existence of God may feel like a fact, like a truth, but this assurity is built upon a foundation of faith, a faith that doesn't require compelling and tangible evidence.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nonsense.
It is true that not every "feeling" of God may necessarily be that of God.
It is true that there is faith and there is something I call presumption.
The Bible shows many, many instances in which presumption was substituted instead of substantiating faith.
So I am not arguing that any and every feeling is truly spiritual. That does not mean there is no feeling of the truly spiritual and of God's presence.
Furthermore, as the Christian grows he learns to do something akin to flying an airplane with zero visibility, using radar. God Himself weans the growing son off of pure feeling. And eventually we learn to walk apart from any feeling but on His word alone.
I am positive of this too. As a ,matter of fact in the last 24 hours I myself had such a lesson with my God.
Well I sorry, but a truth, a fact, does require compelling and tangible evidence and can not be considered as such until it is provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is evidence for the existence of God. Evidence however is not persuasion.
In the western world that last world class defender of Atheism , Anthony Flew, finally decided that he would move from that position to a Deist position. The evidence that convinced him was DNA and biological design.
No, his change of mind was not because he was getting old and was concerned with salvation, according to him. His change of mind was because he said evidence not known by Darwin or some of the Atheists of the past was now available to him.
Anthony Flew forsook Atheism for a non-personal intelligent Creator. He took an essentially Deistic position much like that of Thomas Jefferson or Albert Einstein.
It is a step in the right direction. I applaud that he had the courage to change his mind after umpteen books strongly espousing Atheism.
You don't have to be "sorry" except maybe for your own Atheism position.
"Theology and Falsification" - author Anthony Flew, debater with C.S. Lewis
abandons Atheism for a Deistic Intelligent Creator -
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay lazybones, look at page 13. It took less than a minute for me to find it and hoo boy, am I exhausted! But my diligence paid off, even though it's 60 seconds of my life I'll never get back. 😞
From you dodge I take it that you have nothing to back up what you said. Noted.
You said you were still waiting for an answer to your Leviticus question. Sonship said he didn't know where it was and Fetchhisjunk said it was at the bottom of page 7. He also said (I'm paraphrasing) it was your get out of jail free card whenever you run into trouble debating (religionists). I can believe that, because you pulled the same stunt when you and I were wrangling over some science theories. And no, I can't be bothered to find a link for you... because I'm almost as lazy as you.
almost
Originally posted by lemon limeSo in your diligence, did you confirm that between the time I first quoted it and page 13, Leviticus is never mentioned?
Okay lazybones, look at page 13. It took less than a minute for me to find it and hoo boy, am I exhausted! But my diligence paid off, even though it's 60 seconds of my life I'll never get back. 😞
You said you were still waiting for an answer to your Leviticus question.
No, actually, I didn't. It would appear you were not as diligent as you pretend.
Sonship said he didn't know where it was ....
Which I found interesting. Then you jumped in and made a fool of yourself. And sonship isn't going to thank you because he is hoping the incident will be forgotten.
Originally posted by sonshipSorry to pick up on only part of your reply, but this sentence in particular was of interest:
Cont. for Ghost
[b]
For a Christian the existence of God may feel like a fact, like a truth, but this assurity is built upon a foundation of faith, a faith that doesn't require compelling and tangible evidence.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nonsense.
It is true t ...[text shortened]... ons Atheism for a Deistic Intelligent Creator -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbKsIAib5YM[/b]
"There is evidence for the existence of God. Evidence however is not persuasion."
Firstly I would like to hear what this evidence is, and secondly, if it does indeed qualify as evidence, why wouldn't it be persuasive?
Everything I believe in has been validated by evidence that I have been persuaded by. Why wouldn't this be the case for God?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou said you were still waiting for an answer to your Leviticus question.
So in your diligence, did you confirm that between the time I first quoted it and page 13, Leviticus is never mentioned?
[b]You said you were still waiting for an answer to your Leviticus question.
No, actually, I didn't. It would appear you were not as diligent as you pretend.
Sonship said he didn't know where it was ....
Which I found ...[text shortened]... rself. And sonship isn't going to thank you because he is hoping the incident will be forgotten.[/b]
No, actually, I didn't. It would appear you were not as diligent as you pretend.
Okay, so what Bible verse were you referring to? You weren't specific as to what the verse was, so I assumed it was the only Bible verse you had quoted (in this thread). Your exact words were:
P.S. I am still waiting for a response to the Bible verse..........
Splitting hairs won't get you off the hook, and neither will your question about whether or not Leviticus is mentioned between pages 7 and 13.
You wouldn't be trying to keep me busy with irrelevant searches now, would you.... ?
Of course you would!
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy the way, a few here have alluded to (without pointedly pointing out) the elephant in the room. This is what you said before quoting Leviticus:
So in your diligence, did you confirm that between the time I first quoted it and page 13, Leviticus is never mentioned?
[b]You said you were still waiting for an answer to your Leviticus question.
No, actually, I didn't. It would appear you were not as diligent as you pretend.
Sonship said he didn't know where it was ....
Which I found ...[text shortened]... rself. And sonship isn't going to thank you because he is hoping the incident will be forgotten.[/b]
I believe you are a Christian. Do you therefore believe that anyone who blasphemes should be put to death?
• Are you aware that there weren't any Christians at that time?
• Are you aware of how God came up with new covenants with men because they couldn't seem to abide by previous contracts?
• Are you aware that when Yeshua came and died it created a final covenant (contract) with man?
You won't have much success arguing against Biblical doctrine with people who understand Biblical doctrine if your approach to Biblical doctrine is so simple as to be completely irrelevant... in other words, you should stick with what you know.
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, I notice that you assumed it based on your foreknowledge of the verse on page 7, but the funny thing, is how did sonship assume it?
Okay, so what Bible verse were you referring to? You weren't specific as to what the verse was, so I assumed it was the only Bible verse you had quoted (in this thread).
Your exact words were:
P.S. I am still waiting for a response to the Bible verse..........
Yet what you said in the post above was:
You said you were still waiting for an answer to your Leviticus question.
Since we are discussing how sonship knew that Levicticus was being asked about, it seems your rewording of what I actually said is dishonest.
Splitting hairs won't get you off the hook,
But what 'hook' am I on? You suggested that someone had mentioned Leviticus earlier in the thread. I suggested that if you really knew that you would have provided evidence. You did not. I don't think that is 'splitting hairs' nor do I think I am on a hook to begin with.
You wouldn't be trying to keep me busy with irrelevant searches now, would you.... ?
I never asked you to search for anything. You claimed "Obviously someone brought up the fact that you had referred to the book of Leviticus." I merely pointed out that you did not actually know this to be the case despite claiming it was 'obvious' and your subsequent attempt to justify your 'obvious' claim has clearly failed because you did an exhaustive search and found nothing, so instead chose to lie.
Originally posted by lemon limeThe problem with jumping in the middle of a thread with the sole purpose of attacking someone you don't like, is you end up looking like a fool.
You won't have much success arguing against Biblical doctrine with people who understand Biblical doctrine if your approach to Biblical doctrine is so simple as to be completely irrelevant... in other words, you should stick with what you know.
If you go back and actually check the context in which I quoted the verse, you will understand.
I quoted the verse to demonstrate the importance of context. Interestingly you have responded by suggesting that context is important, yet you ignored the context in which I quoted the verse. Hilarious!
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Leviticus comment (page 7) had nothing to do with what had been said up to that point, so perhaps you can understand how anyone watching might interpret it as an act of desperation. If you had been arguing with no one else but other athiests I'm sure you would have had the sense to not try that particular diversion.
The problem with jumping in the middle of a thread with the sole purpose of attacking someone you don't like, is you end up looking like a fool.
If you go back and actually check the context in which I quoted the verse, you will understand.
I quoted the verse to demonstrate the importance of context. Interestingly you have responded by suggesting that context is important, yet you ignored the context in which I quoted the verse. Hilarious!
Originally posted by lemon limeYou just weren't paying attention.
The Leviticus comment (page 7) had nothing to do with what had been said up to that point,...
Fetchmyjunk had repeatedly quoted me out of context and even went as far as to say 'regardless of context'.
The very post in which the quote occurs, the quote appears right after the sentence 'Context matters.'.
Further, Fetchmyjunk said that anyone who quotes something to support their argument is necessarily agreeing to everything in the quote. Note my very next post in the thread where I point out the ridiculousness of this stance.
Now if you had any sort of decency you would now explain to Fetchmyjunk why context matters, and that he is wrong. But no, despite the three of you all holding different positions in this thread, you never ever say anything negative to each other and instead attack me because I am an atheist. Not because you genuinely think I am wrong about what a 'fact' is or what the correct English usage of the word 'truth' is or whether or not I contradicted myself when quoting a dictionary. None of you cares about the truth.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPffffft...
You just weren't paying attention.
Fetchmyjunk had repeatedly quoted me out of context and even went as far as to say 'regardless of context'.
The very post in which the quote occurs, the quote appears right after the sentence 'Context matters.'.
Further, Fetchmyjunk said that anyone who quotes something to support their argument is necessarily a ...[text shortened]... ether or not I contradicted myself when quoting a dictionary. None of you cares about the truth.
You assumed I jumped into the middle of this for the sole purpose of arguing with someone I don't like. If you are able to indulge yoursef in spurious speculation and assume your guesses are true, there is no reason for me to believe you won't play fast and loose with anything I say. The discussion centered mostly around Facts and Truth, and regardless of what has been said about these it's apparent you have very little regard for either.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have yet to provide a context where "facts are not true". The definition that I quoted was yours. I quoted it within the context of this discussion. How did I quote you out of context? In which context was I supposed to quote you? All you have to do is provide an example of a context where facts are not true as you claimed. We are 19 pages into this thread and you have failed to do so. Whenever you are cornered you just make up another red herring so you don't have to admit that you were wrong. (About a number of things.)
You just weren't paying attention.
Fetchmyjunk had repeatedly quoted me out of context and even went as far as to say 'regardless of context'.
The very post in which the quote occurs, the quote appears right after the sentence 'Context matters.'.
Further, Fetchmyjunk said that anyone who quotes something to support their argument is necessarily a ...[text shortened]... ether or not I contradicted myself when quoting a dictionary. None of you cares about the truth.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, I have to pick up on this.
Further, Fetchmyjunk said that anyone who quotes something to support their argument is necessarily agreeing to everything in the quote. Note my very next post in the thread where I point out the ridiculousness of this stance.
In my Jainist thread I linked to a site in my OP to provide further info about the subject I was discussing, and you took great delight in highlighting a comment that didn't support my assertion that Jainists were not atheistic. (As they believed in a Perfect Being).
Why is it ridiculous for Fetchmyjunk to think you will agree with everything in your given quote, but not ridiculous for you to think I will agree with everything written on a site I linked to?
Originally posted by lemon limeIt was not an assumption. I have even presented evidence to support the claim:
You assumed I jumped into the middle of this for the sole purpose of arguing with someone I don't like.
1. your lies.
2. your failure to address your fellow theists even though they are clearly wrong.
If you are able to indulge yoursef in spurious speculation and assume your guesses are true, there is no reason for me to believe you won't play fast and loose with anything I say.
I am quite sure you have always expected me to 'play fast and loose with anything I say'. Butt do you have any actual evidence that I do?
The discussion centered mostly around Facts and Truth, and regardless of what has been said about these it's apparent you have very little regard for either.
So you have just jumped from 'there is no reason to believe you won't' to 'it's apparent'?
In what way is it apparent that I have little regard for either? Cite some evidence.
On second thoughts, don't bother, you will probably just lie about it like you did last time you tried to cite evidence.
And I note that you haven't admitted to lying about it, nor provided any real evidence.
And neither sonship nor Fetchmyjunk are thanking you for bringing up their errors yet again.