Three Rhetorical Questions

Originally posted by FMF
But isn't this OP seeking people's opinions?

And isn't your suggestion that Shallow Blue's reply is "shallow" just your own biased opinion too?

Do you understand the difference between opinions, beliefs and convictions?

Originally posted by FMF
This is pretty much what happened to me.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
2)Do you realize that the lifelong process of learning often requires an implicit experience of unlearning and the letting go of facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error?

"This is pretty much what happened to me."

What? Did you unlearn the truth and facts, and retain the fiction and error? How do you know the difference?

Originally posted by josephw
Unquantifiable conjecture.

But true nonetheless.

That question does nothing to contribute to the thread OP questions.
I never claimed it did. Does it make you uncomfortable?

Delusional science says it has.
What is 'delusional science'?

Truth is, science hasn't even begun to discover all there is to know.
Again, I never claimed it did. Nevertheless it has begun to discover some of what there is to know.

How can you possibly believe that science has any knowledge of what happens after we die?
One does not need to know everything to know something (you falsely imply otherwise). I believe science has some knowledge of what happens after we die because I know some of the relevant science (you obviously don't, but that doesn't mean that you know I don't).

Originally posted by josephw
Isn't the declaration "there is no God", based on the idea that there is no evidence, really just opening one's mouth about something they don't know to be true or false because that knowledge may exist in the realm of the unknown for them?

Yes, that is so. For that reason you won't find very many educated people declaring 'there is no God' merely due to lack of evidence.
I for one declare 'there is no God as described in the Bible' because there is good evidence that such a god does not exist, not due to a mere lack of evidence.
I do not rule out any possible god, largely because the term is so loosely defined.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you understand the difference between opinions, beliefs and convictions?

This doesn't address either of the questions I put to you in response to what you said to Shallow Blue.

Originally posted by josephw
What? Did you unlearn the truth and facts, and retain the fiction and error? How do you know the difference?

I believe that my "lifelong process of learning" has required me to undergo and experience "unlearning" in order to let go of what I came to realize were "facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error", by which, of course, I am referring to me shedding my Christian ideology and thus becoming a non-Christian/former Christian. But then you know full well that this is my perspective, don't you? We have discussed it many times.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, that is so. For that reason you won't find very many educated people declaring 'there is no God' merely due to lack of evidence.
I for one declare 'there is no God as described in the Bible' because there is good evidence that such a god does not exist, not due to a mere lack of evidence.
I do not rule out any possible god, largely because the term is so loosely defined.

"...because there is good evidence that such a god does not exist,..

I think it is a poor rationale to think that evidence exists for something that doesn't exist. I can't imagine how one would find such evidence. On the other hand, it seems only logical that only the evidence for the existence of something that exists, exists.

The only thing one can rationally say is that they don't believe evidence exists for the existence of God.

Originally posted by FMF
This doesn't address either of the questions I put to you in response to what you said to Shallow Blue.

True, but I don't want to get bogged down about what I said to Shallow Blue with you. I'd rather discuss what I said to him, with him.

Originally posted by josephw

I think it is a poor rationale to think that evidence exists for something that doesn't exist. I can't imagine how one would find such evidence...

Many would view the existence of evil in the world (especially evil not caused by man) as evidence that God does not exist.

One might also look at the imperfections or cruelty in nature.

Originally posted by FMF
I believe that my "lifelong process of learning" has required me to undergo and experience "unlearning" in order to let go of what I came to realize were "facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error", by which, of course, I am referring to me shedding my Christian ideology and thus becoming a non-Christian/former Christian. But then you know full well that this is my perspective, don't you? We have discussed it many times.

We've discussed your unconversion many times.

After a lifelong process of learning we undergo unlearning of the fictions and errors it is said.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Originally posted by josephw
I think it is a poor rationale to think that evidence exists for something that doesn't exist.

Well, that's not what I said anyway, but it can happen that evidence exists for something that does not exist.

I can't imagine how one would find such evidence.
Basically the same way one finds any evidence.

On the other hand, it seems only logical that only the evidence for the existence of something that exists, exists.
Not so.

The only thing one can rationally say is that they don't believe evidence exists for the existence of God.
Not so. One can rationally say that evidence exists that something doesn't exist. (which is what I said originally, not what you have said above).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Many would view the existence of evil in the world (especially evil not caused by man) as evidence that God does not exist.

One might also look at the imperfections or cruelty in nature.

Hey Ghost, I see you just joined the site. I want to welcome you here. I noticed in your profile the statement, "and so it begins".

So it does. Again and again! 😉

Been hashing out these things in here for years.

"Many would view the existence of evil in the world (especially evil not caused by man) as evidence that God does not exist."

Well, as I said in the post you're replying to, I think it is a thought error to think that evidence exists for something that does not. There is ample evidence that evil exists. Not many would disagree.

But consider the existence of life and the universe though. Wouldn't that be evidence for the existence of a creator God being? The problem with those who fail to acknowledge that possibility, exists because the existence of a being that made us makes us accountable for the evil that exists.

"One might also look at the imperfections or cruelty in nature."

Just further evidence that the account of scripture is true.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well, that's not what I said anyway, but it can happen that evidence exists for something that does not exist.

[b]I can't imagine how one would find such evidence.
Basically the same way one finds any evidence.

On the other hand, it seems only logical that only the evidence for the existence of something that exists, exists.
Not so.

...[text shortened]... s that something doesn't exist. (which is what I said originally, not what you have said above).[/b]

.., but it can happen that evidence exists for something that does not exist."

How can it? What example can you provide?

Originally posted by josephw
We've discussed your unconversion many times.

After a lifelong process of learning we undergo unlearning of the fictions and errors it is said.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Maybe not? Well I hardly think so. The fact that I went from Christian to non-Christian is surely not in dispute. So when Grampy Bobby said "Do you realize that the lifelong process of learning often requires an implicit experience of unlearning and the letting go of facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error?" and I answered that "This is pretty much what happened to me" it's on the nail. My spiritual progress required a kind of "unlearning" and "letting go" of long held ideology.

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe not? Well I hardly think so. The fact that I went from Christian to non-Christian is surely not in dispute. So when Grampy Bobby said "Do you realize that the lifelong process of learning often requires an implicit experience of unlearning and the letting go of facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error?" and I answered that "This is pretty much ...[text shortened]... l. My spiritual progress required a kind of "unlearning" and "letting go" of long held ideology.

When I said "maybe not" I wasn't disputing your claim of unconversion, just its validity. Actually, I wasn't really referring to your personal experience of unlearning. I was referring to whether or not one actually experienced a net gain in intelligence because they claim to have "unlearned" "fiction" and "error". What if they just think so, but in fact only learned more fiction and error?

"My spiritual progress required a kind of "unlearning" and "letting go" of long held ideology."

Case in point! Now it seems, you relabeled long held theology with ideology, and now think you've arrived beyond fiction and error as it relates to the truth of God's Word.