Originally posted by Proper Knobno, rather quite the opposite, for without an 'irrational force', one cannot begin to view
If you need an irrational force, the holy spirit, to understand scripture. Does it not follow that your understanding of scripture is then irrational?
events, which in themselves appear irrational in any rational way, they simply would
not make any sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rationalist,
attempting to view 'irrational events', in a rational way, without recourse to the
supernatural, for as soon as one allows room for it, all things then begin to make
sense.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a perfect little snapshot of why you are bonkers.
no, rather quite the opposite, for without an 'irrational force', one cannot begin to view
events, which in themselves appear irrational in any rational way, they simply would
not make any sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rationalist,
attempting to view 'irrational events', in a rational way, without recourse to the
supernatural, for as soon as one allows room for it, all things then begin to make
sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno, rather quite the opposite, for without an 'irrational force', one cannot begin to view
no, rather quite the opposite, for without an 'irrational force', one cannot begin to view
events, which in themselves appear irrational in any rational way, they simply would
not make any sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rationalist,
attempting to view 'irrational events', in a rational way, without recourse to the
supernatural, for as soon as one allows room for it, all things then begin to make
sense.
events, which in themselves appear irrational in any rational way, they simply would
not make any sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rationalist,
attempting to view 'irrational events', in a rational way, without recourse to the
supernatural, for as soon as one allows room for it, all things then begin to make
sense.
Indeed, quite the opposite, for without an `irrational force' one cannot begin to view 'events', such as 1 apple +1 apple yields 3 apples, whch in themselves appear irrational in any rational way. They simply would not make sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rational person. attempting to view the irrational statement 1+1=3, in a rational way (so to conclude it is an incorrect statement) without recourse to 'magic'. For as soon as one allows for magic then things like 1+1=3 then begin to make sense 😕
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“....What we come to discuss
to discuss about the credibility of the claim that there is a god. - A.Hamilton
No a theist already believes that there is a God, he has no need of a discussion of
whether there is or there is not, to him or her, it is a reality. What we come to discuss
are different aspects of the expression of our faith, but in reality have to defend it
ag ...[text shortened]... hose ill disposed towards the idea. R J Hinds is perfectly justified in asking
the question.
are different aspects of the expression of our faith, ...”
...and also sometimes to discuss the creditability of the claim that there is a god; why else start threads in this forum that basically says/implies the existence of a “God” is a at least “credible” (or even a “fact”! ) as its theme?
By basically asserting that the existence of a god is credible (if not a fact) in a debate is the same as making a claim in a debate that is open to counter claim by those that disagree i.e. open to debate. Are we not allowed to disagree with a claim made in a debate?
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg"You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path
no, rather quite the opposite, for without an 'irrational force', one cannot begin to view
events, which in themselves appear irrational in any rational way, they simply would
not make any sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rationalist,
attempting to view 'irrational events', in a rational way, without recourse to the
superna For as soon as one allows for magic then things like 1+1=3 then begin to make sense 😕
leading out is only wide enough for one." Micheal Tal, eighth World chess champion
thus in contrast to your mocking tones and parody dear Agers, it is clear to see and
very reasonable to expect that irrational, or illogical events do happen under
unusual circumstances, indeed, the pure materialist cannot state that anything is
impossible, merely improbable,
Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no
longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is
improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms
of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all
forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be
added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological
sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.”
you must think deeply about this dear Agers, so that it becomes clear in your own
mind.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyes its a debate, but it is futile.
“....What we come to discuss
are different aspects of the expression of our faith, ...”
...and also sometimes to discuss the creditability of the claim that there is a god; why else start threads in this forum that basically says/implies the existence of a “God” is a at least “credible” (or even a “fact”! ) as its theme?
By basically asser ...[text shortened]... that disagree i.e. open to debate. Are we not allowed to disagree with a claim made in a debate?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie..and one which some theists and atheist engage in on the Spirituality forum. Any reason why atheists should not join in that particular debate? Theist are allowed to so why not atheists?
yes its a debate, but it is futile.
Atheists and theists engage in this “futile” (according to you) debate in equal measure, so why are atheists (as opposed to theists) being criticised here for engaging in this debate?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually I can quite readily state that it is impossible for an illogical claim to be true. Though really it is whats called a category error, because illogical claims cannot have a truth value.
thus in contrast to your mocking tones and parody dear Agers, it is clear to see and
very reasonable to expect that irrational, or illogical events do happen under
unusual circumstances, indeed, the pure materialist cannot state that anything is
impossible, merely improbable,
But then I am more materialist than you are capable of imagining, thats why you started ignoring my posts isn't it?
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBecause as I have stated, its the atheist, from his pre disposition, which goes to great
..and one which some theists and atheist engage in on the Spirituality forum. Any reason why atheists should not join in that particular debate? Theist are allowed to so why not atheists?
Atheists and theists engage in this “futile” (according to you) debate in equal measure, so why are atheists (as opposed to theists) being criticised here for engaging in this debate?
lengths to 'prove', his default position. For the theist he has no need of this futility, he
has an example, if you are Christian, in the personage of Jesus Christ, he has a
teaching, to which he aspires, he has a beautiful spiritual message, he has Biblical
examples (if he is a Christian), to discuss, he has nuances of words which tend
towards a particular understanding of an aspect of his faith, he has NO NEED of a
FUTILE debate as to whether there is a God or not, for to him, its a reality.