nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

antiskeptic

Romans 1: wrote:

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I found myself stopping on this word 'invisible'. In the context of this forum it struck that for the word 'invisible' you can safely insert the term "not empirically nor rationally demonstrable or provable"

The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.

It follows that each individual has to decide whether what He has made is sufficient evidence of self-evidency.

If one decides not and it is nevertheless true*, then one has also decided against that which was in fact, self-evident.

The only thing that can deny a self evidence is wilfulness. Straight self denial of truth ... a.k.a. lying to self. But the one person you can't successfully lie to, besides God, is yourself. You know the truth .. because it is self evident. Denial can do many things. It can buy time. But it can never trump self-evidency because what is true can't be trumped by a denial. At least not forever.

Ignorance is not an excuse because the definition of self-evident is that there is no ignorance: it is evident to every self, all selfs have sufficient information.

From what has been made. Which is everything, whether an expression of Him directly or an expression of will in those whom He has created and enabled to co-create with Him.

And man has no excuse for wilfullness. It is fully right that he position his view below God's view. Man is wonderful, but he is not the creator of wonderfulness. He fully ought to occupy the position he rightfully, logically and rationally was created to occupy.

Much wanted and much loved children of God. Created by their Father to be ever-children.

For there is no death as God's children or in the new Earth they will occupy. No being born into entropy.

All we are asked to becomes, is those children. To allow ourselves to be led, by self-evidency, away from the death march we travel because we have not yet become His children. It IS God who attempts to lead us. We might be blind to him, but we are not blind to His self-evidency.

Instead, what we are trying to be, and insist on being, is that which we can't be. Which is God. Or rather, equal to God. Our equality comes through our seemingly being able to operate without any reference to Him.

We are merely believing the serpent when he tells us we can be like God. When it is utterly self evident, from the things WE have made, that we have made a complete mess. We have made the kind of mess what unruly, destructive and hateful can be expected to make.

By their fruit shall ye know them, writ large.

What we actually are (truth again) is unruly, destructive and hate capable little gods. Each with their own mutated, fast-burn attempt at equalling God. Come and gone in the blink of an eternal eye.

Self-as-god (or false God) is the problem. It was what Adam was doing in his deliberate construction of the first sin. It's still the primary sin in each one of us. The root problem.

Hence too, the solution to the problem. That rotten root, that hook, has to be dug out of us.

Wisdom and sense in the 1st Commandment so.

-

The way of salvation is to trust God to lead you to Him. He has evidenced Himself in all He has made. We have evidenced ourselves in all we have made. So go look at what He and we have made. You don't have to trust a God you can't see. But you can a God you do see. The evidence, as it sought for, will be found and assimilated and will produce conviction. And as you are convicted, He will reveal Himself more. Until one day you believe. And become a child of God.

A first step is to ask for help, taking the stance the healthy child He wants you to become would take. For it is in you to be a child of His. Be respectful, hopeful, trusting, patient. Humble, yes, but not cowering, or sullen or half-hearted or angry.

"I want to find You. Help me find You." would be a fine 1st prayer.

* where the definition of true is that it is true. That every objection that can be made to its truth is truly false, truly erroneous, truly mad, truly wilful.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nutritionally, if nothing else, you are challenged.

Thanks man, love a challenge me :-)

Bannasidhe

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Thanks man, love a challenge me :-)

MOD.
Don't you start.
Let it go, let it gooooooooooo.
Thanking you.

antiskeptic

Anyone find a way out of the stalemate: delusion vs. blind?

For the delusion side we have God just another god. An argument from commonality. And there being no evidence of God

For the blind side we have gods and science-ism and philosophy being ways for man to be independent of God. An argument from commonality, And there being no evidence that man can see all reality. He can see what he can see, is all.

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone find a way out of the stalemate: delusion vs. blind?

For the delusion side we have God just another god. An argument from commonality. And there being no evidence of God

For the blind side we have gods and science-ism and philosophy being ways for man to be independent of God. An argument from commonality, And there being no evidence that man can see all reality. He can see what he can see, is all.

Well in fairness if you've gotten yourself into that silly conundrum then you probably have far too much time on your hands.

Do some exercise, good for the body and mind.

mickuhaha

If you know God exists yet provided no evidence of its own existence why would you presume there is only one God and why would you presume that any of an unlimited amount of god's would care of our existence in life or death. If the said unlimited amount of gods don't interact with us why would we need to be aware of their existence.

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well in fairness if you've gotten yourself into that silly conundrum then you probably have far too much time on your hands.

Do some exercise, good for the body and mind.

And if I haven't gotten myself into this silly conundrum, then what? Lounge on the sofa with a slab?

antiskeptic

mickuhaha wrote: »

If you know God exists yet provided no evidence of its own existence why would you presume there is only one God

I'm not quite following. God not providing empirical, verifiable evidence to others is not the same thing as not providing evidence to others. The claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it is empirical and verifiable is the product of a philosophy which itself isn't verifiable, empirically or otherwise.

In other words, its a bootstrap claim.

Whilst I can't exclude there being a god above God, God has dealt with gods (i.e. makey uppey gods) to my satisfaction by explaining what they are and why they were made up. When you look at them you find out that they fit the overall bill.

If the said unlimited amount of gods don't interact with us why would we need to be aware of their existence.

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. God (gods if they existed) can interact without us knowing it is him/them. Surely?

Mick_1970

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who cares? The question is whether God can. And whether God does. If he can and he does then that's what's critical. The how is irrelevant to born again Nozz (although he will know how)

I care, I'm sure other people would like to know as well. You are already presuming a god exists ( without evidence) and pondering if they can perform some action that crosses the imaginary/reality divide.

You are saying the evidence for a god is subjective which is impossible to validate.

Would it be possible for you to explain why you believe in your chosen god and what evidence you used to confirm your belief.

Bannasidhe

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well in fairness if you've gotten yourself into that silly conundrum then you probably have far too much time on your hands.

Do some exercise, good for the body and mind.

MOD

Huntergonzo, your 'opponent' in this snarkfest has received 2 warnings to play nice and be civil to other posters in this thread, I will extend you the same in the interests of fairness. But as I told him/her stop it or cards will be flourished.
Thanking you.

antiskeptic

Mick_1970 wrote: »

I care,

In the context of the specific discussion, who cares? It is of no relevance to the workings outlined for the reasons outlined.

And since I hold folk are blind and antagonistic by nature, there isn't any profit that I can see (for anyone) granting your wish.

I'm sure other people would like to know as well. You are already presuming a god exists ( without evidence)

I am presuming nothing. I know God exists. I accept there is no evidence for his existence that you can see (aside from the manner in which he deniable-evidences himself per the OP. The point of that isn't to evidence himself so that you know he exists, it has another purpose)

You are saying the evidence for a god is subjective which is impossible to validate.

I am saying the evidence is objective and impossible to validate (in a validate to all way). The idea that something isn't objective if it isn't externally verifiable is a philsophical construct. It's not necessarily true

Like, if God exists, then that is objective, even if no one can validate it.

Would it be possible for you to explain why you believe in your chosen god and what evidence you used to confirm your belief.

See my tale about Nozz some posts back. I wasn't an alcoholic but my tale is the same in essence. And its the same tale for everyone who arrives at God. You see it all over life and you see it all over the Bible: Desperate Abraham turning to God, Roman ruler whose kid is dying turning to a untermensch itinerent rabbi, thief on a cross turning to his Lord, the sick, the outcast, the poor in spirit all arriving at the only place left for them.

The desperate with no place left to turn in short. When there's no place left to go, God is found in the muck and mire down at the very bottom of the barrel.

Arrival at end of self is something that, when it occurs, provides you with all the evidence you need to believe that's the state you are in. The state you are in is in your face. It's all the confirmation you need. Verified, empirical evidence of the very personal kind.

A surrender at that point is surrender on our maintaining allegience to the first sin, the one all are afflicted with. For Adam's sin was the sin of seeking self sufficiency. We were, afterall, created for God dependency.

Surrender is the salvation criterion. Surrender results in salvation.

As for evidence for God when saved? Well, God turns up. He's kind of hard to miss, being somewhat larger than life.

Huntergonzo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

MOD

Huntergonzo, your 'opponent' in this snarkfest has received 2 warnings to play nice and be civil to other posters in this thread, I will extend you the same in the interests of fairness. But as I told him/her stop it or cards will be flourished.
Thanking you.

Card for encouraging exercise??? that's a new one in fairness, card away if that's a crime!

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if I haven't gotten myself into this silly conundrum, then what? Lounge on the sofa with a slab?

Well whatever you're into chief, but I'd say exercise is probably the more healthy option.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't have to believe without evidence in this mechanism because evidence comes first and belief second.

It can't be that hard to trace that much.

You've produced no evidence so there no second step.
:rolleyes:

Your argument has no basis in logic.

Even lets throw some nonsense at the wall and speculate that IF a being exists that is more powerful then humans that does not make it a god to us, it just makes it more advance.

Any being that requires people to worship it or it gets upset with them is a pretty pathetic species. It would be like a single human getting upset with a ants nest in Africa because the ants don't worship it.

Mick_1970

antiskeptic wrote: »

See my tale about Nozz some posts back. I wasn't an alcoholic but my tale is the same in essence. And its the same tale for everyone who arrives at God. You see it all over life and you see it all over the Bible: Abraham, Roman ruler whose kid is dying, thief on a cross, the sick, the outcast, the poor in spirit.

The desperate with no place left to turn in short.

Arrival at end of self is something that, when it occurs, gives you all the evidence you need to believe that's the state you are in. The state you are in is in your face. All the confirmation you need. Verifiable, empirical evidence.

As for evidence for God when saved? Well, God turns up. He's kind of hard to miss, being somewhat larger than life.

Thank you for your reply, I understand completely why some people find god when their mortality is laid bare in front of them. I often think god is a form of hope.

On a personal note, even as a staunch atheist I can imagine the beauty and simplicity of having a god to rely upon when life gets tough.

Having said all that, I will continue to relish the reality of living on a spec of dust in the middle of nowhere and thank the serendipity of the stars for my existence.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone find a way out of the stalemate: delusion vs. blind?

For the delusion side we have God just another god. An argument from commonality. And there being no evidence of God

For the blind side we have gods and science-ism and philosophy being ways for man to be independent of God. An argument from commonality, And there being no evidence that man can see all reality. He can see what he can see, is all.

For the delusion side you have your belief in one specific god.

For the side that dismisses your beliefs there is the evolving state of human knowledge based on observation, experimentation and refutation.

The thing is that comparing these two, even if you accorded them equal merit, is a false equivalence. On the delusion side you also have the devout Muslim and her belief in Allah, the devout Hindu and his devotion to Shiva, the wannabe Jedi knight and his attempts to control The Force, and every other god, supernatural creation myth and random fantasy that has ever entered anyone's mind or ever will in the future. From a purely logical point of view the delusion of Christianity has no more or less merit than that of the Flying spaghetti monster.

So given we have a potentially infinite number on unevidenced supernatural truths, yet just one evolving state of human knowledge, the probability of any one preferred supernatural truth being reasonable becomes one over infinity. Until you can separate your supernatural beliefs from the infinity of other possible beliefs, your argument has all the strength of a fart in a hurricane.

What you seem to have missed is that atheists don't just not believe in your rendering of your god. They also don't believe the unsupported assertions put forward by all the other theists and delusional fantasists with their various deities, mythologies and colanders either.

Bannasidhe

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Card for encouraging exercise??? that's a new one in fairness, card away if that's a crime!

MOD.

Huntergonzo you have gotten a yellow card for ignoring mod instructions and questioning a mod warning in-thread. Perhaps you should consider stepping away from this thread as you seem unable to add to the discussion in a civil manner.
Do not question this in-thread. Take it to PM if you have an issue.

Fourier

Again this is just:

There's no empirical evidence of God
But we don't really know anything right?
So we don't really know if empiricism is well-founded
So no empirical evidence for God doesn't mean he doesn't exist
I have a special sense, also not open to empirical knowledge that let's me know he exists
You can't refute that either, because we don't really know anything right?
So who's making the real leap of faith huh?

It's basically just saying that looking at a tree and presuming a tree is there is an act of faith since it requires holding empirical evidence as having some access to the truth.

This "stalemate" is an equivocation of all claims. Everything is just as reliable as anything else, because we don't really know anything right?

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

You've produced no evidence so there no second step.
:rolleyes:

Your argument has no basis in logic.

I don't have to produce evidence to lay out a mechanism. Anymore than a wiring diagram need produce light.

Even lets throw some nonsense at the wall and speculate that IF a being exists that is more powerful then humans that does not make it a god to us, it just makes it more advance.

Fair enough if you figure it untoward to call that powerful enough to create other than God. That would be a semantical issue.

Then again, when you see how people reacte when someone very powerful walks into the room you can suppose all falling on their face when power beyond comprehension turns up.

We'll only know come the day but if there is one who confounds scripture saying that every knee will bow then I'll take it thats you

Any being that requires people to worship

Not require. Deserves - if we knew our place and what he has done to attempt a rescue.

And if you die still refusing to be taught your right, appropriate and very exhalted place, so as to become a child of his (and so worship as children naturally worship their father), then no worship will be required of you by him.

So. No worship ever required of you by him. You will bow of course. Either in total respect. Or as an overcome foe.

it or it gets upset with them is a pretty pathetic species.

Hey maan. Waddya getting upset with me raping these kids man. Get a life.

It would be like a single human getting upset with a ants nest in Africa because the ants don't worship it.

Scale wise you are on the mark. Status wise hopelessly off. Ants don't wilfully do evil.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

Again this is just:

There's no empirical evidence of God

Not that evidence need be empirical. There are soft evidences for things. Great poetry, writing, music..

But we don't really know anything right?

We know what we know. And we think we know things that are probably incorrect. Flat earth anyone?

So we don't really know if empiricism is well-founded

Well founded, no matter how well founded doesn't mean complete. Indeed we don't know how much of reality we can detect or how much of reality is open to being empirically evaluated.

So no empirical evidence for God doesn't mean he doesn't exist

Indeed.

I have a special sense,

It's not as uncommon as you might think. I wouldn't label it 'special'.

[Quotw]also not open to empirical knowledge that let's me know he exists[/quote]

Indeed.

You can't refute that either, because we don't really know anything right?

We know plenty. But as I found out missing a 1st for my degree, no matter how full the basket for project work, it couldn't compensate for a deficient basket in thermodynamics. And so a 2:1

I wouldn't say so much "1 trick pony" but empiricism is a bit 1 trick. Its great at what its great at. And that's it

So who's making the real leap of faith huh?

You are? In supposing empiricism uber alles. That you are not blind and the problem is with another?

It's basically just saying that looking at a tree and presuming a tree is there is an act of faith since it requires holding empirical evidence as having some access to the truth.

This "stalemate" is an equivocation of all claims. Everything is just as reliable as anything else, because we don't really know anything right?

I have no idea, and presume you don't either, how to stretch empiricism to comment on all reality. Other than presume there is no more reality than that encompassed by empiricism.

That's very circular. All we can see is all that there is because thats all we can see.

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote:

In supposing empiricism uber alles.
how to stretch empiricism to comment on all reality
That's very circular. All we can see is all that there is because thats all we can see.

I flat out don't believe empiricism encompasses reality. That's not my point.

10fathoms

Is this sh*te thread still going!

smacl

10fathoms wrote: »

Is this sh*te thread still going!

Mod: Please read the charter and only post if you have something to contribute that is worth saying. Thanks for your attention.

mickuhaha

"Whilst I can't exclude there being a god above God, God has dealt with gods (i.e. makey uppey gods) to my satisfaction by explaining what they are and why they were made up. When you look at them you find out that they fit the overall bill."

So you could be open to there being a god above God and other god's but not the gods made up by humans?

If Gods do interact with us without our knowledge would it be to their benefit and doesn't that in itself take away free will to some degree.

[Deleted User]

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

We needed the Hubble Telescope to show us the billions of galaxies that are invisible to our naked eye. Why did he manifest his divine nature in something invisible to us?

Did he know we would one day invent a technology that would let us see this? Because if so, that's just a narcissistic test of our faith. The only plausible explanation for those galaxies existing is that he wants people to use them to question his existence.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Presumably applied to smart intelligent believers?

That is circular: they believe because of cog diss. Because they believe it must be cog diss

No it's cognitive dissonance because it doesn't satisfy the same criteria their educated beliefs are based on. Nothing circular about it.

mickuhaha

If gods created everything did gods also create themselves? Why did everything need a god to create it? If Gods always existed why can't everything always have existed without god? Does a mind need to exist before something or can something exist before a mind?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

In desperation and because he has nowhere else to turn to escape the belief (knowledge) brought about by the evidence he turns to a higher (as yet unbelieved in) power.

Satisfying God's requirement: Nozz is in a state of belief about what God has been telling him (for without law on heart and conscience(God's voice) Nozz wouldn't be as desperate as he is), God saves Nozz.

Now that he is saved, God evidences himself and Nozz believes in God.

His being saved wouldn't prove the mechanism to you. Nevertheless he is saved by it. It is proven to him

So the only way you can suppose that nozzferrahhtoo is saved is in a hypothetical were you are required to assume he is in absolute desperation, such that he accepts evidence that god exists and believes in god and then god gives him evidence to believe in god? And this is somehow an example which shows how evidence doesn't matter?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who cares? The question is whether God can. And whether God does. If he can and he does then that's what's critical. The how is irrelevant to born again Nozz (although he will know how)

But any god can, and in an appropriate hypothetical, any god does. So what the evidence actually would entail is crucially important if you want your hypothetical to tell us anything about your god.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it is empirical and verifiable is the product of a philosophy which itself isn't verifiable, empirically or otherwise.

In other words, its a bootstrap claim.

You've ignored this before but, to repeat myself, if a claim is in no way empirical and verifiable then it is indistinguishable from any other claim that is no way empirical and verifiable. It is also indistinguishable from it's counter claim. Therefore, empirical philosophy or otherwise, the claim is useless.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

I flat out don't believe empiricism encompasses reality. That's not my point.

Then what is your point. In as nutshell as you can.

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then what is your point. In as nutshell as you can.

That there is no discussion here. The problem you're raising is as old as epistomology as a field. We have to have some assumptions to be capable of concluding things yes. Your critique is basically that you have an additional sense completely inaccessible to those without it.

Well okay, why would anybody take that seriously?