We know how to test for sentience, at least a semblance of it. Descartes for ourselves, and a Turing test for others. Does the universe pass either of these?
How would you test for volition? And how do you know that God didn’t “have to” create the universe, as driven as any of us. If he is omniscient, in fact, he has no volition at all.
[QUOTE=For You]
One might ask why did god create the heavens and the earth?
[/quote]
One might answer “felt like it”. Or “wanted to”.
We have a language of explication and an expectation of “reasons”. In this context (and the history of those interminable arguments about free will), if one does things “for a reason”, the reason and not the intentionality of the actor gets attributed with having caused the action.
Maybe “I intended to” is as valid a “reason” as any other reply to the “why” question.
I if you read my initial post, you’d have realized that way back then. Besides, the OP was not thrilled about my using Scripture in that post in the first place because he set preconditions - no responses to bible references.
I’m not here to argue or try to persuade you about my God. That’s a task beyond me, and why my initial post was what it was.
[quote=“Kable, post:160, topic:667033”]
Well, they will get their opportunity to explain what and why they believed the way they did. They will then be judged according to those standards.
Did you read my initial post?, which addressed this issue with a biblical perspective - skeptics will never believe, no matter what or who happens to try to convince them.
Ok, so you don’t believe me, what’s in the Bible and think it’s all “bull.”
I am not surprised in the least.
Nope. I’m a conservationist.
Winnebago? A fisherman’s going to cast a Winnebago into the sea? Not happening.
Depends whose “logic” you’re referring to.
We fully realize what you are posting in this thread. What we can’t figure out is why you are posting in this thread. You’ve read the OP, and yet you continue to plod on with your own agenda which seems to be at cross-purposes with the very subject the rest of us are here to talk about. We get it-You ain’t gotta prove nuttin’ to nobody.
Could you elaborate in what sense a conservationist’s position prevents you from fully ever obtaining enough faith to do wonderful things such as the bible promises? A Merriam Webster first entry on logic says, “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning…” Or to be more comprehensive start with Wiki. Do you have something else in mind?
Okay, so you don’t have even less than a mustard seed of faith to cast a Winnebago out to sea. I figured weighing a lot less, it would take considerably less faith (wink). So how ‘bout a paper clip, then? Not actually physically casting it out to see, but by using faith alone to do so. At what point can we actually measure that you have faith? What demonstration do you suggest? I’m talking about this kind of logic. I suppose the answer will always be no, because once it was demonstrated we would have the facts, faith would no longer be required.
Best to say that such miracle stories are not to be taken literally even though I think the writers intended for people to take them as such, and many people believed in the supernatural during that time. Many still do, but it’s a faith thing, no demonstration necessary. If religious people think nature works differently, that gravity can be suspended e.g., what logic do you think they are applying? Martin Luther thought reason was the greatest enemy faith had.
Some believers claim that these biblical kind of miracles went out with the apostles, thinking that nature somehow worked differently back then. Today, many Christians have to settle for a hell of a lot less, but still not giving up entirely on miracles occurring. They just have to come in more subtle forms: The birth of a baby is a miracle, praying for rain is another one, so is their football team winning, and Aunt Betty’s cancer going into remission. When a baby is stillborn, rain doesn’t come, their team doesn’t win, Aunt Betty’s cancer kills her, all negations are ignored. Being in denial of observation allows believers to preserve the faith and surrounding themselves with like-minded individuals makes the delusion even stronger.
Yes, I read it. I used the very same verses a few days earlier to demonstrate another point. If this truly is your stance, it doesn’t make sense to engage anyone that isn’t a believer. OTOH, it seems if you had faith strong enough, you could persuade a skeptic, but I guess again, your faith isn’t that strong in this regard either. At what point can one determine you have no faith at all?
Demonstration is a great way to convince anybody, especially a skeptic. Faith makes everything possible, no demonstration or evidence necessary; maybe at best it’s optional. With logic one realizes only some things are possible and other things impossible; observation, demonstration, some kind of evidence is required.
If you think you’d fare any better with scripture than what you have done here, as another has suggested, by all means start a new OP.
Actually, I never thought of all this in terms of how I’d “fare” one way or the other. That would be making all this about me, when it was always about the Christ, Jesus, and his message about those who claimed some miraculous occurrence would cause the carnal mind to suddenly be transformed into a genuine ‘believer.’ Not gonna happen unless it God’s pleasure to make it happen: “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
You stated previously it depended on what kind of logic, so still waiting for your explanation. Whether it pleases God or not to make a miracle happen is irrelevant, the issue was, by using logic, whether or not there is sufficient reason to assume supernatural miracles occur now or have ever occurred. Since you claim, you never gave it any thought in terms of how you would fare by what your faith could do in terms of a miracle; I’ll do the thinking for you, and tell you that you’d fail 100% of the time; such is the trust I have in logic and science and not in you or your faith. Your Isaiah scripture is non-sequitur. So one more try: If religious people think nature works differently, that gravity can be suspended e.g., what logic do you think they are applying?
Likely the reason “we can’t figure out” what/why I’m posting here is because you’re looking for an underlying motive that doesn’t exist, or at the least, fit in to “your own agnenda.” Let it go already. You’re running in circles.
“Whether it pleases God or not to make a miracle happen is irrelivant…”
Nuff said.
Skepticism and Faith are like oil & water. Any sound logic or powers of observation would have brought you to that conclusion long ago. Why seek to inherit the wind, razncain? That’s madness, not “logic.”
So what you’re saying is, correct me if I’m wrong: Nevermind all that skepticism and reason – Fear and Believe what you can’t see, or Else!
That about right? :dubious:
Far from mad, I’m not the least bit concerned about what men of faith tell me this world is about. I love good metaphors though; doubt I take “inherit the wind” as you do, but certainly loved the movie. I’m detecting you know it’s bullshit, but prefer not to let the cat out of the bag.
You’re wrong, and or more likely just looking for something that isn’t there. Otherwise you’d have accepted my " " for what it said, rather than create your own interpretation of what you’d like it to say.
Dubious you are and dubious you shall remain - Abraham said that from the very beginning in Luke.
Sure you are. Otherwise you wouldn’t have been so persistent in attempting to knock down something you believe to be an illusion , which, IMHO, would be an act of madness in itself.
Pursuing a mirage never satisfied anyone’s thirst, only their madness.
Bananas.
And don’t try to fool me, young man, it’s bananas all the way down!
Delusion is the word I’m thinking of. What else would you call someone who is in denial of reality, sets observation, demonstration and evidence aside, and not able to cope and accept the world for the way it is, but let’s fantasies and wishful thinking become the truth for them? There is little to no effort to knock down such beliefs, they are easily demonstrated to be false, a child can often easily recognize it, a grown adult not so much that is wrapped up in delusional beliefs and had rather not know it. Most don’t even use the crutch any more, but are wheel chair bound.
So tell me the reason why you are posting in a thread titled “Convince me I should believe in your god” if you have absolutely no intention of convincing anybody to believe in your god?
Thomas was a skeptic until proof/evidence was given.
Paul admonishes the followers to not just accept every prophet - but to ‘test everything and hold on to what is fine’
Jesus states that many will come ‘in his name claiming great things - don’t follow them’ as well as taht many will say “there he is or the time is come” - and not to follow them.
Seems that skepticism is a built in requirement to your ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ - yet you fail to recognize that.
I agree that logic and reason is the downfall of blind faith and is ultimately the downfall of all revealed religion - but to say that ‘skepticism and faith are oil and water’ is to show that you don’t even have a base knowledge of either.
And there we have it - the gospel according to razncain.
Put things in their proper perspective. Man does not choose God. But God does choose the man.
A couple of points here to help clear up your confusion:
*Throughout, "skepticism has been applied here in relation to accepting and following Christ. All the examples you mentioned consist of those who already chose to be 'followers of Jesus. In other words, they already had what is called ‘saving Faith.’
Suggestion: stick to the Gospels, and the Epistles were written for believers.
I do not believe I am the one that is confused here -
Thomas’ ‘faith’ was broken - he no longer believed - it had to be proven to him that this person in front of him was Jesus.
3 of the 4 points I made were from the gospels - showing that skepticism is healthy and a needed aspect for oneself - wether or not the ‘epistles’ are only for ‘the believers’ would require you to prove that - after all, isn’t the bible ‘Gods Word’ for all?
or is this just another claim of “you don’t have enough faith” to understand it and you’re special enough to do so - which implies that that you think you have enough faith to understand the “deep mystery” of the bible, yet so little (aka ‘none’) as to make any practical use of it.
What is so hard about the OP when it comes to some Christians here? It’s like they think that there are no other religions out there to compare themselves to. What is so hard about giving some specifics about what your god offers that other gods don’t?
True. But the man must be willing and welcome the change. God imposes on no one’s free will. To do so would be to deny His Own.
Aloha