God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.
Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]
I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).
Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?[/quote]
No, God by definition would have to be beyond the constraints of a particular religion. Religion is a means, not an end and that’s where people mess up. Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God. It’s a means to communicate or relate to Him. Religion functions off the philosophical proposition that God exists. It’s obviously pointless if He does not.
Where Christianity and philosophy agree, is that God is the ‘creator’ or source of existence. Therefore, even if all it’s tenets were wrong, it’s compass is at least pointed in the right direction.
That’s why these notions that it’s as likely as Zeus or Ra or what ever is not true. Those beliefs function off explanation models of ‘God of gaps’ motifs. Existence itself necessitates an entity that is not a function of itself, but is the reason for it. The properties which such an entity must have to be what it is, indicates that God as understood by Christianity, is one in the same as said entity. That’s merely because the Christian understanding of God has those very same properties. And by logical necessity, only one such being can exist.[/quote]
I cannot buy this, Pat, even (or especially) as a fellow Christian. The apostles, especially Paul, did not recognize the sort of argument you are making as valid. For them, the earliest Christian witnesses, religion is NOT simply a means to communicate with God; adherence to a particular religion establishes a connection with a particular deity. This is how the apostles understood it. That’s why your claims that Hindus and Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews would NEVER have been bought by the apostles. For them, the gods of other nations were demons. In the Greco-Roman world, everyone (except for the Jews) believed that different nations referred to the same gods by different names; thus the Romans called the same god Jupiter that the Greeks called Zeus. My point is that the apostles (and the rest of the Jewish world with them) rejected that notion. To worship Yahweh (and for the Christians, Jesus was included in Yahweh’s identity), one had to buy into a particular narrative of history established in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Any deviation from that narrative, any attribution of characteristics to Yahweh which Yahweh did NOT reveal in those same Scriptures, was deemed equivalent to the worship of another god. Muslims may worship one God (and even appropriated much Jewish and Christian doctrine in their thought), but as far as the apostle Paul would have been concerned, the Muslims do NOT worship the one God, because their theological narrative of God’s actions in history differs fundamentally from that portrayed in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. From Paul’s perspective, at best, they worship something non-existent; at worst, they worship a demonic entity. This is all clear in 1 Corinthians 10.
I understand why your conception of “religion” would lead you to this particular conclusion, but if you claim to be a Christian and not a recipient of special revelation, then you have to recognize that those whom our religion considers to have possessed special revelation would disagree entirely with your assumptions.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.
Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.[/quote]
lol My goodness, HH, you are still the biggest bigot I’ve ever known. Please, tell me you see the irony in the above…
“GOD TOLD ME to tell you gents to end this thread. HE SAYS… he did not give you these gifts TO BELIEVE IN FANTASYLAND BULLSH*T.”
You LIVE in a fantasy land, HH. Funny how, despite all your attacks on the God who won’t reveal himself clearly, YOU claim that he reveals himself through you! What kind of obscure deity would do that???
I’ve been working all day and just got in. Only time a for a quick note. Back to square one with you. How many is 2+2?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve been working all day and just got in. Only time a for a quick note. Back to square one with you. How many is 2+2?[/quote]
Not back to square one.
I accept the need for an uncontingent being upon whom all is contingent. So we can skip the math equations.
This part is important: I am asking you to, in one simple, lucid, single-post logical progression, show why THE TRIUNE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY must be this uncontingent being. Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt.
It would look something like this:
Therefore, Christian doctrine is logically and/or evidentially true. The Christian God EXACTLY AS HE’S DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE must exist and He is the ONLY deity that exists AND THIS IS PROVABLE.
In other words, skip the part where you cast doubt on the certainty of the human experience. Go directly to a positive case for God’s existence–not any God, not a nameless uncontingent being, not a prime mover, but Jesus Himself.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God.[/quote]
Define is perhaps the wrong word but religion certainly seeks to discern God’s character, his likes and dislikes, his will. This is what is at play when a preacher claims to know that God disdains homosexuality or abortion. It is in the details that Christianity distinguishes itself from Judaism and Islam.
[/quote]
Those things are prohibited in both Judaism and Islam. At core levels the understanding of God is the same for all three. Needless to say the affect is a bit different. And sure it’s debatable at various levels. But the thing about religion is it’s largely personal thing. If I were to tell you I had a profound experience or say a miracle. You have know way of knowing for sure. Likely you would cast doubt on the experience, find other potential explanations, etc. That’s what people do all the time, however, for the experiencer, they know. I often liken it to an acid trip in a way. You can explain every detail and nuance of taking LSD to somebody, but until they do it, they really have no idea.
No, they do not say anything of the details. But if you understand it correctly, there is nothing supernatural but very natural about it. Second, while it’s not explained, that which causes, but cannot be caused by definition alone, has to have certain properties to be what it is. And that’s how you know.
[quote]
As a matter of fact, if we were to take Occam’s razor to the question of religion, taking as a given premise that one of your proofs is both valid and sound, we would inevitably choose Deism as our worldview: it makes the least assumptions.
The number of assumptions necessary to leap from a logical proof of God’s existence to acceptance of Christian doctrine, on the other hand, is unfathomable.[/quote]
Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
Christian doctrine isn’t as crazy as some of it’s practitioners. Like I said it’s a means. Further it’s not a one sided affair if it were, it would have expired quickly. Something about it works. It’s the feedback mechanism that keeps it going. You only know it when you do it.
In the end you are right, I can prove God must exist by necessity, but it says nothing about the accuracy of faith and religion.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve been working all day and just got in. Only time a for a quick note. Back to square one with you. How many is 2+2?[/quote]
Not back to square one.
I accept the need for an uncontingent being upon whom all is contingent. So we can skip the math equations.
This part is important: I am asking you to, in one simple, lucid, single-post logical progression, show why THE TRIUNE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY must be this uncontingent being. Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt.
It would look something like this:
Therefore, Christian doctrine is logically and/or evidentially true. The Christian God EXACTLY AS HE’S DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE must exist and He is the ONLY deity that exists AND THIS IS PROVABLE.
In other words, skip the part where you cast doubt on the certainty of the human experience. Go directly to a positive case for God’s existence–not any God, not a nameless uncontingent being, not a prime mover, but Jesus Himself.[/quote]
I don’t understand - TIrib would say faith is always necessary for all knowledge. You are asking for what he rightly considers impossible - “proof” that obviates the need for faith does not exist, because at the most fundamental levels, faith is always a requirement. LOL I have been subtly hinting at him to drop the Socratic method stuff, though, as it really doesn’t seem to get anyone where he intends them to go.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]
I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).
Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?[/quote]
No, God by definition would have to be beyond the constraints of a particular religion. Religion is a means, not an end and that’s where people mess up. Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God. It’s a means to communicate or relate to Him. Religion functions off the philosophical proposition that God exists. It’s obviously pointless if He does not.
Where Christianity and philosophy agree, is that God is the ‘creator’ or source of existence. Therefore, even if all it’s tenets were wrong, it’s compass is at least pointed in the right direction.
That’s why these notions that it’s as likely as Zeus or Ra or what ever is not true. Those beliefs function off explanation models of ‘God of gaps’ motifs. Existence itself necessitates an entity that is not a function of itself, but is the reason for it. The properties which such an entity must have to be what it is, indicates that God as understood by Christianity, is one in the same as said entity. That’s merely because the Christian understanding of God has those very same properties. And by logical necessity, only one such being can exist.[/quote]
That almost sounds like you’re saying that there are only less or more correct religions. With the caveat that the religion has The necessary God. But that doesn’t explain why the Christian triune God is necessary. [/quote]
I can’t prove that. I wish I could, it’s certainly the best path in my opinion, but it’s up to the subjective experience for the individual.
I use an analogy of like a cell phone company. The majority of religion is designed to communicate with God, all think they are right. Well clearly they cannot all be right, but that doesn’t mean they are not getting through either. They all communicate, some have better reception.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]
I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).
Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?[/quote]
No, God by definition would have to be beyond the constraints of a particular religion. Religion is a means, not an end and that’s where people mess up. Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God. It’s a means to communicate or relate to Him. Religion functions off the philosophical proposition that God exists. It’s obviously pointless if He does not.
Where Christianity and philosophy agree, is that God is the ‘creator’ or source of existence. Therefore, even if all it’s tenets were wrong, it’s compass is at least pointed in the right direction.
That’s why these notions that it’s as likely as Zeus or Ra or what ever is not true. Those beliefs function off explanation models of ‘God of gaps’ motifs. Existence itself necessitates an entity that is not a function of itself, but is the reason for it. The properties which such an entity must have to be what it is, indicates that God as understood by Christianity, is one in the same as said entity. That’s merely because the Christian understanding of God has those very same properties. And by logical necessity, only one such being can exist.[/quote]
I cannot buy this, Pat, even (or especially) as a fellow Christian. The apostles, especially Paul, did not recognize the sort of argument you are making as valid. For them, the earliest Christian witnesses, religion is NOT simply a means to communicate with God; adherence to a particular religion establishes a connection with a particular deity. This is how the apostles understood it. That’s why your claims that Hindus and Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews would NEVER have been bought by the apostles. For them, the gods of other nations were demons. In the Greco-Roman world, everyone (except for the Jews) believed that different nations referred to the same gods by different names; thus the Romans called the same god Jupiter that the Greeks called Zeus. My point is that the apostles (and the rest of the Jewish world with them) rejected that notion. To worship Yahweh (and for the Christians, Jesus was included in Yahweh’s identity), one had to buy into a particular narrative of history established in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Any deviation from that narrative, any attribution of characteristics to Yahweh which Yahweh did NOT reveal in those same Scriptures, was deemed equivalent to the worship of another god. Muslims may worship one God (and even appropriated much Jewish and Christian doctrine in their thought), but as far as the apostle Paul would have been concerned, the Muslims do NOT worship the one God, because their theological narrative of God’s actions in history differs fundamentally from that portrayed in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. From Paul’s perspective, at best, they worship something non-existent; at worst, they worship a demonic entity. This is all clear in 1 Corinthians 10.
I understand why your conception of “religion” would lead you to this particular conclusion, but if you claim to be a Christian and not a recipient of special revelation, then you have to recognize that those whom our religion considers to have possessed special revelation would disagree entirely with your assumptions.[/quote]
Tell me, what’s the point of doing all that? Is it not to have a relationship with the Almighty? And what’s the key to any successful relationship?
And you understand I am trying to break it down into simple form. Talking about the intricacies of Christian theology with non-believers is a pointless exercise. If they don’t believe in God, they are not going to believe in anything religious much less Christianity. Wowing people with biblical knowledge isn’t going to help a non-believer understand what faith is all about. They think it’s a fairy-tail after all.
I have to account for all religion, because there are several and far to many Christian sects for anybody to make any sense of it.
I prefer not to over complicate things.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.
Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.[/quote]
lol My goodness, HH, you are still the biggest bigot I’ve ever known. Please, tell me you see the irony in the above…
“GOD TOLD ME to tell you gents to end this thread. HE SAYS… he did not give you these gifts TO BELIEVE IN FANTASYLAND BULLSH*T.”
You LIVE in a fantasy land, HH. Funny how, despite all your attacks on the God who won’t reveal himself clearly, YOU claim that he reveals himself through you! What kind of obscure deity would do that???[/quote]
Only personal revalation is valid. There is no contradiction in anything I’ve written.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve been working all day and just got in. Only time a for a quick note. Back to square one with you. How many is 2+2?[/quote]
Not back to square one.
I accept the need for an uncontingent being upon whom all is contingent. So we can skip the math equations.
This part is important: I am asking you to, in one simple, lucid, single-post logical progression, show why THE TRIUNE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY must be this uncontingent being. Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt.
It would look something like this:
Therefore, Christian doctrine is logically and/or evidentially true. The Christian God EXACTLY AS HE’S DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE must exist and He is the ONLY deity that exists AND THIS IS PROVABLE.
In other words, skip the part where you cast doubt on the certainty of the human experience. Go directly to a positive case for God’s existence–not any God, not a nameless uncontingent being, not a prime mover, but Jesus Himself.[/quote]
I don’t understand - TIrib would say faith is always necessary for all knowledge. You are asking for what he rightly considers impossible - “proof” that obviates the need for faith does not exist, because at the most fundamental levels, faith is always a requirement. LOL I have been subtly hinting at him to drop the Socratic method stuff, though, as it really doesn’t seem to get anyone where he intends them to go. [/quote]
When you understand that epistemologically speaking, there is very little one can know and that almost everything we think we know is based on varying degrees of faith, this should surprise no one.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.
Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.[/quote]
lol My goodness, HH, you are still the biggest bigot I’ve ever known. Please, tell me you see the irony in the above…
“GOD TOLD ME to tell you gents to end this thread. HE SAYS… he did not give you these gifts TO BELIEVE IN FANTASYLAND BULLSH*T.”
You LIVE in a fantasy land, HH. Funny how, despite all your attacks on the God who won’t reveal himself clearly, YOU claim that he reveals himself through you! What kind of obscure deity would do that???[/quote]
Only personal revalation is valid. There is no contradiction in anything I’ve written.
[/quote]
I didn’t know we can use mere testimony as a valid form of argumentation with you, HH. God reveals to me that the Scriptures are valid and authoritative every time I read them. Point, set, and match.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]
I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).
Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?[/quote]
No, God by definition would have to be beyond the constraints of a particular religion. Religion is a means, not an end and that’s where people mess up. Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God. It’s a means to communicate or relate to Him. Religion functions off the philosophical proposition that God exists. It’s obviously pointless if He does not.
Where Christianity and philosophy agree, is that God is the ‘creator’ or source of existence. Therefore, even if all it’s tenets were wrong, it’s compass is at least pointed in the right direction.
That’s why these notions that it’s as likely as Zeus or Ra or what ever is not true. Those beliefs function off explanation models of ‘God of gaps’ motifs. Existence itself necessitates an entity that is not a function of itself, but is the reason for it. The properties which such an entity must have to be what it is, indicates that God as understood by Christianity, is one in the same as said entity. That’s merely because the Christian understanding of God has those very same properties. And by logical necessity, only one such being can exist.[/quote]
I cannot buy this, Pat, even (or especially) as a fellow Christian. The apostles, especially Paul, did not recognize the sort of argument you are making as valid. For them, the earliest Christian witnesses, religion is NOT simply a means to communicate with God; adherence to a particular religion establishes a connection with a particular deity. This is how the apostles understood it. That’s why your claims that Hindus and Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews would NEVER have been bought by the apostles. For them, the gods of other nations were demons. In the Greco-Roman world, everyone (except for the Jews) believed that different nations referred to the same gods by different names; thus the Romans called the same god Jupiter that the Greeks called Zeus. My point is that the apostles (and the rest of the Jewish world with them) rejected that notion. To worship Yahweh (and for the Christians, Jesus was included in Yahweh’s identity), one had to buy into a particular narrative of history established in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Any deviation from that narrative, any attribution of characteristics to Yahweh which Yahweh did NOT reveal in those same Scriptures, was deemed equivalent to the worship of another god. Muslims may worship one God (and even appropriated much Jewish and Christian doctrine in their thought), but as far as the apostle Paul would have been concerned, the Muslims do NOT worship the one God, because their theological narrative of God’s actions in history differs fundamentally from that portrayed in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. From Paul’s perspective, at best, they worship something non-existent; at worst, they worship a demonic entity. This is all clear in 1 Corinthians 10.
I understand why your conception of “religion” would lead you to this particular conclusion, but if you claim to be a Christian and not a recipient of special revelation, then you have to recognize that those whom our religion considers to have possessed special revelation would disagree entirely with your assumptions.[/quote]
Tell me, what’s the point of doing all that? Is it not to have a relationship with the Almighty? And what’s the key to any successful relationship?
And you understand I am trying to break it down into simple form. Talking about the intricacies of Christian theology with non-believers is a pointless exercise. If they don’t believe in God, they are not going to believe in anything religious much less Christianity. Wowing people with biblical knowledge isn’t going to help a non-believer understand what faith is all about. They think it’s a fairy-tail after all.
I have to account for all religion, because there are several and far to many Christian sects for anybody to make any sense of it.
I prefer not to over complicate things.[/quote]
I understand your point, Pat; I just disagree with the notion that all religions are essentially phone connections with varying degrees of static. That’s not a biblical notion, and you do us no favors as Christians by making someone “religious” without leading them specifically to Christ and the faith he came to reveal. Getting them to be religious isn’t enough; if it was, Christ really did die for nothing. And if you present the faith in a way that says, at the end of the day, every religion still gets you to God (though maybe not as well as others), then you are doing a disservice to the faith.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
faith is always a requirement. [/quote]
This is exactly what I’m pushing Tirib to admit. He tends to speak as though his worldview and all of its particulars are logically and/or evidentially provable–and inevitably so. I am saying that he must either a) admit that it isn’t or b) demonstrate how it is provable by proving it. You are unequivocally claiming the former; I have yet to see Tiribulus do the same.
As an aside, the Socratic method is in this particular case a monumental impediment to serious discussion. When two educated adults are speaking on such a topic as this, straightforwardness and lucidity are not only preferable but necessary.
Again, the request is simple: a or b (from above). Which is it Tirib?
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt. >>>[/quote]No, we ARE back to square one. I have repeatedly and without equivocation denied exactly what you here report me as saying. Please reread my posts. There is no such thing as what you are demanding, for ANYTHING. Including 2+2 equaling 4, nevermind the biblical philosophical presentation of the triunity of the God of historic Christianity as the solution to the problem of the one and the many AND source of certainty for all of His creation. Start readin here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=15 to that end of that thread.
You’ll see where to start. We are in the middle of it now. It will take me a few days to answer Kamui just like it took him a few to answer me. If you don’t want to do all that reading then maybe this just isn’t your thing. By which I honestly mean to imply no denigration of your intelligence. The things of the Lord are at once fully accessible to a 6 year old AND beyond the whole body of the highest erudition of all the ages. Knowing Him like I do, that’s exactly what I would expect.
[quote]pat wrote:
Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree, but how how?
As an addendum, I should say that I was in a hurry while writing that response. If I’d thought more carefully I would have said that Occam’s razor would make us agnostic theists: we’d accept that human reason cannot explain the natural without the supranatural, but we’d be entirely agnostic with regard to the properties, characteristics, wants, and activities of said supranatural power/entity/being/whathaveyou.
This, by the way, is exactly what I believe.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.
Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.[/quote]
lol My goodness, HH, you are still the biggest bigot I’ve ever known. Please, tell me you see the irony in the above…
“GOD TOLD ME to tell you gents to end this thread. HE SAYS… he did not give you these gifts TO BELIEVE IN FANTASYLAND BULLSH*T.”
You LIVE in a fantasy land, HH. Funny how, despite all your attacks on the God who won’t reveal himself clearly, YOU claim that he reveals himself through you! What kind of obscure deity would do that???[/quote]
Only personal revalation is valid. There is no contradiction in anything I’ve written.
[/quote]
I didn’t know we can use mere testimony as a valid form of argumentation with you, HH. God reveals to me that the Scriptures are valid and authoritative every time I read them. Point, set, and match.[/quote]
God provided these to you as palliatives. He knows that many people are weak and need things of this sort, to give them comfort. But you forget that those were given to people 2000 years ago. He expects you guys to grow up sometime.
He, in all generosity, gave you science as a means to grow up. He now expects us to ‘put away childish things’ and be men. Being an expert at palliatives is NOT what He wants of us. Time to grow up.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I understand your point, Pat; I just disagree with the notion that all religions are essentially phone connections with varying degrees of static. That’s not a biblical notion, and you do us no favors as Christians by making someone “religious” without leading them specifically to Christ and the faith he came to reveal. Getting them to be religious isn’t enough; if it was, Christ really did die for nothing. And if you present the faith in a way that says, at the end of the day, every religion still gets you to God (though maybe not as well as others), then you are doing a disservice to the faith. [/quote]
Tell me if you get my PM. It has not been working…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree, but how how?
As an addendum, I should say that I was in a hurry while writing that response. If I’d thought more carefully I would have said that Occam’s razor would make us agnostic theists: we’d accept that human reason cannot explain the natural without the supranatural, but we’d be entirely agnostic with regard to the properties, characteristics, wants, and activities of said supranatural power/entity/being/whathaveyou.
This, by the way, is exactly what I believe.[/quote]
I’m not sure if you are interested, but I was really fascinated by this Lawrence Krouse video on why there is something rather than nothing:
Spoiler alert: there’s some cheap shots against religion in it and I’m not endorsing the cheap shots but I thought the information presented was relevant and interesting.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt. >>>[/quote]No, we ARE back to square one. I have repeatedly and without equivocation denied exactly what you here report me as saying. Please reread my posts. There is no such thing as what you are demanding, for ANYTHING. Including 2+2 equaling 4, nevermind the biblical philosophical presentation of the triunity of the God of historic Christianity as the solution to the problem of the one and the many AND source of certainty for all of His creation. Start readin here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=15 to that end of that thread.
You’ll see where to start. We are in the middle of it now. It will take me a few days to answer Kamui just like it took him a few to answer me. If you don’t want to do all that reading then maybe this just isn’t your thing. By which I honestly mean to imply no denigration of your intelligence. The things of the Lord are at once fully accessible to a 6 year old AND beyond the whole body of the highest erudition of all the ages. Knowing Him like I do, that’s exactly what I would expect.
[/quote]
You’ve essentially said what I’ve been hoping you’d say–that you can’t prove that your worldview and all of its particulars are inevitably and necessarily true. Or at least you haven’t denied this. And if I’m right about this, you would do well to remember it when you’re engaged in discussion with a nonbeliever.
Without meaning to insult, Tirib, these are concepts that keep thoughtful adolescents up at night. There is nothing particularly difficult to understand here. What makes it difficult–not in an over-the-head kind of way, mind you–is the rambling, the Socratic method, the ambiguity, the allusions to supreme truths that will be revealed in time. Your argument can be made in just a few short sentences, in a single post (KingKai summarized your point and answered my question for you in three sentences above).