ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
Agreed. It's impossible to have a "relationship" with the figure known as Jesus Christ. Considering his existence is in doubt, on top of the fact that even if a "Jesus" lived he certainly is not who the church says he is, a "personal relationship" with him is a euphemism for "self-inflicted delusion of the mind."
You're right, Turbo, so right. I didn't have a relationship with Jesus. Got me!:chuckle:
The sad thing is that you still didn't answer the question, rocky. You will not find a single Christian who doesn't agree that a Christian is one who has a personal relationship with Christ. So, if Christ does not exist no one is a Christian. And if He does, no one who denies His existence is a Christian. That includes those who used to believe in His existence. People like you, and zakath.
wickwoman
New member
Hilston:
You made an assertion about me. I asked you to prove it. You drifted into a discussion about what proof I will accept. I gave you the dictionary definition. You continued. I told you you could give any kind of proof you thought was reasonable. You continue to avoid. I must conclude you have NONE.
So, Hilston, what are the grounds which cause you to believe your senses and reasoning are good while prodigal's and mine are suspect? Will we fall into another discussion about what "grounds" or "proof" means? Or will you actually present some evidence.
O.K. Now I get it. It's not that our senses are in doubt. It's that we should doubt our own senses, while you, a person who has never met either of us, can be assured of their validity.
So, while you call me a fish and that you can shoot me like I'm in a barrell, you presume to understand my intellect, having never met me? You presume that I can understand the Bible if I read it? Or even that my eyes work? How do you know I am not some sort of computerized response system? Have you ever met me? It seems your faith in lots of things is based on a lot of assumptions. And, you seem to believe that everyone else should do the same.
Your supposed lack of doubt and any doubt I possess about my worldview are merely examples of the differences in what type of proof you are willing to accept versus my requirements for proof. The most compelling proof for my belief system is found in your behavior.
Again, I ask you to prove this assertion. However, I suspect you will not.
Which I don't have for what?
Please pay us the courtesy of explaining my worldview to all of us here since you seem to know so much about it.
Explain to me what it is that I do not believe in.
I don't doubt God's existence any more than you do. I do not need the Bible to tell me he/she exists. I have my own life experiences for that. What I doubt is the value and benefit of traditional fundamental Christianity. And you are the evidence I present to support that doubt.
Why are you so afraid to answer the question?
If Christian means one with a personal relationship with Christ, then, according to you, there is no such thing as an actual Christian. Right?
Lighthouse,
(So, your parents breathed the breath of life into you?)
No, but they did conceive me through sexual intercourse. Did god breath the breath of life into you?
(Where did I say it was Pure and beautiful," or "grand"?)
Than what about it makes it so great?
(you have said, countless times, that if God existed He should prove His existence to you.)
My memory doesn’t always serve, but I don’t recall ever having said anything to that effect.
(Can you prove it to me?)
You’re having a conversation with me, aren’t you? Do you really need proof that I exist when we’re speaking so amiably, LH? This is what I would refer to as “self-evident”. When was the last time you had a conversation with god?
Clete,
(There's no need for getting all defensive.)
True. I apologize.
(Have you ever seen any Monte Python movies?)
Didn’t like Holy Grail. Something Completely Different.
(No, but completely dis-arming your opponent leaving him bleeding from both shoulder sockets does.)
I just don’t think you’ve done that yet.
(Look, what would you do with a definition of a Biblical worldview? You would want me to validate it, right? That is the point in your having started the thread in the first place isn't it?)
So far all I’ve told you I want from you is your definition of a biblical worldview. All I want you to do is explain what it is and why it accounts for the existence of reality, but also why it is valid. The burden of proving WHY it is valid is all on you. Explain what it is, why it accounts and takes responsibility for the existence of reality, and why YOU believe it is valid.
(Your premise is that such a worldview cannot be validated and so must be rejected out of hand.)
You see, my premise isn’t exactly that, but it is. The reason for the flip-flopping on my part is this: No two churches think alike. Everyone has their own interpretation of the “word of god”, so when you have such a massive movement like Christianity, a religion that has existed arguably for two thousand years, and they still do not have a general consensus of what they believe their biblical worldviews lose a lot of credibility. By sheer virtue of the fact that you are a Christian, Clete, your biblical worldview loses credibility before you even define it. This happens because I know that whatever you say, I could find a thousand other Christians who will vehemently disagree with you. That’s the corner stone of why I think your worldview is invalid, it is by default, simply because your religion (since the reformation that is) has never been able to rally itself and agree on what their mass, singular biblical worldview is.
(Jim has successfully shown that your own worldview not only cannot be validated but that you don't even possess the tools required to even attempt to validate it.)
Clete, the problem with this is, my worldview requires no validation. I make no fantastical claims, other than the world is what I make of it. Perhaps it differs from other non-christian worldviews, but there are some fundamental elements that I and other agnostics and atheists can agree on because these elements require no validation. The sky being blue requires no validation, you, me, any one else can look and see that. Perhaps it isn’t the best strategy to go to general consensus for a standard, but Clete you and Christianity can’t even do that. There is no general consensus in Christianity. There is no singular worldview that all Christians can agree on. All denominations, all Christians have their own idea of a biblical worldview is. I and ten other people can look at the sky and see it is blue and agree, not because we validated it, but because it’s reality. My worldview is just that, a view of the world. Not through biblical lenses or religious lenses, but just through m eyes.
Now you can hypothesize about the condition of my brain or eyes all day long, but hypothesis versus reality will never stand up. Even when I countered Hilston’s arguments with that he had nothing to say to the contrary, he doubled back to the origin of the argument, the search for truth and a standard by which to measure it.
(I'm anything but "run of the mill")
Okay, check out this next line….
(I am definitely a fundamentalist)
Who are you trying to kid?
(What Jim has done is shown your challenge to be nothing more than show)
You took my quote and turned it around on me. That’s like playing tag and tagging back after you’ve been caught. Please.
(only you don't even know for sure what black is!)
I do know what black is. It’s the color of the shirt I’m wearing right now. Like I said before, I need no validation. You and Christians in general are the only people who need to validate what they believe. I know my shirt is black, but you believe in a fairy tale. I don’t need to validate my eye sight before I can say “the sky is blue”, you need to validate your beliefs before you say that when I die I’m “going to hell”. The sky being blue requires no proof to be passed off as reality. The existence of hell DOES require proof before being passed off as reality.
(Even if this were so, which it is not, the point is that neither can you!)
Like I’ve said, I don’t believe in anything but myself. My worldview is based on what is right in front of me. I am right here, god is nowhere to be seen. Yours is based on what you must believe without proof.
(He's not trying to confuse you, on the contrary he's doing just the reverse of that! Don't you get it? It isn't about your sensory perception per se, its about how you know what you think you know. The point isn't about how good your eye's are, it's about how do you know how good your eye's are, it's an epistemological argument not a physiological one.
If you cannot know anything what is the point in having you critique the Biblical worldview? It's insane.)
My response to this whole paragraph is this: Hilston is the one who has made this argument what it is. You refer to your proof often but you still haven’t shown it. Now Hilston has tried to delude the argument by bringing this into the gutters of hypothesis and you have followed him down, Clete. You haven’t answered the initial challenge of this post, you haven’t defended yourselves. You’ve skirted the issue, you’ve dodged questions, you’ve been rude, insulting and done everything but what I asked even when you boldly declare that you do have proof.
(How would you know if it were tangible or not, prodigal? How would you know? How would you go about finding out?)
That’s for me to decide, but that’s not the question. You’re dodging the question.
(How do you know you actually exist outside the imagination of the jolly green giant?)
Now you’re just being childish. You’re still trying to skirt the issue. How I evaluate your proof is for me to know and you to find out. Just give me a little bit of something Clete, just give me something and I’ll leave you alone. Just stop skirting the issue.
(Where? Inside Gilligan's head, or in the Matrix or where exactly? How do you know where you are? How would you go about finding out?)
Once again, a childish method of dodging the question.
(By what standard? How was this standard established?)
You’re dodging the question. This isn’t about me. This is about you. I laid the burden of proof on you and you, Lighthouse, Aimiel, Hilston, you’ve all dodged the question. You’ve all refused to answer. You all have said that you do have proof, but you’ve never revealed even a smidge of it. This is Christian apologetics at work, do whatever it takes to shift the attention to the challenger and ignore the question.
(By what standard? How was this standard established?)
See above.
(By what standard? How was this standard established?)
See above.
(Can you confirm that your family exists?)
Yeah, I’m going to their house for dinner tonight. When was the last time god had you over for dinner?
(I hope you don't. I hope that you are truly as smart as you are clearly intelligent)
Why thank you! Encouragement is always welcome.
(A step in the that direction would be for you to slow down a notch and review the progress of this thread and reset your thinking long enough to willfully decide that you are going to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge valid points when they have been made.)
I don’t consider hypothesis and fairy tales to be valid points, especially in the face of reality. You can question reality but that has never made it go away, Clete. Apples will always plummet to the ground, the sky has always been blue. The sky, in fact, is just as unchangeable as your god, only I can look at the sky.
I need to get some work done, so Hilston, you're next.
(So, your parents breathed the breath of life into you?)
No, but they did conceive me through sexual intercourse. Did god breath the breath of life into you?
(Where did I say it was Pure and beautiful," or "grand"?)
Than what about it makes it so great?
(you have said, countless times, that if God existed He should prove His existence to you.)
My memory doesn’t always serve, but I don’t recall ever having said anything to that effect.
(Can you prove it to me?)
You’re having a conversation with me, aren’t you? Do you really need proof that I exist when we’re speaking so amiably, LH? This is what I would refer to as “self-evident”. When was the last time you had a conversation with god?
Clete,
(There's no need for getting all defensive.)
True. I apologize.
(Have you ever seen any Monte Python movies?)
Didn’t like Holy Grail. Something Completely Different.
(No, but completely dis-arming your opponent leaving him bleeding from both shoulder sockets does.)
I just don’t think you’ve done that yet.
(Look, what would you do with a definition of a Biblical worldview? You would want me to validate it, right? That is the point in your having started the thread in the first place isn't it?)
So far all I’ve told you I want from you is your definition of a biblical worldview. All I want you to do is explain what it is and why it accounts for the existence of reality, but also why it is valid. The burden of proving WHY it is valid is all on you. Explain what it is, why it accounts and takes responsibility for the existence of reality, and why YOU believe it is valid.
(Your premise is that such a worldview cannot be validated and so must be rejected out of hand.)
You see, my premise isn’t exactly that, but it is. The reason for the flip-flopping on my part is this: No two churches think alike. Everyone has their own interpretation of the “word of god”, so when you have such a massive movement like Christianity, a religion that has existed arguably for two thousand years, and they still do not have a general consensus of what they believe their biblical worldviews lose a lot of credibility. By sheer virtue of the fact that you are a Christian, Clete, your biblical worldview loses credibility before you even define it. This happens because I know that whatever you say, I could find a thousand other Christians who will vehemently disagree with you. That’s the corner stone of why I think your worldview is invalid, it is by default, simply because your religion (since the reformation that is) has never been able to rally itself and agree on what their mass, singular biblical worldview is.
(Jim has successfully shown that your own worldview not only cannot be validated but that you don't even possess the tools required to even attempt to validate it.)
Clete, the problem with this is, my worldview requires no validation. I make no fantastical claims, other than the world is what I make of it. Perhaps it differs from other non-christian worldviews, but there are some fundamental elements that I and other agnostics and atheists can agree on because these elements require no validation. The sky being blue requires no validation, you, me, any one else can look and see that. Perhaps it isn’t the best strategy to go to general consensus for a standard, but Clete you and Christianity can’t even do that. There is no general consensus in Christianity. There is no singular worldview that all Christians can agree on. All denominations, all Christians have their own idea of a biblical worldview is. I and ten other people can look at the sky and see it is blue and agree, not because we validated it, but because it’s reality. My worldview is just that, a view of the world. Not through biblical lenses or religious lenses, but just through m eyes.
Now you can hypothesize about the condition of my brain or eyes all day long, but hypothesis versus reality will never stand up. Even when I countered Hilston’s arguments with that he had nothing to say to the contrary, he doubled back to the origin of the argument, the search for truth and a standard by which to measure it.
(I'm anything but "run of the mill")
Okay, check out this next line….
(I am definitely a fundamentalist)
Who are you trying to kid?
(What Jim has done is shown your challenge to be nothing more than show)
You took my quote and turned it around on me. That’s like playing tag and tagging back after you’ve been caught. Please.
(only you don't even know for sure what black is!)
I do know what black is. It’s the color of the shirt I’m wearing right now. Like I said before, I need no validation. You and Christians in general are the only people who need to validate what they believe. I know my shirt is black, but you believe in a fairy tale. I don’t need to validate my eye sight before I can say “the sky is blue”, you need to validate your beliefs before you say that when I die I’m “going to hell”. The sky being blue requires no proof to be passed off as reality. The existence of hell DOES require proof before being passed off as reality.
(Even if this were so, which it is not, the point is that neither can you!)
Like I’ve said, I don’t believe in anything but myself. My worldview is based on what is right in front of me. I am right here, god is nowhere to be seen. Yours is based on what you must believe without proof.
(He's not trying to confuse you, on the contrary he's doing just the reverse of that! Don't you get it? It isn't about your sensory perception per se, its about how you know what you think you know. The point isn't about how good your eye's are, it's about how do you know how good your eye's are, it's an epistemological argument not a physiological one.
If you cannot know anything what is the point in having you critique the Biblical worldview? It's insane.)
My response to this whole paragraph is this: Hilston is the one who has made this argument what it is. You refer to your proof often but you still haven’t shown it. Now Hilston has tried to delude the argument by bringing this into the gutters of hypothesis and you have followed him down, Clete. You haven’t answered the initial challenge of this post, you haven’t defended yourselves. You’ve skirted the issue, you’ve dodged questions, you’ve been rude, insulting and done everything but what I asked even when you boldly declare that you do have proof.
(How would you know if it were tangible or not, prodigal? How would you know? How would you go about finding out?)
That’s for me to decide, but that’s not the question. You’re dodging the question.
(How do you know you actually exist outside the imagination of the jolly green giant?)
Now you’re just being childish. You’re still trying to skirt the issue. How I evaluate your proof is for me to know and you to find out. Just give me a little bit of something Clete, just give me something and I’ll leave you alone. Just stop skirting the issue.
(Where? Inside Gilligan's head, or in the Matrix or where exactly? How do you know where you are? How would you go about finding out?)
Once again, a childish method of dodging the question.
(By what standard? How was this standard established?)
You’re dodging the question. This isn’t about me. This is about you. I laid the burden of proof on you and you, Lighthouse, Aimiel, Hilston, you’ve all dodged the question. You’ve all refused to answer. You all have said that you do have proof, but you’ve never revealed even a smidge of it. This is Christian apologetics at work, do whatever it takes to shift the attention to the challenger and ignore the question.
(By what standard? How was this standard established?)
See above.
(By what standard? How was this standard established?)
See above.
(Can you confirm that your family exists?)
Yeah, I’m going to their house for dinner tonight. When was the last time god had you over for dinner?
(I hope you don't. I hope that you are truly as smart as you are clearly intelligent)
Why thank you! Encouragement is always welcome.
(A step in the that direction would be for you to slow down a notch and review the progress of this thread and reset your thinking long enough to willfully decide that you are going to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge valid points when they have been made.)
I don’t consider hypothesis and fairy tales to be valid points, especially in the face of reality. You can question reality but that has never made it go away, Clete. Apples will always plummet to the ground, the sky has always been blue. The sky, in fact, is just as unchangeable as your god, only I can look at the sky.
I need to get some work done, so Hilston, you're next.
Hilston,
(I will gladly do you so if you can stipulate the rules. If I'm going to give you proof, I need to know what qualifies.)
Just give me whatever you have. That’s all I’ve asked for. Proof qualifies itself, that’s why it’s proof. If it didn’t, than it wouldn’t be proof.
(Sure it's fair. I never said otherwise. But if you're going to presume to demand said proof and verification, it's also fair that we all know what constitutes proof and verification so we don't waste our time. What do you consider to be "proof" and "verification," and how do you validate those criteria?)
Listen, let me worry about how to validate it. Just give me whatever you have, then I’ll look at it and ask questions. We’ll do the validating together, Hilston! Doesn’t that sound like fun?
(I will gladly show you the proof you need as soon as you clue us in on what kind of proof is acceptable and why.)
Hey, the ball is in your court. Give me everything you’ve got.
(Because that would be like saying, "Let's have a duel, and I'll let you know what the rules are later.")
No, I asked for proof, instead of giving me proof, you counter attacked before the duel started. You didn’t lay a foundation for yourself by providing proof and by providing a defense of the proof. You just counter attacked before you answered the question.
(I have a consistent and coherent worldview that isn't fraught with question-begging assumptions and blind faith commitments. I've already told you this. Those are my cards. If you don't like that proof, don't blame me. You've yet to reveal what you'll accept as proof.)
Fair enough, but having a worldview that isn’t fraught with question-begging assumptions
And blind faith commitments aren’t cards. Telling me that you have four aces isn’t the same as showing me the aces. If you want the pot, show me your aces and together we’ll determine if they are, in point of fact, aces.
(I will gladly do you so if you can stipulate the rules. If I'm going to give you proof, I need to know what qualifies.)
Just give me whatever you have. That’s all I’ve asked for. Proof qualifies itself, that’s why it’s proof. If it didn’t, than it wouldn’t be proof.
(Sure it's fair. I never said otherwise. But if you're going to presume to demand said proof and verification, it's also fair that we all know what constitutes proof and verification so we don't waste our time. What do you consider to be "proof" and "verification," and how do you validate those criteria?)
Listen, let me worry about how to validate it. Just give me whatever you have, then I’ll look at it and ask questions. We’ll do the validating together, Hilston! Doesn’t that sound like fun?
(I will gladly show you the proof you need as soon as you clue us in on what kind of proof is acceptable and why.)
Hey, the ball is in your court. Give me everything you’ve got.
(Because that would be like saying, "Let's have a duel, and I'll let you know what the rules are later.")
No, I asked for proof, instead of giving me proof, you counter attacked before the duel started. You didn’t lay a foundation for yourself by providing proof and by providing a defense of the proof. You just counter attacked before you answered the question.
(I have a consistent and coherent worldview that isn't fraught with question-begging assumptions and blind faith commitments. I've already told you this. Those are my cards. If you don't like that proof, don't blame me. You've yet to reveal what you'll accept as proof.)
Fair enough, but having a worldview that isn’t fraught with question-begging assumptions
And blind faith commitments aren’t cards. Telling me that you have four aces isn’t the same as showing me the aces. If you want the pot, show me your aces and together we’ll determine if they are, in point of fact, aces.
If you've read my posts in this thread, you've already seen my proof. Go back to the post that Clete named "POTD." If you really want to have a conversation and not just blow smoke, you know where to find me. In the meantime, consider this: What you think is "reasonable" is still in question. So if you really want a reply from me, provide the parameters of "reasonable" as you understand them. If you refuse to do so, I must conclude that you really don't want to have this conversation.
Hilston previously wrote:
To be more precise, I told him that he has no grounds on which to trust them. I believe he can, and I know why. He admits that he knows neither how, nor why, and is thus left with a blind faith commitment to their verity. I suspect you're in the same sinking boat.
Last edited:
servent101
New member
Hilston
I for one have observed that Wickwoman does know and believe and serve th God of the Judeo-Christian Bible - and as a point in question - there is no Other God But God - your concept that the "book" that you take as the source of the Sole Arbiter of truth - I question, as this source is a Person - the Holy Spirit, who enlightens our hearts.
As I see it, it is simply a matter that you have chosen the "book" which we all agree contains the Word of God.
So by what means do you decide that your book is closed, meant to be exegesis in the way that you do, and apart from your "certainty" have you raised anyone up from the dead, are you living a pious life, are you humble, meek, gentle - all the things we associate with follwers of Jesus - what proof do you have that you actually know what is there in the Book - as only by one's Live can we know -
So anyways just to be clear - what are the sighns of one who is a follower of what you claim to be your concept of
is it being able to spell?
With Christ's Love
Servent101
I for one have observed that Wickwoman does know and believe and serve th God of the Judeo-Christian Bible - and as a point in question - there is no Other God But God - your concept that the "book" that you take as the source of the Sole Arbiter of truth - I question, as this source is a Person - the Holy Spirit, who enlightens our hearts.
As I see it, it is simply a matter that you have chosen the "book" which we all agree contains the Word of God.
So by what means do you decide that your book is closed, meant to be exegesis in the way that you do, and apart from your "certainty" have you raised anyone up from the dead, are you living a pious life, are you humble, meek, gentle - all the things we associate with follwers of Jesus - what proof do you have that you actually know what is there in the Book - as only by one's Live can we know -
So anyways just to be clear - what are the sighns of one who is a follower of what you claim to be your concept of
is it being able to spell?
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Then I stand corrected. I'll await her response and then recant my statement. But why then does she have a problem with the statements of the Bible concerning Him?
I'm not sure what you're reading. I have not claimed that the Bible is the sole arbiter of truth, but God Himself, the Person.
Um ... what? Do you agree that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom and that doing what is right in your own eyes leads to death?
Based on the presupposition of God's existence and attributes, I conclude that our minds are logical, that our senses are reliable, and that ratonal deduction and inference are valid means of attaining truth. These propositions align with my understanding of scripture. These propositions do not line up with the understanding of scripture presented by various others. I can demonstrate this, thus affirming the superiority of my view. Anyone who wants to debate that is welcome, yourself included. Tell me where I'm wrong in my understanding of God or His Word so I can be corrected and have a better understanding.
Obedient response to Paul's teaching of the Mystery is the sign I look for. How is this relevant?
wickwoman
New member
I read them. Didn’t see any proof. So we’ll just consider this conversation done. You don’t want to present proof. The reason I asked for it was because I suspected this was so. Now you’ve confirmed it.
Well, let’s see, throughout my life, I have witnessed various events, smells, sights, sounds, through the use of my senses. For instance, I’m walking with my husband along the shore of a lake and I say, “look at that pretty boat.” And he responds “yes.” Or, maybe I am walking in the city and smell the coffee of the coffee factory and say, “Smell that coffee?” And my co-workers says “Yes, wonderful.” These episodes are numerous, so many that I cannot recollect them all to you as they have occurred through my 38 years of life. I would also present to you that you, despite my repeated requests, have failed to provide proof that they are not accurate. So, with the combination of evidence that points to their sufficiency and the lack of evidence that points to their lack of function, I must conclude that they are in good working order.
Blind faith is based on assumptions which have no basis in actual fact, for instance, your blind faith in your own evaluation of my belief system. Though you have never met me, nor have we ever discussed my beliefs, you presume to know what they are. That is blind faith.
And, this is the point I’m making about you, Hilston. The evidence presented here says you have a very low requirement for objective proof. You are willing to read a book and, because that book says that it was inspired by God and that no other book is as reliable, you believe it. (This is a presumption I am making about you and you are free to present evidence to the contrary, though you’ve refused.) Much the same way you believe you know something about me. You have formulated a theory about my beliefs with little or no evidence. For that matter, you don’t know for sure if Wickwoman is even writing this or if someone else has logged onto her workstation and is posting as her.
I, however, have higher standards. I do not know you and do not know what your beliefs are so I cannot summarily say precisely what they are. However, I can see that you tend to believe things based on faith and expect that others will do the same. You may have some personal experience that causes you to believe certain things. However, these experiences are yours, not mine. I have my own personal experiences which cause me to believe certain things. The rub is when you presume that your own personal experiences carry any weight with me or Prodigal.
Thank you for providing additional proof of your low standards when it comes to evidence. You don’t need to understand? Or you don’t want to because you’ve already made up your mind? This reminds me of the scientists employed by Merck who “didn’t need” additional evidence of Vioxx’s safety. I wonder what motivated their lack of “need” for evidence?
It was in the dictionary. I don’t have the privilege of assigning meanings to words. I usually go with the common usage. You should do the same. However, Prodigal and I asked you to present whatever you have, regardless of whether you think we will find it objective. You haven’t done that, so the evidence points to the fact that you have no proof as you alleged.
Yes. I am also unimpressed by finger pointing. And, I don’t feel any more inclined to subscribe to your belief system based on idle threats. You could have just as easily told me that the boogy man was going to get me for being so obstinate.
So, show us what you’ve got that causes you to believe in your senses and what evidence you’ve got that Prodigal and I cannot prove that ours work, though you can. Anything at all, a scripture, a handy anticdote, . . . a poem? A church billboard sign? A scripture? Photographs? Anything, I’m grasping at straws here.
Yes. That was the “game” I referred to earlier. And, I can’t say I didn’t expect it. But every time I really do hope the person gives me something tangible.
Please provide evidence of my “godless worldview.” I counter that my worldview is fraught with God. As a matter of fact, I believe that everything that exists is “filled to the rim” with God. So, if anything, my worldview is overflowing with God, not godless as you say.
I believe there is only one God and that the Bible is an attempt by human beings to reveal him/her.
I believe that the verse is in the Bible and that there was an author. Is that the question? I do not believe the verse is about me. My heart is full of light. Prodigal’s heart is full of light. As is yours.
You’re wrong. I want God to be who God is. I don’t want God on my terms or on your terms . I want to know the true God.
Again, you claim not to need evidence. This doesn’t foster a very well-informed mindset about me. So, we can only presume that you have made assumptions about me out of mere convenience. That, believing contrary to your current beliefs about me would disrupt your otherwise comfortable mindset and that comfort is your primary concern, not truth. So, what evidence do I have that I should follow your beliefs? None. Based on your low standards regarding proof, I must conclude that your belief system may or may not be valid. Therefore, absent valid proof that I should abandon it and given the personal proof I’ve experienced in my own life, I will stick to the more well documented belief system - MINE. I know my motives are for truth.
Prodigal,
I could respond line by line to your last post but to save time I will respond simply to one line, which very nicely communicates the whole issue we are trying to get you to see (or to see again actually).
Clete wrote....
He's not trying to confuse you, on the contrary he's doing just the reverse of that! Don't you get it? It isn't about your sensory perception per se, its about how you know what you think you know. The point isn't about how good your eye's are, it's about how do you know how good your eye's are, it's an epistemological argument not a physiological one.
You responded...
I couldn't have said any better myself, except I would have used the word inane rather than insane. That is the entire point of my and Jim’s argument. You cannot know anything. That is to say that you, prodigal, cannot know anything, not that nothing can be known. You cannot know even that you are real. Even the axiom, "I think therefore I am" cannot be established based upon your own worldview. As far as you know, you're a figment of someone else's imagination and you cannot prove otherwise.
With this being the situation, what possible motivation could I be given to allow you to critique my worldview? How could anything you say concerning it be taken seriously? You cannot even validate the verity of the logic you would attempt to use to analyze it. No matter what you said concerning it, you couldn't even know that your own words made any sense. You are hopelessly adrift in a vast ocean of question begging and uncertainty even about the most basic things that you think you know. To offer any thing for you to analyze concerning my worldview would be a practice in futility and would indeed be inane (or insane, which ever term you like.
)
Resting in Him,
Clete
I could respond line by line to your last post but to save time I will respond simply to one line, which very nicely communicates the whole issue we are trying to get you to see (or to see again actually).
Clete wrote....
He's not trying to confuse you, on the contrary he's doing just the reverse of that! Don't you get it? It isn't about your sensory perception per se, its about how you know what you think you know. The point isn't about how good your eye's are, it's about how do you know how good your eye's are, it's an epistemological argument not a physiological one.
You responded...
I couldn't have said any better myself, except I would have used the word inane rather than insane. That is the entire point of my and Jim’s argument. You cannot know anything. That is to say that you, prodigal, cannot know anything, not that nothing can be known. You cannot know even that you are real. Even the axiom, "I think therefore I am" cannot be established based upon your own worldview. As far as you know, you're a figment of someone else's imagination and you cannot prove otherwise.
With this being the situation, what possible motivation could I be given to allow you to critique my worldview? How could anything you say concerning it be taken seriously? You cannot even validate the verity of the logic you would attempt to use to analyze it. No matter what you said concerning it, you couldn't even know that your own words made any sense. You are hopelessly adrift in a vast ocean of question begging and uncertainty even about the most basic things that you think you know. To offer any thing for you to analyze concerning my worldview would be a practice in futility and would indeed be inane (or insane, which ever term you like.
)Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited: