1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured God is the one who's creating all the things that you see all around you.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by chinu, Oct 20, 2021.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    They used circular logic. That means that their claim is logically fallacious. This means that if you read the article that you did not understand it. They based all of their "logic" on what is found in the Bible. The problem is that since we are talking about faith the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. To even be able to site the Bible as a source one must show that it is a reliable rational source. And for that to be the case it needs to be falsifiable. Now I can show that the Bible is false. But you will of course refuse to believe or understand the evidence that shows it to be false when read literally. But since this is your claim the burden of proof is upon you.

    If you want to use the Bible you must first demonstrate that it is a rational reliable source. Which means that you must have a proper way of testing it. Here is your big chance:

    What reasonable test could possibly show the Bible to be wrong in your opinion?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. NewGuyOnTheBlock

    NewGuyOnTheBlock Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,802
    Ratings:
    +1,160
    Religion:
    atheist
    Rethink that. Do you honestly believe that our ignorance of food safety and knowledge of microbials and that nature of disease or an accurate model of the nature of the universe and planet meant that we understood the natural world "more clearly?" You would not consider Pythagoras a scientist (and he existed 570 bc?) Or Aristotle (384 bc?) Ptolemy? Hippocrates?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,775
    Ratings:
    +3,198
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Simple: That for this everyday world you don't have to believe in it to have a life.

    But that applies for a lot of claims and not just religion as such. And further it doesn't solve if we get can get away with believing differently.
    So I could believe that the Bible is correct and you could believe that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is correct, but they would only be correct for us as beliefs.
    Now I haven't been able to come up with a rational reliable source for this which science can't do or use logic to show that it is wrong as such to be irrational.
    So there is a limit to rationality.
     
  4. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,775
    Ratings:
    +3,198
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, e.g. as a former soldier science is great. I can now kill another human have a way around the world.
    Or use medication to psychologically keep the wrong people more quiet. Or use it for better surveillance of the wrong people. Science is so good and we are getting better at it. How come you left that out?

    Well, this one still hold today: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." And since you know your philosophers, you already know this one.
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Not really. If one believes that there was a worldwide flood and that God cannot lie that belief can be tested. It would fail. There are many examples of how the Bible could be tested and it would fail if one does so rationally. Now if one wants to be irrational then nothing can be tested. But what is nice about reality is that it can be tested. And remember, in a face to face debate it is allowed to slap a solipsist that tries to deny reality. Sometimes nonverbal communication is needed to get a point across.
     
  6. ElishaElijah

    ElishaElijah Return

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +492
    Religion:
    Believer
    What does that have to do with the meaning of blind faith vs biblical faith?
    You have a problem with the first paragraph?
    The concept of “blind faith” is a recent invention, found nowhere in Scripture. If you go back to God’s Word, you’ll find that the Hebrew word for faith, by its very definition, refers to a logical, robust, unwavering confidence in the truth.
     
    #326 ElishaElijah, Oct 22, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  7. NewGuyOnTheBlock

    NewGuyOnTheBlock Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,802
    Ratings:
    +1,160
    Religion:
    atheist
    Science is knowledge; and knowledge is morally neutral. Science has been used to prolong life, eradicate deadly childhood diseases, increase the production of crops to feed the hungry, connected family all the way around the world via instant visual communication; you left that part out. Why?
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Biblical faith is blind faith. When you use circular reasoning you are "blind".

    They concept of blind faith is not a new one. The description may be. That does not mean that faith in the Bible was not blind faith before that term was coined.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ElishaElijah

    ElishaElijah Return

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +492
    Religion:
    Believer
    Ok so you don’t understand what biblical faith is or how it comes. Got it
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Wrong, you have it backwards as usual. You yourself demonstrated that all that you have is blind faith. I see that you forgot that already. I asked you a reasonable question. You dodged it. In this case it amounted to an admission that Biblical faith is blind faith.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Let me repost this for you:

    They used circular logic. That means that their claim is logically fallacious. This means that if you read the article that you did not understand it. They based all of their "logic" on what is found in the Bible. The problem is that since we are talking about faith the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. To even be able to site the Bible as a source one must show that it is a reliable rational source. And for that to be the case it needs to be falsifiable. Now I can show that the Bible is false. But you will of course refuse to believe or understand the evidence that shows it to be false when read literally. But since this is your claim the burden of proof is upon you.

    If you want to use the Bible you must first demonstrate that it is a rational reliable source. Which means that you must have a proper way of testing it. Here is your big chance:

    What reasonable test could possibly show the Bible to be wrong in your opinion?

    Do you see that question at the end? If you cannot answer that you only have blind faith. For your faith not to be blind faith at the very least it has to be rational which means that it has to be testable in other words falsifiable.

    Of course it requires something that most believers do not seem to be able to do. They have to be honest with themselves. Do you think that you can be honest with yourself?
     
  12. ElishaElijah

    ElishaElijah Return

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +492
    Religion:
    Believer
    I am honest with myself otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to see that I was living a life of sin and rebellion against God, this is apparently something you cannot do.
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sorry, but that is only owning up to the extremely obvious. You seem to want to validate your beliefs but you cannot do so with your current methodology.

    By the way, you dodged a reasonable question twice now. And its importance was explained to you. Your faith is a blind faith. You confirmed it twice now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    10,389
    Ratings:
    +6,748
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    And that's also and exactly what you're doing in replying to my post ─ repeatedly objecting to my three foundational assumptions while totally relying on them yourself.

    Well, as to the first two, anyway, that a world exists external to the self and that our senses can inform us of it ─ but it may be that you don't in fact agree that reason is a valid tool.
     
  15. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    8,409
    Ratings:
    +473
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science.

    One human thinker telling another human thinker you are wrong.

    Human says prove it.

    The proof practicing science caused human life to be sacrificed.

    Basic advice.

    Then the argument life was sacrificed to save you. An argument.

    Reason to argue I don't agree life should be sacrificed.

    Basic determined reason why humans inferring human science themes argue.

    As machine science is a human choice is not creation.

    Common sense says if a group of bullies wanted to apply a choice machine science and always have. Do you think rationally they care less what changes to natural occurred?

    Just as an overall review who is wrong in life. Natural or the science machine practice.

    As when you keep changing the subject about human reason to argue your information advised is taken away from the human reason why I argued.

    Daily.

    Water what we live in owns oxygenated living microscopic food energy that bodies in nature use in their present forms

    Nature we know seasonally as four as holy bodies on earth produces outcomes of growth or growth change itself naturally.

    Biological science advice God is creating around you. Water changes its microbiology continually.

    As we humans awAre are making all claims when we think.

    I can think.

    I can compare.

    I reason two hu man's own self presence equally should all be healthy the same.

    No reason not to be when we live naturally.

    So if someone tells me by scientific advice your brother a human was life sacrificed I would be consciously notified should not occur and why did it occur.

    Basic human advice

    If someone said the God creators inheritor was sacrificed I would use non human information to advise myself what it meant.

    So scientists told non science theists don't pretend you know science. As your explanations about why life was harmed is not scientific explanations nor terminologies.

    Basic advice in a human circumstance.

    The status was no humans life should ever be changed harmed in scientific circumstance.

    The science advice said gods natural bodies in science had been sacrificed. The reference saved their own god science states. Life attacked luckily could still survive.

    Was the scientific teaching.

    Gods science bodies. Immaculate cold clear gas still a half body existed. The other half of the whole body burnt voided as natural light gas spirit sacrificed. One whole body half sacrificed.

    Natural.

    Science wanted to practice inventing controlling natural light. Made burning gases not void that attacked us.

    Fall of man radiation fallout.

    Ice was earth gods newly formed body that cooled all bodies...immaculate..gas burning...water and oxygen.

    It's mass rebuilt itself as a body end of each year reborn the saviour of everything. It's body melted as the sacrifice of its rebirth.

    Was the science teaching.

    Changing ice presence on earth sacrificed human life. As it is still present it allows us to survive.

    Science as correct teaching.
     
  16. ElishaElijah

    ElishaElijah Return

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +492
    Religion:
    Believer
    Biblical faith isn’t blind faith and if you read the Bible in Romans 10 or Hebrews 11 you would at least have an understanding of that and know the difference.
    Also, although you don’t like the site, I did give you the article explaining the 2 and you still don’t understand so no reason to keep going on it.
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    51,765
    Ratings:
    +32,741
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sorry, but it is. You are making the classic error of trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. That is circular reasoning and logically fallacious.

    Your faith is blind. The Bible only makes you feel better about it, but it is far from justified.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,775
    Ratings:
    +3,198
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    No, it can't. That is a belief, which is called an assumption and no, you don't have to read these link. I will explain how to test reality below:
    Science and the Modern World
    Objectivity in science - its uncertainty & limits
    http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p98831/pdf/ch0615.pdf

    I mean, there is a reason for how come we have the following 2 concepts:
    Methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism.

    So I am going to give you a test about reality: You are going to test what objective reality as existing outside your mind is. You are going once and for all to show philosophy that it is irrational: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

    So here is what you are going to test. You are not going to rely on models/maps of the landscape as science normally do.
    For the case that you are in real objective reality or in a computer simulation reality(note you could also be e.g. a Boltzmann Brain) you are going to move out of your mind and outside reality and observe once and for what objective reality is independent of the mind. Now you have done so:
    So Subduction Zone, what reality are we in? The real one, a computer simulation, are you a Boltzmann brain, is God actually real and so on? I mean you can test in effect the metaphysical and ontological status of objective reality. You are so special, that you can solve over 2000+ years of human inquiry. Just write your finding to at least one scientific body and trust me, there is a Nobel prize in it. You will be bigger than Einstein and the rest. You have tested what objective reality really is and observed objective reality independent of your mind.

    So here is your problem in your philosophy of science:
    You have 3 options:
    Nothing can be tested.
    Everything can be tested including what objective reality is as independent of the mind.
    There is a limit to human rationality and thus we get cognitive relativism. It is in practice possible to believe differently about objective reality as independent of the mind. Thus we get this for those who actually understand science;
    https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
    Note the last part about supernatural.
     
  19. ElishaElijah

    ElishaElijah Return

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +492
    Religion:
    Believer
    How is determining the meaning of words so we are clear on the meaning of those words circular reasoning? If this isn’t done people end up misinterpreting what other people are talking about.

    You would like the conversation to be about proving or disproving the Bible but it was never about that.
    What was established though is that a person cannot say they knew Jesus Christ, were born again, walk away and then call Him an imaginary person later on.
    So either you never knew Him, were never born again because He wasn’t real but imaginary or you did meet Him, He is real, you were born again and walked away.
     
    #339 ElishaElijah, Oct 23, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2021
  20. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +3,893
    Religion:
    none
    The point is that you went straight to the bible and a religious misinformation and propaganda site to attempt to define faith in a way you like, whereas the conversation was about 'blind faith', which is a common phrase in English that means unquestioning belief without evidence or sound reasoning. What the bible says about faith is both irrelevant and often nonsensical (like Hebrews 11).
     
Loading...