I would have preferred you just answer my question.
Evidence that God is real
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Well, how can I pray correctly?
You mean the one spun off the back of a report that claims to show that humans have a propensity to believe? Yes. I read that one. As was explained to you in that thread, a propensity to believe does not mean that what is believed in is the truth.
I can, Jan. I am asking you for clarification, since you don't specifically state that you consider "everything" to be evidence of God, and I would prefer to avoid future disagreement as to what you meant by the words you used.
Do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
One that isn't evidence.
It is unfortunate that your interpretation of the article you posted was that theism is not only natural but that being natural somehow imbues the tenets of the theism as being true. Neither were actually supported in the article. a propensity to hold certain types of belief does not mean those beliefs are necessarily true.
You say that scriptures corroborates to the natural theism, but if scriptures were simply the invention of men to justify and/or record their "natural theism", would you not expect the same? As such the corroboration would be expected whether the tenets of the "natural theism" correspond to reality or not.
What are you saying is entirely subjective from my point of view?
I'm asking if you consider it evidence of elves and orcs, or not. Which is it? Is your "I don't know?" an admission that you do not consider it evidence?
Why isn't it the truth?
That's clarification enough. Move on.
Read.
Playing silly beggers?
See if I care.
I'll tell you what, here is a definition of natural; existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Please give one example of something that is natural, but untrue.
What do you mean by ''necessarily true''?
The scriptures weren't the invention of men.
Well don't, as it has nothing to do with the thread.
If you think it does, then explain yourself.
jan.
That would be asking for a miracle.
Then demonstrate the difference.
Unless you are a moron, it should be obvious. Alternatively, on the off chance you are a genius, the situation would require you to explain why they are the same.
If you don't "ask yourself" these q's, you are stuffed.
We have a natural propensity to seek patterns, many of which aren't true. Thus the natural propensity toward something is no indication of the truth of it.
Why the **** do you make everything so difficult?? As said, I'm seeking clarification of what you said: do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
Do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
No, I'm not playing silly beggars.
First show me in the article you posted previously where it concludes that theism is natural according to this definition of "natural". Otherwise you're simply equivocating.
Something is necessarily true if it can not possibly be false.
So you believe. If you consider scriptures to be evidence of God, because you believe scriptures weren't the invention of men, what evidence do you have to support that notion?
It has everything to do with this thread. If you believe scriptures to be evidence of God, I am trying to see on what basis you draw the line between one collection of written records and another. If there is no line then you would believe that "Lord of the Rings" would be evidence of orcs and elves, for example.
So, if I pray that a loved one, lying in coma in a hospital bed didn't die or be brain dead but that's what pretty much happens, it's because God "stuffed" me?
Do you have any actual feelings and knowledge to know that the stupid article you posted would breed nothing but contempt?
And why are you answering a question I posed to, Jan Ardena?
It's not immediately obvious how they are different. Both are characters of legend with magical qualities , and the only evidence that they did exist is anecdotal.
I don't see it like that. Try again.
Who said theism is a propensity?
There's nothing difficult about what I said. Move on.
No. Answer the question.
If it's true, it's true. No need for ''necessary.
Man is incapable of writing scripture, which is why there has been no new scriptures written, period.
Not biting. Bye.
jan.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Lol. Now, that's sheer desperation piled on top of sheer denial.
Scriptures reads like it was written by first year poli-sci students on drugs. There's far better written material than Scriptures, Jan. Perhaps, it's the only book you've read? Or, have you even read it?
You may not see it like that, but it is a fact. Google pareidolia.
It is part of the human impulse to seek patterns and cause/effect where there is none.
And yet man did write all the scripture. And new scripture is being written all the time. The Book of Mormon was written in 1830, for example.
Whether you see it like that or not doesn't stop it being true, Jan. And just because you don't see it like that doesn't mean others have to try again. Otherwise you're not discussing, you're simply waiting for people to agree with you.
Oh, apologies. There was me thinking that you were the one claiming that belief in God is a natural tendency?
Why on earth won't you provide the simple clarification that I'm looking for, Jan? Why are you choosing to be rather obnoxious about it? Do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
Until you can do what I asked, your question is irrelevant due to your equivocation.
Okay, then if it helps you, omit the word "necessarily"... to wit: a propensity to hold certain types of belief does not mean those beliefs are true.
Well, that may be a belief you hold, but what evidence do you have for it?
It's a relatively simple question, Jan. Why won't you answer? Is it because you are beginning to recognise that your trail of "evidence" is circular, perhaps? And that your arguments all rely on question-begging? If not, what is it that's stopping you from answering?
Ok.
It was the former.