Calling out St Michael, CUT TO THE CHASE DEBATE!
Offline St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.
I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.
NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?
1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.
2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!
[MOD MOVE: Moved to Atheist Vs Theist. PLEASE PEOPLE MAKE SURE TO NEVER POST AN ATHEIST VS THEIST DEBATE IN THE FREETHINKERS FORUM!]
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Other religions do not have miracles in the same way Catholicism does. For example, Islam does not. They disavow miracles. Mohammed does so expressly in the Quran and in the Hadith. Miracles are not to convert unbelievers. One, in Islam, believes the Quran because of the fact that it is revealed and God says so. There is no proof necessary, nor can one ask for proof of Mohammed's claims. Judaism is a little different, but of course that is assumed by Christianity. None of the other major religions have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does.
Way to skirt the issue, yet again. You know full well my point here. You would quibble on the semantics of "miracle" to avoid taking the problem head on. Whether or not Islam regards it as a "miracle" by your narrow definition, mohammed's flight to heaven on a horse is no less incredible an event than the virgin birth, or the resurrection. Your refutation of the fantastical claims of all other religions is to say those religions do not "have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does". So your entire argument for the truth of your christian/catholic miracles is that they do "have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does". And you consider this argument more solid than any for 2 + 2 = 4. Michael, put down the cross and get a shovel.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline Whether or not Islam regards it as a "miracle" by your narrow definition, mohammed's flight to heaven on a horse is no less incredible an event than the virgin birth, or the resurrection.
No, not just a different concept of miracle, as if they used miracles in the same way we do.
The flight on the flying she-camel is unverifiable and there is no supernatural evidence by miracles for any of these claims. At all. They don't produce miracles. They do not claim to. Mohammed repudiated ever having to do so to verify his claims. He said he flew on a she-camel to Jerusalem and that was that. There was no more. He cursed those who would ask for evidence of his trip, either by substantiating his own authority from God, or by producing direct evidence of the trip. People asked him to prove he was a prophet of God by performing a miracle in God's name. Nothing, nada. Zip. He cursed them for it. On the other hand, Christianity supports its claims with evidence. You might dispute the evidence, but its there. Islam makes no such claim at all.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:No, not just a different concept of miracle, as if they used miracles in the same way we do. The flight on the flying she-camel is unverifiable and there is no supernatural evidence by miracles for any of these claims. At all. They don't produce miracles. They do not claim to. Mohammed repudiated ever having to do so to verify his claims. He said he flew on a she-camel to Jerusalem and that was that. There was no more. He cursed those who would ask for evidence of his trip, either by substantiating his own authority from God, or by producing direct evidence of the trip. People asked him to prove he was a prophet of God by performing a miracle in God's name. Nothing, nada. Zip. He cursed them for it. On the other hand, Christianity supports its claims with evidence. You might dispute the evidence, but its there. Islam makes no such claim at all. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichaelWhether or not Islam regards it as a "miracle" by your narrow definition, mohammed's flight to heaven on a horse is no less incredible an event than the virgin birth, or the resurrection.
YOU ARE SO F-ING BLIND
You are no different than Bod.
"My daddy said because my book(incert name here) says"
You and Bod are peddlers of fiction. You BOTH like your beliefs so much that you will do anything inside your heads to replicate the chemicals in your brains that make you feel good when you think about it. FICTION IS FICTION
Bod believes in the same thing you do. An emaginary friend in the sky that someone sold you. The only difference is names and details but an emaginary sky daddy is the same by any name. Mask fiction with fiction YOU STILL HAVE FICTION.
NOW, since you have no intrest in replicating the claim of virgin birth or death of your claim of Jesus, I consider this thread dead.
Maybe you'd like to convince a Muslim his sky daddy is more real than your sky daddy. All I hear when I listen to either of you is Charley Brown's teacher.
He thinks he is special and you think you are special and to both of you I say, "NEITHER OF YOUR CLAIMS OF SUPER HEROS ARE SPECIAL"
Humans throughout history have made up stories and believed them to be fact and you are not doing anything differently than he is.
Donkeys dont talk, their is no "spirit sperm" human flesh doesnt dance the jig after rigor mortis. Bod isn't going to get rivers of milk and wine or 72 virgins and I cant fart a Lamborginni out of my ass. An absurd claim is an absurd claim even dressed in a tuxcedo it is still an ABSURD CLAIM!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Michael. Are you listening? No, no, no, put down the rosary and pay attention. I will try to use small words this time so you can understand. Once again, you know exactly what I am saying. You are dodging by quibbling on the definition of "miracle", so as to say your religion's magic trick is real, but islam's (or anyone else's) is not. Both the virgin birth and the flying horse story (which you have wrong in some details, but who cares?) require faith, and do not admit of falsification. You say "Christianity supports its claims with evidence." Think long and hard about that. No, not hard enough. Harder! Longer! If the claims are "supported with evidence", they are open to revision based on new evidence (just as mentioned above, Normandy and the Holocaust can be revised or even repudiated with new evidence). But as you have acknowledged, nothing, no new evidence would suffice to dislodge your beliefs. Nada. Zip. As long as that is the view you take, it is worthless to say it is "supported with evidence". To rely on evidence for support is to likewise be open to revision with new evidence.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline Guess what? I'm not going to argue this with you. Know why? You obviously lack reading comprehension skills.
WOW - You have to be the most immoderate moderator I have met yet.
And I love the performative contradiction - You say that you are not going to argue with me and then proceed to dissertate at length! I also get a kick out of how you run behind the apron strings of Wikipedia, but since you have apparently checked Wiki out please see the subsection titled Ad Hominem abusive / ad personam (it's the one that talks about belittling or insulting one's opponent - strange that you didn't cut and paste that one - also, notice that I am using this argument strategy above).
Want to know why that's not ad-hominem?
I have proof.
Check this out... Brian's own words:
Quote:St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.
I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.
Do you see a "Therefore" in here? There isn't one.
Do you know what an enthymeme is? Are you aware of the fact that most logical arguments proceed without stating all of the "therefores" and "whereas" clauses? What matters is what is implicit in a given communicative context. If you don't get conversational implicature, I am afraid I won't be able to explain it to you here.
Brian's statements:
1) Brian suspects StM doesn't have the ability to focus.
2) Brian asserts that most theists use a lack of focus to dodge questions.
Did you see anywhere the conclusion that because StM and Theists don't focus, they are wrong? No. Because it's not there. The implied conclusion is that they are wrong AND they don't focus. This is not ad hominem.
Just so you can't say I quoted out of context, here's the rest of Brian's quote:
Quote:NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?
1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.
2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!
See the word, "Therefore?" It's not there.
All that's here is two questions, and an admonishion to avoid dodging the questions. Nothing about dodging questions causing StM to be wrong.
From Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man"
consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.
*******************
Brian is not replying to an argument, so right out of the gate, this cannot be true ad hominem.
You don't have to be responding to an argument to make an ad hominem attack. But I like how you are backpeddling here though. You now say it cannot be a "true" ad hominem attack. Are you willing grant that it is an ad hominem-like attack?
Brian has asked two questions, and speculated that StM cannot stick to a subject. This does not fall under the definition of ad hominem.
Now, here's why my statement about you is not ad hominem...
I submit that you do not have good reading comprehension skills. Here is my proof. Your own words:
Quote:Let's take a look at some choice comments:
"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu
StM claims X
StM does not have the ability to focus
StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract
Therefore, StM's claim is wrong
Aha! You have read Brian's post, and yet, you did not comprehend that nowhere is there a statement that StM is wrong BECAUSE he can't focus. You proved your mistake by putting it in print.
So enough about the ad hominem, already. You're wrong. Admit it and we'll think more highly of you and possible take your arguments a little more seriously.
Even if I granted your panicky and meanspirited little tirade (which I don't) it is a perfect illustration of why I find this website so amusing. I have read only a few posts by StM, but he appears to be patient and polite. I find this site comforting because it lets me know that when theism finally passes away humanity will still be intolerant, hateful, and cruel. If you don't believe in God, that's fine. What I don't get is why, if you are so happy about being an atheist, that you have to go on a website that agonistically defines itself in terms of that which it purports to transcend.
Thank you Yarn.
This is so typical of beleivers of all labels
Skeptic "That is not true"
Believer " YOU HATE ME!"
St Micheal is acting like a child who's mommy told him he couldnt have candy in the checkout line.
Grow up St.
If someone is trying to help you get your head out of the sand dont accuse them of hating you. The reason we are blunt with you is because being nice hasnt worked.
Now, if you chose to continue to post here, dont complain about how we respond. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to post here. I'd like to think humans are capable of maturity.
You admited you couldnt replicate the virgin birth or death of Jesus. As I have said countless times:
FINE! Just dont expect us to buy it. This is not a hatefull rant on my part. It is an emotional reaction on your part because YOU are not used to people saying "prove it" or " you are full of crap".
You dont know me St. You have never met me. You could be the nicest person in the world disscussing other issues. I dont know. But the issue is not weither you or I are decent people. The subject of the thread is about the virgin birth and death of the Jesus Character.
You have continually made excuses calling them "miricles" acting as if no other religion used that word or had a word for the same thing. You have not provided any biological or medical evidence for such claims. I called you on it and you didnt like it.
Again, I cant help you understand unless you want help. If you are happy believing that an egg magically got fertilized by some invisable guy, I cant stop you. But as I said countless times, if you cant prove it, dont expect us to buy it.
Stop your whiny behaivor and poney up with the evidence. If you have none, we wont have you arrested or burnt at the stake. We dont hate you, we dont even know you. But we are not obligated to buy what you are selling without proof.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
They are different categories of objects, but the same methodology goes into supporting one and the other. They are, for the intents of our conversation, identical.
It is not a smoke screen. What am I screening? It is an analogy between our faith in ordinary truths and our faith in supernatural truths.
A miracle is, by definition, an extraordinary proof in confirmation of the article of faith.
That is precisely the point. The methodology does not differ in the aspect presented under the ANALOGY I presented between faith in the fact that Normandy occurred and the faith I have in the virgin birth of Christ.
No, it is supported by the authority of miracles. The virgin birth is a miracle, but not one that I can as such verify, because I never experienced it. It is an article of faith. This article of faith can reasonably be believed in, like the Holocaust, because we have external evidence that support it. We have miracles being performed in the Catholic Church and by Christ which authenticate their claim to be of divine origin/God Himself and thus their article of faith worthy of belief. Thus, I can believe in the virgin birth because I find Christ and His Church trustworthy and clearly of divine origin due to the miracles He and His Church perform.
Very much so. I can have an infinite certitude in the fact that Christ was born of a virgin because God Himself reveals it. I could believe something different, but it would be irrational to do so. It's like saying I could believe that 2+2=5; yes, I could, but that is irrelevant. Or, in another case, can one admit that being and non-being are the same thing? In both cases, it would be contrary to right reason to hold the opposite position.
Good. You demonstrate my point clearly.
I never claimed that they did.
I never claimed that they did. I made an ANALOGY.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Yes, it is. Theistic faith is defined in contradistinction to reason. You can't have faith in a belief if you have reasons to hold to the belief!
No! My usage of reason refers to justifications for the belief itself not for the causes as to why a person holds to the belief.
However, I would like to bring up the fact that you are using equivocating colloquial usages of faith, which indicate trust or probability, with theistic faith, which is unjustified belief.
Which has nothing to do with theistic faith. Glad you see that.
But this has nothing to do with the faith itself being justified. This would merely point to the causes behind why a person holds to his desire to believe. The Mormon has reasons for why he holds to his faith, so does the Scientologist. So does the protestant, the Jain, the Jew, the Muslim, and so on... none of these reasons for holding to the desire to believe is a justification for their beliefs.
So faith, again, is unjustified belief.
Theistic faith is unjustified belief. One might come to the belief because of parental inculcation, or through reading the bible, but none of these are justifications for holding to a supernatural claim.
That takes an unjustified leap. I've already pointed you to Luther and Kierkegaard on this, but you write them off because they are not catholics.
Problems abound
1) If ‘faith’ were another form of reason, as you’ve said, then why would you need to go and get reasons to hold to your faith?
2) As you should know, no reason can point to the supernatural in the first place, so why go off on a fool's errand?
Of course the believer finds the belief 'worthy', but none of this affirms that faith is anything other than unjustified belief.
You also leave out credo quia absurdum. That was one 'reason' why the belief was held to be 'worthy'
Yes, you did.
A few examples:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question.
But hey, why stop there?
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?
What sort of faith is required for you to rip logic assunder like that?
Anyway, here are two cases where you openly state that you begin by assuming 'god' exists. You then, pathetically, try to state that while you ASSUME god exists, this is not 'properly begging the question.
Only problem is: begging the question is assuming what you seek to prove!
Oh, heck, why stop there?
You also write:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.
That's 3. But again, why stop there?
It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.
Now you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION.
i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason.
That's four cases. Do I really need to go on?
Actually, I just proved this false above.
But, let's take a look at this desparate attempt to rewrite history. What you say here makes NO SENSE at all, Mike. There is no need to presume what is already known! That would be like renting a home you aleady owned. Knowledge would obviate the need to presume. You can't presume what you already know!
Second, theistic faith has nothing to do with naturalism in the first place. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural. Any 'grounds' you would have would be natural, which again, cannot point to their own antithesis.
So your claim here is obviously nonsensical - you commit two internal contradictions - you claim the need to presume what you already know, and you argue for 'grounds' for belief in what can never be grounded in belief.
I do hope you have the courage to respond to what I say here.
Again, if you know, you can't presume.
No we cannot. Naturally speaking. Nature cannot point to its very antithesis.
Here again, you concede that faith is ungrounded, as it goes beyond what you can confirm by reason.
But again, you'll prove utterly inable to follow the ramifications of your own words.
Please, stop. You just keep refuting yourself.
Wrong. You have in fact done so here as well.
You just don't seem able to follow
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If you have a reason to hold to a belief, you don't need to hold to it on faith.
Certitude? That's also unjustified. In fact, it's downright irrational.
And you take god's existence on faith.
Begging the question.
By the way, you continue to equivocate the colloquial meaning of the word faith (probability) with theistic faith. Previously I thought it just an error from someone still learning the basics, but at this point, I have to question your honesty.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
nope. no faith is required.
Rill
Rill
Right.
Again and again, he's equivocating on colloquial usages of faith, which equate faith with confidence, trust, or even probabilistlic belief, and theistic faith, which is unjustified belief in the supernatural.
Since he fancies himself such an old school theist, we should refer to it syllogistically as the fallacy of four terms
Anyway the error is very silly It's like trying to prove that someone should sell you a Chinese Junk very cheap, since junk isn't worth much, or trying to prove that feathers emit light, since "feathers are light"!
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Great analogies!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
And herein lies the rub, my friend. This is the part that you refuse to accept as reality. Prior to any one of the incorruptibles being properly disputed by science, you belief with such conviction that you would say you in-fact *know*. Once scientific evidence comes along, you move down the list to the next body. You are forever safe, because that list contains everything you believe to be a miracle, and it can be altered as new "miracles" occur. No matter how many items you cross off, you or those who follow in your footsteps will inevitably scratch more lines on the pages.
If you are that determined to believe, you're beyond discussion.
I wish you well.
Todangst,
You still insist on defining that the terms of faith. Why? There is no reason why colloquial faith is not the same as theistic faith, other than the reason you say so. I do get to define the terms because I AND MY RELIGION ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE FAITH! Why do I need to keep telling you? You just don't get it! I can come back at you and tell you what to believe about your terms too. "Science" is an unjustified knowledge of natural occurences. Why are you conflating atheistic science with colloquial science?
It is not defined in contradiction to reason. It was defined as such by Luther and Kant and Kierkegaard, but I do not follow their teaching. I follow the teaching of Christianity and specifically the Catholic Church. They EXPLICITLY define our faith differently. There is no getting around it. You can't just make up your own terms, because they are not your claims, they are mine.
Christianity and Catholicism defines faith in the "colloquial" sense. Deal with it.
It is not a "desire" to believe any more than your knowledge of mathematical truth is defined by a wrenching of the gut.
Yes, I do write of Luther, because he was a heretic. I know you don't of cours accept that he was, but it still remains that you are answering a position THAT NEITHER I NOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HOLDS!
To accept faith requires reasons, as it requires a reason to hold that 2+2=4. Our movement to the knowledge of faith rests on the authority of the one revealing. We move to assent to it by reason of the probable arguments for His authority. The faith itself cannot be rationally demonstrated, but this is something different from saying that it is not either reasonably held or assented to by reason of external displays of authority. It just cannot be proven with certainty from natural reason. But we do have reasons for holding what we hold.
Yes it can. Your assertion is unfounded. The supernatural is related to the natural as cause to effect and hence something meaningful can be said of the supernatural by the via negativa, the via eminencia, and analogy.
Yes it does. If the believer finds the belief to be worthy of belief, it is believed because it is reasonable to do so. Otherwise, it would be merely an absurd and entirely arbitrary choice.
No it wasn't. Which is why Tertullian was condemned as a heretic.
You ought to have said that you do not accept the premise. Then we could have explained it better. It further is not begging the question because it does not assume what it intends to prove. First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds. Second, it assumes, and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid." This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist. Even if it were merely arbitrary assent, there would be no reason for it if it could be gained naturally.
Faith DOES NOT assume that God exists. Reason alone proves that God exists. Faith assumes the fact that reason has proven this. It can be a source of this knowledge, but only indirectly. Further, faith is NOT DEFINING THAT GOD EXISTS. Therefore, it does not beg the question, because it does not seek to prove that. It seeks to prove, for example, that this God that exists is Triune, or something of this nature.
Don't see why it begs the question. If we are assuming that faith exists, which even you grant, it is only meaningful at all as being a belief in something that God has revealed. Otherwise, what does the phrase mean?
Ignorance is not the reason we move beyond reason. We know from reason that we are ignorant of things that, absolutely speaking, can be known. We just know that we can't know them by our own power. Which is why we rely on revelation - faith - to understand these things.
Why cannot a natural thing point to its own antithesis? You take this as a principle, but I do not agree with it. Truth points toward falsity. Being to non-being. All privations point toward a plenum and all beings point to a privation.
OK, why?
You can believe something in a reasonable manner, but that does not imply that the knowledge of that thing is certain. That is what faith is in a colloquial sense.
So, two main points:
First, why cannot nature point to its antithesis?
Even if it cannot, supernatural is not the non-natural; it is the above-natural.
Second, on what grounds do you divide "theistic" faith from "colloquial" faith?
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Most people here intertain you because they are deconstructionists.
If your claims were true they would be easy as easy to demonstrate and falsify with a microscope or as easy as writing a formula on a board.
They take the time to indudge you because they realize how deeply indoctrinated you are.
But the bottem line is that there is no such thing as a "spirit" or "spirits" knocking up girls nor does human flesh survive rigor mortis. Dress it up with all the myth and lies you want. If a billion people claimed they saw me fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, would you merely believe it because people claimed it happend.
Once again, you admited you had no evedence. You also said there is no point in disscussing this and I AGREE. So why are you still here trying to defend something you already admited you had no evidence for?
I know you dont like hearing this. You are frustrated because we see through the distractions and lies and see your myth for what it is.
I merely cut to the case and skip all the bull. Your religion hinges on those two claims being true AND YOU ADMITED YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM.
Fine, I agree you have no evidence for them. We wont have you arrested, we wont take your bible away from you. But we have no obligation to believe you based on your conveluted long winded elaborate posts that are nothing but a distraction to direct questions.
Again, you merely like the deity someone sold you as real. So you allow your brain to do anything it has to to cling to that myth and believe it as fact.
The birth and death of the supposed Jesus is nothing but myth. Just as absurd as believing that Apollo pulled the sun across the sky with a chariot and just as absurd as Peter Pan flying or getting 72 virgins in a fictional after life.
Burring your myth in elaborate posts wont change that. "It really happened" Shout that from the rooftops all you want till your face is blue it still wont change the fact it is a lie no matter how much you want it to be true.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term, "deconstruction."
Why would they need to be falsified by a microscope or a formula on a chalkboard? That criteria of truth and falsity seems to eliminate a great deal of human knowledge, such as, for example, the criteria's justification itself.
You still have no presented a clear reason why I should not believe this.
I would find a billion people's testimony to be rather reliable. Thus, the probability that it was a true statement would go up and my belief in their statement would not be irrational.
I have NOT said that there is "no evidence" that Christ was born of a virgin. I have said that there is no human mechanism that exists to explain how the virgin birth HAPPENED. These are far different claims. The evidence for Christ's virgin birth is in His authority and His miracles. Likewise, the Catholic Church is surrounded by miracles in every age which confirm its authentic message. THIS is evidence.
Just dismissing it as a lie doesn't get you anywhere.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Not my job to do your work for you. You made the claim.
You desperately want to believe in magic that you constantly try to shift the burdon to me.
It would be just as rediculous for you to try to prove that Allah doesnt exist if a Muslim said to you, "Prove that he doesnt".
Same crap, different religion. Once again, not fooled.
You think that claims of "miricles" only exist under your label? You really are delluded and dont even realize it. But fear not, you are in the same boat as Jews, Muslims and Scientologists.
"I WANT MY FICTION TO BE REALL"
You think your religion is that special? When you use the word "miricle" somehow magically it works when you say it and is not fiction when you say it.
You might as well believe I can fart a Lamborginni out of my ass because you are just as gullible as any other myth lover. You merely cheerlead for a different club.
You already admitted you have no evidence for the magical claims of the alleged birth or death off the Jesus myth.
So it is YOU who needs to ask YOURSELF why you buy that crap without evidence. I have already rightly rejected it because it is absurd. Your argment should be with yourself, not me.
So, if you want to end this thread and wallow in your fiction, be my guest. But if you continue then further posts should be focused on those two claims and not all the convoluted distractions you have been constantly presented.
Stop trying to pass the buck and take responsibility for the claims you make.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I am shifting the burden to you because I have clearly shown that evidence does exist for my beliefs. YOU must show that these evidences are not sufficent. I can not prove the mechanism by which God effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Christ and His Church's authority. It's clear as day.
I never asked you to disprove God. I asked you to disprove specific claims of evidence that I have presented. You just keep pretending that they don't exist.
I never claimed that miracles were exclusive to my religion. I said, however, that a miracle is a necessary and sufficent proof for the reasonableness of belief. Further, however, Muslims do not have miracles in the same way Christians and Jews do, because they disavow miracles as meaningful.
No I did not. I said that there can be no repeatable test of the virgin birth. That is not the same as saying no evidence that the virgin birth happened exists. You need to understand the outline of the distinctions here.
OK, stop reading right here. Go back to the beginning of the post and read it again. You haven't been addressing what I say. I'm not doing it to be mean or trying to foist my beliefs on you. You just need to clearly understand what I am saying. I have said that I have evidence that Christ was born of a virgin. I cannot claim to show a mechanism by which it occurs, but I can support my belief that it happened. It is not rationally contradictory.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
You have evidence that people made that claim that people claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin. That is not the same as showing how it is possible, which in the second sentance YOU ADMIT HAVING NO EVIDENCE FOR!
Again, you need to ask yourself why you buy that magical superstition. Not me.
Just becase people claimed it doesnt make it true. Evidence of a claim is only evidence of a claim. Which makes replicating and falsification important to verifying the claim.
All you have done in this thread is say, "My evidence is that people claimed it".
And who is being mean to you? Not me? Did it ever occure to you that my bluntness and directness is to get you to think insted of simply buy myth simply because people in the past claimed the same myth you like today?
YOU ADMITED YOU HAD NO WAY TO VERYIFY THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT,
I have already rightfully rejected it because it is an abusurd claim. Just because people wrote it in a book doesnt make it true. Just because people have a history of claiming it doesnt make it true.
You are being intelectuall dishonest with yourself masking a claim of prior claims as being evedence that the event happened.
There is no such thing as spirit sperm or spirit DNA anymore than a billion people claiming Peter Pan flying would be real.
You have fooled yourself into mistaking a claim as evidence. I ask for verification which is what proves the valitity of a claim. Merely claiming something doesnt make it true.
YOU HAVE NOTHING AS YOU HAVE ADMITED TO
Dont get angrey at me for your own admission that you couldnt prove it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I have never admitted to not having evidence for my beliefs. I don't know why you keep repeating that.
And, my evidence was not merely that people claimed it. My position was that miracles showed forth the authority of Christ and His Church. The testiomony of the Apostles or anyone else is merely additional support for my position. If people claim Normandy happened, I have good grounds for believing them. Human testimony can and does suffice in many areas. For another example, if somebody tells me little Johnny picked his nose in class, and the teacher confirms this, I have good grounds for believing this. In fact, I can be fairly certain that said event actually occurred. It is a perfectly rational belief.
No, it does not ensure the certainty that logical proof can give, but it gives us a reasonable certainty. Verifiability does not give any more certainty. I can drop the ball a million times and it falls every time. But that is no absolute guarantee that it will not fly up into the air when I drop it the 1,000,001th time. It gives me certainly a good and rational reason to believe this, but it is not certain, logically speaking.
I have no way to TEST or VERIFY the MECHANISM of the virgin birth, or to REPLICATE it in a labratory. I am claiming that it can be verified indirectly.
I never claimed it did.
I never claimed there was spiritual sperm. Such would also be a contradiction, because what is spirit is not matter (and hence not a material object).
I never said that claiming something proved it was true. Reread my post again.
I have not said that at all.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REPLICATE THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
YOU ADMITED TO THAT
You are fooling yourself into believing an absurd claim like that without any verification other than, "Other people claimed the virgin birth happened as well"
You are ignoring your own words and being intellectually dishonest. You simply dont want to admit you have no evidence for the virgin birth. That is what you are doing here.
Keep fooling yourself. I myself dont buy absurd claims merely because a bunch of people said it was true.
YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REPLICATE THE VIRGIN BIRTH!
YOU LOSE!
It is a myth that you like and all the people you are trying to quote here and pass off as evidence. A bunch of delluded people patting each other on the back to support their fiction hardly impresses me.
AGAIN, without any way to replicate this claim you blindly buy it and believe it as fact. That is your problem and I cant help you excape your delusion if you dont want help.
But dont expect me to buy it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ok michael, simple exercise here:
Four propositions follow. I have borrowed syntax you have already used:
1. "Jesus was born of a virgin"
I can not prove the mechanism by which God effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Christ and His Church's authority. It's clear as day.
2. "Mohammed rose to heaven on a horse"
I can not prove the mechanism by which Allah effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Mohammed and his Mosque's authority. It's clear as day.
3. "On September 21, 1995 an idol of Ganesh was observed to absorb a spoonful of milk"
I can not prove the mechanism by which Ganesh effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Ganesh and his Temple's authority. It's clear as day.
4. "Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has demonstrated supernatural powers such as levitation and becoming invisible".
I can not prove the mechanism by which Fa effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happned, based on Falun Dafa and its XingXing's authority.
With the reasoning you have so far presented, all of these are true, more true, in fact, than 2 + 2 = 4.
There are no theists on operating tables.
THANK YOU!
St Micheal thinks he is special and is immune to this scrutiny. Somehow he is an ambeoba with magical powers to dodge a direct and obvious lack of evidence.
He is just like Charle Brown's teacher,
"Wah wah wah wah wah Jesus"
Muslims do it to,
"Wah wah wah wah wah, Allah"
"Wah wah wah wah wah Yahwey"
"Wah wah wah wah wah Vishnu"
He thinks he is doing things differently than those outside his sect of Christianity. He thinks he is doing things differently than non-Christian religions. He has fooled himself deeply.
I can only hope that he is brave enough to see what you rightly explained and what I have been pointing out all along.
Mask a delusion within a delusion, call it anything you want and it will still be a delusion.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The authority of Christ as manifested by miracles. So, we see miracles performed by Christ's authority in the Church. Saints perform miracles. This gives proof that the Church has authority from God. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like the virgin birth.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
WRONG!
You nor your church have any authority by proxy of their belief or their claims or your belief or your claims.
Again, neither would a Cleric or a Mosque or any Muslim.
Do not make your fictional boss my boss because of your delusion. That is your myth, not mine. I dont buy absurd claims. You seem to like absurd claims.
But do use that circluar "my daddy said just because" and call your favorite club an "authority" of anything.
Yet another post where you want to avoid the birth claim and death claim of the allegid Jesus.
PROVE IT!
Unless you can prove it you are not an athority of lint anymore than a Muslim is your athority by their claims.
STOP DODGING!
REPLICATE THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF THE JESUS CLAIM!
YOU CANT BECAUSE IT IS A MYTH, NOT A FACT!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The authority of Christ and His Church is authenticated by the miracles they perform. I have said this before. Just saying they have no authority is no argument.
I offer an example:
5:18. And behold, men brought in a bed a man who had the palsy: and they sought means to bring him in and to lay him before him.
Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem qui erat paralyticus et quaerebant eum inferre et ponere ante eum
5:19. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus.
Et non invenientes qua parte illum inferrent prae turba ascenderunt supra tectum per tegulas submiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Iesum
5:20. Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Quorum fidem ut vidit dixit homo remittuntur tibi peccata tua
5:21. And the scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying: Who is this who speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
Et coeperunt cogitare scribae et Pharisaei dicentes quis est hic qui loquitur blasphemias quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus
5:22. And when Jesus knew their thoughts, answering he said to them: What is it you think in your hearts?
Ut cognovit autem Iesus cogitationes eorum respondens dixit ad illos quid cogitatis in cordibus vestris
5:23. Which is easier to say: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise and walk?
Quid est facilius dicere dimittuntur tibi peccata an dicere surge et ambula
5:24. But that you may know that the Son of man hath the power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say to thee to: Arise, take up thy bed and go into thy house.
Ut autem sciatis quia Filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata ait paralytico tibi dico surge tolle lectum tuum et vade in domum tuam
5:25. And immediately rising up before them, he took up the bed on which he lay: and he went away to his own house, glorifying God.
Et confestim surgens coram illis tulit in quo iacebat et abiit in domum suam magnificans Deum
Thus, miracles are used to prove the authority of Revelation.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
You are a broken record.
I could care less what you claim "miricles are used for".
AGAIN, stop projecting your fantacies on me. You nor your church are athorities of anything. You are just a bunch of people who baught a myth.
NOW, can you focus on the claims of the virgin birth and death of the Jesus claim, or your going to continue to dodge direct questions.
If you cant do that you are wasting your time and mine.
FOCUS!
CAN YOU REPLICATE AND FALSIFY THE VIRGIN BIRTH?
CAN YOU REPLICATE 3 DAY OLD DEAD FLESH COMMING BACK TO LIFE AFTER RIGOR MORTIS?
NO YOU CANT!
Your claims of "miricles" are irrellevent and no different than the magical "miricles" other religions claim. NO DIFFERENT!
You want these claims to be real because you like the idea of a magical Jesus.
It's easy to justify magical claims by calling them "miricles" and in tern use that to justify your circular reasoning to protect your claims of Jesus, because you like it.
"My club members said. My god said. Miricles happen" Same crap different sky daddy club.
You are using a delusion to back up a delusion you like.
YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REPLICATE EITHER THE BIRTH OR DEATH OF THE ALLEGED JESUS!
YOU LOSE!
Get over it. You like believing that? Fine, but you are not going to fool me with "My miricles prove my claims of magic".
You are no different and no less delusional than other religions that claim the same thing.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The authority of Allah as manifested by holy signs. So, we see holy signs performed by Allah's authority in the Muslim world. Prophets perform miracles. This gives proof that the Islam has authority from Allah. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like mohammed flying to heaven on a horse.
I could do the same for a bunch of other religions, but I'm sure you get the point. Perform that little exercise of word substitution with any of your "christ" arguments, and see how much sense it makes. If you can't prove your argument right without using "christ", then your argument is no more sound than a muslim using "allah" in every argument.
And you already know this.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Mike, you still insist on lying that I am doing this, when I've shown otherwise? Why?
I've shown you, time and time again, how theology defines faith the way it does. I've shown you that YOU define faith as unjustified assumption, but you're unable to follow the ramifications of your own claims.
Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.
Mike, I've been telling you this from my very first post to you !: that your own religion defines faith as unjustified belief!
Actually, I've been endlessly telling you the same thing. Odd that you now want to ignore that.
My point has always been that St. Paul himself affirms faith as unjustified belief. You do the same, but aren't able to follow the ramifications.
Please, if you are going to talk to yourself on these boards, make it more clear, someone might think that you are actually talking to me here.
And you'd be demonstratably wrong. Why the need to go to this childish tit for tat anyway?
Why are you so desparate that you've come up with such nonsense?
Yes it is. You can't take something on theistic faith, if you have reasons to hold to it.
It was also defined by Paul. Who makes the same points.
That's where Luther gets his viewpoint.
Finally, your own definition agrees that faith begins with an assumption.
So your real problem is that you can't follow the ramifications of your own claims.
No, they do not. The bible speaks of faith in god's goodness (despite reasons to believe otherwise), such as that held by Job. This again is belief despite negating evidence (i.e. Job could certainly doubt that god was good in the story) But this faith can only take place where one knows god directly, so it only relates to the imaginary patriachs of the bible, like Job or Noe/Noah. If you try to use this as 'evidence' for faith as some form of knowing, you first have to beg the question that these stories represent reality in the first place!
Faith for real humans, in the real world, is merely question begging, as one only "knows' god in the first place through unjustified belief.
So any attempt to use this type of faith, the faith of Shadrack, Meshack, Abendigo, or Job, has no relation to theistic faith in the supernatural, because for you, you have to beg the question that any of this relates to a reality....
By the way, do you take these stories litearly? If you do, my condolences.
No, they do not, and they cannot, because you can't use naturalistic terms like probability and experience in regards to the supernatural. If you could, you wouldn't be talking about faith in the first place.
Deal with that.
It is a desire to believe, a desire inculcated by society.
Ad hominem genetic fallacy.
Why not deal with his arguments, rather than just write him off by attacking his person?
Incorrect, I've also given you points from Paul, and I've also cited Pope John Paul II and finally, I've given you arguments as to why faith cannot be a type of reason.
But you just ignore these points.
Oh, and one other tiny detail. I've also shown how your OWN STATEMENTS LEAD TO FAITH BEING UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF, BUT YOU STUDIOUSLY AVOID CITING WHERE I DO THIS. In fact, you don't even cut and paste them here - so I will have to repost them all.
2+2=4 is held because it's a tautology.
Faith does not require reasons, if it did, you couldn't hold belief in the supernatural at all.
There is no knowledge in faith, it is an assumption. If faith brought knowledge, it would be a form of reason, and you'd have no need for the term at all.
You simply prove unable to grasp this.
Again, if this were so, why use the word faith at all? You'd have reasons for your belief.
Are you seeing the problem yet?
You just keep missing the point... there is no way to justifiy a belief in the supernatural.
Oddly enough, YOU yourself recogznie this here:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
I.e. you recognize that faith holds to beliefs that cannot be justified by natural human reason.
Which means that your belief is unjustified.
YOU JUST CAN'T FOLLOW THE RAMIFICATIONS OF YOUR OWN WORDS.
How many times must I refute you with your own words before you concede to reality?
If you had reasons, then you wouldn't need faith.
You just don't see it, do you?
The reality is this: why would one hope for what one already sees?
No, it cannot.
Incorrect. Supernatural is defined as beyond nature. This means that the supernatural is defined negatively, sans any universe of discourse.
This means that the supernatural has no ontology. Ergo, there is no way that reason can grasp the supernatural.
Stolen concept fallacy. Causality is a natural process. To be causal is to be lawful. To be lawful is to be natural. Part of nature.
The supernatural would be acuasal, magical... god would work through 'fiat'
To speak meaningfully, via negativa, requires a universe of discourse. But the term 'supernatural' rules out any universe of discourse by definition.
And you can't make analogy from nature to its very antithesis.
So says the scientologist and the buddhist.
You are begging the question. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking.
Yes it does.
It begins by arguing from ignorance and begging the question.
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION!
THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG: IF YOU HAVE REASONS, YOU DON'T NEED FAITH!
IN OTHER WORDS, FAITH IS UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF. YOU YOURSELF SEE THAT IF IT WERE JUST LIKE REASON,THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR IT. YOU YOURSELF ADMIT THAT IT BEGINS AND ENDS WITH AN ASSUMPTION THAT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED!
YOU YOURSELF SAY THAT ITS NECESSARY TO BEG THE QUESTION IN ORDER TO HAVE FAITH!.
I'm going to love watching you try to dance away from this one, Mike.
IF IT COULD, THEN WHY DO YOU USE FAITH AT ALL?
YOU JUST SAID FAITH MUST START OUT WITH AN ASSUMPTION, OR YOU CAN'T HAVE IT AT ALL. WELL, IF YOU CAN JUST JUSTIFY YOUR BELIEFS, WHY JUST BEG THE QUESTION THAT THEY ARE TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Do you see how you contradict yourself here?
DO YOU SEE HOW YOU YOURSELF, YET AGAIN, CONCEDE THAT FAITH IS MERELY ASSUMING, MERELY BEGGING THE QUESTION?
THEN WHY USE FAITH AT ALL?
WHY EVEN BRING UP THE WORD?
WHY EVEN HAVE THE WORD?
WHY DO YOU, YOURSELF, ADMIT THAT FAITH BEGS THE QUESTION ABOVE, AND THAT THIS IS THE VERY REASON IT EXISTS, YET FORGET THAT YOU JUST SAID IT HERE?
Amazing Mike just amazing.
AGAIN YOU SAY ASSUME! THIS MEANS THAT YOU AGREE THAT FAITH IS AN ASSUMPTION
IF REASON PROVES IT, WHY THE NEED TO ASSUME IT?
DO YOU SEE HOW OFTEN YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF?
Sure it is.
YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST AGAIN: YOU START OUT ASSUMING SOME TRUTH, AND THAT A GOD GRANTS THIS TO YOU, WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU THINK YOU MEAN BY THAT, IF NOT YOUR 'GOD' AS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH?
You start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging!
Amazing you can't see this.
Anyway, I will have to repeat this entire part of my post, as you dishonestly clipped all the damaging parts away.
Now, you are being incredibly obtuse. The fact that faith exists does not mean that faith is 'right' in the assumptions it makes!
You youself conceded that faith exists because of the NEED TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION that there are truths that cannot be known.... how does this need to assume make the assumption true?
Answer: it can't and and it doesn't.
And to assume god revealed anything, you beg the question of his existence, through a long chain of question begging that begins with the unjustified assumption that there are supernatural truths that cannot be known by reason.
The fact that you are ignorant only tells you that you don't know. To say anything else is to argue from ignorance. To work from ignorance to the existence of god is blatantly irrational. Unjustified.
You just contradicted yourself again.... you say that ignorance is not the reason, and then concede that ignorance is the reason... you concede that you don't know, that you have limits, but then you go on to argue from these limits that there must be something beyond them!
But all your ignorance can tell you is that you don't know... you can't go on to talk from ignorance, about what lies beyond your ignorance... but this is precisely what you do when you use 'Faith'
And these are your own words.
YOU AGAIN HAVE CONCEDED THAT FAITH IS UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF.
If you can't know something by your own power, then you are speaking from ignorance.
Yet you go on to make a series of unjustified assumptions that give you a 'god' belief!
I already explained this. How can one reason about something without an ontology?!
How is 'above natural' not 'not-natural"?
Again, I've already given you this
Colloquial usages refer to natural entities, - humans. Colloquial usages are actually just references to experience and probability.
These terms are not even from theology, they simply use the word 'faith' in a new sense.
For a theology student to rely on a dictionary definition of faith in a debate is just too embarrassing to consider any further.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No, the scary part is that we gave this example over and over to demonstrate the self serving circular faulty logic he is using. He doesnt get the point.
He is using claims of magic to back up claims of magic as he says "indirectly".
People were once mass deluded that the heart did the thinking and not the brain. People once thought the earth was flat. All of them made superstitious claims to back up their claims on the heart and earth as well. We now know that those claims they used to back up those other claims were false.
Saying, "The authority of the church" is the same as the authority of the Mosque is the same as the authority of the Synogouge and all of it amounst to a bunch of experts in comic book claims who have learned how to fool people into buying the myth they bought.
Does it suprise me that he uses his favorite club to back up claims "miricles"? Nope, not at all. Self serving is all it is and only demonstrates how deluded he is.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Brian, he repeats the same circular logic fallacy over and over, but simply refuses to concede to it.
Yes, you did.
A few examples:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine!
QED
But hey, why stop there?
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?
What sort of faith is required for you to rip logic assunder like that? To assume is to beg the question.
Anyway, here are two cases where you openly state that you begin by assuming 'god' exists. You then, pathetically, try to state that while you ASSUME god exists, this is not 'properly begging the question.
Only problem is: begging the question is assuming what you seek to prove!
You also write:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.
You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth, as per your first claim above.
That's 3. But again, why stop there?
It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.
Again, you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION.
i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.
That's four cases.
I'll add the latest cases from the last post when I get back later.
But you're dead in the water, Mike.
And I'll keep reposting this until you concede, or run off.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Brian, I see no room for discussion. You are not reading my arguments and you have no desire to engage in a discussion. If you want to have a discussion, read my posts.
As for zarathustra, who says
Other religions do not have miracles in the same way Catholicism does. For example, Islam does not. They disavow miracles. Mohammed does so expressly in the Quran and in the Hadith. Miracles are not to convert unbelievers. One, in Islam, believes the Quran because of the fact that it is revealed and God says so. There is no proof necessary, nor can one ask for proof of Mohammed's claims. Judaism is a little different, but of course that is assumed by Christianity. None of the other major religions have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does.
And I showed you that it does not. Martin Luther is of course not an authority for a Catholic. The Church does not teach it. It has no place in the discussion.
I have not done so. We can talk about this later in this post.
I see no reason why they cannot. Miracles and prophecy are ordinary events. Likewise, ordinary things are used to point to God constantly, such as the words we are using. We use natural and human terms to refer to the supernatural. No contradiction.
We already discussed why Saint Paul does not. You just said that I was rationalizing my position. You have not shown that Saint Paul accepts your position. In fact, he expressly denies in multiple places. Of the many, here is one more:
"1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." From his letter to the Romans. Obviously, people can have clear knowledge of God from created things. In this way, he condemns the pagans for knowing that God exists, and yet worshipping idols, and for knowing His law, but yet not obeying it. I also refer you to his speech at the Areopagus in Acts.
Which it doesn't. We'll talk more later in the post specifically about this.
Just citing the Bible is not proof. We have different interpretations of Scripture. And I clearly disagree on these passages.
That is a total and utter misinterpretation of the story. Job holds to faith in God because he knows of God's Providence. This is the interpretation, for example, in the commentary of Saint Thomas on Job. The book presents various arguments that are advanced to show that Providence is not real because it seems to impugn the just man, and Job counters each.
It has nothing to do with assuming that these stories describe historical persons. Also, it does not depend on their direct knowledge of God. Job, for instance, has no such knowledge at least prior to the revelation at the end of the book.
The knowledge of God that faith presumes in that known by natural reason. We can see from the world around us that God exists. This is what Saint Paul most clearly says in Romans. Faith assumes this previous knowledge, but not unjustifiedly.
Still no reason offered as to why this is impossible. I'm waiting for an answer.
No it is not. I have no desire to believe because of society. Nor do many Christians. Get off it. Even if we did, the desire proves nothing in terms of defining faith. Also, you are clearly wrong in defining faith as a desire to believe, using the term to describe itself.
I don't need to address his arguments with you because I do not accept them. If I accepted Luther's authority as defining my positon on faith, as a doctrine of the Church, then we might need to discuss him. Otherwise, he is irrelevant to why my concept of faith is irrational.
I DID NOT IGNORE THEM! Stop saying that! I responded to each of your posts in a very long and detailed message, going through how each was false. Even with the JPII assertion, you still have YET to produce a SINGLE quote of the Pope saying what you claim. You paraphrased him from Fides et Ratio saying, and I quote, "Reason is faith's handmaiden, but the handmaiden is unable access faith's chamber" which however is not found anywhere in the text, nor are supporting quotes of this kind found. In fact, I quote Fides et Ratio explicitly where the Pope argues against you point of view. You can read it on my blog on this site. To quote a second time from the Pope, "22. In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature's reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20)."
Again, Luther is just plain not accepted. It's as if I wanted to argue against your concept of science by quoting from creationist definitons of scientific inquiry. You wouldn't accept it.
Absolutely and entirely false. Faith exists as a trust in the other. In God, to be specific. It is not a blind trust, but a reasonable trust. We know it is reasonable because God reveals Himself to us by reason and also reveals His supernatural authority to us by miracles.
You keep claiming that I hold to a statement of unjustified belief in the following:
This is not a statement of what faith holds. This is an ontological statement about REALITY ITSELF. What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori. Put this in context with the rest of what I said:
Faith, as this account clearly shows, presumes no such thing. In fact, faith does not actually begin to exist until the third point. Only after that does man actually accept something as true from God.
We do not possess what faith knows. We know it by faith and we hope for it to be ours. We believe that we will be granted the Beatific Vision after death and we hope for it to come about.
Not true. The supernatural has an ontology. It is the source of this existence. It is not defined only negatively. You start off with these assumptions and have no reasoning to support them.
That is an unjustified assumption. Supernatural is not non-natural, as the opposite of nature. It is "above" nature as its cause. Hence, no contradiction.
You have yet to prove that assertion.
Why not? Further, it is not the antithesis of nature. It is above nature. There is a clear distinction.
Yes, they find their beliefs reasonable, otherwise they would not believe them. I agree. However, I would argue that they are objectively wrong. But that has nothing to do with the truth of my arguments.
You from this point on just repeat the same argument over and over again, ignoring my posts.
I do not assume that the truth is true. Merely in an epistemological account, there must be X truth that exists, which God communicates to man. It says nothing about the truth or falsity of that precept. I am merely defining faith as an epistemological action. Faith itself does not begin until, as I said above, point three.
There is no such argument from ignorance. The outline of how faith works makes no argument at all. It outlines how faith proceeds. Faith does not EXIST AT ALL until the third point. You need to read it before you claim these silly things.
For how I come to understand that there is knowledge beyond my natural capacity to know, that is a different issue. I come to know naturally that God exists, but I can never know what He is in Himself. He is utterly and totally beyond me in that respect, as I have no intuitive self-evident knowledge of God. Hence, this knowledge is beyond my power. The only way one could know this is by faith. And this is faith's purpose: to reveal knowledge not attainable naturally. There is no assumption of faith's part or argument from ignorance here.
God has ontology. It exists in relation to created things. It is your burden of proof to show that He does not have an ontology.
It is not the antithesis of nature, as you claim. It holds a relationship to nature.
Which is the way theology uses it.
Yes they are. I'll even quote the most basic dictionary definition of faith in theology, from the Cathecism:
"[Faith] is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed."
We trust in what God has revealed because He provides reason to believe it, likewise from the CCC:
"What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived". So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit." Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".
Faith does not beg the question.
Faith, in a sense, presumes God's existence is already known by natural reason. It can prove it by the fact that it proves, for example, that God is three and one. So, if God is three and one, there must be a God of which this is predicated. Hence, faith clearly demonstrates that God exists as well. It is not, however, the principal way in which we know that God exists.
I don't see how this begs the question. I don't prove anything by this, other than the fact that faith, if it proceeded from God, would of necessity be in conformity with reason. This is all I am proving. And then it is merely hypothetical. It never proves the existence of said divine truth, nor does it need to. It merely indicates the nature of faith is to believe a truth revealed by God, and, if it did this, the truth revealed by God must be in accordance with natural reason because God cannot contradict Himself. No contradiction or begging the question.
That is not the argument at all. We discover that we cannot know certain things, for example, about the nature of God naturally speaking. Hence, faith exists to reveal these things to man; for example, that God is three and one. We KNOW NATURALLY that these truths are beyond our power to know and that they exist. It is not begging the question. I do not merely state that we cannot know things and this proves that faith must exist.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.