Quote by Plunkies
If you KNEW your faith was nothing but your own desire to want it to be true then I guess you wouldn't believe in it anymore would you?
Come on Plukies, you're better than that. The operative word there is "if." You're right - If I knew my faith was nothing more than desire then of course I would eventually say "this is a bunch of crap." But, here again, you prove your ignorance of the Bible and my faith.
Quote: Your belief in an invisible man in the sky obviously wasn't based on evidence or logic though was it? His point still stands.
Your opinion and your definition. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky but I do believe in the God of the
Bible. And my entire coming to believe in the Bible was a decision based off of logic and reason. His points falls
because he claimed no Christians use logic or reason and my post presented a very good logical syllogism.
Quote:
Quote by kellyo
Quote: Faith is the argument used when all reason disappears. Follow my reasoning if you will:
Wait a minute. According to your first statement, we should have no faith in your reasoning.
That's a pretty lame copout. By your logic I can say you believe in an invisible supreme being and are therefore insane. So now I can just ignore every point you have to make because everything you say is just the insane ramblings of some nutjob. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean all their arguments are instantly flawed.
This is very simple but yet seems difficult for you. Look at his quote again. He claims that faith exists when all reason disappears. He then says follow my reasoning which assumes reason has not disappeared and exists within his argument. The first premise would then conclude that there is no faith because reason exists. Therefore, we should have no faith in his reasoning. Honestly, do you even study philosophy.
Quote:
Quote by kellyo
Quote: Your argument for miracles is not based on logic, reason or science of any sort...Many believing philosophers have been forced to abandon the seemingly indefensible position on miracles.
What exactly do you mean by "indefensible?" Unlike the person you seem to be responding to, my faith is based off of logic and reason. I have in fact studied Hume, McKinnon, Smart, Flew, Erlandson, Troeltsch, and the like. They have all presented arguments against miracles and everyone has a response.
If you claim it's "indefensible" then you are claiming that someone has a "watertight" logical reason to prove their point. So which one is it?
Uh I think you should look up indefensible or something man. He's saying a stance on miracles isn't even a reasonable position to take.
I just took a reasonable position and one you certainly didn't disprove. All you've done is disagree but nothing else.
Quote: By definition a miracle is an unreasonable assumption made to explain an odd occurance. I mean jeez, we have an entire thread here on miracles and nobody has pointed out a single one.
I didn't know you needed specific examples. There are 109 miracles in the Bible alone - before you even get to Jesus.
Quote: Not even a retarded one like an image of jesus on a wood grain or a virgin mary statue crying blood. Nothing.
I didn't know retarded miracles even existed.
Quote: Oh and name dropping a bunch of philosophers (who disagree with you) doesn't help you make much sense either. What, people responded to these guys so miracles are logical explainations of the world now? Guh?
Unlike some, I'm willing to throw the names out there that have developed much deeper thought than you and actually attempted to piece an argument together. They disagree with me. Because the truth prevails, even a guy like me can prove them wrong. So, Mr. wtf, find one of their arguments and play the damn game.
Quote:
Quote:
Here's some logical reasoning for you.1. If a theistic God exists, then miracles are possible.
2. A miracle is a special act of God.
3. God is the source and standard of all truth; He cannot err.
4. Nor would a theistic God act to confirm something as true that was false.
5. Therefore, true miracles in connection with a message confirm that message to be from God: (a) The miracle confirms the message. (b) The sign confirms the sermon. (c) An act of God confirms the Word of God. (d) New revelation needs new confirmation.
Not a single part of that was logical. Logical - Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT GOD EXISTS.
The whole thing is logical - it's a logic construct called a syllogism. It is using logic itself to present major and minor premises which draw a conclusion. You disagreeing with the logic doesn't then conclude it's not logic. This is getting old.
Quote: Then you end it with a statement that basically states "because God did it God obviously did it, and that confirms that God did it". Yeah that's some serious logic for you. Thanks for that you've changed my perception of the universe.
Not even close. If you honestly think that's the conclusion then read again because that isn't even in the ball park of what was said.
Quote: You can't use god to prove miracles if the whole point of proving miracles is to prove the existence of god. It'd be like going to court and saying you didn't commit a crime because you had an alibi, and you had an alibi because you didn't commit the crime. It makes no sense. You have to prove one to prove the other, however in your case both are unprovable. Yup that's religion for ya.
False. You didn't know how to disprove a syllogism. Look at it again. Nowhere am I attempting two conclusions. In order to prove a conclusion false all you must do is prove one of the premises' false. Your post certainly has not accomplished that task.
Quote:
Quote:
If there is an all-powerful, all-good, and all-wise God, then it follows that He would not perform a miraculous act to confirm a lie. Since miracles are by nature special acts of God, God would not act contrary to his own nature. The God of all truth would not miraculously confirm error. Hence, when a truth claim is repeatedly confirmed by miracles, such as the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the New Testament apostles did, then it is true and all opposing views are false.
I can't tell if you really have a point to make here or if you're just babbling to confuse people. What does a miracle have to do with God not lying?
I can't help your illiteracy.
Quote: Wtf is a truth claim? Pretend I have no idea wtf you're talking about here and explain it (because I seriously don't).
Read the thread "Is the absolute truth knowable." That'll help you. In that statement it is referencing the truth claims which miracles confirmed. Again, evidence you argue against a Book you've never even read. Moses told the Pharaoh that plagues would come upon him if he didn't let the Jews go - truth claim. They miraculously happened - miracle supporting the truth claim.
Quote: Ok so here's something for you. There's really only two reasons for your God to create a miracle.
1.) Change an event
2.) Prove he exists
Again, False. There's theological dimension, moral dimension, teleological dimension, and a doctrinal dimension.
Quote: Since he obviously doesn't want to prove he exists since he could just as easily do something truly miraculous like build a mountain in the desert with the words "WORSHIP ME" written across the sky and giant squirrels playing banjos, then we have to assume it's to change an event.
I knew it. If you saw an actual miracle like I've described above then you'd believe. Again, evidence you argue against a Book you don't even read.
Quote: Let's take some person living through a car crash as an example since that's one of the few even labeled here. Person survives horrible crash - Miracle. But if god is all knowing and all powerful he could have just as easily saved this person without the whole car crash thing and covered his existence without the miraculous event even raising anyone's suspicions. The whole concept of miracles doesn't even make sense except to convert non believers by convincing them to accept an event as proof of a god. Yet when they're in the religion they find out that god works in mysterious ways and actually doesn't want to prove himself at all, so you have to use faith. I guess by mysterious they really mean stupid. He was probably too busy planting dinosaur bones and winning football games to figure out his own motives.
Now that's just funny and further evidence that your Biblical knowledge is non-existant. You now are arguing about why a good God would allow bad things to happen or why God wouldn't perform these "miracles" all the time to prove Himself - not the thread topic. But, feel free to start another one.