Why Christ is the Son of God.

[Rhiannon]

Oh come on, Vlad. Transubstationalism. Penal substitution. Women priests. Purgatory and limbo. Indulgences. Papal infallibility. Gay marriage. Celibacy. Fornication, adultery, divorce and marriage/remarriage. Salvation through works. Salvation through grace.

Consistency? Really?

[Stranger]

But not all scientists are in agreement, indeed there are some basic disputes about whether multiverse theories are science or whether things which there can be no tests for are science. whether there should be falsifiability in science, or essentialism in science.

This is nothing but an obvious distraction tactic. We have a huge body of tested scientific theories; many of which underpin the technology that we are using.

Religion has no objective tests at all and it is totally fragmented in to the different religions, sects, cults and denominations.

Religions have checking in the sense of consistency of experience and tradition.

Really? Odd how people tend to have experiences that are consistent with whatever religion they are most familiar with, isn't it?

It is noted that you keep on ignoring the logical necessity that most religions are wrong. I'll also ask again: how should we approach religious claims in order to discover which of the many mutually contradictory claims are true?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But not all scientists are in agreement, indeed there are some basic disputes about whether multiverse theories are science or whether things which there can be no tests for are science. whether there should be falsifiability in science, or essentialism in science.

And in such cases (I have been involved in two prominent ones in my scientific area) experiments can be designed to decide which one is the closest to reality ( one win, one draw so far). The draw was due to either hypothesis being valid under different circumstances.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is nothing but an obvious distraction tactic. We have a huge body of tested scientific theories; many of which underpin the technology that we are using.

Religion has no objective tests at all and it is totally fragmented in to the different religions, sects, cults and denominations.

Really? Odd how people tend to have experiences that are consistent with whatever religion they are most familiar with, isn't it?

It is noted that you keep on ignoring the logical necessity that most religions are wrong. I'll also ask again: how should we approach religious claims in order to discover which of the many mutually contradictory claims are true?

A distraction tactic about what? You have science I have science, You have science versus religion, I have something a bit more sensible than that.
Religion has no common denominators?, Religion totally fragmented?
I think that is hyperbolic nonsense from someone who thinks science is all..but doesn't apparently live out an authentic empiricists existence.

The truth is that you don't really know what you are arguing for or against.

[Gordon]

All that huff and puff nonsense and it all adds up to you having no proof.

I tend to be wary of the notion of 'proof': so should you.

IT IS TRUE.. You cannot base your disbelief on any actual evidence.

I'm also wary of invitations to commit the negative proof fallacy - so I'll decline to do so.

As I said it is your pride... you cannot risk being wrong can you?

Being wrong is always a risk, which is why it pays to avoid falling into obvious fallacies.

But you cannot prove yourself right.

Agreed, so it is just as well I'm not trying to.

Christianity and knowing God and Christ is a personal relationship which requires no validation outside the people in the relationship.

Which would be a fallacious claim.

Sooner you realise that the believer under no obligation to prove anything because we all know if you truly were interested in the truth and knowing God you would take a step back and actually follow the WAY Christ taught.

Not when the arguments offered by 'believers', such as yourself, are so obviously fallacious.

The disciples did not hang around those who refused to believe in Christ. Once the number there were added to believers they moved on to the next place.

Then why are you posting with the likes of me?

You do realise that you are not going to convince anyone you made an informed decision, don't you.
All that waffle and it meant absolutely nothing...

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything: I'm simply rejecting bad arguments offered by the credulous, such as yourself.

[Stranger]

A distraction tactic about what? You have science I have science, You have science versus religion, I have something a bit more sensible than that.

I don't have science verses religion - it's you who started on about science. I was trying to ascertain how you would go about sifting mistaken religious experience and interpretation from true religious experience and interpretation (if there is any) and also questioning the notion that an omnipotent god would communicate in such an error-prone way. You brought in the science distraction in #115.

Please feel free to share this "something a bit more sensible". In your own time....

Religion has no common denominators?, Religion totally fragmented?

Oh FFS, do you live in the real world at all? What do you see? Is religion united on planet Vlad?

I think that is hyperbolic nonsense from someone who thinks science is all..but doesn't apparently live out an authentic empiricists existence.

Back to straw man construction, I see. I have never argued that "science is all".

The truth is that you don't really know what you are arguing for or against.

I'm engaged in the apparently futile task of trying to get you to address the problem of how anybody can test religious experiences and interpretations (that you claim are the reason to believe), so we can find the one that is true (if there is one) amongst all the others (necessarily the majority) that are mistaken...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You have science versus religion, I have something a bit more sensible than that.
Religion has no common denominators?, Religion totally fragmented?
I think that is hyperbolic nonsense from someone who thinks science is all..but doesn't apparently live out an authentic empiricists existence.

The truth is that you don't really know what you are arguing for or against.

This is complete BS. You are the one bringing science into this.

You make a claim. We ask how we can know it is true. It is that simple. Maybe you say that it can't be demonstrated by the scientific method. OK then how can we tell that the claim you make is true? It is as simple as that. No need to bring science into it, unless you think it can help.

I notice, no reply to the previous questions I asked.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is complete BS. You are the one bringing science into this.

You make a claim. We ask how we can know it is true. It is that simple. Maybe you say that it can't be demonstrated by the scientific method. OK then how can we tell that the claim you make is true? It is as simple as that. No need to bring science into it, unless you think it can help.

I notice, no reply to the previous questions I asked.

What?.............This forum is replete with Religion versus science threads which I haven't even contributed to.

There are scientific instruments for science and we are the instruments for detecting God. You haven't got a  detector, you are a God detector and the trained, skilful and gifted can observe your response.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

What?.............This forum is replete with Religion versus science threads which I haven't even contributed to.

You continuously bring up the subject of science, along with other isms, when we are asking you to demonstrate God. Why?

There are scientific instruments for science and we are the instruments for detecting God. You haven't got a  detector, you are a God detector and the trained, skilful and gifted can observe your response.

But we need to show that the scientific instruments are detecting what we think they are. Normally by calibration agasint known standards.

As far as I am aware Sigma-Aldrich don't sell a God standard. Yep I was right.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?&interface=All&N=0+9634086&mode=partialmax&lang=en&region=GB&focus=product

How then do you know you are detecting what you claim you are?

[Stranger]

What?.............This forum is replete with Religion versus science threads which I haven't even contributed to.

There seem to be various reasons why it gets mentioned.

Some religious claims flatly contradict scientific evidence: literal creationism, for example.

Then there are the rather silly theist arguments that start with "science can't explain....", as if that (even if true) was an argument for their god.

Also, science is an example of a system that has a way to check its results - in exactly the same way that religion hasn't. I imagine that many theists find that threatening. That certainly seems to be your problem, in this thread. Rather than answer the questions raised about how we might check religious claims, you have tried to undermine how science works (despite the fact that you are using a product of science to do so).

There are scientific instruments for science and we are the instruments for detecting God.

How do you know we are "instruments for detecting God"? If we are, we are clearly extremely badly designed for the task. Even if we accept that some people have successfully detected the true god(s), more people are wrong than right.

You haven't got a  detector, you are a God detector and the trained, skilful and gifted can observe your response.

Just assertion.

[Sassy]

Oh come on, Vlad. Transubstationalism. Penal substitution. Women priests. Purgatory and limbo. Indulgences. Papal infallibility. Gay marriage. Celibacy. Fornication, adultery, divorce and marriage/remarriage. Salvation through works. Salvation through grace.

Consistency? Really?

Jesus is the life, the truth and the way...

Simple, consistent and above all, the only way the true believer can know God.

Read John 4 you might learn something of that which you should have known as a believer.

[Sassy]

I tend to be wary of the notion of 'proof': so should you.

I'm also wary of invitations to commit the negative proof fallacy - so I'll decline to do so.

Being wrong is always a risk, which is why it pays to avoid falling into obvious fallacies.

Agreed, so it is just as well I'm not trying to.

Which would be a fallacious claim.

Not when the arguments offered by 'believers', such as yourself, are so obviously fallacious.

Then why are you posting with the likes of me?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything: I'm simply rejecting bad arguments offered by the credulous, such as yourself.

Reply as expected Gordon,

But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts.

Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.

[Khatru]

Reply as expected Gordon,

But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts.

Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.

Why don't you/ show me real, tangible and irrefutable evidence that the god you have picked out to grovel to actually exists

Just think, if you did that, I would, more than likely, change my mind based on the evidence you provided.  After all, evidence comes before a conclusion.

Well, it does for me anyway.

But not for you, eh?

In your case the conclusion comes first after which you filter out evidence that is at odds with your conclusion.  Doesn't matter what evidence comes up you won't change  your mind.

How dishonest is that?

[floo]

Reply as expected Gordon,

But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts.

Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.

Couldn't it be that your perception of the 'truth', doesn't have any basis in reality, as you can't provide any evidence to support it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

You make a claim. We ask how we can know it is true. It is that simple. Maybe you say that it can't be demonstrated by the scientific method. OK then how can we tell that the claim you make is true? It is as simple as that. No need to bring science into it, unless you think it can help.

For what it's worth I chased Trollboy all over the old BBC boards and later on here too for an answer to that but he never felt like answering. I even resorted to asking him why he wouldn't answer, but he would answer that either.

His entire schtick is to construct straw men versions of what's actually said to him - including just re-defining words to suit his purpose by the way - and then attacking those straw men in the hope that no-one notices that he has no argument of any kind for his personal faith beliefs also being objectively true for the rest us.

It's deeply dishonest and entirely pointless but, as he takes the non-falsification of his straw men as succour for his position, I've stopped feeding him.

[Gordon]

Reply as expected Gordon,

True - if you offer fallacies then I'm going to rebut them.

But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.

I'm sure you think that but I'd say you're thinking is fallacious.

I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts.

I don't actively 'disbelieve' in Gods.

Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.

Well, what is actually perceived and what is actually true require more than just assertion - no matter how sincere the person making assertion is. 

The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.

No idea what this is supposed to mean, so it is at least a non sequitur.

[Sassy]

Why don't you/ show me real, tangible and irrefutable evidence that the god you have picked out to grovel to actually exists

Do you have to grovel to your father?

So why would any child have to grovel to their Father in heaven?

I suppose that is why I am a child of God and you are not.
My Father does not make me grovel...

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

God has made a way for us all. Strange you think children have to grovel to their Father.
We just return the love he gives to us.

Just think, if you did that, I would, more than likely, change my mind based on the evidence you provided.  After all, evidence comes before a conclusion.

But you have already made up your mind. A mind which puts God in a bad light and one where you want to relish in hurling insult. How can you want anything better when you show clearly you want to hurt, insult and tear down.
Mocking does not do anyone any good, not even you who mock.

Well, it does for me anyway.

But not for you, eh?

You have evidence that God doesn't exist? You have evidence which allows you  to believe that your insulting and and
 mocking others is okay. I personally, would like you to produce that evidence so all who believe can know they are wrong.

The truth I believe about God and Jesus allows me to live my life in peace and knowing them.

Your disbelief and lack of evidence makes you want to attack anything that you do not believe.
You make proud statements and when it comes to backing them up you have nothing.
My beliefs are in God, Jesus Christ and the Word of God. I can show my proof for my beliefs. But you do not have anything yet want proof of mine. Read the bible and accept Christ as your saviour. If you do these things you will have ALL the evidence you require. It won't make you bitter either.

In your case the conclusion comes first after which you filter out evidence that is at odds with your conclusion.  Doesn't matter what evidence comes up you won't change  your mind.

How dishonest is that?

All that from the person who just made the statement:

Why don't you/ show me real, tangible and irrefutable evidence that the god you have picked out to grovel to actually exists

Just think, if you did that, I would, more than likely, change my mind based on the evidence you provided.  After all, evidence comes before a conclusion.

Then follows the above with....

Well, it does for me anyway.

But not for you, eh?

I think not because if asked to produce evidence God does not exist for his own beliefs, he cannot.

I can show the way I became a believer and the God WHOSE Words I believe in simply by telling you to read the bible and obey Christ. If you believed Christ you would have your proof. But you won't even try...

[floo]

Maybe people are sceptical because your behaviour on forums doesn't exactly tie in with your stated beliefs,  Sass!

[~TW~]

Maybe people are sceptical because your behaviour on forums doesn't exactly tie in with your stated beliefs,  Sass!

Sass is very kind and all she wants you to do is look around your room and select something that made itself. 
~TW~

[Stranger]

...look around your room and select something that made itself. 

Why? Is there some kind of point you are struggling to make here?

Whiffs a bit of the "you can't explain everything therefore the fairies did it my version of god" idiocy.

[Aruntraveller]

I can show the way I became a believer and the God WHOSE Words I believe in simply by telling you to read the bible and obey Christ. If you believed Christ you would have your proof. But you won't even try...

So does this apply to the Koran too? You read it and believe it? Or The Lord of the Rings?

By stating something you are not offering proof. You are just telling us that you read a book and believed it.

Now some books you can read and believe - like my old Haynes Car Manuals. But other books like my Asimov collection falls into another category where I have to suspend disbelief.

Now I'm not going to tell you which category I think the Bible falls into but its no bloody use for fixing cars that's for sure.

[~TW~]

Why? Is there some kind of point you are struggling to make here?

Whiffs a bit of the "you can't explain everything therefore the fairies did it my version of god" idiocy.

So you found my point when you found nothing. 
~TW~

[Stranger]

So you found my point when you found nothing. 

I'll take it I guessed correctly and your 'point' was the idiocy I referred to, then...

[~TW~]

I'll take it I guessed correctly and your 'point' was the idiocy I referred to, then...

So you think you are an idiot,why are you so hard on yourself let me encourage and help you 
~TW~

[Stranger]

So you think you are an idiot,why are you so hard on yourself let me encourage and help you 
~TW~

     Still just inane insults and rants.

Do you have anything at all worth saying? You know, an argument or anything...?