Topic: Are you religious? If so, what makes you believe?
+ConferenceBoy !OK40KMXgt2 — 6.2 years ago #53,598
I was religious. But no longer. What about you?
+Anonymous B — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later[T] [B] #567,174
I enjoy making fun of the Catholic Church. So filled up with Pedophile Priests Bishops Cardinals and the Pedo enabling Pope.+Anonymous C — 6.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #567,176
dicks out for Harambe
+emo ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 6.2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #567,179
why not
+Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 32 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #567,180
inb4 pedofilth+Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #567,181
·ConferenceBoy !OK40KMXgt2 (OP) — 6.2 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,183
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,185
Yes, I am religious. What makes me 'believe' is the direct knowledge that God exists.
Bless you for the questions, friend!
Bless you for the questions, friend!
+Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,186
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,188
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,189
+Anonymous I — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,190
@567,185 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Yes, I am religious. What makes me 'believe' is the direct knowledge that God exists.
>
> Bless you for the questions, friend!
If there was really a God, then you would be ripped to shards because you're a PEDOPHILE.
Proof that God does not exist because you're still alive.
EAT SHIT AND DIE PEDOPHILE Merrin.
> Yes, I am religious. What makes me 'believe' is the direct knowledge that God exists.
>
> Bless you for the questions, friend!
If there was really a God, then you would be ripped to shards because you're a PEDOPHILE.
Proof that God does not exist because you're still alive.
EAT SHIT AND DIE PEDOPHILE Merrin.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,191
@567,189 (H)
Very well. The way we priests prove God's existence to someone is by actually introducing them to Him (after all, if someone I know asked me to prove that Paris exists, I would take them there; if they asked me to prove an acquaintance of mine exists, I would take them to him). So, if you agree to let me introduce you to God then we can begin. Do you agree?
Very well. The way we priests prove God's existence to someone is by actually introducing them to Him (after all, if someone I know asked me to prove that Paris exists, I would take them there; if they asked me to prove an acquaintance of mine exists, I would take them to him). So, if you agree to let me introduce you to God then we can begin. Do you agree?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #567,192
+Anonymous J — 6.2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,196
@567,191 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
So you're going to yell for god, and he's gonna walk through the door?
So you're going to yell for god, and he's gonna walk through the door?
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,198
·Anonymous J — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,200
+Anonymous K — 6.2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,204
@567,191 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/priests-accused-of-sex-abuse-turned-to-under-the-radar-group/ar-AAF0D5i
Priests accused of sex abuse turned to under-the-radar group
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/priests-accused-of-sex-abuse-turned-to-under-the-radar-group/ar-AAF0D5i
Priests accused of sex abuse turned to under-the-radar group
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,205
@567,198 (H)
> I agree.
Excellent!
So firstly, I will ask you some questions to establish your understanding of what it is you're asking for (after all, if somebody asked a scientist to prove the motions of the planets, it would require some knowledge on the part of the learner to understand the answer; to prove to you that Paris exists, you would need to have some idea of what Paris looks like).
Question 1: do you have any existing religious beliefs?
Question 2: have you read any, or all, of the Bible (it's not important yet which version)?
> I agree.
Excellent!
So firstly, I will ask you some questions to establish your understanding of what it is you're asking for (after all, if somebody asked a scientist to prove the motions of the planets, it would require some knowledge on the part of the learner to understand the answer; to prove to you that Paris exists, you would need to have some idea of what Paris looks like).
Question 1: do you have any existing religious beliefs?
Question 2: have you read any, or all, of the Bible (it's not important yet which version)?
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,206
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,207
@567,205 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
1. No, but I did before I grew out of it at ~10y/o
2. All, but I've retained next to none of it.
Will these questions help prove god exists?
1. No, but I did before I grew out of it at ~10y/o
2. All, but I've retained next to none of it.
Will these questions help prove god exists?
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,208
@previous (H)
> 1. No, but I did before I grew out of it at ~10y/o
I see. Why did you "grow out of it" at 10 years old? Usually one must first be grown in order to have grown out of something :) What was it that made you, as you say, 'grow out of it' at such a young age?
> 2. All, but I've retained next to none of it.
Ok. Then firstly, I would like you to read Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (paying close attention to the passages about resurrection). We will discuss some points after you have read it.
> Will these questions help prove god exists?
Yes. They will prepare you for knowing Him (if you wish to understand the proof of a mathematical formula, you must first do some reading on the subject. One of the problems with atheists is they demand immediate proof, which is like a child demanding instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics).
> 1. No, but I did before I grew out of it at ~10y/o
I see. Why did you "grow out of it" at 10 years old? Usually one must first be grown in order to have grown out of something :) What was it that made you, as you say, 'grow out of it' at such a young age?
> 2. All, but I've retained next to none of it.
Ok. Then firstly, I would like you to read Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (paying close attention to the passages about resurrection). We will discuss some points after you have read it.
> Will these questions help prove god exists?
Yes. They will prepare you for knowing Him (if you wish to understand the proof of a mathematical formula, you must first do some reading on the subject. One of the problems with atheists is they demand immediate proof, which is like a child demanding instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics).
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 56 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,214
+Anonymous L — 6.2 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,234
I'd call myself an apatheist or agnostic maybe, just because I have some silly beliefs. Although anti-theism seems more rational in light of the horrors of religion, esp. the Abrahamic ones.
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,238
@567,208 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> One of the problems with atheists is they demand immediate proof, which is like a child demanding instantly understandable proof of gravity
You said you could prove to me that God exists. Are you saying you now can't?
> One of the problems with atheists is they demand immediate proof, which is like a child demanding instantly understandable proof of gravity
You said you could prove to me that God exists. Are you saying you now can't?
+Anonymous M — 6.2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,241
·Anonymous L — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,245
@previous (M)
Spoiler: he's not.
Attempting to disprove it lends more credence to the shtick than it deserves.
Spoiler: he's not.
Attempting to disprove it lends more credence to the shtick than it deserves.
+Dead !Pool..v42s — 6.2 years ago, 7 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,283
@567,234 (L)
> I'd call myself an apatheist or agnostic maybe, just because I have some silly beliefs. Although anti-theism seems more rational in light of the horrors of religion, esp. the Abrahamic ones.
Basically this.
I think there's all this potential reality goin on, and you just have to put effort out there toward what you want, and then it just starts going
> I'd call myself an apatheist or agnostic maybe, just because I have some silly beliefs. Although anti-theism seems more rational in light of the horrors of religion, esp. the Abrahamic ones.
Basically this.
I think there's all this potential reality goin on, and you just have to put effort out there toward what you want, and then it just starts going
+Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 53 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,287
+Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,290
@567,208 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics
Don't need to study physics to know that gravity exists.
> instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics
Don't need to study physics to know that gravity exists.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,295
@567,238 (H)
> > One of the problems with atheists is they demand immediate proof, which is like a child demanding instantly understandable proof of gravity
>
> You said you could prove to me that God exists.
And I can. Now please address the questions and tasks I set you.
> > One of the problems with atheists is they demand immediate proof, which is like a child demanding instantly understandable proof of gravity
>
> You said you could prove to me that God exists.
And I can. Now please address the questions and tasks I set you.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 14 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,296
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,297
@567,245 (L)
> Spoiler: he's not.
Yes I am.
> Attempting to disprove it lends more credence to the shtick than it deserves.
Funny how everyone who has attempted to disprove it has so far failed isn't it?
> Spoiler: he's not.
Yes I am.
> Attempting to disprove it lends more credence to the shtick than it deserves.
Funny how everyone who has attempted to disprove it has so far failed isn't it?
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,298
@567,290 (P)
> > instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics
>
> Don't need to study physics to know that gravity exists.
You literally do.
> > instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics
>
> Don't need to study physics to know that gravity exists.
You literally do.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,299
@567,290 (P)
> > instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics
>
> Don't need to study physics to know that gravity exists.
At first I was going to ask you how else you can know gravity exists if you don't study physics, but then I decided not to toy with you because I already know what you would answer. It would be something like "you only have to observe an object falling to earth to know that gravity exists", correct? Which is no way proves "gravity" (the physical laws that dictate the motion and attraction of objects with mass or energy) exists. Without a knowledge of physics then that ball falling to earth could just as well be little green men within the earth using weird magnets to attract it. Without a knowledge of physics, the motion of the planets could be explained by the whimsical actions of a God.
You see the problem we priests face with you atheists? Your level of critical and analytical thinking is so poor that sometimes we need to begin at the very beginning of what we mean by such words as 'knowledge' and 'proof'.
> > instantly understandable proof of gravity despite having no knowledge of physics
>
> Don't need to study physics to know that gravity exists.
At first I was going to ask you how else you can know gravity exists if you don't study physics, but then I decided not to toy with you because I already know what you would answer. It would be something like "you only have to observe an object falling to earth to know that gravity exists", correct? Which is no way proves "gravity" (the physical laws that dictate the motion and attraction of objects with mass or energy) exists. Without a knowledge of physics then that ball falling to earth could just as well be little green men within the earth using weird magnets to attract it. Without a knowledge of physics, the motion of the planets could be explained by the whimsical actions of a God.
You see the problem we priests face with you atheists? Your level of critical and analytical thinking is so poor that sometimes we need to begin at the very beginning of what we mean by such words as 'knowledge' and 'proof'.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 29 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,301
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You might have missed my message, Father. I have read the things you point to and have been a Christian for over 25 years before becoming an atheist. So, give me your arguments. I am ready to honestly and open-mindedly evaluating them.
You might have missed my message, Father. I have read the things you point to and have been a Christian for over 25 years before becoming an atheist. So, give me your arguments. I am ready to honestly and open-mindedly evaluating them.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,302
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> You might have missed my message, Father. I have read the things you point to and have been a Christian for over 25 years before becoming an atheist. So, give me your arguments. I am ready to honestly and open-mindedly evaluating them.
My apologies, I did indeed miss your message.
So, I need to ask you what I asked Anon H (who seems to have gotten cold feet over his desire to know God). What was it that made you lose your faith and become an atheist?
About the Epistle to the Corinthians that you read: please tell me your overall first impressions of Paul's words on the resurrection. I'm not asking for a lengthy essay or anything like that. Just a quick first impression on his thoughts on resurrection.
> You might have missed my message, Father. I have read the things you point to and have been a Christian for over 25 years before becoming an atheist. So, give me your arguments. I am ready to honestly and open-mindedly evaluating them.
My apologies, I did indeed miss your message.
So, I need to ask you what I asked Anon H (who seems to have gotten cold feet over his desire to know God). What was it that made you lose your faith and become an atheist?
About the Epistle to the Corinthians that you read: please tell me your overall first impressions of Paul's words on the resurrection. I'm not asking for a lengthy essay or anything like that. Just a quick first impression on his thoughts on resurrection.
·Anonymous O — 6.2 years ago, 3 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,322
·Cook My Own Breakfast — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,324
Damn, I wrote a lengthy response, but then it got lost. So I have t re-type everything.
I lost my faith gradually, because it became important to me to make sure that my worldview is as close to reflecting reality as possible. It became important to me to have an epistemologically sound worldview. Asking the question "I believe A. What is the evidence for A?" became critically important.
Now, I am not sure what you want me to say about the letter to Corinthians. If you want me to prove to you that I had read it, I am afraid the text and even multiple analyses of said text is readily available through Google. But suffice to say that for more than 15 years I have been reading at least a chapter from the New Testament, every day before going to sleep, seldom missing this ritual. So, I know my way around the Bible. I also went to Sunday school and read a lot of apologetics.
The relevant bit is this:
While I understand the theological significance of this, today I view this as a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Did this really happen? There is clearly no evidence for this. You can write anything on paper. Do people get resurrected? I have never seen any credible evidence of this. Therefore, in order to convince me this is not made up, you've got to produce some serious evidence.
I lost my faith gradually, because it became important to me to make sure that my worldview is as close to reflecting reality as possible. It became important to me to have an epistemologically sound worldview. Asking the question "I believe A. What is the evidence for A?" became critically important.
Now, I am not sure what you want me to say about the letter to Corinthians. If you want me to prove to you that I had read it, I am afraid the text and even multiple analyses of said text is readily available through Google. But suffice to say that for more than 15 years I have been reading at least a chapter from the New Testament, every day before going to sleep, seldom missing this ritual. So, I know my way around the Bible. I also went to Sunday school and read a lot of apologetics.
The relevant bit is this:
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
While I understand the theological significance of this, today I view this as a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Did this really happen? There is clearly no evidence for this. You can write anything on paper. Do people get resurrected? I have never seen any credible evidence of this. Therefore, in order to convince me this is not made up, you've got to produce some serious evidence.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #567,325
^^^ my reply. My username is not allowed when I am editing the post, since it then says it is to long. Bug in the forum!
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,351
@567,295 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Why must I complete reading assignments to meet someone who is supposedly everywhere at once? Why can't you produce the being you're claiming you can prove without a doubt?
Why must I complete reading assignments to meet someone who is supposedly everywhere at once? Why can't you produce the being you're claiming you can prove without a doubt?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,353
@previous (H)
> Why must I complete reading assignments to meet someone who is supposedly everywhere at once?
In the paradigm you're using, gravity is everywhere at once. Can you know of its existence without first reading about what gravity is? How would you recognise it if you have no idea what it even looks, feels or behaves like? If you asked me to prove my friend Simon is real, and I offered to take you to him, how could you be sure that I had taken you to Simon if you did not first have some idea of who Simon was?
Right now you are behaving like a child. This is essentially you:
Anon H: "I want to know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem"
Professor Andrew Wiles: "Very well. First read this book on basic number theory and then..."
Anon H (stamping your feet and screaming)" "BUT I WANT TO KNOW NOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!"
You asked me to prove God's existence to you. I accepted. Now you are refusing to put any effort into it. Perhaps you are not as serious about wanting to meet God as you thought you were?
If you wish me to continue to guide you to God, complete the tasks I set you. If not, then it's your choice and I bid God bless you.
> Why must I complete reading assignments to meet someone who is supposedly everywhere at once?
In the paradigm you're using, gravity is everywhere at once. Can you know of its existence without first reading about what gravity is? How would you recognise it if you have no idea what it even looks, feels or behaves like? If you asked me to prove my friend Simon is real, and I offered to take you to him, how could you be sure that I had taken you to Simon if you did not first have some idea of who Simon was?
Right now you are behaving like a child. This is essentially you:
Anon H: "I want to know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem"
Professor Andrew Wiles: "Very well. First read this book on basic number theory and then..."
Anon H (stamping your feet and screaming)" "BUT I WANT TO KNOW NOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!"
You asked me to prove God's existence to you. I accepted. Now you are refusing to put any effort into it. Perhaps you are not as serious about wanting to meet God as you thought you were?
If you wish me to continue to guide you to God, complete the tasks I set you. If not, then it's your choice and I bid God bless you.
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,354
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
It's not very Christlike of you to retaliate negatively to insults, Merrin. How I was raised when I was brainwashed is that we are to turn the other cheek when receiving backlash. You're not spreading the word of God with that attitude.
I expected better from a man of god, a priest no less. You should be ashamed.
It's not very Christlike of you to retaliate negatively to insults, Merrin. How I was raised when I was brainwashed is that we are to turn the other cheek when receiving backlash. You're not spreading the word of God with that attitude.
I expected better from a man of god, a priest no less. You should be ashamed.
+Anonymous Q — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,355
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,357
@567,324 (Cook My Own Breakfast)
> Damn, I wrote a lengthy response, but then it got lost. So I have t re-type everything.
>
> I lost my faith gradually, because it became important to me to make sure that my worldview is as close to reflecting reality as possible. It became important to me to have an epistemologically sound worldview. Asking the question "I believe A. What is the evidence for A?" became critically important.
I see. Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them. Draw examples from different areas of life if you can please (mathematics, science, art, your own life, etc). This task is critical to your journey to God so please take care to complete it.
> for more than 15 years I have been reading at least a chapter from the New Testament, every day before going to sleep, seldom missing this ritual.
This is very good. Which chapter did you read last night?
> While I understand the theological significance of this, today I view this as a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.
Tell me please, what grounding do you have in Biblical history or the history (not theology) of the life of Jesus? Have you read The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P.Sanders? It troubles me that you have used the phrase "unsubstantiated claims" here. It suggests your grounding in the subject isn't as solid as it ought to be for someone who has the religious background you claim to have. We may need to address that first before we continue with the theology to be honest.
> Did this really happen? There is clearly no evidence for this.
Again, this is a very troubling claim you've made here. You are far too confident in what you think there is "no evidence" for.
> Do people get resurrected? I have never seen any credible evidence of this.
That is why I want you to complete the first task before we continue (the list of 10 things you believe because you have checked the proof of them), because I get the sense that - like Anon P - your understanding of how we arrive at knowledge is shaky, which is worrying because you say that "evidence" is what shapes your entire worldview. I'm almost afraid to continue to be honest, because if I show you that your understanding of "evidence" is wrong then your entire worldview will necessarily come crashing down!
Nevertheless, let's continue. Complete the task and answer my questions please.
> Damn, I wrote a lengthy response, but then it got lost. So I have t re-type everything.
>
> I lost my faith gradually, because it became important to me to make sure that my worldview is as close to reflecting reality as possible. It became important to me to have an epistemologically sound worldview. Asking the question "I believe A. What is the evidence for A?" became critically important.
I see. Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them. Draw examples from different areas of life if you can please (mathematics, science, art, your own life, etc). This task is critical to your journey to God so please take care to complete it.
> for more than 15 years I have been reading at least a chapter from the New Testament, every day before going to sleep, seldom missing this ritual.
This is very good. Which chapter did you read last night?
> While I understand the theological significance of this, today I view this as a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.
Tell me please, what grounding do you have in Biblical history or the history (not theology) of the life of Jesus? Have you read The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P.Sanders? It troubles me that you have used the phrase "unsubstantiated claims" here. It suggests your grounding in the subject isn't as solid as it ought to be for someone who has the religious background you claim to have. We may need to address that first before we continue with the theology to be honest.
> Did this really happen? There is clearly no evidence for this.
Again, this is a very troubling claim you've made here. You are far too confident in what you think there is "no evidence" for.
> Do people get resurrected? I have never seen any credible evidence of this.
That is why I want you to complete the first task before we continue (the list of 10 things you believe because you have checked the proof of them), because I get the sense that - like Anon P - your understanding of how we arrive at knowledge is shaky, which is worrying because you say that "evidence" is what shapes your entire worldview. I'm almost afraid to continue to be honest, because if I show you that your understanding of "evidence" is wrong then your entire worldview will necessarily come crashing down!
Nevertheless, let's continue. Complete the task and answer my questions please.
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,359
@567,355 (Q)
I'm fully aware. I just enjoy making him put in effort only to shame his shtick in front of the readers.
I'm fully aware. I just enjoy making him put in effort only to shame his shtick in front of the readers.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,361
@567,354 (H)
> It's not very Christlike of you to retaliate negatively to insults
Firstly, thank you for acknowledging that you insulted me. I'm sorry you feel my "retaliation" to it was "negative". I was pointing out that you seem to want to receive great riches for no effort.
Now then, I'll ask you one final time to complete the task I set you. Bless you, my child.
> It's not very Christlike of you to retaliate negatively to insults
Firstly, thank you for acknowledging that you insulted me. I'm sorry you feel my "retaliation" to it was "negative". I was pointing out that you seem to want to receive great riches for no effort.
Now then, I'll ask you one final time to complete the task I set you. Bless you, my child.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,362
@567,355 (Q)
> Not only is merrin a fake priest
I am a real priest.
> he isn't even Catholic.
Yes I am.
> Not only is merrin a fake priest
I am a real priest.
> he isn't even Catholic.
Yes I am.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,364
@567,359 (H)
> I'm fully aware. I just enjoy making him put in effort only to shame his shtick in front of the readers.
What a pity you abandoned your plan as soon as I started tying you up in knots :)
In any case, it would appear you were not serious about wanting me to prove God exists to you. Very well. That is, in more than one sense, your loss :)
> I'm fully aware. I just enjoy making him put in effort only to shame his shtick in front of the readers.
What a pity you abandoned your plan as soon as I started tying you up in knots :)
In any case, it would appear you were not serious about wanting me to prove God exists to you. Very well. That is, in more than one sense, your loss :)
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,367
@567,361 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You ridiculed a nonbeliever for their skepticism -plain and simple. As a former Christian, I fully recognize that you have breached the faith in your ungodly reaction. Now go repent if you take your faith seriously.
You ridiculed a nonbeliever for their skepticism -plain and simple. As a former Christian, I fully recognize that you have breached the faith in your ungodly reaction. Now go repent if you take your faith seriously.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,370
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,373
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Right now you are behaving like a child. This is essentially you:
> Anon H: "I want to know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem"
> Professor Andrew Wiles: "Very well. First read this book on basic number theory and then..."
> Anon H (stamping your feet and screaming)" "BUT I WANT TO KNOW NOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!"
> Right now you are behaving like a child. This is essentially you:
> Anon H: "I want to know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem"
> Professor Andrew Wiles: "Very well. First read this book on basic number theory and then..."
> Anon H (stamping your feet and screaming)" "BUT I WANT TO KNOW NOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!"
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,374
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,377
@567,373 (H)
That is not "ridicule". It is an analogy for your behavior. Stop being so sensitive my child.
And nowhere there am I saying anything about your "skepticism". 'Skepticism' would be "I have read this information and I am still not convinced, and here is why..." What you are doing is saying "WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO READ ANYTHING????? I WANT THE ANSWER NOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!"
Bless you, my child.
That is not "ridicule". It is an analogy for your behavior. Stop being so sensitive my child.
And nowhere there am I saying anything about your "skepticism". 'Skepticism' would be "I have read this information and I am still not convinced, and here is why..." What you are doing is saying "WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO READ ANYTHING????? I WANT THE ANSWER NOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!"
Bless you, my child.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,379
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,381
@567,377 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You seem upset that I've accurately called you out for being a subpar man of God. Go repent. You know God would like for you to.
You seem upset that I've accurately called you out for being a subpar man of God. Go repent. You know God would like for you to.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,383
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,384
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Ahh, the word salad part. That confirms my victory. Have a blessed evening. I hope for your sake that you repent. But being a nonbeliever, I don't give a fuck if you do or not. Goodbye.
Ahh, the word salad part. That confirms my victory. Have a blessed evening. I hope for your sake that you repent. But being a nonbeliever, I don't give a fuck if you do or not. Goodbye.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,385
@previous (H)
> Have a blessed evening.
Delighted to have converted you! A blessed evening to you too :)
> Have a blessed evening.
Delighted to have converted you! A blessed evening to you too :)
·Anonymous J — 6.2 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,386
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,387
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,391
@567,298 (F)
@567,299 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
@567,299 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,392
@previous (P)
> Never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
You never studied physics? How retarded are you? But ok, how do you know gravity exists?
> Never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
You never studied physics? How retarded are you? But ok, how do you know gravity exists?
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,393
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,407
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,409
@previous (F)
Landed on the floor.
Never studied computer science either, but know computers exist.
Landed on the floor.
Never studied computer science either, but know computers exist.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·Cook My Own Breakfast — 6.2 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,415
@567,357 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Let's first agree that this discussion is unlikely to change our minds right away. And the goal of this conversation is to understand the other person's position first. To kind of peek into each other's worldview.
Having said that, let me comment on some things you wrote, because I definitely need to clarify what I meant previously.
"Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them."
Checking for evidence personally is not a scalable method. And this is definitely not what I mean by sound epistemology.
For instance, I have not personally checked that electrons exist. I have not personally ran the experiments that discover and prove the existence of elementary particles. I have not personally even read the original articles, upon which the scientific consensus is based.
And yet, I consider electrons to be based on evidence. Why is that?
Well, because I have an understanding of how a proper experiment is designed, how experiment design and its results are verified by the scientific community, how mistakes are corrected over time, especially when such basic things are concerned - so many experiments would fail if electrons did not exist that the indirect confirmation is simply overwhelming.
And when someone asks me - is your belief that electrons exist based on evidence - my answer would be "yes". But we can unwrap it this way:
1. the belief that humanity in general holds about electrons being real is based on evidence
2. my personal agreement with this belief is based on the understanding of the rigorous methods that experts have used to arrive at the conclusion, as well as an understanding that the probability that all experts got it wrong after decades of research is as low as it gets.
So, in order for me to adopt a rational belief that electrons are real I do not need to personally go and conduct experiments.
If you have any questions about this, please ask. If you generally agree with what I've written here, then we can proceed and I can continue responding to the rest of your comments.
Let's first agree that this discussion is unlikely to change our minds right away. And the goal of this conversation is to understand the other person's position first. To kind of peek into each other's worldview.
Having said that, let me comment on some things you wrote, because I definitely need to clarify what I meant previously.
"Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them."
Checking for evidence personally is not a scalable method. And this is definitely not what I mean by sound epistemology.
For instance, I have not personally checked that electrons exist. I have not personally ran the experiments that discover and prove the existence of elementary particles. I have not personally even read the original articles, upon which the scientific consensus is based.
And yet, I consider electrons to be based on evidence. Why is that?
Well, because I have an understanding of how a proper experiment is designed, how experiment design and its results are verified by the scientific community, how mistakes are corrected over time, especially when such basic things are concerned - so many experiments would fail if electrons did not exist that the indirect confirmation is simply overwhelming.
And when someone asks me - is your belief that electrons exist based on evidence - my answer would be "yes". But we can unwrap it this way:
1. the belief that humanity in general holds about electrons being real is based on evidence
2. my personal agreement with this belief is based on the understanding of the rigorous methods that experts have used to arrive at the conclusion, as well as an understanding that the probability that all experts got it wrong after decades of research is as low as it gets.
So, in order for me to adopt a rational belief that electrons are real I do not need to personally go and conduct experiments.
If you have any questions about this, please ask. If you generally agree with what I've written here, then we can proceed and I can continue responding to the rest of your comments.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,418
@567,409 (P)
> Landed on the floor.
How do you know gravity was the reason?
> Never studied computer science either, but know computers exist.
False equivalence. The relationship between computers and computer science is not the same as that between objects falling and gravity. The fact this has to be pointed out to you is pretty shocking. Or maybe not, considering you never even studied physics at school.
> Landed on the floor.
How do you know gravity was the reason?
> Never studied computer science either, but know computers exist.
False equivalence. The relationship between computers and computer science is not the same as that between objects falling and gravity. The fact this has to be pointed out to you is pretty shocking. Or maybe not, considering you never even studied physics at school.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,420
@previous (F)
> How do you know gravity was the reason?
Because it's common knowledge. You really need to study physics to know gravity exists?
> False equivalence.
Nah. Existence of both gravity and computers can be easily demonstrated.
BTW: never studied botany, but know that flowers exist.
> How do you know gravity was the reason?
Because it's common knowledge. You really need to study physics to know gravity exists?
> False equivalence.
Nah. Existence of both gravity and computers can be easily demonstrated.
BTW: never studied botany, but know that flowers exist.
+Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,425
@567,393 (P)
> Picked up an object, held it at shoulder height and dropped it.
This counts as a scientific experiment in the field of classical physics. Therefore you have studied physics.
> Picked up an object, held it at shoulder height and dropped it.
This counts as a scientific experiment in the field of classical physics. Therefore you have studied physics.
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,426
@567,420 (P)
> > How do you know gravity was the reason?
>
> Because it's common knowledge.
How did it become common knowledge?
> > How do you know gravity was the reason?
>
> Because it's common knowledge.
How did it become common knowledge?
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #567,427
@567,425 (R)
> > Picked up an object, held it at shoulder height and dropped it.
> This counts as a scientific experiment in the field of classical physics. Therefore you have studied physics.
Don't confuse him. He's still struggling to understand how verification works.
> > Picked up an object, held it at shoulder height and dropped it.
> This counts as a scientific experiment in the field of classical physics. Therefore you have studied physics.
Don't confuse him. He's still struggling to understand how verification works.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,462
@567,415 (Cook My Own Breakfast)
> Let's first agree that this discussion is unlikely to change our minds right away.
We need to be clear here - I have absolutely no interest in "changing your mind", friend. This began with Anon H asking me to prove to him that God exists. I agreed and said I would show God to him. Anon H ended up backing himself into a corner and ran away. You stepped in midway through and wanted to join in. That is fair enough, I am happy to prove God to you instead. But to be clear, I am not trying to change your mind on anything. My questions to you are only so that I know what kind of mind you already have, as regards this issue.
Now then, let's move on. From reading your post about "evidence" and how you have formed your worldview, I want to ask you if you consider the following statement to be fair: "What is true does not always have evidence and what has evidence is not always true". Do you agree or disagree with that statement? And secondly, do you agree with this statement: "Truth is not always provable"?
> Let's first agree that this discussion is unlikely to change our minds right away.
We need to be clear here - I have absolutely no interest in "changing your mind", friend. This began with Anon H asking me to prove to him that God exists. I agreed and said I would show God to him. Anon H ended up backing himself into a corner and ran away. You stepped in midway through and wanted to join in. That is fair enough, I am happy to prove God to you instead. But to be clear, I am not trying to change your mind on anything. My questions to you are only so that I know what kind of mind you already have, as regards this issue.
Now then, let's move on. From reading your post about "evidence" and how you have formed your worldview, I want to ask you if you consider the following statement to be fair: "What is true does not always have evidence and what has evidence is not always true". Do you agree or disagree with that statement? And secondly, do you agree with this statement: "Truth is not always provable"?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,463
@567,420 (P)
> > How do you know gravity was the reason?
>
> Because it's common knowledge. You really need to study physics to know gravity exists?
In order to say that the force acting upon the object is gravity and not, say, some supernatural entity? Yes.
> > How do you know gravity was the reason?
>
> Because it's common knowledge. You really need to study physics to know gravity exists?
In order to say that the force acting upon the object is gravity and not, say, some supernatural entity? Yes.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,466
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 42 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,472
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,473
@567,426 (F)
Everyday occurrence experienced by billions of people.
@567,425 (R)
Nah. Everyday occurrence experienced by billions of people.
@567,427 (F)
So, you never knew gravity existed until you studied physics?
@567,427 (F)
Don't need to know what causes gravity to know it exists.
Also: don't need to understand how a TV works to know it exists.
Everyday occurrence experienced by billions of people.
@567,425 (R)
Nah. Everyday occurrence experienced by billions of people.
@567,427 (F)
So, you never knew gravity existed until you studied physics?
@567,427 (F)
Don't need to know what causes gravity to know it exists.
Also: don't need to understand how a TV works to know it exists.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
+Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,474
@567,462 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)> Anon H ended up backing himself into a corner and ran away.
Looks more like you disobeyed your god and anon called you on it.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,475
@567,473 (P)
> Don't need to know what causes gravity to know it exists.
Yes you do. Otherwise you can't be sure that the phenomenon is "gravity" and not some other supernatural force. The mistake you keep making (an understandable one for you, because you said earlier that you never went to school) is using tangible objects like TVs, flowers and computers as false analogies. A better example would be to ask if people can know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem exists without knowing any mathematics.
> Don't need to know what causes gravity to know it exists.
Yes you do. Otherwise you can't be sure that the phenomenon is "gravity" and not some other supernatural force. The mistake you keep making (an understandable one for you, because you said earlier that you never went to school) is using tangible objects like TVs, flowers and computers as false analogies. A better example would be to ask if people can know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem exists without knowing any mathematics.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,477
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,478
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,479
@567,473 (P)
> The belief that God exists is an everyday occurrence experienced by billions of people.
You see the problem yet with your abandonment of science?
> The belief that God exists is an everyday occurrence experienced by billions of people.
You see the problem yet with your abandonment of science?
·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 6.2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,480
·Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,481
@567,475 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
What I think he means is you don't need to know the nature of something to know that it exists, which is true.
> A better example would be to ask if people can know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem exists without knowing any mathematics.
No, a better analogy would be you don't need to know that solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations always exist in three dimensions to know that it's possible to create machines that can fly.
What I think he means is you don't need to know the nature of something to know that it exists, which is true.
> A better example would be to ask if people can know the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem exists without knowing any mathematics.
No, a better analogy would be you don't need to know that solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations always exist in three dimensions to know that it's possible to create machines that can fly.
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,482
+Anonymous T — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,484
@567,480 (Jim !a9Y4fazouc)
If you do not speak to God in the present times you certainly will on the day you die and it will not be a pleasant conversation.
If you do not speak to God in the present times you certainly will on the day you die and it will not be a pleasant conversation.
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,485
@567,481 (R)
> What I think he means is you don't need to know the nature of something to know that it exists, which is true.
For gravity, you (as in people who determine what gravity is) need to know the nature of it to know that it exists. People like anon P know a TV exists because he can personally see and touch it. He does not "know" gravity exists. He is trusting the word of people who understand physics to tell him that that's what it is.
> What I think he means is you don't need to know the nature of something to know that it exists, which is true.
For gravity, you (as in people who determine what gravity is) need to know the nature of it to know that it exists. People like anon P know a TV exists because he can personally see and touch it. He does not "know" gravity exists. He is trusting the word of people who understand physics to tell him that that's what it is.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 6.2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,486
@567,484 (T)I only wish it were possible to see the look on your face when you realize there is no afterlife. But you'll cease to experience anything so I guess you can enjoy your limitations via religious crutch in the meantime.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,487
·Anonymous T — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,490
@567,486 (Jim !a9Y4fazouc)
Damn you're ignorant. Enjoy your hellfire boy.
You will beg for a drop of water on your burning tongue as you sit in the dark pit just having arrived in Hell where the only lights are vicious flames and then the demons with torment you for eternity.
Damn you're ignorant. Enjoy your hellfire boy.
You will beg for a drop of water on your burning tongue as you sit in the dark pit just having arrived in Hell where the only lights are vicious flames and then the demons with torment you for eternity.
·Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,494
@567,485 (F)
Nah, it seems to me he's also trusting his own observations and drawing conclusions, which is why the first thing I said was that dropping an object from a height counts as a scientific experiment - you make an observation, you come up with a hypothesis, then crucially you test that hypothesis to see if it accurately predicts nature. If "knowing" something can be boiled down to anything, it's this.
Yes, this may seem like a trivial example, but in fact gravity remains one of the greatest mysteries of physics - we still don't really know what it is. But we do know that it exists.
Nah, it seems to me he's also trusting his own observations and drawing conclusions, which is why the first thing I said was that dropping an object from a height counts as a scientific experiment - you make an observation, you come up with a hypothesis, then crucially you test that hypothesis to see if it accurately predicts nature. If "knowing" something can be boiled down to anything, it's this.
Yes, this may seem like a trivial example, but in fact gravity remains one of the greatest mysteries of physics - we still don't really know what it is. But we do know that it exists.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,496
@567,481 (R)
> you don't need to know the nature of something to know that it exists, which is true.
Thanks. Strange how you're the only other person here who seems to understand that.
> you don't need to know the nature of something to know that it exists, which is true.
Thanks. Strange how you're the only other person here who seems to understand that.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,497
@567,485 (F)
> He is trusting the word of people who understand physics to tell him that that's what it is.
If I were...what would be wrong with that?
> He is trusting the word of people who understand physics to tell him that that's what it is.
If I were...what would be wrong with that?
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,498
@567,494 (R)
You don't think it's the most astonishing coincidence that anon P saw something drop and despite having total ignorance of science said: "that's gravity"?
Let me explain it to you this way. Anon P sees something drop. He says: "That's God pulling it down". Is he equally correct as if he said "That's gravity"? Why (not)?
You don't think it's the most astonishing coincidence that anon P saw something drop and despite having total ignorance of science said: "that's gravity"?
Let me explain it to you this way. Anon P sees something drop. He says: "That's God pulling it down". Is he equally correct as if he said "That's gravity"? Why (not)?
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,499
@567,497 (P)
> > He is trusting the word of people who understand physics to tell him that that's what it is.
>
>
> If I were...what would be wrong with that?
Nothing at all. Except that you would be admitting that knowledge of gravity's existence depends on an understanding of physics. Your entire point has been to claim that it isn't necessary.
> > He is trusting the word of people who understand physics to tell him that that's what it is.
>
>
> If I were...what would be wrong with that?
Nothing at all. Except that you would be admitting that knowledge of gravity's existence depends on an understanding of physics. Your entire point has been to claim that it isn't necessary.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,500
@567,494 (R)
> we still don't really know what it (gravity) is. But we do know that it exists.
So, possible to know it exists without understanding how it works?
@567,479 (F)
> You see the problem yet with your abandonment of science?
Didn't say anything about abandoning science. Just said don't need to study physics to know gravity exists. Knew it existed before I started the first grade. So did you, probably.
@567,475 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Doesn't matter what causes it, still know it exists. Don't know what causes electricity or magnetism but still know they exist. Have known they existed since early childhood.
> we still don't really know what it (gravity) is. But we do know that it exists.
So, possible to know it exists without understanding how it works?
@567,479 (F)
> You see the problem yet with your abandonment of science?
Didn't say anything about abandoning science. Just said don't need to study physics to know gravity exists. Knew it existed before I started the first grade. So did you, probably.
@567,475 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Doesn't matter what causes it, still know it exists. Don't know what causes electricity or magnetism but still know they exist. Have known they existed since early childhood.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,501
@567,498 (F)
> Anon P sees something drop. He says: "That's God pulling it down".
Wouldn't say that, tho.
> Anon P sees something drop. He says: "That's God pulling it down".
Wouldn't say that, tho.
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,502
@567,500 (P)
> Knew it existed before I started the first grade.
How did you know it was gravity and not some other force?
> Knew it existed before I started the first grade.
How did you know it was gravity and not some other force?
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 58 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,503
@567,499 (F)
Didn't say that. Said I'd never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
> Your entire point has been to claim that it isn't necessary.
Ain't necessary for me.
Didn't say that. Said I'd never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
> Your entire point has been to claim that it isn't necessary.
Ain't necessary for me.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,504
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,505
@567,503 (P)
> Didn't say that. Said I'd never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
How do you know it is gravity and not some other force?
> Didn't say that. Said I'd never studied physics but still know gravity exists.
How do you know it is gravity and not some other force?
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,506
@previous (F)
Common knowledge and universal experience. Also watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
Common knowledge and universal experience. Also watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 42 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,507
@567,504 (P)
> Watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
Finally an explanation for your ignorance! Thank you.
> Watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
Finally an explanation for your ignorance! Thank you.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,509
·Anon II — 6.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,510
@567,507 (F)His point is no more ignorant than those who believe God/Jesus/ are a real thing.
Just because a person named Jesus said come to me for your connect with God does not make him a God.
Son of God is nonsense. God is nonsense
However this God makes sense
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,511
@previous (Anon II)
> His point is no more ignorant than those who believe God/Jesus/ are a real thing.
Precisely.
> His point is no more ignorant than those who believe God/Jesus/ are a real thing.
Precisely.
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,513
·Anonymous K — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,515
Anyone is free to create a God or Goddess. 1000th's of over the eons. Egyptians had some funny ideas about deities.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,517
·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 6.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,518
@567,490 (T)How's your blood pressure? You'll want to take care of yourself in case there isn't an afterlife.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,521
@567,462 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
"Truth is not always provable"?
I would agree with that, provided we mean not always provable by us, humans, in real life, due to our limited resources and abilities.
"What is true does not always have evidence and what has evidence is not always true".
I think I understand what you are saying here and I am ready to generally grant you this statement, but allow me to unpack this to make sure we are on the same page.
"What is true does not always have evidence". We as humans on one planet in a vast Universe, might at a given point in time have no evidence that something exists or is true. For instance, if right now I tell you that I own a dog, you have no evidence that it is true (or not true). However, it is possible to obtain such evidence in principle.
Additionally, you can say something about my claim even without having evidence that I, in particular, have a dog. You can already assign a non-zero probability to the veracity of my claim, because you know that dogs exist, and that people own dogs as pets. Have I said that I own a dragon, your general knowledge about the world would have made the probability of it being true very close to zero.
"what has evidence is not always true"
Again, only in relation to the human perspective. Our knowledge is always limited, so current evidence might point our conclusions in one direction, but due to us not having full information, we might actually be wrong.
For instance, it was rational for people to assume that the sun orbits the Earth when all they had to go on was seeing the Sun rise and set. It was rational, but ultimately incorrect: when we got more information, it turned out that it is actually us orbiting the Sun. Visual information is not incorrect, it simply is not enough to arrive at the more accurate model of reality.
So, I can agree that our understanding might be largely incorrect, although we have some evidence. But we might not have all the evidence, and in some cases we might not even know that we don't have enough evidence, although the latter is usually a temporary state of things. Eventually, you reach the limits of the current model and realize that it must be incomplete.
I hope this answers your questions to your satisfaction.
"Truth is not always provable"?
I would agree with that, provided we mean not always provable by us, humans, in real life, due to our limited resources and abilities.
"What is true does not always have evidence and what has evidence is not always true".
I think I understand what you are saying here and I am ready to generally grant you this statement, but allow me to unpack this to make sure we are on the same page.
"What is true does not always have evidence". We as humans on one planet in a vast Universe, might at a given point in time have no evidence that something exists or is true. For instance, if right now I tell you that I own a dog, you have no evidence that it is true (or not true). However, it is possible to obtain such evidence in principle.
Additionally, you can say something about my claim even without having evidence that I, in particular, have a dog. You can already assign a non-zero probability to the veracity of my claim, because you know that dogs exist, and that people own dogs as pets. Have I said that I own a dragon, your general knowledge about the world would have made the probability of it being true very close to zero.
"what has evidence is not always true"
Again, only in relation to the human perspective. Our knowledge is always limited, so current evidence might point our conclusions in one direction, but due to us not having full information, we might actually be wrong.
For instance, it was rational for people to assume that the sun orbits the Earth when all they had to go on was seeing the Sun rise and set. It was rational, but ultimately incorrect: when we got more information, it turned out that it is actually us orbiting the Sun. Visual information is not incorrect, it simply is not enough to arrive at the more accurate model of reality.
So, I can agree that our understanding might be largely incorrect, although we have some evidence. But we might not have all the evidence, and in some cases we might not even know that we don't have enough evidence, although the latter is usually a temporary state of things. Eventually, you reach the limits of the current model and realize that it must be incomplete.
I hope this answers your questions to your satisfaction.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,523
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> "Truth is not always provable"?
>
> I would agree with that, provided we mean not always provable by us, humans, in real life, due to our limited resources and abilities.
No I mean that not all true statements are ultimately provable independent of "us humans" and our "limited resources and abilities". I'll use mathematics to illustrate the broader point. What I'm suggesting is that if we consider, say, number theory, then no matter what axioms we accept, a theory of numbers will of necessity contain unprovable propositions. Truth is not always provable irrespective of - as you put it - "us humans, in real life, due to our limited resources and abilities". I am saying that sometimes truth is fundamentally unprovable, regardless of our human faculties and resources. Do you agree with this statement?
> "Truth is not always provable"?
>
> I would agree with that, provided we mean not always provable by us, humans, in real life, due to our limited resources and abilities.
No I mean that not all true statements are ultimately provable independent of "us humans" and our "limited resources and abilities". I'll use mathematics to illustrate the broader point. What I'm suggesting is that if we consider, say, number theory, then no matter what axioms we accept, a theory of numbers will of necessity contain unprovable propositions. Truth is not always provable irrespective of - as you put it - "us humans, in real life, due to our limited resources and abilities". I am saying that sometimes truth is fundamentally unprovable, regardless of our human faculties and resources. Do you agree with this statement?
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,524
@567,510 (Anon II)
> His point is no more ignorant than those who believe God/Jesus/ are a real thing.
Quod erat demonstrandum. Thank you.
> His point is no more ignorant than those who believe God/Jesus/ are a real thing.
Quod erat demonstrandum. Thank you.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,525
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,526
@567,523 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Yes, I agree with this statement. In other words, that at some point we have to make assumptions and establish some axioms.
However, a qualifier here - there is an important difference between "proof" and "evidence". The latter refers to empirical sciences, and is quite different from a logical proof. In geometry or mathematics something is either proven or not. In empirical sciences the situation is rarely, if ever, so black and white.
Yes, I agree with this statement. In other words, that at some point we have to make assumptions and establish some axioms.
However, a qualifier here - there is an important difference between "proof" and "evidence". The latter refers to empirical sciences, and is quite different from a logical proof. In geometry or mathematics something is either proven or not. In empirical sciences the situation is rarely, if ever, so black and white.
·Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,540
@567,524 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Quod erat demonstrandum
I see that after googling for the meaning of this you have decided you quite like it and have adopted it. Very good. You're learning some Latin at long last.
BUT you still need to learn how to use it in the right context. You can only use it when you have proved something to be true rigorously.
@567,507 (F)
> > Watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
> Finally an explanation for your ignorance! Thank you.
Implying that reading/watching science fiction can't possibly be educational. If he were alive I'm sure Carl Sagan would disagree with you.
@567,500 (P)
> So, possible to know it exists without understanding how it works?
Yes, I agree with you, albeit in a roundabout way.
> Quod erat demonstrandum
I see that after googling for the meaning of this you have decided you quite like it and have adopted it. Very good. You're learning some Latin at long last.
BUT you still need to learn how to use it in the right context. You can only use it when you have proved something to be true rigorously.
@567,507 (F)
> > Watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
> Finally an explanation for your ignorance! Thank you.
Implying that reading/watching science fiction can't possibly be educational. If he were alive I'm sure Carl Sagan would disagree with you.
@567,500 (P)
> So, possible to know it exists without understanding how it works?
Yes, I agree with you, albeit in a roundabout way.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
·Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,541
@567,523 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> No I mean that not all true statements are ultimately provable
No, as per the definition of a "true statement", it MUST be provable. That's what "true" means - provably so. Perhaps you are thinking of problems which are undecidable (e.g. the halting problem) or statements like "this statement is false" which are neither true nor false.
> No I mean that not all true statements are ultimately provable
No, as per the definition of a "true statement", it MUST be provable. That's what "true" means - provably so. Perhaps you are thinking of problems which are undecidable (e.g. the halting problem) or statements like "this statement is false" which are neither true nor false.
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,542
@567,540 (R)
> > > Watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
> > Finally an explanation for your ignorance! Thank you.
> Implying that reading/watching science fiction can't possibly be educational.
I'm not implying anything. I'm directly saying that "I know the force that attracts bodies is gravity because Star Trek told me" isn't sound verification of information. What reason does he have to believe Star Trek for his information over, say, The God Channel?
> > > Watching star trek and sci-fi movies.
> > Finally an explanation for your ignorance! Thank you.
> Implying that reading/watching science fiction can't possibly be educational.
I'm not implying anything. I'm directly saying that "I know the force that attracts bodies is gravity because Star Trek told me" isn't sound verification of information. What reason does he have to believe Star Trek for his information over, say, The God Channel?
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,570
@previous (F)
> What reason does he have to believe Star Trek for his information over, say, The God Channel?
Never watched religious channels growing up.
You didn't answer my question. Did you believe electricity existed when you were five years old?
> What reason does he have to believe Star Trek for his information over, say, The God Channel?
Never watched religious channels growing up.
You didn't answer my question. Did you believe electricity existed when you were five years old?
+Anonymous U — 6.2 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,623
+vocalon !0D.SXWIdy6 — 6.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,624
havent read this thread but scrolled really quickly to the bottom and heres my prediction
> all religions are christianity, except for the ones i dont like, which are islam
> all religions are christianity, except for the ones i dont like, which are islam
+Anonymous W — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,627
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 31 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,630
·emo ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 6.2 years ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,640
really discussed this for this long
·emo ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 6.2 years ago, 22 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,641
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,645
@567,623 (U)
> and anon F goes strangely silent...
Anon F is still waiting for Anon R to answer my question:
@567,542 (F)
He has gone strangely silent...
> and anon F goes strangely silent...
Anon F is still waiting for Anon R to answer my question:
@567,542 (F)
He has gone strangely silent...
·Anonymous P — 6.2 years ago, 10 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,709
@previous (F)
Waiting for you to answer mine:
> Did you believe electricity existed when you were five years old?
Waiting for you to answer mine:
> Did you believe electricity existed when you were five years old?
·Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,713
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 7 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,748
I am still waiting on the Father's response to me. Seems like he disappeared for a while.
·Anonymous H — 6.2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,749
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
With any luck, he's been banned. I don't foresee that ever happening, though.
With any luck, he's been banned. I don't foresee that ever happening, though.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 6 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,767
@567,526 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
My apologies for my absence friend, weekends are a very busy time for priests! Onwards...
> Yes, I agree with this statement. In other words, that at some point we have to make assumptions and establish some axioms.
To be thoroughly clear though, my point is not about the need to make assumptions and establish axioms. It is that no matter which axioms we accept, there will always be unprovable propositions. That (to stay with the mathematical example for a moment, since mathematics is often reckoned to be the queen of sciences and offers access to the purest form of 'truth') even the Peano-Dedekind axiomatic system, the very basis of simple arithmetic, will contain truths that are unprovable. Do you agree with this?
> However, a qualifier here - there is an important difference between "proof" and "evidence". The latter refers to empirical sciences, and is quite different from a logical proof. In geometry or mathematics something is either proven or not. In empirical sciences the situation is rarely, if ever, so black and white.
The difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' is obvious and I wouldn't have thought needed pointing out. But yes, you are correct, there is a difference, and this difference is why I have begun your education this way. By asking you to consider what is knowable and how it can be known.
Now then, my next question for you: when people (you for example) ask for "proof" of God's existence, do you have in your mind an idea of what form that proof will take? It always amuses me when excitable young people like our erstwhile student Anon H demand proof of God's existence, they invariably start prattling on about (to use your term) the empirical sciences. And what fascinates me is why they assumed that God's proof is rooted in the empirical methods, as if God is some kind of furniture in the living room of the cosmos.
Can I gently remind you to provide me with your list of 10 things you believe please? You still haven't done it and it's an important step in your journey to the proof of God's existence.
Have a blessed day!
My apologies for my absence friend, weekends are a very busy time for priests! Onwards...
> Yes, I agree with this statement. In other words, that at some point we have to make assumptions and establish some axioms.
To be thoroughly clear though, my point is not about the need to make assumptions and establish axioms. It is that no matter which axioms we accept, there will always be unprovable propositions. That (to stay with the mathematical example for a moment, since mathematics is often reckoned to be the queen of sciences and offers access to the purest form of 'truth') even the Peano-Dedekind axiomatic system, the very basis of simple arithmetic, will contain truths that are unprovable. Do you agree with this?
> However, a qualifier here - there is an important difference between "proof" and "evidence". The latter refers to empirical sciences, and is quite different from a logical proof. In geometry or mathematics something is either proven or not. In empirical sciences the situation is rarely, if ever, so black and white.
The difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' is obvious and I wouldn't have thought needed pointing out. But yes, you are correct, there is a difference, and this difference is why I have begun your education this way. By asking you to consider what is knowable and how it can be known.
Now then, my next question for you: when people (you for example) ask for "proof" of God's existence, do you have in your mind an idea of what form that proof will take? It always amuses me when excitable young people like our erstwhile student Anon H demand proof of God's existence, they invariably start prattling on about (to use your term) the empirical sciences. And what fascinates me is why they assumed that God's proof is rooted in the empirical methods, as if God is some kind of furniture in the living room of the cosmos.
Can I gently remind you to provide me with your list of 10 things you believe please? You still haven't done it and it's an important step in your journey to the proof of God's existence.
Have a blessed day!
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 40 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,769
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,771
@567,713 (R)
> Sorry, I was unable to answer the question so I pretended I didn't see it, even though I literally just cited it.
Thanks for your honesty.
> Sorry, I was unable to answer the question so I pretended I didn't see it, even though I literally just cited it.
Thanks for your honesty.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,772
@567,767 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
"It is that no matter which axioms we accept, there will always be unprovable propositions."
As far as I understand, this would be true for mathematics.
"when people (you for example) ask for "proof" of God's existence, do you have in your mind an idea of what form that proof will take?"
This depends on the definition of God. If your claim is that a God exists, before I can understand what form of evidence I would accept, I would need to understand what it is that you are positing.
"Can I gently remind you to provide me with your list of 10 things you believe please?"
I have responded to this. You specifically asked me to
I have explained why it is irrelevant if I have personally checked the evidence for something or not. If you agree with my reasoning (and you did not seem to disagree at the time), then I am not sure why you need me to give an example of something I believe because I have PERSONALLY checked the evidence for it.
I believe that electrons exist. Have I PERSONALLY ran the experiments checking this? No. What my belief is grounded in I have explained in detail above.
"It is that no matter which axioms we accept, there will always be unprovable propositions."
As far as I understand, this would be true for mathematics.
"when people (you for example) ask for "proof" of God's existence, do you have in your mind an idea of what form that proof will take?"
This depends on the definition of God. If your claim is that a God exists, before I can understand what form of evidence I would accept, I would need to understand what it is that you are positing.
"Can I gently remind you to provide me with your list of 10 things you believe please?"
I have responded to this. You specifically asked me to
Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them.
I have explained why it is irrelevant if I have personally checked the evidence for something or not. If you agree with my reasoning (and you did not seem to disagree at the time), then I am not sure why you need me to give an example of something I believe because I have PERSONALLY checked the evidence for it.
I believe that electrons exist. Have I PERSONALLY ran the experiments checking this? No. What my belief is grounded in I have explained in detail above.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,773
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> "when people (you for example) ask for "proof" of God's existence, do you have in your mind an idea of what form that proof will take?"
> This depends on the definition of God. If your claim is that a God exists, before I can understand what form of evidence I would accept, I would need to understand what it is that you are positing.
The God of the Bible. I thought it was understood this is the God I am talking about.
So with that in mind (and given you claimed earlier to have read the Bible, by the way), what form would proof of God's existence take?
> "Can I gently remind you to provide me with your list of 10 things you believe please?"
>
> I have responded to this. You specifically asked me to
>
> Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them.
>
> I have explained why it is irrelevant if I have personally checked the evidence for something or not. If you agree with my reasoning (and you did not seem to disagree at the time), then I am not sure why you need me to give an example of something I believe because I have PERSONALLY checked the evidence for it.
>
> I believe that electrons exist. Have I PERSONALLY ran the experiments checking this? No. What my belief is grounded in I have explained in detail above.
You keep changing (dodging?) the question. Every time I ask you to provide a list of things you believe because you have checked the evidence for, you keep responding with examples of things you have NOT checked the evidence for, and explaining why you think it isn't necessary. Forget about electrons and the like! I don't expect you to be an expert in every field of science and to have personally checked every fact you believe. Just please provide a list of 10 things you believe because you have checked the evidence for. Never mind if you are "not sure" why I'm asking you to do it. You imposed yourself into a discussion Anon H and I were having. You asked me to prove to you God's existence. I guaranteed to do it. Now please stop wasting time and post your list of 10 things.
> "when people (you for example) ask for "proof" of God's existence, do you have in your mind an idea of what form that proof will take?"
> This depends on the definition of God. If your claim is that a God exists, before I can understand what form of evidence I would accept, I would need to understand what it is that you are positing.
The God of the Bible. I thought it was understood this is the God I am talking about.
So with that in mind (and given you claimed earlier to have read the Bible, by the way), what form would proof of God's existence take?
> "Can I gently remind you to provide me with your list of 10 things you believe please?"
>
> I have responded to this. You specifically asked me to
>
> Please write for me a list of 10 things that you believe to be true because you have personally checked the evidence for them.
>
> I have explained why it is irrelevant if I have personally checked the evidence for something or not. If you agree with my reasoning (and you did not seem to disagree at the time), then I am not sure why you need me to give an example of something I believe because I have PERSONALLY checked the evidence for it.
>
> I believe that electrons exist. Have I PERSONALLY ran the experiments checking this? No. What my belief is grounded in I have explained in detail above.
You keep changing (dodging?) the question. Every time I ask you to provide a list of things you believe because you have checked the evidence for, you keep responding with examples of things you have NOT checked the evidence for, and explaining why you think it isn't necessary. Forget about electrons and the like! I don't expect you to be an expert in every field of science and to have personally checked every fact you believe. Just please provide a list of 10 things you believe because you have checked the evidence for. Never mind if you are "not sure" why I'm asking you to do it. You imposed yourself into a discussion Anon H and I were having. You asked me to prove to you God's existence. I guaranteed to do it. Now please stop wasting time and post your list of 10 things.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,775
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,776
@567,773 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
"The God of the Bible. I thought it was understood this is the God I am talking about."
There are hundreds, if not thousands of denominations of Christianity. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. Which is why I am asking for a definition. If you can define what God is, what properties he/she/it has, in other words, define what you are talking about, I will provide what I think would be the kind of evidence that I would accept.
"Now please stop wasting time and post your list of 10 things."
The whole question is just weird, which is why I keep clarifying it. It is rare that someone goes and "personally checks" for evidence in any basic sense, unless you are working as a detective or something.
But alright, I will try. However, allow me to post less than 10, please. 10 is tedious.
1. My dog exists. (I can see it right now)
2. That if you drop a pencil, it will fall to the ground.
3. That if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room.
Tell me if this is enough for the purpose of our conversation.
"The God of the Bible. I thought it was understood this is the God I am talking about."
There are hundreds, if not thousands of denominations of Christianity. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. Which is why I am asking for a definition. If you can define what God is, what properties he/she/it has, in other words, define what you are talking about, I will provide what I think would be the kind of evidence that I would accept.
"Now please stop wasting time and post your list of 10 things."
The whole question is just weird, which is why I keep clarifying it. It is rare that someone goes and "personally checks" for evidence in any basic sense, unless you are working as a detective or something.
But alright, I will try. However, allow me to post less than 10, please. 10 is tedious.
1. My dog exists. (I can see it right now)
2. That if you drop a pencil, it will fall to the ground.
3. That if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room.
Tell me if this is enough for the purpose of our conversation.
·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,777
@567,773 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)You seem to be stuck on this Anon H in all of your replies to CMOB. Did he do something to upset you?
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,779
·Anonymous R — 6.2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,785
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 11 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,835
+Anonymous X — 6.2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,836
@567,776 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> 3. That if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room.
Maybe Jesus Christ comes into the room and sticks his dick in the water and adds his piss and turns the water into mix of piss and water and it looks like wine.
Back in the day Jesus pissed in cups and handed them out and told people it was white wine. People follow leaders and believe in stupid stuff. The Church of Scientology. The Aetherius Society, Carpocratians, Ophites.
This one looks rather interesting. Followers of this Chinese cult believe that Jesus Christ has returned to Earth in the shape of “a plain-looking, 30-year-old Chinese woman who lives in hiding,” according to Shangaiist. The cult has been accused of threatening, kidnapping and torturing other Christians, as well as coercing or offering sexual favors to potential members. In 2012, leading up to the Mayan “apocalypse,” Chinese authorities cracked down on the group, which is thought to number a million of members around the country...
When it comes to religion people only use a bit of their intelligence or in TG-Comix case his penis, finds a need to be inside a young boys anus. He probably tells the child to praise Jesus for the gift he is about to receive.
> 3. That if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room.
Maybe Jesus Christ comes into the room and sticks his dick in the water and adds his piss and turns the water into mix of piss and water and it looks like wine.
Back in the day Jesus pissed in cups and handed them out and told people it was white wine. People follow leaders and believe in stupid stuff. The Church of Scientology. The Aetherius Society, Carpocratians, Ophites.
This one looks rather interesting. Followers of this Chinese cult believe that Jesus Christ has returned to Earth in the shape of “a plain-looking, 30-year-old Chinese woman who lives in hiding,” according to Shangaiist. The cult has been accused of threatening, kidnapping and torturing other Christians, as well as coercing or offering sexual favors to potential members. In 2012, leading up to the Mayan “apocalypse,” Chinese authorities cracked down on the group, which is thought to number a million of members around the country...
When it comes to religion people only use a bit of their intelligence or in TG-Comix case his penis, finds a need to be inside a young boys anus. He probably tells the child to praise Jesus for the gift he is about to receive.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 11 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #567,876
@previous (X)
Well, I am hoping the good Father comes back to this discussion and we will continue. I believe I gave satisfactory responses to his inquisitive inquiries.
Well, I am hoping the good Father comes back to this discussion and we will continue. I believe I gave satisfactory responses to his inquisitive inquiries.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 18 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #567,927
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,062
@567,776 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> "The God of the Bible. I thought it was understood this is the God I am talking about."
>
> There are hundreds, if not thousands of denominations of Christianity.
Maybe so, but they all agree on the basic nature of God as creator of the universe. But if you really need to focus on one particular 'denomination', then I am of course referring to the Catholic Church and its 'interpretation' (poor word to use here) of the Bible.
> Which is why I am asking for a definition. If you can define what God is, what properties he/she/it has, in other words, define what you are talking about, I will provide what I think would be the kind of evidence that I would accept.
So you're asking for Bible passages to read. I was planning to get to this part of your education later once we'd established the nature of truth, evidence and proof, but I suppose we can get a head start.
For your first reading, start at the beginning please. I would like you to read the Book of Genesis. Let me know when you have done that and I will ask you some questions.
> "Now please stop wasting time and post your list of 10 things."
>
> The whole question is just weird, which is why I keep clarifying it. It is rare that someone goes and "personally checks" for evidence in any basic sense, unless you are working as a detective or something.
So what you're saying here is that for almost everything that you believe to be true, you are trusting in the word of someone else?
> But alright, I will try. However, allow me to post less than 10, please. 10 is tedious.
>
> 1. My dog exists. (I can see it right now)
Can you be certain that you are not hallucinating your dog?
> 2. That if you drop a pencil, it will fall to the ground.
I just dropped a pencil and it fell onto a table.
> 3. That if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room.
What if the room is hotter than the water?
> Tell me if this is enough for the purpose of our conversation.
We will see. Address my questions to your first 3 examples and then we'll decide if more are needed until you grasp the point being made.
Have a blessed day, friend.
> "The God of the Bible. I thought it was understood this is the God I am talking about."
>
> There are hundreds, if not thousands of denominations of Christianity.
Maybe so, but they all agree on the basic nature of God as creator of the universe. But if you really need to focus on one particular 'denomination', then I am of course referring to the Catholic Church and its 'interpretation' (poor word to use here) of the Bible.
> Which is why I am asking for a definition. If you can define what God is, what properties he/she/it has, in other words, define what you are talking about, I will provide what I think would be the kind of evidence that I would accept.
So you're asking for Bible passages to read. I was planning to get to this part of your education later once we'd established the nature of truth, evidence and proof, but I suppose we can get a head start.
For your first reading, start at the beginning please. I would like you to read the Book of Genesis. Let me know when you have done that and I will ask you some questions.
> "Now please stop wasting time and post your list of 10 things."
>
> The whole question is just weird, which is why I keep clarifying it. It is rare that someone goes and "personally checks" for evidence in any basic sense, unless you are working as a detective or something.
So what you're saying here is that for almost everything that you believe to be true, you are trusting in the word of someone else?
> But alright, I will try. However, allow me to post less than 10, please. 10 is tedious.
>
> 1. My dog exists. (I can see it right now)
Can you be certain that you are not hallucinating your dog?
> 2. That if you drop a pencil, it will fall to the ground.
I just dropped a pencil and it fell onto a table.
> 3. That if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room.
What if the room is hotter than the water?
> Tell me if this is enough for the purpose of our conversation.
We will see. Address my questions to your first 3 examples and then we'll decide if more are needed until you grasp the point being made.
Have a blessed day, friend.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,063
+Anonymous Z-1 — 6.2 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,097
Science is my only god
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,271
@568,062 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I am going to address three main points in this response.
1. Definition of God
2. Inference is not simply trusting the word of someone else
3. My 3 examples.
1. Definition of God
"So you're asking for Bible passages to read. I was planning to get to this part of your education later once we'd established the nature of truth, evidence and proof, but I suppose we can get a head start."
I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not asking for Bible passages. You asked me what I would consider as proof of a God. I said it depends on what the claim is. I am asking for your definition of a God. You say in your message that Christianity denominations mostly agree on the "basic nature of God as creator of the universe". If you can summarize this nature in a succinct claim, that may be enough for me to give you an idea of what kind of evidence I would accept.
Just to further explain what I mean, if someone would tell me they are a deist and their God's nature is such that the God never dabbles in world's affairs and had just happened to kickstart it, well then I do not believe there is any evidence that can convince me of that, since the claim is clearly unfalsifiable.
"For your first reading, start at the beginning please. I would like you to read the Book of Genesis. Let me know when you have done that and I will ask you some questions."
You are debating several people at the same time here, so let me remind you that not only have I read the whole Bible, not only have I went to Sunday school as a child, as an adult I have explored lots of theistic philosophy and apologetics. And later, as an atheist, studied even more.
I do not know the Book of Genesis by heart and might need to look things up, but I have read the whole Bible, so feel free to pose your questions now. However, I would rather you summarize your concept of God. It's a strange claim to make if you cannot sumarize it without making people read a whole book (again, which I already had read).
2. Inference is not simply trusting the word of someone else
"So what you're saying here is that for almost everything that you believe to be true, you are trusting in the word of someone else?"
I think this phrasing could be misleading. Allow me to clarify.
For instance, I have never been to Antarctica. Does it mean that I should distrust any and all of the information about Antarctica, simply because I have not visited it personally? Of course, not.
What I am talking about is inference. Specifically, a mode of thinking closely related to Bayesian probability, which seems to be a good approximation of how human brains operate.
And so, I would have intermidiary statements to help me out. For instance, that it is unlikely that so many different people with different agendas would choose to lie about Antarctica, and lie about it in the same way. That millions upon millions of very convincing photos taken across decades with different technology are unlikely to be deliberate fakes. That instead, it would seems more reasonable to conclude that these are not lies and that at least the general information about Antarctica is true.
But it is much more than simply "trusting in the word of someone else". It is based on examining the artifacts (which can be argued to be indirect evidence themselves), my experience and firsthand understanding of how the world works, how humans operate, etc.
So, this kind of probabilistic inference is not "trusting the word of someone else".
3. My 3 examples.
So, I've read your comments to my examples. Honestly, two out of three seem to be semantics or nitpicking which I found unhelpful. But maybe I am simply not seeing where you're going with this.
3.1 Glass of water
My example: "if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room."
Your response: "What if the room is hotter than the water?"
I tried to be succinct with my examples and I think it is clear that I implied the room is cooler than the glass of "very hot water". So, it's not clear to me what exactly you are asking about. If the room temperature is higher than the water, in my personal experience the water will eventually heat up to room temperature. But this is not the example I cited.
3.2 Pencil falls down
My example: "if you drop a pencil, it will fall to the ground."
Your response: "I just dropped a pencil and it fell onto a table."
Again, we can argue semantics here and be endlessly pedantic. By "ground" I did not mean literally the floor. Table _is_ ground in your example. Of course, if I have used "down", you might argue that the pencil fell "up" because you were standing on your head.
Just make your point, if you have one.
3.3 My dog
My example: "My dog exists. (I can see it right now)"
Your response: "Can you be certain that you are not hallucinating your dog?"
Since I criticized your two previous responses as unhelpful, I would like to say that this response makes sense to me. Here is my answer.
Other people behave in ways that are consistent with the dog being there, my impression of the dog is consistent and is shared across all of my basic senses. So, I can be reasonably certain, yes.
I am going to address three main points in this response.
1. Definition of God
2. Inference is not simply trusting the word of someone else
3. My 3 examples.
1. Definition of God
"So you're asking for Bible passages to read. I was planning to get to this part of your education later once we'd established the nature of truth, evidence and proof, but I suppose we can get a head start."
I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not asking for Bible passages. You asked me what I would consider as proof of a God. I said it depends on what the claim is. I am asking for your definition of a God. You say in your message that Christianity denominations mostly agree on the "basic nature of God as creator of the universe". If you can summarize this nature in a succinct claim, that may be enough for me to give you an idea of what kind of evidence I would accept.
Just to further explain what I mean, if someone would tell me they are a deist and their God's nature is such that the God never dabbles in world's affairs and had just happened to kickstart it, well then I do not believe there is any evidence that can convince me of that, since the claim is clearly unfalsifiable.
"For your first reading, start at the beginning please. I would like you to read the Book of Genesis. Let me know when you have done that and I will ask you some questions."
You are debating several people at the same time here, so let me remind you that not only have I read the whole Bible, not only have I went to Sunday school as a child, as an adult I have explored lots of theistic philosophy and apologetics. And later, as an atheist, studied even more.
I do not know the Book of Genesis by heart and might need to look things up, but I have read the whole Bible, so feel free to pose your questions now. However, I would rather you summarize your concept of God. It's a strange claim to make if you cannot sumarize it without making people read a whole book (again, which I already had read).
2. Inference is not simply trusting the word of someone else
"So what you're saying here is that for almost everything that you believe to be true, you are trusting in the word of someone else?"
I think this phrasing could be misleading. Allow me to clarify.
For instance, I have never been to Antarctica. Does it mean that I should distrust any and all of the information about Antarctica, simply because I have not visited it personally? Of course, not.
What I am talking about is inference. Specifically, a mode of thinking closely related to Bayesian probability, which seems to be a good approximation of how human brains operate.
And so, I would have intermidiary statements to help me out. For instance, that it is unlikely that so many different people with different agendas would choose to lie about Antarctica, and lie about it in the same way. That millions upon millions of very convincing photos taken across decades with different technology are unlikely to be deliberate fakes. That instead, it would seems more reasonable to conclude that these are not lies and that at least the general information about Antarctica is true.
But it is much more than simply "trusting in the word of someone else". It is based on examining the artifacts (which can be argued to be indirect evidence themselves), my experience and firsthand understanding of how the world works, how humans operate, etc.
So, this kind of probabilistic inference is not "trusting the word of someone else".
3. My 3 examples.
So, I've read your comments to my examples. Honestly, two out of three seem to be semantics or nitpicking which I found unhelpful. But maybe I am simply not seeing where you're going with this.
3.1 Glass of water
My example: "if you put a glass of very hot water in a room, it will eventually cool down to the temperature of the room."
Your response: "What if the room is hotter than the water?"
I tried to be succinct with my examples and I think it is clear that I implied the room is cooler than the glass of "very hot water". So, it's not clear to me what exactly you are asking about. If the room temperature is higher than the water, in my personal experience the water will eventually heat up to room temperature. But this is not the example I cited.
3.2 Pencil falls down
My example: "if you drop a pencil, it will fall to the ground."
Your response: "I just dropped a pencil and it fell onto a table."
Again, we can argue semantics here and be endlessly pedantic. By "ground" I did not mean literally the floor. Table _is_ ground in your example. Of course, if I have used "down", you might argue that the pencil fell "up" because you were standing on your head.
Just make your point, if you have one.
3.3 My dog
My example: "My dog exists. (I can see it right now)"
Your response: "Can you be certain that you are not hallucinating your dog?"
Since I criticized your two previous responses as unhelpful, I would like to say that this response makes sense to me. Here is my answer.
Other people behave in ways that are consistent with the dog being there, my impression of the dog is consistent and is shared across all of my basic senses. So, I can be reasonably certain, yes.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,277
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,279
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,284
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,288
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,323
@568,271 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not asking for Bible passages. You asked me what I would consider as proof of a God. I said it depends on what the claim is. I am asking for your definition of a God.
And this is now the 3rd time I've answered your question. The 'Christian' God. If you need to be even more specific (though it fundamentally changes nothing), the Catholic conception of God. You say you have read the Bible so you know what 'God' I am talking about. But I'll offer one more time: if you truly have no idea what we mean when we speak of the 'Christian' God (or the God of Catholic doctrine to be even more exact) then I'll give you some Bible passages to read.
> You say in your message that Christianity denominations mostly agree on the "basic nature of God as creator of the universe". If you can summarize this nature in a succinct claim, that may be enough for me to give you an idea of what kind of evidence I would accept.
4th time: the God of the book you say you have read. When you read the Bible from first page to last (as you claim to have done) you will have read huge amounts of information about the nature of God. So please answer your own question: what kind of evidence would you accept that proves to your satisfaction the 'character' you read about.
> And so, I would have intermidiary statements to help me out. For instance, that it is unlikely that so many different people with different agendas would choose to lie about Antarctica, and lie about it in the same way. That millions upon millions of very convincing photos taken across decades with different technology are unlikely to be deliberate fakes. That instead, it would seems more reasonable to conclude that these are not lies and that at least the general information about Antarctica is true.
Have you seen these "millions and millions of very convincing photos"? Or do you just assume that they exist? Have you read the accounts of "all the people" who have been there, or do you just assume they exist? Note: I am not asking if you can now go and do those things. I'm asking if you (on your word of honor to not lie, by the way) have already done them, and that is why you think Antarctica exists.
> Other people behave in ways that are consistent with the dog being there, my impression of the dog is consistent and is shared across all of my basic senses.
Can you be certain you're not a part of a mass delusion? Or the people around you are playing a prank on you?
> I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not asking for Bible passages. You asked me what I would consider as proof of a God. I said it depends on what the claim is. I am asking for your definition of a God.
And this is now the 3rd time I've answered your question. The 'Christian' God. If you need to be even more specific (though it fundamentally changes nothing), the Catholic conception of God. You say you have read the Bible so you know what 'God' I am talking about. But I'll offer one more time: if you truly have no idea what we mean when we speak of the 'Christian' God (or the God of Catholic doctrine to be even more exact) then I'll give you some Bible passages to read.
> You say in your message that Christianity denominations mostly agree on the "basic nature of God as creator of the universe". If you can summarize this nature in a succinct claim, that may be enough for me to give you an idea of what kind of evidence I would accept.
4th time: the God of the book you say you have read. When you read the Bible from first page to last (as you claim to have done) you will have read huge amounts of information about the nature of God. So please answer your own question: what kind of evidence would you accept that proves to your satisfaction the 'character' you read about.
> And so, I would have intermidiary statements to help me out. For instance, that it is unlikely that so many different people with different agendas would choose to lie about Antarctica, and lie about it in the same way. That millions upon millions of very convincing photos taken across decades with different technology are unlikely to be deliberate fakes. That instead, it would seems more reasonable to conclude that these are not lies and that at least the general information about Antarctica is true.
Have you seen these "millions and millions of very convincing photos"? Or do you just assume that they exist? Have you read the accounts of "all the people" who have been there, or do you just assume they exist? Note: I am not asking if you can now go and do those things. I'm asking if you (on your word of honor to not lie, by the way) have already done them, and that is why you think Antarctica exists.
> Other people behave in ways that are consistent with the dog being there, my impression of the dog is consistent and is shared across all of my basic senses.
Can you be certain you're not a part of a mass delusion? Or the people around you are playing a prank on you?
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,324
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,327
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 18 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,415
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,422
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,424
@568,323 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> When you read the Bible from first page to last (as you claim to have done) you will have read huge amounts of information about the nature of God.
Huge amounts of contradicting information, I must add. Which is why it makes sense to ask the person for their summary of the Biblical God. I have spoken to many believers and have been a believer for most of my life. My experience tells me that everyone has their own understanding of what/who God is, and tend to come up with incompatible definitions. And the reason I am asking for your summary is not a trick. On the contrary, I don't want to put words into your mouth and I want to learn what you believe from you, as opposed to making assumptions.
Anyway, I am willing to drop this question for now and focus on our basic epistemology first.
> Have you seen these "millions and millions of very convincing photos"? Or do you just assume that they exist?
I have not seen literally millions and millions of photos of Antarctica, but I have seen a lot. Say, hundreds. (I am interested in the history of Antarctica's exploration). And, come to think of it, I am not sure how many publicly available photos of Antarctica are actually available in that it is a very far away land, so it is reasonable to assume that the amount of publicly available photos of Antarctica is not as numerous as, say, of Barcelona.
Still, the point I am making is that the amount of photos is large enough that faking all of them seems very close to impossible, and definitely incredibly laborious. Coupled with a lack of good explanation as to why would people want to fake it makes it incredibly probable that these accounts are simply true, at least in their basic claims that the continent of Antarctica exists and that this is how it generally looks.
> Have you read the accounts of "all the people" who have been there, or do you just assume they exist?
I have not read every single account of people who have been to Antarctica. I know for a fact that there is a huge bibliography dedicated to accounts about Antarctica. But, again, I have not personally read every book on the subject, and I don't think it is even physically possible at this point.
> Can you be certain you're not a part of a mass delusion? Or the people around you are playing a prank on you?
I think I can be certain to a very high degree. Obviously, there is no way to definitevely prove that this is not the case (which is closely related to a probably insolvable problem of hard solipsism), but I am certain enough that I can comfortably interact with my dog (and many other everyday objects and entities) without worrying that this is an illusion. If it is, it definitely does not in any way impact my life.
> When you read the Bible from first page to last (as you claim to have done) you will have read huge amounts of information about the nature of God.
Huge amounts of contradicting information, I must add. Which is why it makes sense to ask the person for their summary of the Biblical God. I have spoken to many believers and have been a believer for most of my life. My experience tells me that everyone has their own understanding of what/who God is, and tend to come up with incompatible definitions. And the reason I am asking for your summary is not a trick. On the contrary, I don't want to put words into your mouth and I want to learn what you believe from you, as opposed to making assumptions.
Anyway, I am willing to drop this question for now and focus on our basic epistemology first.
> Have you seen these "millions and millions of very convincing photos"? Or do you just assume that they exist?
I have not seen literally millions and millions of photos of Antarctica, but I have seen a lot. Say, hundreds. (I am interested in the history of Antarctica's exploration). And, come to think of it, I am not sure how many publicly available photos of Antarctica are actually available in that it is a very far away land, so it is reasonable to assume that the amount of publicly available photos of Antarctica is not as numerous as, say, of Barcelona.
Still, the point I am making is that the amount of photos is large enough that faking all of them seems very close to impossible, and definitely incredibly laborious. Coupled with a lack of good explanation as to why would people want to fake it makes it incredibly probable that these accounts are simply true, at least in their basic claims that the continent of Antarctica exists and that this is how it generally looks.
> Have you read the accounts of "all the people" who have been there, or do you just assume they exist?
I have not read every single account of people who have been to Antarctica. I know for a fact that there is a huge bibliography dedicated to accounts about Antarctica. But, again, I have not personally read every book on the subject, and I don't think it is even physically possible at this point.
> Can you be certain you're not a part of a mass delusion? Or the people around you are playing a prank on you?
I think I can be certain to a very high degree. Obviously, there is no way to definitevely prove that this is not the case (which is closely related to a probably insolvable problem of hard solipsism), but I am certain enough that I can comfortably interact with my dog (and many other everyday objects and entities) without worrying that this is an illusion. If it is, it definitely does not in any way impact my life.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,430
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,439
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,442
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #568,444
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 day later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,637
@568,424 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> > When you read the Bible from first page to last (as you claim to have done) you will have read huge amounts of information about the nature of God.
>
> Huge amounts of contradicting information, I must add.
Post examples of "huge amounts of contradicting information" in the Bible about the nature of God please.
> My experience tells me that everyone has their own understanding of what/who God is, and tend to come up with incompatible definitions.
Very well. Post please just 3 examples from the "many" Christians you say you have spoken to who gave you "incompatible definitions" of God. I repeat: they must be Christians. You don't need to explain anything or go into any great detail and talk about whether those people's "definitions" are consistent with the Bible (we shall do that in the next step). Just tell me what their definitions were that leads you to believe they are "incompatible".
> > When you read the Bible from first page to last (as you claim to have done) you will have read huge amounts of information about the nature of God.
>
> Huge amounts of contradicting information, I must add.
Post examples of "huge amounts of contradicting information" in the Bible about the nature of God please.
> My experience tells me that everyone has their own understanding of what/who God is, and tend to come up with incompatible definitions.
Very well. Post please just 3 examples from the "many" Christians you say you have spoken to who gave you "incompatible definitions" of God. I repeat: they must be Christians. You don't need to explain anything or go into any great detail and talk about whether those people's "definitions" are consistent with the Bible (we shall do that in the next step). Just tell me what their definitions were that leads you to believe they are "incompatible".
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,638
·Anonymous F — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,639
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,669
@568,637 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I suggest we focus on the epistemology and the three examples I provided earlier. I am not willing to branch out into yet another discussion where again you are asking me to spend time doing additional work, when I am not yet sure how committed you are to this conversation.
We had thre epistemological examples you asked for. I responded to your comments, but now you chose to ignore my responses. I am not sure why. Again, I suggest we finish one branch of the conversation first, then move on to something else.
I suggest we focus on the epistemology and the three examples I provided earlier. I am not willing to branch out into yet another discussion where again you are asking me to spend time doing additional work, when I am not yet sure how committed you are to this conversation.
We had thre epistemological examples you asked for. I responded to your comments, but now you chose to ignore my responses. I am not sure why. Again, I suggest we finish one branch of the conversation first, then move on to something else.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,699
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> I suggest we finish one branch of the conversation first, then move on to something else.
As do I, which is why I decided to focus on the FIRST issue in your message to me. I really don't appreciate your questioning my commitment to this. If you're looking for a way to back out of this conversation because you think you're in over your head then fair enough, but at least be honest about your game here.
I did not "ignore" your response. I have no more questions for you with the epistemology task, I understand now what you mean when you say you are 'reasonably certain' of something. You've given me exactly what I wanted for later use. Thank you.
Now please address my questions about the "contradictory nature" of God in the Bible, and give 3 "incompatible definitions" of the nature of God from 3 of the "many" Christians you have spoken to on this subject. And please stop complaining about "doing additional work". Don't be like Anon H ("BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!). It's important you have the same patience for your education that I am now showing in you.
Have yourself a blessed day.
> I suggest we finish one branch of the conversation first, then move on to something else.
As do I, which is why I decided to focus on the FIRST issue in your message to me. I really don't appreciate your questioning my commitment to this. If you're looking for a way to back out of this conversation because you think you're in over your head then fair enough, but at least be honest about your game here.
I did not "ignore" your response. I have no more questions for you with the epistemology task, I understand now what you mean when you say you are 'reasonably certain' of something. You've given me exactly what I wanted for later use. Thank you.
Now please address my questions about the "contradictory nature" of God in the Bible, and give 3 "incompatible definitions" of the nature of God from 3 of the "many" Christians you have spoken to on this subject. And please stop complaining about "doing additional work". Don't be like Anon H ("BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!). It's important you have the same patience for your education that I am now showing in you.
Have yourself a blessed day.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,702
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I did not understand you were satisfied with that part. Good. I will then proceed with the rest, then. Give me time.
I did not understand you were satisfied with that part. Good. I will then proceed with the rest, then. Give me time.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,704
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 20 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #568,850
@568,699 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
First of all, I would like to remind you that I was asking what I thought was a simple and a non-controversial request: can you please define God. You refused, by saying that I should read the Bible. You are now forcing me to come up with contradictions of God in the Bible, because your claim seems to be that simply by reading the Bible one is able to come up with a clear unambiguous understanding of what God is. I disagree. I also think it's a waste of time, since even if I grant you this point and even if your interlocutor hasn't read the Bible, you still should be able to make a summary of what God is.
That the nature of God is prone to interpretation can be evident from this summary in Wikipedia, which makes it abundantly clear that the nature of God is not something straightforward that I am just not seeing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
But nevertheless, as you are immediately claiming that people are just afraid to debate you, I will bite.
God is depicted in a contradictory way in the Bible. I do not doubt that you might have explanations for these contradictions, but this is exactly my point and the reason I asked you to summarize your concept of God: you need interpretations on how to explain this, and each person will have their own interpretations.
I can give you more than three examples of contradictory (or at least requiring an interpretation to remove an apparent contradiction) depictions of God's nature in the Bible. It's easy to come up with more.
1. God is clearly depicted in Genesis as being seen by various people and interacted with directly. Yet later nobody ever sees God and claims are made that no one can see him. “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
So which one is it? Yes, I understand there can be various interpretations of that, and when I was a believer I definitely had my own interpretation, but that already means that without knowing your interpretation I cannot know which claim you are making.
2. God is depicted as an all-powerful creator of the Universe. Yet, this very famous line in the Old Testament says:
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
So, creator of the Universe is all-powerful until he isn't? The Lord cannot beat chariots of iron? Does God have limitations? Is this a metaphor? I have no idea what is your take on this by simply reading the Bible.
3. God is said to be unchanging in several places in the Bible (here, for instance https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&version=KJV), but in many places in the Biblical narrative God changes his mind.
God also remarkably changes from Genesis to the New Testament. He changes his behavior, comunication methods and things he says. Yes, there are multiple ways to interpret this. But not one. So I cannot know what's your take on this.
4. God is said to be just (Job 36:6, for instance), but then believers are encouraged to ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness is, strictly speaking, the suspension of justice. So, which one is it?
5. God is said to be omnipotent (Matthew 19:26, for instance) and omniscient (Romans 16:27, for instance). How can one be both omnipotent and omniscient? To quote the problem summarized by someone: "An omniscient God has knowledge of the future, and thus what choices He will make. Because God's knowledge of the future is perfect, He cannot make a different choice, and therefore has no free will. Alternatively, a God with free will can make different choices based on knowledge of the future, and therefore God's knowledge of the future is imperfect or limited."
6. The whole Trinity thing. Is God one or three? This is clearly a logically contradictory claim. But Catholicism claims exactly that.
So, yeah. i am not sure why you want to go there, but here you go.
First of all, I would like to remind you that I was asking what I thought was a simple and a non-controversial request: can you please define God. You refused, by saying that I should read the Bible. You are now forcing me to come up with contradictions of God in the Bible, because your claim seems to be that simply by reading the Bible one is able to come up with a clear unambiguous understanding of what God is. I disagree. I also think it's a waste of time, since even if I grant you this point and even if your interlocutor hasn't read the Bible, you still should be able to make a summary of what God is.
That the nature of God is prone to interpretation can be evident from this summary in Wikipedia, which makes it abundantly clear that the nature of God is not something straightforward that I am just not seeing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
But nevertheless, as you are immediately claiming that people are just afraid to debate you, I will bite.
God is depicted in a contradictory way in the Bible. I do not doubt that you might have explanations for these contradictions, but this is exactly my point and the reason I asked you to summarize your concept of God: you need interpretations on how to explain this, and each person will have their own interpretations.
I can give you more than three examples of contradictory (or at least requiring an interpretation to remove an apparent contradiction) depictions of God's nature in the Bible. It's easy to come up with more.
1. God is clearly depicted in Genesis as being seen by various people and interacted with directly. Yet later nobody ever sees God and claims are made that no one can see him. “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
So which one is it? Yes, I understand there can be various interpretations of that, and when I was a believer I definitely had my own interpretation, but that already means that without knowing your interpretation I cannot know which claim you are making.
2. God is depicted as an all-powerful creator of the Universe. Yet, this very famous line in the Old Testament says:
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
So, creator of the Universe is all-powerful until he isn't? The Lord cannot beat chariots of iron? Does God have limitations? Is this a metaphor? I have no idea what is your take on this by simply reading the Bible.
3. God is said to be unchanging in several places in the Bible (here, for instance https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&version=KJV), but in many places in the Biblical narrative God changes his mind.
God also remarkably changes from Genesis to the New Testament. He changes his behavior, comunication methods and things he says. Yes, there are multiple ways to interpret this. But not one. So I cannot know what's your take on this.
4. God is said to be just (Job 36:6, for instance), but then believers are encouraged to ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness is, strictly speaking, the suspension of justice. So, which one is it?
5. God is said to be omnipotent (Matthew 19:26, for instance) and omniscient (Romans 16:27, for instance). How can one be both omnipotent and omniscient? To quote the problem summarized by someone: "An omniscient God has knowledge of the future, and thus what choices He will make. Because God's knowledge of the future is perfect, He cannot make a different choice, and therefore has no free will. Alternatively, a God with free will can make different choices based on knowledge of the future, and therefore God's knowledge of the future is imperfect or limited."
6. The whole Trinity thing. Is God one or three? This is clearly a logically contradictory claim. But Catholicism claims exactly that.
So, yeah. i am not sure why you want to go there, but here you go.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 2 days later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,161
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
Good, so we'll take each of your examples one by one:
> 1. God is clearly depicted in Genesis as being seen by various people and interacted with directly. Yet later nobody ever sees God and claims are made that no one can see him. “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
> So which one is it? Yes, I understand there can be various interpretations of that, and when I was a believer I definitely had my own interpretation, but that already means that without knowing your interpretation I cannot know which claim you are making.
So at this point I find myself needing to ask in which languages you have read the Bible. It seems to me from reading your latest post that you have only read it in English (and perhaps even a 'modern'/simplified version of English) and not in the original languages, am I correct? Because it's very telling how your "interpretation" leads you to think there is a contradiction here. That no man other than Christ had bridged the gulf between man and God and had the full knowledge of God's truth (a reference to Moses in Exodus, and touched upon in 1 Corinthians) is a central tenet of the faith. Your use and understanding of the word "seen" in this context is, forgive my bluntness, a little simplistic. But that's not a problem, it's why we're doing this. I'm here to guide you through the Bible.
So, please let me know which version of the Bible you read so we can proceed. All of your examples have no contradictions in them, so I need to know what it is you're actually reading that is leading you to these false interpretations.
Can I also remind you to govern your tone a little please. There is a frustration that is starting to creep into your posts (it's why I decided to give you a few days to cool off a bit). Nobody told you that this journey you're on would be easy for you. You have a lot of work ahead of you and an irritable mind will only hinder your progress.
Bless you my child.
Good, so we'll take each of your examples one by one:
> 1. God is clearly depicted in Genesis as being seen by various people and interacted with directly. Yet later nobody ever sees God and claims are made that no one can see him. “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
> So which one is it? Yes, I understand there can be various interpretations of that, and when I was a believer I definitely had my own interpretation, but that already means that without knowing your interpretation I cannot know which claim you are making.
So at this point I find myself needing to ask in which languages you have read the Bible. It seems to me from reading your latest post that you have only read it in English (and perhaps even a 'modern'/simplified version of English) and not in the original languages, am I correct? Because it's very telling how your "interpretation" leads you to think there is a contradiction here. That no man other than Christ had bridged the gulf between man and God and had the full knowledge of God's truth (a reference to Moses in Exodus, and touched upon in 1 Corinthians) is a central tenet of the faith. Your use and understanding of the word "seen" in this context is, forgive my bluntness, a little simplistic. But that's not a problem, it's why we're doing this. I'm here to guide you through the Bible.
So, please let me know which version of the Bible you read so we can proceed. All of your examples have no contradictions in them, so I need to know what it is you're actually reading that is leading you to these false interpretations.
Can I also remind you to govern your tone a little please. There is a frustration that is starting to creep into your posts (it's why I decided to give you a few days to cool off a bit). Nobody told you that this journey you're on would be easy for you. You have a lot of work ahead of you and an irritable mind will only hinder your progress.
Bless you my child.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,162
+Anonymous Z-2 — 6.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,164
sanctimonious
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,199
@569,161 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Then my point is made.
The fact that people read the Bible in different languages and the fact that "true interpretations" are required in order to understand it proves that me asking for your summary of what God is in your view is a valid question. There is no way one can read the Bible and just come up with a single "true interpretation".
In other words, this branch was not about discussing contradictions in the Bible (which I am not interested in), but your stark refusal to even make a claim. You say that God exists, but when I ask you "So, what is a God, exactly?", you begin moving the goalposts.
First, I have to read the whole Bible. You learn that I have done so, so you ask me to come up with various examples from the Bible that show it to be contradicting or, as I pointed out in my previous post, requiring an interpretation. Now you ask me to talk about a version of the Bible that I read. Will you then ask me to read Bible in ancient Greek?
And all that because you don't want to give me your definition of God. Beyond the non-descriptive Creator of the Universe.
What you are teaching me so far, Father, is that a person claiming to have a proof God are doing everything they can in order to avoid clearly stating even their claim!
I am waiting for a helpful descriptive definition of God, Father. If you cannot do that, then maybe there is nothing to discuss here.
Then my point is made.
The fact that people read the Bible in different languages and the fact that "true interpretations" are required in order to understand it proves that me asking for your summary of what God is in your view is a valid question. There is no way one can read the Bible and just come up with a single "true interpretation".
In other words, this branch was not about discussing contradictions in the Bible (which I am not interested in), but your stark refusal to even make a claim. You say that God exists, but when I ask you "So, what is a God, exactly?", you begin moving the goalposts.
First, I have to read the whole Bible. You learn that I have done so, so you ask me to come up with various examples from the Bible that show it to be contradicting or, as I pointed out in my previous post, requiring an interpretation. Now you ask me to talk about a version of the Bible that I read. Will you then ask me to read Bible in ancient Greek?
And all that because you don't want to give me your definition of God. Beyond the non-descriptive Creator of the Universe.
What you are teaching me so far, Father, is that a person claiming to have a proof God are doing everything they can in order to avoid clearly stating even their claim!
I am waiting for a helpful descriptive definition of God, Father. If you cannot do that, then maybe there is nothing to discuss here.
·Anonymous C — 6.2 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,205
Did Jesus have a penis?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,206
@569,199 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> Then my point is made.
>
> The fact that people read the Bible in different languages and the fact that "true interpretations" are required in order to understand it proves that me asking for your summary of what God is in your view is a valid question. There is no way one can read the Bible and just come up with a single "true interpretation".
Why is 'true interpretation' in quotation marks? I never once used that phrase. If you are going to start inventing things that were not said and attributing them to me, perhaps it's time for you to accept you're just playing a silly game here.
> In other words, this branch was not about discussing contradictions in the Bible (which I am not interested in), but your stark refusal to even make a claim. You say that God exists, but when I ask you "So, what is a God, exactly?", you begin moving the goalposts.
Nope, I say (to paraphrase the Bible), "He is who He is". I think that what we're learning here is that despite what you said, you actually haven't read the Bible and are now trying to bluff your way through evading my questions.
"Have you read Macbeth?"
"Yes"
"What's your opinion of Lady MacBeth?"
"Define Lady Macbeth"
"Wait, I thought you said you'd read it...?"
> First, I have to read the whole Bible. You learn that I have done so, so you ask me to come up with various examples from the Bible that show it to be contradicting
Nope, you're being dishonest again. YOU (not I) said that there are many contradictions on the nature of God in the Bible. I asked you to provide them. I am now showing you how your examples are not contradictions and you are yet again getting defensive.
> or as I pointed out in my previous post, requiring an interpretation. Now you ask me to talk about a version of the Bible that I read. Will you then ask me to read Bible in ancient Greek?
That depends on your answer. But you see what's happened here, once again and right from the beginning you have a negative, lazy attitude to your eduction. How many times have you whined to me: "Awwwww, do I have to do this??? If you want to back out, by all means do so, but please stop your moaning about having to put some effort in, because it's childish.
> What you are teaching me so far, Father, is that a person claiming to have a proof God are doing everything they can in order to avoid clearly stating even their claim!
Nope, it's that a person who claims to have read the Bible shouldn't need to have it explained to him who God is. If he does then he wasted his time reading it because he understood nothing. However, I am more than willing to walk you through the Bible, but each time I try to do so, you become frustrated and start finding excuses to not study.
> I am waiting for a helpful descriptive definition of God, Father.
You have already received it.
> If you cannot do that, then maybe there is nothing to discuss here.
If this is you admitting you need to back out because you're in over your head, by all means do so. You will go with my and God's full blessing and we can continue some years down the road when you have matured a little.
> Then my point is made.
>
> The fact that people read the Bible in different languages and the fact that "true interpretations" are required in order to understand it proves that me asking for your summary of what God is in your view is a valid question. There is no way one can read the Bible and just come up with a single "true interpretation".
Why is 'true interpretation' in quotation marks? I never once used that phrase. If you are going to start inventing things that were not said and attributing them to me, perhaps it's time for you to accept you're just playing a silly game here.
> In other words, this branch was not about discussing contradictions in the Bible (which I am not interested in), but your stark refusal to even make a claim. You say that God exists, but when I ask you "So, what is a God, exactly?", you begin moving the goalposts.
Nope, I say (to paraphrase the Bible), "He is who He is". I think that what we're learning here is that despite what you said, you actually haven't read the Bible and are now trying to bluff your way through evading my questions.
"Have you read Macbeth?"
"Yes"
"What's your opinion of Lady MacBeth?"
"Define Lady Macbeth"
"Wait, I thought you said you'd read it...?"
> First, I have to read the whole Bible. You learn that I have done so, so you ask me to come up with various examples from the Bible that show it to be contradicting
Nope, you're being dishonest again. YOU (not I) said that there are many contradictions on the nature of God in the Bible. I asked you to provide them. I am now showing you how your examples are not contradictions and you are yet again getting defensive.
> or as I pointed out in my previous post, requiring an interpretation. Now you ask me to talk about a version of the Bible that I read. Will you then ask me to read Bible in ancient Greek?
That depends on your answer. But you see what's happened here, once again and right from the beginning you have a negative, lazy attitude to your eduction. How many times have you whined to me: "Awwwww, do I have to do this??? If you want to back out, by all means do so, but please stop your moaning about having to put some effort in, because it's childish.
> What you are teaching me so far, Father, is that a person claiming to have a proof God are doing everything they can in order to avoid clearly stating even their claim!
Nope, it's that a person who claims to have read the Bible shouldn't need to have it explained to him who God is. If he does then he wasted his time reading it because he understood nothing. However, I am more than willing to walk you through the Bible, but each time I try to do so, you become frustrated and start finding excuses to not study.
> I am waiting for a helpful descriptive definition of God, Father.
You have already received it.
> If you cannot do that, then maybe there is nothing to discuss here.
If this is you admitting you need to back out because you're in over your head, by all means do so. You will go with my and God's full blessing and we can continue some years down the road when you have matured a little.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,207
@569,205 (C)
> Did Jesus have a penis?
The Gospel of Luke records His circumcision, so yes.
Bless you for the question, my child.
> Did Jesus have a penis?
The Gospel of Luke records His circumcision, so yes.
Bless you for the question, my child.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,208
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.2 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,209
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 2 days later, 3 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,533
@569,207 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Thank you for taking the time.
We are constantly joking around on this forum, so it's not always clear what is serious and what is done in a tongue in cheek manner. My other topic about you was definitely not a serious stab at you or your character.
If I am serious, I did enjoy our conversation, but the way you reacted and what you asked for, as well as your clearly provocative jabs about educating me, all of that hinted that I am wasting my time here and you are not really serious about having a conversation about religion. In fact, having read your posts in the past couple of weeks, I suspect you are not religious to begin with.
I can buy that you have turned off images, for example. I can imagine someone actually doing that - to save bandwidth or just to filter out a lot of the weird shit that is posted here. But I don't for a minute believe you are really a priest. TinyChan is a weird place for a priest to hang out. And the fact that you are using a handle from The Exorcist makes it even less likely you are an actual priest.
But I definitely recognize you as a very intelligent and educated person, the discussion with whom I generally enjoyed, so I wanted to explain why I felt this discussion was no longer interesting to me.
Thank you for taking the time.
We are constantly joking around on this forum, so it's not always clear what is serious and what is done in a tongue in cheek manner. My other topic about you was definitely not a serious stab at you or your character.
If I am serious, I did enjoy our conversation, but the way you reacted and what you asked for, as well as your clearly provocative jabs about educating me, all of that hinted that I am wasting my time here and you are not really serious about having a conversation about religion. In fact, having read your posts in the past couple of weeks, I suspect you are not religious to begin with.
I can buy that you have turned off images, for example. I can imagine someone actually doing that - to save bandwidth or just to filter out a lot of the weird shit that is posted here. But I don't for a minute believe you are really a priest. TinyChan is a weird place for a priest to hang out. And the fact that you are using a handle from The Exorcist makes it even less likely you are an actual priest.
But I definitely recognize you as a very intelligent and educated person, the discussion with whom I generally enjoyed, so I wanted to explain why I felt this discussion was no longer interesting to me.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.2 years ago, 1 day later, 3 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,759
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> I can buy that you have turned off images, for example. I can imagine someone actually doing that - to save bandwidth or just to filter out a lot of the weird shit that is posted here. But I don't for a minute believe you are really a priest.
Fair enough, but I really am. The ironic thing about this is that so much of what I present on here is meant to mock the absurdity of anonymous message boards obsessing over who is posting what. But one thing is true: I really am a priest.
> TinyChan is a weird place for a priest to hang out.
Why on earth do people think priests live different lives to everyone else? This isn't 16th century Medici Florence. I'm fairly sure that the only difference between a priest like me and, say, The Doctor is that one of us has no sex life.
> And the fact that you are using a handle from The Exorcist makes it even less likely you are an actual priest.
Why? Who on earth uses their real names on here? The Exorcist is my favorite movie so I took my name from that.
> I can buy that you have turned off images, for example. I can imagine someone actually doing that - to save bandwidth or just to filter out a lot of the weird shit that is posted here. But I don't for a minute believe you are really a priest.
Fair enough, but I really am. The ironic thing about this is that so much of what I present on here is meant to mock the absurdity of anonymous message boards obsessing over who is posting what. But one thing is true: I really am a priest.
> TinyChan is a weird place for a priest to hang out.
Why on earth do people think priests live different lives to everyone else? This isn't 16th century Medici Florence. I'm fairly sure that the only difference between a priest like me and, say, The Doctor is that one of us has no sex life.
> And the fact that you are using a handle from The Exorcist makes it even less likely you are an actual priest.
Why? Who on earth uses their real names on here? The Exorcist is my favorite movie so I took my name from that.
+Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,768
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You do have a point. Priests probably live normal lives, albeit doing very unusual jobs.
You do have a point. Priests probably live normal lives, albeit doing very unusual jobs.
·Anonymous C — 6.2 years ago, 17 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #569,847
> I'm fairly sure that the only difference between a priest like me and, say, The Doctor is that one of us has no sex life.
So you admit to diddling those boys?
So you admit to diddling those boys?
+Anonymous Z-4 — 5.3 years ago, 10 months later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,636
@569,759 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Catholic here. Eagerly awaiting a continuation of this conversation.
Catholic here. Eagerly awaiting a continuation of this conversation.
+@yaboiarthur — 5.3 years ago, 31 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,638
My ex church was shot up by a white cracker. That's when I became Atheist.
+Anonymous Z-6 — 5.3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,641
·@yaboiarthur — 5.3 years ago, 41 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,642
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 5.3 years ago, 50 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,643
@587,636 (Z-4)
> Catholic here.
Bless you my child.
> Eagerly awaiting a continuation of this conversation.
Alas it would appear my self-serving interlocutor ran off!
> Catholic here.
Bless you my child.
> Eagerly awaiting a continuation of this conversation.
Alas it would appear my self-serving interlocutor ran off!
+Anonymous Z-8 — 5.3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,644
+Anonymous Z-9 — 5.3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,645
+Anonymous Z-10 — 5.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,646
@587,638 (@yaboiarthur)
> white cracker
I love it when black people are unintentionally racist as fuck and then turn around and fight against racism towards black people.
Fix your ideologies. They're all fucky.
> white cracker
I love it when black people are unintentionally racist as fuck and then turn around and fight against racism towards black people.
Fix your ideologies. They're all fucky.
·Anonymous Z-9 — 5.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,647
·@yaboiarthur — 5.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,664
@587,646 (Z-10)
Although I am African-Amerian, I do have white ancestors in which I highly respect. Anything I say against black or whites as a whole is also insulting myself and my ancestors. Do realize that I do not want to do that in a serious manner but only a jokingly manner. A racist ass white cracker really did shoot up my ex church, though.
Although I am African-Amerian, I do have white ancestors in which I highly respect. Anything I say against black or whites as a whole is also insulting myself and my ancestors. Do realize that I do not want to do that in a serious manner but only a jokingly manner. A racist ass white cracker really did shoot up my ex church, though.
·@yaboiarthur — 5.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,666
·Anonymous Z-6 — 5.3 years ago, 12 seconds later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,667
@587,664 (@yaboiarthur)
> . A racist ass white cracker really did shoot up my ex church, though.
And dammit Grover, he missed you when shooting.
> . A racist ass white cracker really did shoot up my ex church, though.
And dammit Grover, he missed you when shooting.
·Anonymous Z-6 — 5.3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,668
·Anonymous Z-9 — 5.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,670
+Anon P — 5.3 years ago, 36 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,671
Ten months later, still haven't studied physics, still know gravity exists.
·Anonymous Z-10 — 5.3 years ago, 41 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,672
@587,664 (@yaboiarthur)
You just tried to justify racism. Go back to the black panthers, racist scum.
You just tried to justify racism. Go back to the black panthers, racist scum.
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 5.3 years ago, 9 hours later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #587,674
i love u guys
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.