|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 23, 2018 12:42:04 GMT
(This is a modification of J. Shellenberg's argument from non-believeing)
1. If God exists, He must either reveal Himself, or to make us to reveal Him. 2. Knowledge of God's being might be an evidence. 3. If knowledge of God's being is evident we might reveal his existence without making any conclusions. 4. God's being isn't evident (the claim of many people; or a weak claim of a certain man). 5. To make a simple conclusion we have to use a simple (a plain) deities. 6. Any simple (plain) deity is evident. 7. God's existence isn't evident, and not given from conclusions as well. 8. God doesn't reveal Himself, not through evidences. 9. God doesn't exist. 10. There's no God.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 23, 2018 16:37:41 GMT
(This is a modification of J. Shellenberg's argument from non-believeing) 1. If God exists, He must either reveal Himself, or to make us to reveal Him. 2. Knowledge of God's being might be an evidence. 3. If knowledge of God's being is evident we might reveal his existence without making any conclusions. 4. God's being isn't evident (the claim of many people; or a weak claim of a certain man). 5. To make a simple conclusion we have to use a simple (a plain) deities. 6. Any simple (plain) deity is evident. 7. God's existence isn't evident, and not given from conclusions as well. 8. God doesn't reveal Himself, not through evidences. 9. God doesn't exist. 10. There's no God. He's already shown himself through the bible. Boom case closed.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Nov 23, 2018 23:55:28 GMT
(This is a modification of J. Shellenberg's argument from non-believeing) 1. If God exists, He must either reveal Himself, or to make us to reveal Him. 2. Knowledge of God's being might be an evidence. 3. If knowledge of God's being is evident we might reveal his existence without making any conclusions. 4. God's being isn't evident (the claim of many people; or a weak claim of a certain man). 5. To make a simple conclusion we have to use a simple (a plain) deities. 6. Any simple (plain) deity is evident. 7. God's existence isn't evident, and not given from conclusions as well. 8. God doesn't reveal Himself, not through evidences. 9. God doesn't exist. 10. There's no God. THE mind does not reveal itself in a way to be observed by people. Does that mean the mind is nonexistent? the answer is obvious
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 24, 2018 0:50:43 GMT
(This is a modification of J. Shellenberg's argument from non-believeing) 1. If God exists, He must either reveal Himself, or to make us to reveal Him. 2. Knowledge of God's being might be an evidence. 3. If knowledge of God's being is evident we might reveal his existence without making any conclusions. 4. God's being isn't evident (the claim of many people; or a weak claim of a certain man). 5. To make a simple conclusion we have to use a simple (a plain) deities. 6. Any simple (plain) deity is evident. 7. God's existence isn't evident, and not given from conclusions as well. 8. God doesn't reveal Himself, not through evidences. 9. God doesn't exist. 10. There's no God. THE mind does not reveal itself in a way to be observed by people. Does that mean the mind is nonexistent? the answer is obvious An existence of mind is a problem. I can agree with that. But nobody claims that there's a Mind. If, for example, we would take that the Mind = God, then we would be tracing God by all those signs that allows us to suppose that there's something (Mind, or God?). Almost each time when we start dealing with something unusual we try to describe it in our common words and notions. To this case some says that it is Mind's traces, some relates it to God.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 24, 2018 0:52:36 GMT
(This is a modification of J. Shellenberg's argument from non-believeing) 1. If God exists, He must either reveal Himself, or to make us to reveal Him. 2. Knowledge of God's being might be an evidence. 3. If knowledge of God's being is evident we might reveal his existence without making any conclusions. 4. God's being isn't evident (the claim of many people; or a weak claim of a certain man). 5. To make a simple conclusion we have to use a simple (a plain) deities. 6. Any simple (plain) deity is evident. 7. God's existence isn't evident, and not given from conclusions as well. 8. God doesn't reveal Himself, not through evidences. 9. God doesn't exist. 10. There's no God. He's already shown himself through the bible. Boom case closed. I thought you would agree with him!
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 24, 2018 0:56:28 GMT
He's already shown himself through the bible. Boom case closed. I thought you would agree with him! I think he might be being sarcastic
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 24, 2018 0:58:13 GMT
I thought you would agree with him! I think he might be being sarcastic Very possible yeah. But just checking too. I think he mentioned before that Christians have all the proof they need with the bible though. Shrug
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 24, 2018 1:06:02 GMT
(This is a modification of J. Shellenberg's argument from non-believeing) 1. If God exists, He must either reveal Himself, or to make us to reveal Him. 2. Knowledge of God's being might be an evidence. 3. If knowledge of God's being is evident we might reveal his existence without making any conclusions. 4. God's being isn't evident (the claim of many people; or a weak claim of a certain man). 5. To make a simple conclusion we have to use a simple (a plain) deities. 6. Any simple (plain) deity is evident. 7. God's existence isn't evident, and not given from conclusions as well. 8. God doesn't reveal Himself, not through evidences. 9. God doesn't exist. 10. There's no God. He's already shown himself through the bible. Boom case closed. It's possible. Please, don't misinterpreted me, this modified objections are from J. Shellenberg. I just wanted to ask about logical incorrectness here. And, about the other methods of knowledge about Him too. The name of thread was about to raise discussion, nothing more. Usually, the critics say that the presence of God was being felt by not Apostles from mystique feelings. We have the Bible today, but that days the situation wasn't similar to nowadays. The last form of the Bible have been accomplishing for years. They also said that Bible was written through the Holy Spirit.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 24, 2018 18:40:59 GMT
I thought you would agree with him! I think he might be being sarcastic I was being sarcastic. The bible could've been written by anyone, so it's insufficient proof.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 24, 2018 18:42:09 GMT
I think he might be being sarcastic Very possible yeah. But just checking too. I think he mentioned before that Christians have all the proof they need with the bible though. I don't remember saying that. These days i'm hopping between being an atheist and agnostic.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 24, 2018 18:44:46 GMT
He's already shown himself through the bible. Boom case closed. It's possible. Please, don't misinterpreted me, this modified objections are from J. Shellenberg. I just wanted to ask about logical incorrectness here. And, about the other methods of knowledge about Him too. The name of thread was about to raise discussion, nothing more. Usually, the critics say that the presence of God was being felt by not Apostles from mystique feelings. We have the Bible today, but that days the situation wasn't similar to nowadays. The last form of the Bible have been accomplishing for years. They also said that Bible was written through the Holy Spirit. Well sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. God is always logical and we mere humans cannot grasp the intelligence of God, therefore God is always logical and cannot be deemed otherwise. Checkmate.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 24, 2018 18:45:24 GMT
Very possible yeah. But just checking too. I think he mentioned before that Christians have all the proof they need with the bible though. I don't remember saying that. These days i'm hopping between being an atheist and agnostic. Maybe I confused you with someone else then. Not too sure. :/ Why undecided between those two?
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 24, 2018 18:49:24 GMT
I don't remember saying that. These days i'm hopping between being an atheist and agnostic. Maybe I confused you with someone else then. Not too sure. :/ Why undecided between those two? I'd like to believe that god exists. That there is someone looking over me and making me follow the right path. I really do. However no concrete evidence means there is no reason to believe in so.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 24, 2018 19:17:31 GMT
Maybe I confused you with someone else then. Not too sure. :/ Why undecided between those two? I'd like to believe that god exists. That there is someone looking over me and making me follow the right path. I really do. However no concrete evidence means there is no reason to believe in so. Do you believe aliens exist?
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 24, 2018 19:42:41 GMT
I'd like to believe that god exists. That there is someone looking over me and making me follow the right path. I really do. However no concrete evidence means there is no reason to believe in so. Do you believe aliens exist? no
|
|