theophilus

Can we assume that you'll be sending a similar supercilious comments to keyser_soze for his brilliant
"Well, since it was written in a book it MUST be true!

God exists because the bible says so, the bible is true because god says so...god exists because the bible says so the bible is ......ad infini nauseum..."

or does the "higher forum" standard only apply to Christians?

Mageth

So much silliness is right.

God is spirit; man is material.

So then God cannot be meaningfully spoken of as existing.

God is self-existent; man is contingent.

And water is wet, and grass is green, unless it's dead. So what? But spirit has no known qualities or quantities, does it? Only speculations about spirit have been made, and they have been made by - man. Therefore, spirit, and god, are contingent on man.

Human existence can only be understood in the context of God's purpose.

I and others do a damn good job of understanding human existence without a god in the picture.

Free will, as you posit it, is an illusion; try breating underwater.

Ever heard of Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) gear?

Mageth

If the existence of God is challenged because the basis for our knowledge is a book, then all knowledge based on books must also be denied.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. I've got a few books on Atlantis, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Fairies, Vishnu, Allah, and Thor for you to consider, then, theo. They're written about in books, but not just in books; things in nature have been pointed out that indicate their existence. Therefore they must exist, right?

theophilus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HRG
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magus55
What difference does that make? History books claim Columbus discovered America, and Cleopatra ruled Egypt. Now if the historical accounts of them are acceptable, why isn't the Bible? The Apostles saw Jesus perform miracles - just because miracles can't be explained by science, doesn't mean they aren't real.

Quote:

Let's forget for a moment the naturalistic explanations for the claims that the apostels saw miracles (we don't have the apostles here to testify under cross-examinations). Even then you cannot say that the apostles saw Jesus perform miracles; all you can say is that they had perceptions which were consistent with water-to-wine, the resurrection etc. But if you propose the supernatural explanation for their perceptions that those alleged miracles actually happened, you must also admit the supernatural explanation that the miracles did not happen, but a trickster supernatural created the appearance that they happened. Instead of turning water molecules into wine molecules, he changed a few photons. Another supernatural explanation would be a miraculous change in the memories of the apostles, so they thought they had seen miracles. Since we have no experience with the supernatural, we can't even say that one explanation is more plausible than the other. That's the problem with the supernatural: it breaks the link between our perceptions and reality. The very concept of eyewitness requires Regards, HRG.

Well, no, that's only a problem if you believe that perception is the source of knowledge. Since Christians know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge, there is no disconnect.

Mageth

Well, no, that's only a problem if you believe that perception is the source of knowledge. Since Christians know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge, there is no disconnect.

How do they know that? Because it was revealed to them? And how do they know it was revealed to them? You've either got to have human perception at some point or you're stuck with an infinite regression of revelation.

Normal

I think he meant the way he was interpreting free will was incorrect. God did not allow Adam and Eve to naturally breath underwater, in the same way he did not allow them to be immortal. It was not an infraction upon free will.

Philosoft

I have no problem with some books being used as sources for knowledge about the world. Books about intangible all-powerful creators who become partially human so they can rise from the dead on the other hand...

Wyz_sub10

This is just an assertion. Explain how knowledge of god can be gleaned through the world around us. What points to god and what does not? What does the kidnapping and murder of a child have to teach us about god?

This last question is sincere. I am curious as to what you believe this teaches us about god.

theophilus

On the other hand, my foot.

Books is books.

Your exclusion of revelation at the outset is a prejudice, neither necessary nor reasonable.

Wyz_sub10

There is also a big difference between information from books that can be corroborated with other evidence, and information that is contradicted by other evidence.

I trust that most people understand this distinction.