We can easily misunderstand each other because we are coming from different settings. I will try a more detailed, albeit simple approach;
a) On attitude. The atheistic objections that I have heard more often are along the lines of evidence they should consider and study regarding god. This means to me they require from us something that can be measured, analysed, examined, using scientific methods, that would arrive at a definition and properties for critical discussion. My response briefly is that this amounts to asking a Christian to worship an idol, and providing this to atheists. Thus my somewhat (odd) humerous response.
b) On WHAT God is and is not; I was trying to point out that this is the topic of theology, and has been discussed and argued for centuries, with a consensus achieved termed Orthodoxy. So, my response to atheists who seek discussion on what God is in these type of forums, has been to suggest that they should read and consider the many volumes on the topic, and after that they would be in a position to make critical comments. This approach is considered reasonable for the sciences and humanities, so why should it not be applied to atheists who comment so freely on theology?
c) I cannot understand your discussion of gold nugget/yoghurt so I will not comment.
d) Positive claims about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are plentiful, and these are derived from the Bible, so again, we need to find a setting that would be suitable for such discussions.
If you have specific point for discussion I will be happy to respond.
You have some claim. Tangible evidence is nice. I think you will agree that you should have SOMETHING if you are to be convincing. That could be just a logical argument.
Physics has also been studied for aeons. You donāt need more than very basic education to chime in and ask questions about things that seem inconsistent or unconvincing. You could for instance ask āwhy is it called a parabolic trajectory when satellites orbit in a path that is not a parabola?ā and then someone can explain the difference and why it makes sense or agree that it is a misnomer. You do not need to read any university level physics book let alone consider every textbook you can get your hands on to ask that. I donāt see atheist comments that are as ill informed as you make it sound.
I guess we may start with a claim I can make, that Christ is the Son of God who was born of Mary, live amongst us, and was resurrected. I can continue to speak of the Trinity and what that means to me.
How would a discussion go from your end. From my position these are obvious claims/statements, theology 101 we may say.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
185
That subjective reality is fine, I can do the same. What has that got to so with objective reality?
Once again Iām not quite following where youāre headed. Yes, those are claims. Should I believe any of them? I donāt care what the Trinity means to you per se. But if you believe it is something that exists then yes, you should define it and make a case for it. Just as with anything.
From my end? You mean some claims? I can go for the easy claim that have not found a reasonable justification to warrant belief in any deity. Or the harder case that no deities exist.
I have taken a burden of proof to demonstrate a negative.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
190
Yeahhhh. The kind of thing that got OJ off. A miracle that blows science and rationality extrapolated from it out of their socks would be nice, how many sigmas away is that?
The impossibility of this makes me wonder if this is sarcasm?
The only reason to take such a burden is if you want others to accept the truth of such a negative claim. Agreeing to disagree is the only reasonable course when there is no objective evidence either way.
I donāt think you would say that agreeing to disagree was the reasonable course if the claim was something we both consider outlandish. Like the existence of unicorns or dragons. Iād guess that you would also see the lack of evidence for such creatures lead to the reasonable conclusion that they donāt exist. Right?
I put my belief in God on the same level as the belief in fairies, UFOs, psychics, ghosts, healing with and crystals. No objective evidence or ability to demonstrate the truth of these things is all the same. I have only subjective reasons including personal experience for my belief in God and thus I accept that I can have no reasonable expectation that others should agree any more than any of these other things. If anything the existence of unicorns or dragons is even harder to shoot down because the universe is a VERY big place and even the possibilities among living things in the long history of earth does not exclude a possible tangible explanation for such myths.
Mostly what the evidence does is place limits on the claims in regards to these things which can be considered reasonable. Likeā¦ if Santa has a workshop at the north pole then it must not be visibleā¦ etcā¦
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
194
What a strange thing to do! Heās infinitely above and beyond those mental malfunctions.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
200
Every lottery win that has ever happened is 100% certain. 50 sigmas takes us to gambling by every inhabitant of many universes. At least 10^27. Universes.
That flourish was just for your enjoyment. But the larger point is, when the unusual happens, how do you pin down the active ingredient if there even is one? Every mathematically unlikely outcome has some expected value or other. Your assurance that āsure they doā doesnāt persuade.
Since the resurrection is the unexpected outcome which actually matters to Christians why do you muddy the waters with this sort of sideshow?