No such thing as nothing?

All that we observe in the universe coms into being and passes away, and so is not self-existent. So atheists who want the universe to be the ultimate (self-existent) reality postulate something we do not observe to fill that role. Today the mis popular proposal is that it is whatever is “purely physical.” But nothing can so much as be conceived as purely physical, so reason - no matter how you construe it - is not on the side of that Gid-substitute. If you’ll write to me privately I’ll send you a detailed argument showing why this is so, and why it can’t be fixed.

1 Like

Our mere fallacious beliefs don’t compare with the faithfulness of Christ.

1 Like

Faith in Christ works well, too.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
 
Matthew 7:13

1 Like

Using a fallacious beliefs argument to argue for a fallacious belief would be… fallacious?

1 Like

Personally I’d have to declare it a tie: an always existing God is no more or less demonstrable than an always existing natural process. My own bias is that the importance of God should not depend in any way on His having created every atom, microbe and galaxy. I would argue what one thinks about the origins of creation/existence is unsupportable. Frankly I prefer religionists who talk about why the relationship with God should matter to people rather than arguing about His backstory.

I’m a Personist.

…is about deep joy in this life – Maggie had reason(s), so did George and so do I, among many, many others. Oh, it’s also about deep joy in the next, too. :slightly_smiling_face:

I don’t disagree with that except for the implication that all our beliefs are fallacious. If you believe that, then your belief that all belief is fallacious is itself fallacious.

All our beliefs (fallacious or not) don’t compare with the faithfulness of Christ.

That true.

It’s also not relevant to anything I said. So…a true “non-answer.”

1 Like

Yeah, that’s just common sense… and rationality. :slightly_smiling_face:

It has everything to do with it. The common fallacy of common Christianity is that our faith has anything to do with salvation.

It would, that’s right. Well done. Go and sin no more.

1 Like

That would be the common fallacy of your interpretation of common Christianity. If you want to talk about universalism, take it to a private message.
 

1 Like

Once again, I’m not sure whether you are talking about pistis or Enlightenment faith.

1 Like

When I use faith I mean faith. The thing we do. When I use faithfulness I mean faithfulness. The thing Jesus did.

Oh, you mean what we do, like this:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
 
Hebrews 11:6

I’m not interested in rhetoric taken out of context. I.e. proof texts.

Put it in context, then, like reality.

https://biblehub.com/esv/hebrews/11.htm

Sorry, the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Junia or whoever (not Paul of course, since Eusebius), is a remarkable piece of ancient literature, an early Christian masterpiece to a wavering Jewish audience. What does that have to do with the fact of Christ’s universally efficacious faithfulness?

Like I said, if you want to peddle universalism, take it to a private message.
 

You could be more deeply joyful if you would adopt Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic (which does not ignore textual criticism):

.

Given that “biblical faith” (pistis) does not map directly onto “Enlightenment faith,” and includes facets like faithfulness, trust, and allegiance, I’m still not sure what you mean when you say “faith” (especially because pistis includes the idea of faithfulness, whether Jesus’ or ours).

Odd reply, that, since Hebrews is probably the highest and most comprehensive exposition of Christology in all of Christian scriptures. Not only that, but it includes the great “faith chapter.” It’s more than little disingenuous to distinguish between “faith” and “faithfulness,” since the original Greek word means both of those things. Distinctions might be imposed, revealing theological biases.