Posts by John_Mann

posted

496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know.
Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.
You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.
You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.
These are basically the problems in your OP.
Your whole metaphysical position is a mess.
as opposed to your generic apologetics.
My position is not generic. I only defend the Catholic concept of God. Other concepts of God are very contradictory and incomplete IMHO.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?
The answers to those questions are all in the OP
No. They are not.
What you mean by an "objective fact"?
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP.
What you mean by "objective fact"? Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?
You have a very poor understanding about epistemology.
Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.
The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.
And you are right! The concept of Jehovah is a caricature of the concept of God.
You're always beating a Sola Scriptura/JW/Pentecostal concept of God.
When you ask theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.
You are changing the subject. Sometimes you talk about a very strict concept of God and sometimes you talk about theism as a whole.
What subject are you talking about?
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

And neither should God be measured by your rules of evidence because God is not physical. - fm
The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism. - cofty
A follower of scientism can't accept something is not physical.
Ironically they accept several axioms in mathematics and science. Axioms are metaphysical postulates and are the building blocks of the scientific method.
It's a very contradictory position.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Scientism is also an interesting topic. Science has its limitations but there is nothing in my OP that could even remotely be associated with "scientism".
Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism.
The truth is you're a follower of scientism (in denial). And scientism is a philosophical position, in fact a metaphysical position.
I would like to see your position about the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Again here we go back to anecdotal evidence. Personal experiences are worthless.
Scientism detected.
Scientism is a metaphysical interpretation of the scientific method.
Why do you think the scientific method is a universal tool? Personal opinion?
The scientific method can't be properly applied to rare events (origin of life or origin of consciousness) and subjectivity.
Your view is self contradictory. It's just like someone realizing a hammer really works and deciding it can be used to brush the teeth and comb the hair. Wtf?
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Theism is internally contradictory.
The vast majority of interpretations of theism truly are contradictory.
But good luck with the ontological argument from Saint Anselm.
My theism is based on his philosophical argument, in Pascal's wager and in a private revelation to me (a paranormal experience).
https://youtu.be/zCJhEZvhmCc
https://youtu.be/jsNdL_ANjAA
https://youtu.be/SIkVU0AcSMw
47
What do you think the Australian Government will do?
by Richard Oliver in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
i am not wanting to start a fight.

i just want to hear what people think.

honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
John_Mann

They will trigger the Great Tribulation...
I think they will do nothing.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Yet the Catholic Church certainly does NOT believe that contacting/communicating with demons is BS since it can lead to demon possession which in turn will require an exorcism.
This subject is full of popular misconceptions. Demons are much more subtle in their deceptions.
Do you mean you want some truth coming from a demon?
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

In any event, I'm baffled that a devout Catholic like you views contacting demons as BS when the Catholic church is infamously known for its legendary exorcisms.
Exorcism is not communication.
What's the point of God creating an immaterial soul that does the same thing as the brain? Why the duplication?
Not necessarily duplication but enhancement. And the process is broken we don't know exactly how it meant to be. Probably it was not meant to be any duplication in the original plan.
How are you able to distinguish what your brain does from what your immaterial soul does?
The first step is to check out the animal behaviour in other species and see differences and similarities.
Non human animals don't have immortal souls.