John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  You propose that God and Mother Mary both love humans and that God is all-powerful, correct?

  Yes. All-powerful in relation to His very nature.

  You also propose that whether or not those humans believe in God is crucial to whether or not they will spend eternity in heaven, or face the oblivion of non-existence, right?

  No.

  There's no oblivion in Christianity. Only God (Heaven) or the intentional rejection of God (Hell).

  The soul is simple in structure and has no parts so it can't be subject to disintegration. The soul is immortal.

  So, if some humans need some sort of scientifically verifiable proof to believe in God, then why hasn't He provided it?

  Because His Will is people worshipping Him with spirit and truth (two metaphysical entities).

  You've said that God is only bound by His nature, what part of His nature is preventing him from providing scientific evidence for those who need it to believe in Him?

  A miracle is the closest of scientific evidence.

  If it isn't outside of His power or against His nature, then that means He is choosing not to provide such evidence in a way that it can be verified as having come from Him.

  Yes.

  God cannot totally reveal Himself because this act would destroy the free-will of humans. This happens immediately at the hour of death of every human being.

  Doesn't that make it seem like He has simply decided that such people are not worth saving?

  Why?

  He has, in essence, cursed us to oblivion by not providing something that would only require the slightest bit of effort on His part.

  There's no oblivion. There's a "place" lacking God.

  I don't know any loving parents who would act in such a way.

  You must understand that there's a big picture that we don't see entirely.

  But any loving parents would permit and let their children to pass through painful medical procedures to achieve a greater good.

  If evil is inevitable and God chose to His presence be hidden from a scientific perspective you must be sure that these are necessary conditions to achieve a greater good.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  John_Mann your arrogant dismissals of my comments are unworthy of a response.

  Really, Cofty?

  I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.

  Anyway I'll keep praying for your soul to realize the blinders of Atheism and Scientism.

  And remember you have the chance to change your mind until your last breath.

  And always remember that our Mother Mary, the woman clothed with the sun, loves you more than the combined love of all mothers who ever existed and will exist.
  
  
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Nine ways in which the claims of Christianity just seem unlikely:

  1 - The brutal competition for survival
  2 - Mass extinctions
  3 - "Nature red in tooth and claw"

  Non sequitur statements. These statements doesn't lead to the initial conclusion (Christianity is unlikely).

  Christianity says the physical world is ruled by impersonal natural laws.

  Christianity says only the immortal soul is directly and metaphysically created by God in His image (Original Justice). The nature of this immortal soul is temporarily broken (Original Sin).

  4 - Lack of clear bible prophecy

  5 - The complete ordinariness of the bible

  6 - The moral failings of scripture

  Axiomatic statements. Acceptance its not necessary.

  7 - The credulity that is required to believe in miracles

  You must stop to talk in a pejorative way about faith because you use faith too (every time when you accept an axiom).

  8 - An earth perfectly designed to randomly kill millions of its inhabitants

  Non sequitur.

  9 - The confirmation bias that is required to believe in answered prayer

  Axiomatic statement.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  HiIt is clear that you prefer throwing around silly labels than holding a rational conversation John. Pity.

  Labels are definitions and definitions are necessary in a rational conversation.

  The labels or definitions in our rational conversation:

  # God: as defined in the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  # Axiom: metaphysical statement taken to be true through pure faith.

  # John_Mann: Catholic.

  # Cofty: Atheist and follower of Scientism.

  # Cofty and JM: both accept the scientific method. Both accept the heuristic method.

  Do you accept these definitions/labels?
  
  
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Just some sensible, rational observations

  I'm using the most simple and logically sound argument to God that I know.

  You must accept the simplicity and logical soundness of the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  Don't you?

  that would help a reasonable person

  Like a person who believes in the metaphysical Atheism and Scientism (logically flawed as a carpet)?

  understand why the world does not coincide with the claims that christians make.

  Where's this "why". You haven't shown nothing than Atheism and Scientism.

  I'm not asking for statistics or formal arguments.

  Wow!

  I've told you that many times already

  When? All you do is always demand for scientific evidences to anything.

  My rule of thumb is as follows -

  Rule of thumb is the popular name to the heuristic method. It's the first time you're mentioning a method beyond the scientific method (which is metaphysical because is built upon several axioms).

  BTW the heuristic method is metaphysical too. Just saying...

  If you can't explain your argument to your aged grandmother you don't really have anything to say.

  The St. Anselm's ontological argument is understandable to any grandmother.

  BTW almost every grandmother I know is a theist. Because people tend to be more wise in the old age.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  My OP does not ask for any scientific evidence at all.

  In your OP:

  Sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  If not scientific evidence so what kind of evidence do you mean?

  It is a series of nine simple, reasonable, testable observations.

  There are some subjective observations in your OP.

  How can we test your subjective claims?

  By the way I am trying to mostly ignore Perry when he spouts pseudoscience. IMO it's demeaning to do otherwise.

  I can say that I don't agree with the premises used by Perry.

  But I agree with his conclusion about the existence and identity of God.

  For me he's right with wrong reasons.

  In the most significant topic of humankind Perry is right and you're plainly wrong, cofty.

  
  
  
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Not a single word of my OP depends on "scientism".

  This is simply not true because you are always demanding scientific evidence.

  Asking for scientific evidences in a metaphysical topic like the concept of God is exactly what followers of Scientism do.

  You're a follower of Scientism in denial.

  You're a follower of two flawed metaphysical positions: Atheism and Scientism.

  Atheism while being a metaphysical position (where the only axiom is the very conclusion) denies the existence of metaphysical beings. This is pure non sense.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Throwing silly labels around is just another way of avoiding the challenges of the OP. Page 21 now.

  It's not a silly label, is a verifiable fact. Just compare your position with the definition of Scientism.

  Actually you're now projecting your own denial to me. I already answered, line by line, your OP. You can say you don't agree with my answers but you can't say I'd avoided your OP.

  Denial is the most basic mechanism of defense in a deluded mind. Denial is followed by projection.

  You're a follower of Scientism, cofty.
  
  
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Still off on irrelevant philosophical tangents. The OP is about 9 simple observations. Nothing you have said since begins to address them.

  Interesting, I thought your denial was only restricted to the fact that you are a follower of Scientism.
  
  
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature.

  This means a very unstable being, right?

  Stability is greater than instability.

  Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria.

  No way.

  Your logic is flawed and you know that.

  The Christian concept of God meets the St. Anselm's criteria but your defined being not.

  they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain?

  Because there are necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds, physical and metaphysical.

  And the metaphysical is accessible.

  You are the one saying the metaphysical world/realm/domain is not accessible or/and inexistent.

  I say the metaphysical realm is more accessible than the physical realm actually. Your consciousness is metaphysical.