Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

My OP does not require a formal argument in reply. It just invites an informal conversation. I offer 9 examples of observable things that don't easily reconcile the with the claims of Christians.
You have hidden from inconvenient truths behind tons of incoherent and untestable assertions.
The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.

Just your opinion, cofty.

A truly honest and sincere position must offer something very clear in turn.

You offer Atheism that ironically is also a metaphysical position (you advocates against metaphysics).

And you also offer Scientism that's another metaphysical position. This one you even deny to advocate. Are you using the BK tactic? (just kidding, I know it's not your intention and I really think you aren't even aware of being a follower of Scientism).

Both things you offer are pure non sense IMHO. And your very position is very contradictory because you use metaphysics to deny/refute metaphysics.

Agnosticism is a much more consistent position, for example.

I know you think Catholicism is pure non sense but it's just your metaphysical opinion too.

In the end we're still agreeing in disagree. But I think you're a very intelligent man and I have a lot of respect for you and as I said before you're the best of your kind in this forum.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.

By common sense you mean statistical consensus?

Everything I said is completely unreasonable?

Do you understand that's a subjective opinion of you, right?

I'm trying to put my reasoning in a formal logical structure so you can point to an exact axiom and say "I don't accept this".

Just saying that my entire argument is unreasonable it's not a meaningful thing to affirm. You must point it out where exactly the structure falls.

My starting point is the St. Anselm's ontological argument. Please point out the flaws in it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

18 pages of evidence-free dogma.

Are you demanding scientific evidence for a metaphysical discussion?

Are you sure you are not a follower of Scientism? Because that's exactly what followers of Scientism do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Why do you accept the one-axiom dogma of Atheism?

77

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

by towerwatchman in

interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

John_Mann

Early christians were a Jewish sect.

Yes.

They adored Jesus.

Yes.

Monotheism in theory had to be reconciled with their practice.

Yes.

The solution was a ridiculous formulation of self-contradictory words.

It is flatly contradicted.

Just your opinion.

Not the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Christian throughout the history.

Philosophically speaking the concept of Trinity is very sophisticated. Even in my atheistic phase I recognized its philosophical value because it can explain the mechanism of our minds too.

That's why we can have an internal dialogue inside our minds. A dialogue implies two persons and if you pay some attention you'll notice that we have two people in our minds. And if you pay closer attention you'll notice a third one who observes the internal dialogue.

The very nature of the intellect and will produces this three-persons phenomenon.

77

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

by towerwatchman in

interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

John_Mann

Wouldn't it have been useful if Jesus had said something similar?

He did.

Through the Apostolic Sucession. I admit in the Bible the Trinity it's not directly present but it's strongly implied.

Not one Bishop ever said about Trinity: "this is something new".

Reincarnation would be something they would protest, for instance.

If Trinity was not part of Christianity why bring Trinity rather than reincarnation?

If they were trying to bring something to be more popular why bring a totally new and extremely complex concept instead of one extremely popular (even today) like reincarnation?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

Getting back to the original question. When I die and am suddenly resurrected on a paradise earth, or at the pearly gates, or perhaps in another dimension, I'll believe.

In my view you can't do that.

77

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

by towerwatchman in

interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

John_Mann

To John Mann
Sometimes you have to do your own homework. Hope the following helps.

My analogy it's not modality like in the analogy of the physical states of water.

One God, three Persons.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

Are you kidding me?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

Are you avoiding my questions?

No.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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

According to you, God created one place where there is no free will and no evil (Heaven) and another place where there is free will and evil (the physical/natural world)

I never said that!

God created a physical world and a metaphysical world.

In the metaphysical world good and evil are isolated from each other (Heaven and Hell).

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann