proplog2

Joined

• started 97 topics
• posted 2,197 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by proplog2

• 
  54

  Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  arguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.

  yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.

  no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  Dun:

  I guess you're Dun. Apparently you can still post to this thread. Are you aware of this or not?
• 
  10

  Life On Other Planets

  by Black Man in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the society has taken stabs at it in the past only to double-talk the issue to death and insert their own prograndized spin on it.

  i remember one article encouraged peeps to not look for life on other planets, but instead try to draw close to extra-terrestrials that want to draw close to us (jehovah, jesus, faithful angels) or either imply at the end of one publication that jehovah has a purpose for the universe but that the earth will always be special because this is where his name/right to rule was vindicated.

  btw, hit up www.space.com.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  Until you have had experience with a UFO you will believe the conventional line. I certainly did. But now I at least know there is either someone somewhere on earth that has some amazing stuff or we are definitely hosts to some uninvited guests.

  I am perfectly sane. I am an atheist. I don't believe in alien abductions or direct contact with these entities. But I believe they are hanging around.

  I believe we are going to see a lot more of these craft in the near future.
• 
  10

  Life On Other Planets

  by Black Man in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the society has taken stabs at it in the past only to double-talk the issue to death and insert their own prograndized spin on it.

  i remember one article encouraged peeps to not look for life on other planets, but instead try to draw close to extra-terrestrials that want to draw close to us (jehovah, jesus, faithful angels) or either imply at the end of one publication that jehovah has a purpose for the universe but that the earth will always be special because this is where his name/right to rule was vindicated.

  btw, hit up www.space.com.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  I am very skeptical of UFO reports. Until it happened to me. I won't describe the event but it involved my family, and about a dozen neighbors. I am thoroughly convinced that there are beings from some dimension that are able to visit here and that have a very advanced technology. I don't believe they travel through space like Star-Trek but that they come from some parallel domain.

  When everything is figured out Gods, Angels, Demons are probably material beings with an advanced technology.
• 
  4

  Am I Screwing Things UP?

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems that everytime i post something things get screwed up?

  i don't want to put evidentialism in a subject again that's for sure.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  Duns:

  I guess the question is answered: Should Christians be afraid of evidentialism? Yes! Especially the word. It seems to alter the space-time-internet continuum.
• 
  4

  Am I Screwing Things UP?

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems that everytime i post something things get screwed up?

  i don't want to put evidentialism in a subject again that's for sure.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  Well what do you know? I don't use the word "evidentialism" in a subject title and my post becomes visible.

  Duns: You've got to quit using those WORDS.
• 
  4

  Am I Screwing Things UP?

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems that everytime i post something things get screwed up?

  i don't want to put evidentialism in a subject again that's for sure.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  It seems that everytime I post something things get screwed up? I don't want to put evidentialism in a subject again that's for sure.
• 

  Evidentialism again

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i hate to repost this but i will keep trying til i can access the thread.

  here is an arguelog dealing with duns evidentialism post.. .

  duns: as a christian i avoid arguments from natural theology.

• 

  proplog2

  I hate to repost this but I will keep trying til I can access the thread.

  Here is an arguelog dealing with Duns Evidentialism Post.

  DUNS: As a Christian I avoid arguments from natural theology. I am
  not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative
  entity devised by human adroitness. God has given me and all
  others who love him more than enough evidence of his existence.

  PROPLOG: I too would agree that looking for evidence of God in
  nature is pointless. If God is a living person then he ought to be
  able to talk to humans in a way that humans would know that he is
  God or at least some kind of superior being. So far such an
  extraordinary revelation has not occurred.

  DUNS: Everything, even what you call "scientific proof" is a
  matter of faith.

  PROPLOG: Suppose a man claimed that Aristotle is alive today and
  that Mars is inhabited by fairies? Would it be reasonable for him
  to retort when asked for evidence in support of these claims "Well,
  what evidence do you have that the sun is going to come up
  tomorrow"? Common-sense beliefs, e.g. "the sun will come up
  tomorrow" are much more rationally supported than beliefs for which
  we have no evidence. Common-sense beliefs and belief in God are
  therefore not comparable. In our everyday lives we act upon
  assumptions which we cannot prove to be true. But we still are able
  to decide what to do on the basis of what is most probably true.

  DUNS: Let me quote Chesterton: "In so far as religion is gone,
  reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and
  authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot
  themselves be proved"

  PROPLOG: Consider trying to walk off the observation deck of the
  Empire State Building. We could have "faith" that we will fall and
  be killed or we could have "faith" that we will have an enjoyable
  walk on air. Faith can decide nothing in this situation. Yet we
  do have good reasons for NOT walking off the edge of a building.
  You, Duns, are arguing that SINCE we have to rely on a degree of
  faith in our everyday lives THEREFORE faith in ANYTHING is somehow
  justified- including belief in the existence of GOD. The fact
  remains that we do not have GOOD reasons for believing in fairies,
  unicorns or God. Faith or not, proof or not - we still have to
  decide on the basis of whether there are good reasons available for
  our beliefs.

  DUNS: But "reasons" are not "proof".

  PROPLOG: Whether or not good reasons are "proofs", they will have
  to do until proofs come along.

  DUNS: It remains that at best both common-sense claims and
  theistic claims are based on assumptions.
  PROPLOG: There is one difference. Theistic claims are based
  MERELY on assumption whereas common-sense beliefs are based on
  assumption PRECEDED by OBSERVATION. That is not just a difference
  in degree. That is a difference in kind.
  Chesterton was correct up to a certain point. He is correct in
  placing reason over religion. Common-sense beliefs are more
  fundamental than theistic beliefs. Showing that religious
  assumptions are wrong does not automatically signal the end of all
  common-sense beliefs. For example you must hold the common-sense
  belief that there exist things other than yourself if you are to
  believe that there is a God. You must believe that what is true in
  the past will continue to be true if you are to believe, from one
  second to the next that God continues to exist. If common-sense
  beliefs are unjustified, then theistic beliefs are doubly
  unjustified since they rest on common-sense beliefs.

  DUNS: ?????????
• 
  5

  Dull subject of evidentialism

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  remains that we do not have good reasons for believing in fairies,.

  faith or not, proof or not - we still have to.

  that is a difference in kind.. chesterton was correct up to a certain point.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2
• 
  5

  Dull subject of evidentialism

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  remains that we do not have good reasons for believing in fairies,.

  faith or not, proof or not - we still have to.

  that is a difference in kind.. chesterton was correct up to a certain point.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  Here is an arguelog dealing with Duns Evidentialism Post.

  DUNS: As a Christian I avoid arguments from natural theology. I am
  not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative
  entity devised by human adroitness. God has given me and all
  others who love him more than enough evidence of his existence.

  PROPLOG: I too would agree that looking for evidence of God in
  nature is pointless. If God is a living person then he ought to be
  able to talk to humans in a way that humans would know that he is
  God or at least some kind of superior being. So far such an
  extraordinary revelation has not occurred.

  DUNS: Everything, even what you call "scientific proof" is a
  matter of faith.

  PROPLOG: Suppose a man claimed that Aristotle is alive today and
  that Mars is inhabited by fairies? Would it be reasonable for him
  to retort when asked for evidence in support of these claims "Well,
  what evidence do you have that the sun is going to come up
  tomorrow"? Common-sense beliefs, e.g. "the sun will come up
  tomorrow" are much more rationally supported than beliefs for which
  we have no evidence. Common-sense beliefs and belief in God are
  therefore not comparable. In our everyday lives we act upon
  assumptions which we cannot prove to be true. But we still are able
  to decide what to do on the basis of what is most probably true.

  DUNS: Let me quote Chesterton: "In so far as religion is gone,
  reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and
  authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot
  themselves be proved"

  PROPLOG: Consider trying to walk off the observation deck of the
  Empire State Building. We could have "faith" that we will fall and
  be killed or we could have "faith" that we will have an enjoyable
  walk on air. Faith can decide nothing in this situation. Yet we
  do have good reasons for NOT walking off the edge of a building.
  You, Duns, are arguing that SINCE we have to rely on a degree of
  faith in our everyday lives THEREFORE faith in ANYTHING is somehow
  justified- including belief in the existence of GOD. The fact
  remains that we do not have GOOD reasons for believing in fairies,
  unicorns or God. Faith or not, proof or not - we still have to
  decide on the basis of whether there are good reasons available for
  our beliefs.

  DUNS: But "reasons" are not "proof".

  PROPLOG: Whether or not good reasons are "proofs", they will have
  to do until proofs come along.

  DUNS: It remains that at best both common-sense claims and
  theistic claims are based on assumptions.
  PROPLOG: There is one difference. Theistic claims are based
  MERELY on assumption whereas common-sense beliefs are based on
  assumption PRECEDED by OBSERVATION. That is not just a difference
  in degree. That is a difference in kind.
  Chesterton was correct up to a certain point. He is correct in
  placing reason over religion. Common-sense beliefs are more
  fundamental than theistic beliefs. Showing that religious
  assumptions are wrong does not automatically signal the end of all
  common-sense beliefs. For example you must hold the common-sense
  belief that there exist things other than yourself if you are to
  believe that there is a God. You must believe that what is true in
  the past will continue to be true if you are to believe, from one
  second to the next that God continues to exist. If common-sense
  beliefs are unjustified, then theistic beliefs are doubly
  unjustified since they rest on common-sense beliefs.

  DUNS: ?????????
• 
  54

  Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  arguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.

  yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.

  no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  proplog2

  Here is an arguelog dealing with Duns Evidentialism Post.

  DUNS: As a Christian I avoid arguments from natural theology. I am
  not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative
  entity devised by human adroitness. God has given me and all
  others who love him more than enough evidence of his existence.

  PROPLOG: I too would agree that looking for evidence of God in
  nature is pointless. If God is a living person then he ought to be
  able to talk to humans in a way that humans would know that he is
  God or at least some kind of superior being. So far such an
  extraordinary revelation has not occurred.

  DUNS: Everything, even what you call "scientific proof" is a
  matter of faith.

  PROPLOG: Suppose a man claimed that Aristotle is alive today and
  that Mars is inhabited by fairies? Would it be reasonable for him
  to retort when asked for evidence in support of these claims "Well,
  what evidence do you have that the sun is going to come up
  tomorrow"? Common-sense beliefs, e.g. "the sun will come up
  tomorrow" are much more rationally supported than beliefs for which
  we have no evidence. Common-sense beliefs and belief in God are
  therefore not comparable. In our everyday lives we act upon
  assumptions which we cannot prove to be true. But we still are able
  to decide what to do on the basis of what is most probably true.

  DUNS: Let me quote Chesterton: "In so far as religion is gone,
  reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and
  authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot
  themselves be proved"

  PROPLOG: Consider trying to walk off the observation deck of the
  Empire State Building. We could have "faith" that we will fall and
  be killed or we could have "faith" that we will have an enjoyable
  walk on air. Faith can decide nothing in this situation. Yet we
  do have good reasons for NOT walking off the edge of a building.
  You, Duns, are arguing that SINCE we have to rely on a degree of
  faith in our everyday lives THEREFORE faith in ANYTHING is somehow
  justified- including belief in the existence of GOD. The fact
  remains that we do not have GOOD reasons for believing in fairies,
  unicorns or God. Faith or not, proof or not - we still have to
  decide on the basis of whether there are good reasons available for
  our beliefs.

  DUNS: But "reasons" are not "proof".

  PROPLOG: Whether or not good reasons are "proofs", they will have
  to do until proofs come along.

  DUNS: It remains that at best both common-sense claims and
  theistic claims are based on assumptions.
  PROPLOG: There is one difference. Theistic claims are based
  MERELY on assumption whereas common-sense beliefs are based on
  assumption PRECEDED by OBSERVATION. That is not just a difference
  in degree. That is a difference in kind.
  Chesterton was correct up to a certain point. He is correct in
  placing reason over religion. Common-sense beliefs are more
  fundamental than theistic beliefs. Showing that religious
  assumptions are wrong does not automatically signal the end of all
  common-sense beliefs. For example you must hold the common-sense
  belief that there exist things other than yourself if you are to
  believe that there is a God. You must believe that what is true in
  the past will continue to be true if you are to believe, from one
  second to the next that God continues to exist. If common-sense
  beliefs are unjustified, then theistic beliefs are doubly
  unjustified since they rest on common-sense beliefs.

  DUNS: ?????????