So why doesn't God write in the sky?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”
Click to expand...
If the sky did say “I exist” and it had been there, in, say, ancient sumerian for 4000 years, what good would it do? Even if it seemed to disobey the laws of physics, would it convince people? It’s just a sentence in the sky. Who knows what it means. And who knows what this man-in-the-sky wants from us.

Instead, we would need some text that we each would see in our own language. And the message would have to change now and then, otherwise some people would think God was dead. What would the messages say? Would they be specific instructions to each of us every day, giving us advice?

Apparently man used to have just that. Adam and Even walked in the garden and talked with God. Today we have to talk to God through prayer, and its hard to hear Him, but some of us can make out what he says, sometimes. So I think its because of sin.
 
ddarko said:
Come on. Are you this slow?

So how do you know that “theres always another side of the story, so you gotta assume the one that makes the most sense, that is approximate which one holds the most truth” and that it is true? Its an infinite regress. At one point you HAVE to terminate it with FAITH (without evidence).

That is a simple point man and if you can’t get it after all these posts, I am not sure whats gonna do it for you.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
I do not feel like being insulted anymore. Either clean up your act and use clear language to describe your ideas without the emotional content, or i will not discuss the subject with you any longer.
 
Soulewolf said:
I do not feel like being insulted anymore. Either clean up your act and use clear language to describe your ideas without the emotional content, or i will not discuss the subject with you any longer.
Click to expand...
lol please don’t. You need to understand logic first. The amount of logical errors you committed in this thread and the other thread alone undermines your credibility.

So with all due respect, you should definitely not be discussing this matter with me any further. Go bug someone else in the time you want to waste.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Ok first let get one thing straight. This debate is not on me proving that your religion is true over mine or vice versa. This is not about comparative religions.
Click to expand...
Nothing in what I’ve said should suggest that it was - look at the questions I was asking.
My point was that “All knowledge needs faith i.e. Faith is the basis of all knowledge”. I continuously stated this multiple times to you as well. I am only defending faith here, nothing else.
Click to expand...
And I’m trying to investigate the ‘epistemology of ddarko’.
Where this leads us is a different debate which seems to be the one you are stuck on.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, not at all - look at the questions I was asking rather than telling me what I was asking.
 
Thyme said:
Why so?
Click to expand...
The maker of that video, for one, directs users to a website that condemns Benedict XVI and JPII, says Vatican II was a heresy, etc. Add to this the fact that the video simply makes claims without listing sources, and that the sources given on the website for the Padre Pio portion are all taken from religious books praising Padre Pio. In other words, there are no neutral sources. Excellent.
 
Hope you had a very good Shabatt Kaninchen 🙂
Kaninchen said:
Nothing in what I’ve said should suggest that it was - look at the questions I was asking.
Click to expand...
Most of the questions you asked were along the lines of “how do you know Judaism is incomplete” etc. What else am I supposed to infer from those questions?
Kaninchen said:
And I’m trying to investigate the ‘epistemology of ddarko’.
Click to expand...
Well thats the problem isn’t it :)? I am not discussing on how to apply the fact that we need faith. I am simply stating the truth that all knowledge starts by accepting properly basic beliefs without evidence (which is FAITH in the atheist definition of the term). As to what this means for epistemology is not my discussion here.
Kaninchen said:
Oh, no, not at all - look at the questions I was asking rather than telling me what I was asking.
Click to expand...
You question above suggests otherwise 🙂

God Bless 🙂
 
aperture said:
In other words, there are no neutral sources. Excellent.
Click to expand...
Trust me - neutral sources are hard to find, regardless of claims to the contrary :o. If you think otherwise, you’re not being critical enough! :rolleyes:
 
(Original source of following quote unknown - lost in the mists of the thread, apparently!)

"If you claim that your god is something more than a concept that exists in your head, let’s see some evidence for it "

Well, at very least, it’s a concept that appears to exist in rather a large proportion of humanity’s heads - are you denying that?

In fact, on the whole, I suspect as a concept, God exists in more heads as a likely explanation for, well, us, than this silly idea that we came into existence by some absurdly unlikely (if not impossible) sequence of randomly occurring chance events. Or maybe I’m just being optimistic (for once) about the rational capacity of humanity…🤷
 
Mystic_Banana said:
(Original source of following quote unknown - lost in the mists of the thread, apparently!)

"If you claim that your god is something more than a concept that exists in your head, let’s see some evidence for it "

Well, at very least, it’s a concept that appears to exist in rather a** large proportion **of humanity’s heads - are you denying that?

In fact, on the whole, I suspect as a concept, God exists in more heads as a likely explanation for, well, us, than this silly idea that we came into existence by some absurdly unlikely (if not impossible) sequence of randomly occurring chance events. Or maybe I’m just being optimistic (for once) about the rational capacity of humanity…🤷
Click to expand...
  1. argument fails- you are trying to claim the population can determine truth. This fails even based on your theology, try again.
  2. you have to give us reasons to consider rational non theistic views to be “silly”
 
ddarko said:
Most of the questions you asked were along the lines of “how do you know Judaism is incomplete” etc. What else am I supposed to infer from those questions?
Click to expand...
The questions I have been asking are about your demarcation processes – how you go about making decisions about what is true, quantity of truths, logical cohesiveness and so on. To be frank, I’m not interested in what you believe, just how you decide what you believe.

You’re very demanding that atheists justify what they say but ignore/avoid/get cross about any question about what you say. In an absence of answers from you, one is left with a picture of arbitrariness with a dressing of ‘I am a logical genius, so I can say this authoritatively’.
Well thats the problem isn’t it :)? I am not discussing on how to apply the fact that we need faith. I am simply stating the truth that all knowledge starts by accepting properly basic beliefs without evidence (which is FAITH in the atheist definition of the term). As to what this means for epistemology is not my discussion here.
Click to expand...
Erm? How can statements about how ‘knowledge’ works be anything other than statements about epistemology?
You question above suggests otherwise 🙂
Click to expand...
There were no questions in that post.
 
Kaninchen said:
The questions I have been asking are about your demarcation processes – how you go about making decisions about what is true, quantity of truths, logical cohesiveness and so on. To be frank, I’m not interested in what you believe, just how you decide what you believe.

You’re very demanding that atheists justify what they say but ignore/avoid/get cross about any question about what you say. In an absence of answers from you, one is left with a picture of arbitrariness with a dressing of ‘I am a logical genius, so I can say this authoritatively’.
Click to expand...
You see, yet again, you are talking epistemology. I am only saying that you have to accept truths without EVIDENCE (i.e. faith in atheist usage of the word). Even epistemology it-self makes no sense unless you accept certain ideas on faith.

So yes, compared to you, I am starting to look like a logical genius.
Kaninchen said:
Erm? How can statements about how ‘knowledge’ works be anything other than statements about epistemology?
Click to expand...
Because, without it, even epistemology does not make sense. But if you want to get so technical, I refer to the concept of Properly basic beliefs in epistemology. I am simply pointing out that properly basic beliefs, HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Thus it’s belief by FAITH in the atheist definition of the term. Now I am not discussing where this leaves us and implications to our knowledge. Just the fact that its how it happens.
Kaninchen said:
There were no questions in that post.
Click to expand...
No, there was an indication as to what your questions were targeted at i.e. "Epistemology of ddarko". Do you even comprehend what you write?

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
You see, yet again, you are talking epistemology. I am only saying that you have to accept truths without EVIDENCE (i.e. faith in atheist usage of the word). Even epistemology it-self makes no sense unless you accept certain ideas on faith.

So yes, compared to you, I am starting to look like a logical genius.

Because, without it, even epistemology does not make sense. But if you want to get so technical, I refer to the concept of Properly basic beliefs in epistemology. I am simply pointing out that properly basic beliefs, HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Thus it’s belief by FAITH in the atheist definition of the term. Now I am not discussing where this leaves us and implications to our knowledge. Just the fact that its how it happens.

No, there was an indication as to what your questions were targeted at i.e. "Epistemology of ddarko". Do you even comprehend what you write?

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
As I said, when pressed, the response is " ignore/avoid/get cross’ with a dressing of ‘I am a logical genius, so I can say this authoritatively’.

Doesn’t take a logical genius to see the implications.
 
Kaninchen said:
As I said, when pressed, the response is " ignore/avoid/get cross’ with a dressing of ‘I am a logical genius, so I can say this authoritatively’.

Doesn’t take a logical genius to see the implications.
Click to expand...
Ok with all due respect, you are really acting stupid here.

First you start arguing with me over a fact. i.e. you believe the core things in every system of knowledge without EVIDENCE. That is a fact.

Second, you seem to be obsessed with the fact that I might be a ‘logical genius’.

Third, you want to discuss epistemological implications when I am talking about the fact. The epistemological implications are irrelevant to this discussion. To give you an analogy, principle of contradiction is a fact in mathematics, you don’t debate that. The truth of the principle of contradiction by it-self are irrelevant to discussing what it means for mathematics.

In conclusion, I am going to stop wasting my time addressing your idiotic posts. You don’t even seem to know what you want to ask me. At times after I make it clear that its not the discussion I am having, you keep asking me the same questions or tell me that I am avoiding the question. Yes I AM AVOIDING YOUR QUESTION. It’s irrelevant to this discussion. And in future, out of respect for people who actually participate in discussions, STOP TROLLING.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Ok with all due respect, you are really acting stupid here.

First you start arguing with me over a fact. i.e. you believe the core things in every system of knowledge without EVIDENCE. That is a fact.

Second, you seem to be obsessed with the fact that I might be a ‘logical genius’.

Third, you want to discuss epistemological implications when I am talking about the fact. The epistemological implications are irrelevant. For an example, principle of contradiction is a fact in mathematics, you don’t debate that. The truth of the principle of contradiction by it-self are irrelevant to discussing what it means for mathematics.

In conclusion, I am going to stop wasting my time addressing your idiotic posts. You don’t even seem to know what you want to ask me. At times after I make it clear that its not the discussion I am having, you keep asking me the same questions or tell me that I am avoiding the question. Yes I AM AVOIDING YOUR QUESTION. It’s irrelevant to this discussion. And in future, out of respect for people who actually participate in discussions, STOP TROLLING.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
As I said, when pressed, the response is " ignore/avoid/get cross’ with a dressing of ‘I am a logical genius, so I can say this authoritatively’.
 
Kaninchen said:
As I said, when pressed, the response is " ignore/avoid/get cross’ with a dressing of ‘I am a logical genius, so I can say this authoritatively’.
Click to expand...
Haha I explained WHY I think your posts are STUPID and why you seem to be a TROLL. Now I am starting to wonder about your ability to READ.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Haha I explained WHY I think your posts are STUPID and why you seem to be a TROLL. Now I am starting to wonder about your ability to READ.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
I think it better to avoid the interest of moderators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top