Which religion should I convert to?
Samuside wrote: and in all of your rhetoric you cannot prove there is no God, and neither can science, DYK is intelligent enough to acknowledge this fact.
This line was written to Physicalist and any other quote you include in your response. What? Are you Physicalist too? This was for his benefit not yours.
When it comes to the burden of proof concerning God, it does not lie upon him who asserts. To repeat myself again and again, “only God can prove He exists” and when He does, it is always to the satisfaction of the person seeking to know that He does. When it comes to the metaphysical, only God can prove the reality of the claims; having proven His claims to be true to my satisfaction this is why I KNOW He exists, this has nothing to do with human cognitive reasoning, it has to with God revealing Himself contrary to cognitive (empirical) reasoning, but not to the exclusion of empirical reasoning. God does not bypass the brain when it comes to anything about Him, and the Kingdom of God and of Heaven [Romans 12:2].
When it comes to scientific proof, I have already told you that is Physicalist pet fetish (fixation). If you look at his answers you would see he is always using the sciences for his dogma-base (proof there is no God).
I would like to note this fact, when it comes to Christianity our primary source for giving answers to any questions both you and Physicalist would ask is the Bible (just as with any belief system). Therefore to get answers to your questions, that Bible is what must be used to answers your questions, when the topic of discussion has to do with what is written in the Word of God about God and the things of God from the Christian perspective. The “heads up” is, the Bible will be used.
Samuside wrote: When it comes to the burden of proof concerning God, it does not lie upon him who asserts. To repeat myself again and again, “only God can prove He exists”
DidYouKnow writes: Then you're up the creek, since you declare that you, personally, know that God exists. You know without proof, yet God is the only one to prove He, Himself, exists. You're caught in a conundrum of mountainous proportions.
Yes, I know your facile answer for the conundrum is that God has proven Himself to you, as a special person, while others have to wait in the faith line. But the claim goes for naught.
If you claim to "know", then you are in the position of explaining and proving your knowledge. You can't do that. You can only claim to know. God is still, for all discernible purposes, non existent. He still is invisible, a mystery, unknown, unthinkable, and all the rest of the baggage. And God is SILENT. Not a peep. Not an attempt to come forth and stand on his godly hind legs, show Himself, explain Himself, and be all a proper God should be. He's MIA.
Samuside wrote: and when He does, it is always to the satisfaction of the person seeking to know that He does.
DidYouKnow writes: But He hasn't. It is claims, only, a dime a dozen. What a mystery God you have, instead of a healthy kind of God, a God who would, necessarily, be hands-on, just as it was written in Numbers. But, conveniently, Samuside, very conveniently, your God remains aloof, doesn't He? Just stays out of sight, conveniently. Never even comes down in his taxi-cloud as He did in the Book of Numbers, and meets with anyone "face to face" as it is written He did with Moses, just like old friends. Why do you think He doesn't do any of this visiting nowadays, Samuside? Why do you think your God is now relegated to claims, those claims birthed by imaginations and the indoctrinational process?
Samuside wrote: The “heads up” is, the Bible will be used.
DidYouKnow writes: I assume you're working on the four gospel renditions of all the ladies coming and going, all the numbers of angels, the one earthquake, the fainting soldiers in one Book but not in the other three books.......
Samuside wrote: .....having proven His claims to be true to my satisfaction this is why I KNOW He exists
DidYouKnow writes: Good lord, Samuside, how weak can it get?
Samuside wrote: When it comes to scientific proof, I have already told you that is Physicalist pet fetish (fixation). If you look at his answers you would see he is always using the sciences for his dogma-base (proof there is no God).
DidYouKnow writes: No, a person doesn't need to go much further than what is reasonable and prudent. The idea that no gods that have been presented by mankind are real or were ever real, is easy to accept. Compare/contrast.
Zeus? Do you, Samuside, think that this Zeus God was ever real? If you say, no way was he real, then anyone can ask you to prove that he isn't or wasn't. How would you go about proving Zeus' non existence? You couldn't. But what you can do is to use the knowledge on hand, as a Joseph Campbell did, you could study (compare/contrast) all the world's religions, past and present. You would note the similarities, in particular. Easy stuff, really.
Have you read some of Joseph Campbell? If not, worth the effort.
Njoy wrote: ps: I tried to add you as a contact because I had a question I wanted to forward to you. Your profile wouldn't allow it. Don't you want to have any contacts? It's okay with me, I just thought you might like to correct that.
DidYouKnow writes: Well, I've been wondering where you've been? And I'll check it out.....okay, I checked it out, cursory, though, and didn't find out how to do it. So, what gets clicked?
Njoy wrote: I'ts just sort of a buddy type thing to do
DidYouknow writes: Well, thanks, bud......