Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
But your missing the important imlication of this. If morality is getting at something truthful such as objective morality as Christians believe then you are saying moral truth does not have to come from God. In fact your claiming a truth over God. That God does not make a difference to morality ontologically.
Just curious. I'm interested in weird esoteric societies and what they believe. What you are describing here sounds a little like Rosicrucianism or something like that and I wondered where you were getting it.
What you said about determinism may not be Rosicrucian, but it is certainly weird and cult-like. Where did you get it?
What I just said is nothing like Rosicrucianism. That is a mystical belief and the very opposite of determinism which is certain, can map out every process from the beginning to the present time and even predict outcomes and behaviour because its determined by past the same deterministic processes. Theres nothing mystical, Gnostic or occult about it.
There isn't any. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. I can't disprove it. I can't disprove any of your claims about the so-called morality you want to impose on the rest of us, either. I do wish you would learn how to spell "empirical" though.
I've got a good idea. How about I include both determinism and materialism in the description. We know that all explanations have to be physical and naturalistic under the atheist beliefs about reality. So lets make them materially deterministic. Problem solved.
Its begging the question. Your already assuming as a priori that empirical evidence is the only evidence. Whatever I say about God, spirituality or any transcedent aspects to reality you will demand the empirical evidence. Thus demanding only one aspect of the evidence. In fact demanding one that is completely incapable of measuring God and belief.
Empirical evidence is evidence obtained through sense experience or experimental procedure. The thing is, your sensory experience or experimental procedure may be evidence to you, but not to me. The sensory experience or experimental procedure has to be reproducible by others before it begins to be empirical evidence. Otherwise all you have is testimony. That's fine with respect to religious claims=--that's how we are supposed to spread the Gospel, after all.
The point the evidence for God and belief is not even based on Empirical evidence of the senses. Your assuming it does and are then forcing everyone to use that particular method to determine the evidence. Its circular and unjustified and beyond the empirical evidence. Because in assuming that true evidence or the only evidence is Empirical evidence based on our senses you are assuming an epistemic truth opf how we should know reality.
But its not fine because then the empirical evidence is used to hammer down on belief and God as unreal and superstition. I*ts imposing a metaphysical truth over Christians or anyone who believes in something beyond the empirical evidence.
No such thing. I am a believer and I am sure tht it does not.
I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are free to support your claims any way you wish.
Science only dismisses "other ways of knowing" as science. Science works strictly withing well-defined epistemological limits, and its conclusions are presented within those limits.
Why don't you go and argue with those people, then?
The "material atheists" here have been saying that for years.
That's fine. You are free to try and support your claims any way you wish. If you have no empirical evidence just say so. Perhaps you can find some other way of convincing those who require it.
Or, as many of us do, we have a foot in both camps.
Ultimate truth over what? As I drive down the highway, at the moment it's empirical evidence that's my truth. When in meditation, not so much.
Then why are you insisting on empirical evidence on proving belief in God or anything that may be transcedent to empirical evidence associated with God or consciousness ect.
Not really because if someone then comes along and says thats all rubbish, its the result of genetics and evolution and there are no transcedent aspects to reality. Then this is forcing people to conform to a dominant paradigm of materialism science. This has been happening for 100s of years. Look at how Indigenous peoples were forced to give up their culture and conform to westernised scientism.
Then it should not be used to dismiss belief, God and other possible transcedent realities out of hand. When its used it is usually in the context of "where is the evidence". If you can't provide the evidence then its not real. Its because its used as a tool to defeat belief and God that it then steps into truth claims about epistemic and ontological metaphysics.
I already am in this thread lol. Whenever an atheists use empirical sciences and material naturalism as the basis for defeating belief and belief in God or anything transcedent of this paradigm. When they call this evidence as unreliable and unreal. They are not just speaking withing a particular worldview of material sciences but an ontological truth claim over any alternative way of knowing.
What, thats just a denial of reality. You may in principle believe that. But in reality material atheists have been doing the exact opposite. This came with the New atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and more recently Sam Harris.
I have already given that. Direct conscious experiences. If I said to an atheist materialist that our direct conscious experience tells us something about reality that empirical sciences cannot tell us then they would ask for evidence. I would say that it cannot be measured in empirical terms and then they would say that this no not evidence and proves nothing.
I am not sure what you mean. I think a believer in God or aspects transcedent to material objective reality can have a foot in both camps because they can use the empirical evidence up to a certain point and agree. But they can also be open to the non empirical and supernatural.
So thre you go, you have different aspects of what makes the ultimate truth to reality. For example empirical evidence is not really going to help in with morality or the ultimate reality that this world is but a drop in the ocean of what will ultimately be Gods Kingdom on earth. What we are living in at present is a reflection of some deeper reality that is driving us.
There is when you describe it. Not necessarily mystical Gnostic or occult, but weird like that.
What I just said is nothing like Rosicrucianism. That is a mystical belief and the very opposite of determinism which is certain, can map out every process from the beginning to the present time and even predict outcomes and behaviour because its determined by past the same deterministic processes. Theres nothing mystical, Gnostic or occult about it.
To repeat: I am demanding no such thing. To say I am is a lie.
No wonder you have to lie about what our beliefs are--otherwise your hypothetical arguments wouldn't work.
Yes there is. Christians have been doing it successfully for 2000 years. You can't blame athiests because your arguments are lame and your theology shallow and inadequate.
Ok so I am not sure what your point is now. You said that I should present my evidence to Hans. I said why should I when he has already dismissed it before it can't be measured. Now I am not sure what your point is.
Really, lol when it is so easy to prove. Are you really that naive. These are not hypothetical arguements but real ones that have happened whenever there is an arguement between material atheism and belief in God, moral lawgiver or creator, or transcedent aspects of reality like consciousness beyond brain and experiences.
Actually its the exact opposite of shallow and inadequate because it supports an all inclusive epistemics where all ways of knowing reality have equal worth and none are exclusive or dominant over others. Not the atheist or material scientists worldview or not the radical evangelist or creationist view.
