[QUOTE]oh well guess not. So I'll say it again, there are no responsible governments. Good night everybody, [AUTHOR]Thomas the Doubter[/AUTHOR]Ali, at this point I am more curious of what/who you see as responsible govt than to argue that they are not. So come on and give us some.[/QUOTE]
Very well then, that makes sense. Thank you for your repsonse.
Neil wrote: Which is what I already said in my last post of 3 Mar. Proofs for the existence of God, which have obsessed philosophers & theologians for millenia now, are fallacious (Hume, Kant, et al.) & thus a waste of time. And at best, they do not prove the God of Scripture, merely *some* god or other. So much for Evidentialism. In order to recognize a sensory experience as being God (as you require), one has to know God's attributes first; otherwise, you may as well hunt for Snarks. These in turn must be learned from Scripture, so one must first admit Scripture as the axiom for truth. This is not circular reasoning, for if axioms are OK for mathematics, surely they're acceptable for theology. We must have a starting point; otherwise, we could never *start* (Gordon Clark).
"God must be proved." Here is where it is written. I understand you to be saying that no he cannot be proven.
Neil wrote: You're begging a question, that God has to be proved. Why does He have to be proved? Where is it written this must be so? And can you prove *anything else* in your world of sensations? We can formulate proofs in geometry or mathematics perhaps, but this is no help since these aren't sensory, but ideas.
Once again god cannot be proved, so why believe? Since man is incapable of knowing for certain.Is this you answer?
Neil wrote: If nothing is infallible, then why should I believe your argument that a God who cannot be sensed, cannot exist? Seems like you just sank your own ship. And why should your flawed senses reach the correct conclusion if God *did* choose to appear before you? How would you decide the manifestation is God (of the Bible, mind you) & not something else?
Nothing is infallible. It seems that everything leads back to making a leap of faith in order to believe, trusting someone/something else.My question is how can you prove a god when he cannot be seen,heard,smelled,tasted,felt? Do you have an answer for this?
Neil wrote: Are your sensations infallible? If not, then how do you tell which are true? And how do you determine whether other believers' experiences, or words, are true?
I can have a strong belief in something due to the influence of many sources of information. As with the argument for god. It has been told to me, I have read about him, the teleological argument, or any other "proof" offered in the apologetics books at the library. However a belief held in my head is not necessarily " knowledge" without a verifiable proof. If god does not show himself to me (if he can not be experienced)how then can you offer proof of his existence? And since god tells us we must believe in order to be saved then the question is a big one.
Neil wrote: Before I try to answer that, what is your epistemology, your theory of knowledge? I can't discuss proof w/o knowing this.
If all philosophies must take something for granted/take a leap of faith/ then none are verifiable. Is it then just an idea that I expect others to believe just because I do.If it all must boil down to taking it on faith at some point this really is not satisfactory. How can you hold onto something as absolute truth that cannot be proven. If God does not show himself then how else would you propose that one should believe since there does not appear to be any other way to prove his existence? If something is not provable then how is it sensible to believe it? just wondering...
Neil wrote: Unsatisfying? Do you mean subjectively, or objectively? If the former, that sounds like a purely emotional & thus useless reply. I'd be *satisfied* thus if God spoke to me every day and showed signs & wonders, but since He doesn't, is that a sufficient reason to deny Him, especially in light of Christ's warnings that even a resurrection will not convince doubters to believe? And if objectively, please elaborate. How is it sensible? Or what proof would be adequate to persuade a doubter?
Yes,that sounds correct, but it is very unsatisfying.It does seem easier for a non-believer to say that since you cannot prove God exists that he does not indeed exist , therefore his position as a non/anti-believer is the only sensical one.
Neil wrote: Just name a philosophy that does *not* take some idea for granted (an axiom). All must do it.
I hope I am correct in assuming that you agree with Pascal. Since we cannot prove God with reason we must take a leap of faith to believe in him.Thus being labeled a superstitious non-thinker by the intellectual elite class. (not that we necessarily care what they think). However my quest for knowledge, and therefore my reasoning, never rests but always seek to probe further into the understanding of things then faith alone does not satisfy.We do not actually have "nothing to lose" for believing if God is not real, but obviously we lose all if he is real. There is the crux of the problem, or not,we cannot "reasonably" prove the existence of god. What do you think?
Jim Lincoln wrote: What if Pascal was correct? from the hostile website to the idea on, Pascal's Wager. Even the apostle Thomas didn't doubt there was a God, it should be added. It is nonsense to do so, as far as people who aren't seeking the position of God, such as atheists.