Summations Only

You are correct, it's just as you say, we know but we can't prove it. It's a logically astute delineation, and I give an example:There are many people that have been executed in the past, even though they were completely innocent of murder, yet they couldn't prove their case. Now surely even Percy and his cohorts would not argue that somebody that is innocent would not know they were innocent simply because they couldn't provide a scientific proof? Nor would they argue, I presume, that the innocent person would not have wanted to prove their innocence.This is why you say, "Oh well", you say it out of honest exasperation, because it is not that you don't want to prove what you say, but that you can't. But don't worry, God has made it so that you can't. It is the same for everyone.I will also respond to Percy if you would like to read that, to give what I hope is a good biblical defense of our position. Although strictly speaking, I think that's something you are a lot "better at" than I am, I find it too hard to talk about the bible, because it's such an impossible can-of-worms to deal with, because of the hundreds of issues that come up.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No. The knowledge is spiritual, not intellectual. Like she stated, you can know it, but not prove it because God doesn't want it proved. God only gives knowledge of Himself to us through something that is called, revelation of the spirit:You can only understand things intellectually as the "natural man", that passage goes on to say, "but the things of God are foolishness to the natural man, for these things are discerned spiritually". (paraphrase)The reason we "know" God's word is true is because "faith comes by hearing" it. We know experientially and spiritually, not scientifically, indeed it can only be known spiritually, because the "things of God" are "discerned spiritually". The problem is, from your perspective, you would use the word "faith", as a generic term, as a none-believer. For example, you would say in a sentence such as this one; "He has Muslim faith, she has faith in her mother, but I have faith in science." This is the modern terminology of faith, but the original meaning is Abrahamic-faith in the Lord God, as an exclusive spiritual substance.This is the problem you have as a none-believer, that to you, you have no way of knowing whether that quote from the bible is just made up words, or an actual reality. From your perspective, we are using the word "faith" in a generic sense, but from our perspective, we are talking about something we have experienced as a reality. To you, the bible is just words, because you don't have the spirit of God. Even what I have just said, "spirit of God" would just be words in a book to a none-believer. Therefore, how can you, as a natural man, understand what the bible says the natural man can NOT understand?We also accept the bible is the inerrant word of God ipso facto, in the same way we would accept a collection of agreeing-books to be some sort of chronicles by the same author. The stories of the Chronicles Of Narnia are in congruence, by fact of them having the same author. To find something discordant isn't possible. So then, Aslan isn't going to be a scarecrow against the theme of the book.The difficulty with the bible, is that to the natural eye, a syntax-understanding seems to prevail. Or a kind of ignorance pertaining to how God is trying to speak to man. In this sense, unbelievers scan it for errors not realizing it's language is not logical or scientific. It is like an onion, even those who are fed by it can't fully intellectualize it - it's the same if you are in a spiritual walk with God, you can't understand Him, you are reasonably even angry at Him, you are muddled up in your thinking, and then at the very same time as all of that, a peace comes into your spirit that "surpasses understanding".But the people who know the things I talk about, are only the people who have lived the experience. Nobody else, for the only way to know it, is to live it. He has made it that way, by His choice, for His own purposes.Man took from the tree. Now to "get back", He wants the heart. He wants us to, by freewill, humble ourselves and say, "okay, I was wrong, SHOW ME."And then He does. He just does, we are not pretending, we have the experience, and you don't, it's really that simple.

You are a breath of fresh air. I know when I read your posts, I shall be reading something healthy, and benevolent towards all folk. A grandiose hobbit my dear Bilbo!That's why I always get a stab of joy when I see your name and avatar, and I immediately click on your name because there is no arguing in you. In some ways you've achieved what a mikey like me can never achieve, to just be a good example of a Christian as honestly as you can.And you know what - it's so funny and ironic, that someone like you, should win by not winning. It's Bruce Lee all over again, the "art of fighting, without fighting."But people like me tend to cock it all up and think, "I've failed you God, by being a damn mikey, of all things."
Good on you Phat(But now I feel like Professor Slughorn, as though I am making an ostentatious speech. I can hear Paul K now, I can hear his thoughts, he is saying; "only mike could honour phat and polish his turd of a post like he just did, the irritating little blastocyst, I shall stomp him sir, stomp him, I shall thwart him forever, I shall blast him in to so many pieces of irrefutable peptide......blast that micro-sleuth, blast his contaminated and deceitful mikey-heart! The scoundrel, the sneak-thief, the gangster, the robber of my sound sayings as an irrefutable atheist!!!!! Does he think he is angry, well I am a mushroom cloud mother-humper, mother humper, and I shall thwart him to dust I tell thee, to dust! Bring on the miserable snozzcumber, this crocodilomorph is about to perish!!" (of course, your post was very eloquent, and not a "turd", but I was "in the moment". ) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks Faith, that's a thoughtful post, I'm only this thread once, I say what I mean then go but I do want to say a few things in response to your insights. It never ceases to amaze me how it can't be seen, especially the incontrovertible evidence of design all around us.Yes, there is evidence, confirmation evidence, some of that evidence is just for the existence of an intelligent designer, so it can become a can of worms. But the bible with all it's prophecies and wisdom, can't be deemed to be an ordinary collection of books comparable to another religious book, IMHO. to put it in common terms, if God has shown Himself somehow to humanity - "what would He look like?" Well, the first thing we would say is this - " God, you've allowed the bible to be the clear winner, now if it isn't why did you make it mislead us in this manner? I mean the Koran is a johnny-come-lately, the bible spans centuries, and states things that unmistakenly lay claim to all of the divine claims we would expect it to,."Think about it? who claims to have made the earth, made man on it, formed the eye, planted the ear, see the heart of man, have omniscience, omnipotence, transcendance, immutability and sovereignty, and "be love" itself? All of these claims SATISFY those who seek God. So I can't see how any comparison can be drawn. Quite simply, if God isn't the God of the bible, then He has made it overwhelmingly look like he is, to the world, which would make no sense. also it's the only book that explains our sin-nature, and tells us why the world is the way it is, and the only book to claim we are unique to the animals, as our consciousness clearly is, that we are made in God's image. These things are not comparable to the shallow god-of-thunder, "Thor", who gives no answers to anything. Yet Dawkins would compare our God to Thor?!? Lol! I've read most of it, it's seven foot away from me as I speak. Although I hope not to offend you or catholics, but it seemed like a lot of catholic-fluff, but perhaps I misunderstood because the language was hard to read. Some things made sense to me, but others didn't. that language seemed more linguistic, more informal statements, opinionated. I don't have much of a view of it either way, but I can see there might be some insights in there that have credence. He said that to exist between two infinites spaces for no reason at all makes no sense, IIRC, which certainly made sense to me when I read it. I agree, we partake of ministerial reason whereas they partake of magisterial reason, and the latter is basically the wisdom of this world, which is mankind being man-centric, and claiming their own wisdom and philosophy is "god", (they are their own god.) I would say personally that they don't say the same thing, they claim the same thing. But the problem is we can't compare them and amalgamate them like Dawkins and his ilk want to do.When a Christian spoke to Dawkins about an experience with the Holy Spirit, Dawkins appealed by saying someone could speak of a similar experience with another religion. But that's fallacious because there is no way to differentiate between a subjective delusion and a genuine spiritual reality. Therefore to conclude one is all and all is one, is a non sequitur.I appreciate that atheists TREAT one as all and all as one, but they only do that out of their own subjective ignorance. (Lack of experience of the genuine spiritual walk.)We know that when a person receives the genuine article they can't soon after look for fulfillment in something less.(If I don't come back to discuss, thanks for reading this post.)

I don't think it has to be contentious among Christians. It is a difficult can of worms, because everything you have just stated I basically agree with, but I would say I personally take it as inerrant, as a trust-issue between me and God. I admit my "reason" leads me to similar conclusions you would probably have and atheists would have, sometimes, but I choose to basically humble myself and admit I don't understand.I am not against your way of seeing it, as you are clearly a genuine believer, it doesn't have to be contentious, it's just a difficult thing, because we are all at our own different stages of our walk with God, really, and we all have our own personal little differences.

If I give to charity, I shall have to give to all charities. (Slippery slope fallacy). Appeal-to-consequences. A person that knows the truth to the best of his ability (JTB) (epistemology), is a witness to that truth, for the sake of honesty, even if s/he was found to be wrong. So "audacity" is an inappropriate word.Nice try with the, "honourable, moral display" - (Argument-from-outrage fallacy.) All you are doing is venting your morality - but remember, there's no such thing as morality according to atheism, which breaks the Law of non-contradictionHow can something be "pitiful" if it is not there? Which indicates to me, you really feel our God is there, but are angry towards Him.If God created life andthe universe, which He clearly did from the evidence, then water is only essential, ipso facto, in fact - God would be essential, as He could have NOT created water. Thus God is ultimately the true water."He who drinks the water I give him, it shall spring up inside him, overflowing to eternal life." (Paraphrase).Your angry little LOUD post reminds me of what that man says in the movie, Bad Day At Black Rock, "you're not only wrong, but you're wrong at the top of your voice."You are still IGNORANT of the "life of God", Theodoric. This is why I dismiss what you say, because that is where this outburst stems from, ignorance.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This is the problem from each person's perspective, they hold the truth.

You say, "this is what we have been saying", as though I was saying the following: That's equivocation, I wasn't saying that. I was speaking about a specific problem.It's best to assume that mike knows exactly what the pragmatics of his own statements are.I referred to the aforementioned problem, for my own reasons though. For if something has to be true, then we have a problem if there are many counterfeits. Yet this does not mean that real cash doesn't exist.You might even say, of your fake cash; "But I can buy with it, I've used it, it looks like real cash, so it is!"But it wouldn't be, for it would only be accepted as genuine cash, because people accepted it as genuine cash.How can we know what is actually true? Man's reason and knowledge aren't enough. Human reason is flawed, and ignorant, many reasonable, knowledgeable people come to opposite conclusions.I propose that the ideology that explains all of the facts, will be the correct one. The teleological facts, the precondition-of-intelligibility, the anthropic principle, Abscission and Photosynthesis, the DNA code, the millions of varieties of viably designed species, the laws of physics and maths. The order in the universe, the unique human conscience, and so forth.The clearly evident Creation, is one way of knowing, or at least realizing the correct answer, to begin with because those who do not acknowledge it, are, we are told, "willfully ignorant" of it, because it is so overt/blatant. From the trees and the fleahs, the fruit and the bees, the peahs, seas, cheese and hairy-knees.The materialist philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't make rational sense, because it always has to explain the facts of reality to be illusory. There is no reason for cheese to exist under this ideology, and yet it does. There is no reason for matter to create molecules, that create peptides/proteins, cells cellular machinery, code. What would actually happen, is either NOTHING, or some sort of chaotic, random universe.This is reasonable to state. They can then only unparsimoniously INVOKE multiple universes, in order to again make the clear facts, illusory.

Bless you Sir, bless you mightily. "Bless, and do not curse." Yet I don't see a description of each, by you, so we must "assume" your claim is true, from a bald assertion. We must assume you have the knowledge of what these fallacies are, and what they mean, as you didn't say anything about them. Perhaps you didn't notice that you said something by saying nothing?I shall give a brief explanation of my own understanding of the Appeal to Consequences by giving and example, "If I have to give one child a sweet, then I shall have to give all of the children sweets."Usually it's committed when a person appeals that something negative will happen if they commit an action, another effect will ensue, in order to get out of the initial action."If the government audited Bill Jones, they would have to audit everyone!" Incorrect. Gravity is still true whether I believe in it or not. I always believe morality is assessed not by what people SAY about it, but by their actual actions. "You shall know them by their fruit". Strawman. I never argue you can't be atheist and moral, you haven't understood the syllogistic prowess behind my irrefutable words. I was saying that the implications of atheism would lead to the conclusion that there is no ultimate morality so it seems a bit silly for relativists to then judge me by their own morals which would represent subjective preferences. For example, many atheists would have judged it immoral to say, "fuck you", certainly PaulK or Modulous would never feel the need to say something like that. A pretence. One can state that add nauseam until rapture, with it right under their nose. You're still angry."People always find it more difficult to forgive people for being right than they do for them being wrong" - Albus Dumbledore.mike isn't your enemy, didn't you know he never spells his name with a capital letter? He is only a hobbit, to himself.Calm down - there is no need to get so irate.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia Your basis for your argument, is predicated on the appeal to the consequence of the first action.At the very least I spotted the form to be correct. In some examples, if the form is shared, the fallacy is still committed. Reductio ad absurdum can still be a method to detect lies, for example, even if the consequent is NOT absurd, because of the tollens-negation.The consequences aren't right, IMHO, because many beliefs differ wildly. I discussed that earlier on, when I compared THOR to the Lord God.But you assumed the epithet any way, which was question-begging, by assuming "all" are, "nutjobs" Yet in the same post, you gave a CRAZY preaching, about "atheism", thus by your logic, I can't listen to you, or I would have to listen to follow every empty philosophy.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No, you equivocated, because I was using "truth" originally in relation to truth being, "true things", you were the one to respond to ME, in regards to my truth statement about truth, so how can I equivocate with my own meaning of "truth"? Go back and read and you will see I first said:"A person that knows the truth to the best of his ability (JTB) (epistemology), is a witness to that truth"This would mean TRUTH. Things that are true - whatever they are. That's what I was ALWAYS referring to, so how can I then be switching the meaning? For me, if God is true, and gravity are true, then both are, "true". I never "meant" anything more by saying the word, "true". You have now switched to ultimate-truth, in order to discombobulate me. You're changing the goal posts. I just meant "true things". Through the entirety of this discussion, that's all I ever mean by, "true". In this scenario, you present two immoral actions, lying, and lying for Jesus. I judge neither to be correct morally. I was saying that people harp on about morality a lot, with grandiose words, and they accuse people a lot, like saying, "not very Christian of you", but then they spoil the effect by SINNING, like cursing at someone, "fuck you".We both only have each others conduct to, "go on". Your conduct has not been good. The burden-of-proof isn't upon me just because you say, "evidence something". I don't evidence God like I don't evidence gravity, because the unrealistic atheistic-philosophy also has to at least evidence itself. Yet I don't feel the need to use epithets towards you. "Crap", "hilarious". I don't need to state anything personal about you, yet why do you need to do it towards me? Says it all.First make sure you are correct before declaring victory left, right and centre.You got irate. I posted a good rebuttal and you got irate, that's all.

Oh I'm not going to answer questions. No, no - we are specifically talking about a fallacy, an appeal to consequences. Nice try though. No, you've been very rude and condescending.You appealed to consequences, end of story. Better than not reading, or understanding, AT ALL.The point is you make it appear that there are consequences of having to believe in every god, but there aren't in reality, any more than if I give to charity, I will have to "give to every charity". Thus the consequent isn't qualified. Look, you said it - not me.gods differ tremendously. So do charities. For example, I wouldn't give to a charity that helps homosexuals have homosexual sex in a "healthy" manner, as the, "healthy" thing to do, would not be to "misuse" the same sex, according to God.In the same way, Thor is a "God-of-the-gaps", he only exists to serve one purpose, to fill in the gap for "thunder". This is clearly a genuine "nutjob" belief. So you see, you wouldn't have to believe in Thor if you were to listen to the gospel, after all.

This discussion is ended. I have done enough.I feel Theodoric, it would be best to just let you have the final word, that your anger might abate. I myself am not going to get into an ego-war because pride is a sin I try not to commit. Bless you sir.

...I know, I know, Percy. I mean - I just don't know what it is about me, you know I get so confused, and all these loose ends bother me, and you know people say about me that I really oughta just take it easy - let the big boys think for me, you know right now I'm going to get a cup of tea, I think it would be best all around, that way we might feel that mike is at least performing a task more suited to his ability. Maybe I won't get so confused all of the time that way? Don't you agree? I mean we all know only evolutionists have brains, after all - we all know only atheists understand principles, don't we.

I assume this means I say something then leave? Because in case you didn't notice, I answered all of your posts, and then handed you back your ass, sewn to your head. Which means that you DECIDE what is moral - in which case, when you say, "not very Christian of you" or play the moral highground, you are only stating something about your own personal preferences, which are no more, "right" or "wrong" than mine. Ten super-intelligent people in a room might have ten different moral-value systems.How convenient, that to you it's okay to curse at me, you just say, "it is not sin". Interesting, because that way you can basically get to categorize what you want to be sin and what you want to be moral.Oh I'm so confused Theodoric, as you can see - you know Percy is right, I ought-ta just make a cup of tea, before thinking, I just get just - well, just so confused by the things I'm stating, I think I'll leave it to the atheists, their smartness comes from a kind of magic gene or something, they have in their head. Because for a moment there, I thought you were justifying bad behaviour towards me while making grandiose statements about morality - I guess it's all part of the confusion of being a poor, poor, simple Christian.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.