I Know That God Does Not Exist

I had evidence. It was simply subjective. I alone experienced it. Experience can never be objective.

Im not sure I understand. Is evidence only objective or "reliable" if everyone sees it? The Bible speaks of two distinct groups of people. The many and the few.
My argument is basically that the "evidence" is objective for the few and unreliable (and vacuous) for the many. Just because most people don't get it does not mkean that its unreliable---if anything it means that most people are too dense to get it.

Glad you edited that. Everyone can and should investigate a claim, but the claim itself states that few will find it.(or agree with the claim)Meanwhile in Washington DC on the 4th of July, Trump spoke and seemed to voice the common goal of the US population:

quote:

---

"We will always be the people who defeated a tyrant, crossed a continent, harnessed science, took to the skies, and soared into the heavens," Trump said. "We are one people, chasing one dream, and one magnificent destiny."

---

Two other notable themes of the Bible are the fact that the majority prefers a popular pardon as opposed to pardoning Jesus (or Christ as living philosophy in today's world). The Christian view is strongest when a minority embrace it and live it. Too many of todays Christians are posers and wannabe believers...they want a God who will make them rich, but do not want to die to themselves and actually take up Larosse and follow Him (as jar would say)Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I can understand Sprouls logic far better than I can the mumbo jumbo word salad that masquerades as Word Salad here at EvC from the likes of AZPaul3, Tangle, and to a lesser extent Stile and ringo. Stile has a love of his opponents that is absent in AZPaul3. ringo just likes to argue, and I have a grudging respect of how God uses him--the atheist--to force me to sharpen my arguments. Theodoric has an inner disdain for Charismatics, Conservatism, and even the idea of the God we market.And (nobody listens to these audio podcast but) I am on board with Sprouls basic logic:
Self CreationOne further thought: Im curious what Miller, a member of the Discovery Institute, means when he talks of this "gospel" of materialism?

The problem is that your assertion (which supports Methodological Naturalism, I bet...gotta read more to find out)
suggests that basic human interaction through the scientific method and human intelligence drawing on inference and theory replaces the need for Theology. Ye shall be as gods. Don't you get it?

I might understand more than I think I do. Miller mentions that

quote:

---

My favorite moment was hearing the response from a student from Europe who said that while the evidence for design in nature is very persuasive, he found that his mind resisted accepting it since he did not like the implications of a higher power having authority over his life. His self-awareness and intellectual honesty were truly refreshing. Other students said that the evidence is forcing them to entirely rethink their understanding of reality. Ironically, they may have more intellectual freedom in China to pursue the truth than they would have in many universities in the United States.

---

I do believe in a spiritual war of ideas and ideologies and I see evidence of it every day. I dont think Percy hates you. I think he just loves his toys and in his defense he would claim that he is forcing you to think outside the box and develop a better vocabulary to get around the censorship rather than simply rearranging the words to f i t o n t h e p a g e.

God foreknew that we had a sin nature and wanted to figure everything out for ourselves rather than kowtow to His authority. It will likely take awhile longer before we admit that Dad was right all along.

All you are doing is quoting the book and essentially telling me what it says.All I am doing is expounding on the words and telling you what it means. You are of course free to disagree. He gave you that inalienable right.

It is you who are using the book to push your belief on the rest of us and then claiming that all you are doing is quoting the book. The snake was subtle too, so I expect this sort of stuff from you. God may use you to sharpen me, but He also used satan to sharpen humanity...those that will make it, at any rate. We want you on that bus also, but you seem to insist that you drive.

Fair enough, lets go back and review the exchange. I am going to take this response over to General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List'). Meet me there. Message 1029Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Replace text for thread and message with links.

Are you thus claiming that every "religious" or spiritual believing person who claims to have allowed the Spirit of the Living God into them is thus delusional and crazy?Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

First of all the book says that a majority is called to this communion yet a minority--few--accept it. You have claimed that the called are known by their works but that we are essentially saved--or chosen by our belief and works...which ideally go hand in hand. Thus the evidence of a regenerated soul would be joyous works...freely and willfully done.

Your scholarly position based on facts and what we collectively know about History makes careful, considered sense and I respect it. I believe that the pattern and theory applies but believe Jesus Christ to be an exception to the pattern. I think that I understand your position. For one thing, (and especially in the case of Jesus the Christ) human anthropomorphism became a modern scholarly concept which graduated from the ancient concepts and beliefs as humanity began to connect through the medium of the printing press, increasing tribal and cultural interaction, and smarter phones leading to dumber sheeple.(One of Buzzsaws favorite words) I agree. The modern day mythicists present a compelling case for the creation (and evolution) of such a Jesus...while the modern day apologists (a few of whom I respect, though not many) tend to further the philosophical Jesus as a living legend personified in the believers of today's time themselves.What are your personal observations and experience with such philosophies where you live? Positive or Negative, overall?Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

To further our discussion, I thought you might enjoy perusing this article:
God In Mathematics The article talks about the philosophical (and theological) beliefs of Vern Poythress. He is by any reasonable standard a deeply and widely educated man. He has six academic degrees, a B.S. from CalTech and a PhD from Harvard in mathematics. An M Div, ThM, M Litt, and a ThD in various theological disciplines from Westminster Seminary, Cambridge University and the University of Stellenbosch respectively. He now teaches New Testament (and on occasion: philosophy of science and philosophy of language) at Westminster. He publishes books, popular articles and journal articles on a broad range of topics. It is rare to find someone in your academic fields of discipline that also has such an interest in Theology. Personally, I agree with your observation about philosophy and biblical accuracy and inerrancy,(if such a concept can even be defended). One would think (or imagine) that there could be agents in that Jesus was in the beginning with His Father and thus was the original observer regarding Creation in general. Granted it is simply a philosophical belief backed (of course) by no evidence. If one limits their awareness of God to the God described in the book(s) then God is limited to the lifespan of the original authors. Ringo makes this argument as he asserts that nowhere else can I find Jesus except in the book. In contrast, my Pastor explains it this way: Keep in mind that we are still discussing this stuff philosophically. There are many counter arguments and I myself try and learn them to either defend or update my position.I plan on reading some of the books authored by Vern Poythress. I found links to a couple here:
Chance and the Sovereignty of God: A God-Centered Approach to Probability and Random Events
Chance and the Sovereignty of God: Randomness on VimeoEdited by Thugpreacha, : accurate facts

I think that Son Goku hit the nail on the head when he asserted that beliefs can really only be discussed philosophically and not historically accurately due to the fact that there is such controversy between the apologists and the mythicists. Out of curiosity, what did you study and major in when you attended school? You seem to be well read and mathematically inclined.(I was never really good at math, but as a cashier, I add and subtract in my head every day ) Also...what is your opinion on the belief that Jesus was the original and initial observer which allowed the possibility of early quantum mechanics in the creation of the known universe? All I can say is I think therefore I am. (I think!)Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.