Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Opinions on Agnostc people?

famer
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:13:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In our world, there are people who are hardcore athiests (izbo10 being a good example) and hardcore thiests, all of which stand firmly on their belief.

Then, there are people like me who are agnostic. I think agnostic people are by far, the most clueless people of existence (religion-wise). I mean, I seriously can't be bothered to find out why hardcore athiests have that stand as well as those hardcore thiests.

Oh yea, not to mention, I think that the majority of agnostic people are simply lazy as sh*t because we (at least I) can't be bothered to figure anything out for ourselves.

What do you guys think?
abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:30:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agnostic is a reasonable position for one without knowledge - it's the position one should presume - http://www.debate.org... .

With regards to agnosticism, I find it perfectly reasonable in cases such as agnostic theism or agnostic atheism. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of a deity, but regards the truth of falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

Agnosticism has it's place in religion. Indeed, there's such a thing as Christian agnostics, which refers to agnosticism over certain properties of God.

As to those who are agnostics without qualifiers (ie. 'agnostic atheist' ) , I think it's a bit of a fools position. You can do a bit of reading on the arguments for agnosticism (as well as theism and atheism) at an introductory level here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Hope that helps Famer.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:04:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:13:46 AM, famer wrote:
In our world, there are people who are hardcore athiests (izbo10 being a good example) and hardcore thiests, all of which stand firmly on their belief.

Then, there are people like me who are agnostic. I think agnostic people are by far, the most clueless people of existence (religion-wise). I mean, I seriously can't be bothered to find out why hardcore athiests have that stand as well as those hardcore thiests.

Oh yea, not to mention, I think that the majority of agnostic people are simply lazy as sh*t because we (at least I) can't be bothered to figure anything out for ourselves.

What do you guys think?

I think You can always learn and pick up a book and do some hard investigative study on your own. In fact I suggest it. I always agree with the position to a degree because no one knows everything or we would be God. It must always be a position of any person to admit they just dont know everything. Though the truth is there is right and there is wrong. There is not a real middle ground here. Either there is a God or there isnt. After you decide which one you believe for YOU, then it comes down to either there isnt a God and you can be firm in that or that there is and then the search for just who that God of all really is. That is your position to find.
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everybody is an agnostic. Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists or that he doesn't exist. Thinking with sheer certainty either way is just completely disingenuous and stupid.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....
that he doesn't exist.:

Then this is a dumb comment....
Thinking with sheer certainty either way is just completely disingenuous and stupid.:
TheAsylum
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
that he doesn't exist.:

Then this is a dumb comment....
Thinking with sheer certainty either way is just completely disingenuous and stupid.:
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?
that he doesn't exist.:

Then this is a dumb comment....
Thinking with sheer certainty either way is just completely disingenuous and stupid.:
TheAsylum
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:13:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.

Yeah as he said, testimony of the holy spirit. Now you wont accept that, but that is the reason.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:23:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?

Yes. You call it a personal revelation from god, I call it schizophrenia.
that he doesn't exist.:

Then this is a dumb comment....
Thinking with sheer certainty either way is just completely disingenuous and stupid.:
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:25:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:23:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?

Yes. You call it a personal revelation from god, I call it schizophrenia.

I have yet to seen someone show it is more likely schizophrenia then a personal revelation from God or the testimony of the holy spirit.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:33:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:25:46 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:23:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?

Yes. You call it a personal revelation from god, I call it schizophrenia.

I have yet to seen someone show it is more likely schizophrenia then a personal revelation from God or the testimony of the holy spirit.

Aaaaand señor harda** misses the joke and the point.

These "personal revelations" are non-falsifiable. All we have to go on to actually know whether or not it happened is the person who it supposedly happened to. This is incredibly sketchy. I could say that God gave me this revelation that pink unicorns were flying around and I was made of tin foil. Some might also say I was high on acid, but the only way to distinguish between the two is to piss in a cup.

I think I found a new response to people who claim to have had a "revelation".
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:38:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?
Yes. Your sensory capabilities are fallible.
that he doesn't exist.:

Then this is a dumb comment....
Thinking with sheer certainty either way is just completely disingenuous and stupid.:
turn down for h'what
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:41:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What you have to claim to be fully certain is that you can in no way be mistaken, which makes you omniscient. Which pretty much makes you a deity in your own right.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:42:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:33:17 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:25:46 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:23:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?

Yes. You call it a personal revelation from god, I call it schizophrenia.

I have yet to seen someone show it is more likely schizophrenia then a personal revelation from God or the testimony of the holy spirit.

Aaaaand señor harda** misses the joke and the point.

These "personal revelations" are non-falsifiable. All we have to go on to actually know whether or not it happened is the person who it supposedly happened to. This is incredibly sketchy. I could say that God gave me this revelation that pink unicorns were flying around and I was made of tin foil. Some might also say I was high on acid, but the only way to distinguish between the two is to piss in a cup.

I think I found a new response to people who claim to have had a "revelation".

I believe firmly in a deity because naturalistic creation, by any mechanism, is a mathematical impossibility. Not improbability...impossibility. That's an absolute. I can deal with absolutes.
The next step is figuring out which deity.
Christ is falsifiable in the human, physical, experience. History would confirm that a Jew by the name of "the Savior" existed and lived/died in par with thousand year old prophecy.
The next logical step is to falsify the "sensus divinatis", which the scripture attributes to every person. Since the invitation from Christ echoes throughout time and invites everyone to come, I would say it's very falsifiable.

You have the instruction manual. Go put it to the test.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:44:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:33:17 AM, Zaradi wrote:

Aaaaand señor harda** misses the joke and the point.

These "personal revelations" are non-falsifiable.

Of course they are falsifiable. If the revelation was contradictory to scripture we would know it to be false because Gods character does not change.

All we have to go on to actually know whether or not it happened is the person who it supposedly happened to. This is incredibly sketchy. I could say that God gave me this revelation that pink unicorns were flying around and I was made of tin foil. Some might also say I was high on acid, but the only way to distinguish between the two is to piss in a cup.


But we have good reason to believe you are not made of tin foil. We have good reason to believe that you are a homo sapien. You provided no reason for your conclusion that these revelations are not testimony of the holy spirit.

I think I found a new response to people who claim to have had a "revelation".
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:45:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:41:26 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you have to claim to be fully certain is that you can in no way be mistaken, which makes you omniscient. Which pretty much makes you a deity in your own right.

omniscient is having complete or unlimited knowledge. No one is claiming that. We both know 2+2=4 but neither of us are claiming omniscience.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:48:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:41:26 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you have to claim to be fully certain is that you can in no way be mistaken, which makes you omniscient. Which pretty much makes you a deity in your own right.

Negative. Personal experience is limited to the self. I think therefor I am. Religion is as real to me, as your sense of self is to you.
Omniscience requires me to know more than the internal experience. I can only prove I exist and I can only prove that I am saved.

That's why Christians...(drum roll)....testify.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:52:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:42:22 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:33:17 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:25:46 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:23:59 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:05:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:33:06 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 9:17:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/28/2012 8:56:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nobody can be 100% sure that God exists:
Oh... but they can. What cant be done is....

Oh this should be good. How can you be 100% sure of God's existance.
Are you to deny that I can not have a personnal revelation from God and many others like myself?

Yes. You call it a personal revelation from god, I call it schizophrenia.

I have yet to seen someone show it is more likely schizophrenia then a personal revelation from God or the testimony of the holy spirit.

Aaaaand señor harda** misses the joke and the point.

These "personal revelations" are non-falsifiable. All we have to go on to actually know whether or not it happened is the person who it supposedly happened to. This is incredibly sketchy. I could say that God gave me this revelation that pink unicorns were flying around and I was made of tin foil. Some might also say I was high on acid, but the only way to distinguish between the two is to piss in a cup.

I think I found a new response to people who claim to have had a "revelation".

I believe firmly in a deity because naturalistic creation, by any mechanism, is a mathematical impossibility. Not improbability...impossibility. That's an absolute. I can deal with absolutes.
Modern sciences proved that naturalistic creation is mathematically probable (at the least, improbable.) 'Impossibility', now that is just dishonest.
The next step is figuring out which deity.
Christ is falsifiable in the human, physical, experience. History would confirm that a Jew by the name of "the Savior" existed and lived/died in par with thousand year old prophecy.
Yes, there are also others Jesus-like figures that did nearly the same thing, and were executed in the same manner. The story of Jesus is not a unique one.
The next logical step is to falsify the "sensus divinatis", which the scripture attributes to every person. Since the invitation from Christ echoes throughout time and invites everyone to come, I would say it's very falsifiable.

Invitation from man*
You have the instruction manual. Go put it to the test.
It failed.
turn down for h'what
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:52:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have yet to seen someone show it is more likely schizophrenia then a personal revelation from God or the testimony of the holy spirit.

There are many many different religions. People of all these religions claim that they have personal revelations from their God. Since only one God/religion can be correct, all these revelations cannot be true. So, chances are it is not a true revelation. Chances are if you experience a "revelation" you are delusional. Not necessarily schizophrenic, but chances are you are delusional.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:54:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:52:08 AM, Aaronroy wrote:

Yes, there are also others Jesus-like figures that did nearly the same thing, and were executed in the same manner. The story of Jesus is not a unique one.

The whole resurrection thing seems pretty unique. I mean I haven't met anyone else who has.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:04:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:13:46 AM, famer wrote:
In our world, there are people who are hardcore athiests (izbo10 being a good example) and hardcore thiests, all of which stand firmly on their belief.

Then, there are people like me who are agnostic. I think agnostic people are by far, the most clueless people of existence (religion-wise). I mean, I seriously can't be bothered to find out why hardcore athiests have that stand as well as those hardcore thiests.

Oh yea, not to mention, I think that the majority of agnostic people are simply lazy as sh*t because we (at least I) can't be bothered to figure anything out for ourselves.

What do you guys think?

Very few atheists think that there is no God 100%. Most atheists are a bit agnostic. There is a chance that Poseidon, the Spaghetti Monster or Thor exists. Most atheists just claim there is no evidence or reason to believe in God.

However, theists claim that there God exists 100%. Very few religions say "We believe that there probably is one God", or "We believe with 80% certainty that Muhammad was God's prophet". Pretty much all theists claim 100% belief. By being against theism, one can just be against 100% belief without evidence.

Also, it seems most theists are more atheistic to other Gods than atheists. Theists will claim with 100% certainty that Thor, Poseidon and the FSM do not exist. While an atheist will say it is possible but no evidence for it. Theists can be more atheistic than atheists.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:16:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe firmly in a deity because naturalistic creation, by any mechanism, is a mathematical impossibility. Not improbability...impossibility. That's an absolute. I can deal with absolutes.
Modern sciences proved that naturalistic creation is mathematically probable (at the least, improbable.) 'Impossibility', now that is just dishonest.

So, physical laws are not broken in every theory that proposes a mechanism for creation? Sources please.....

The next step is figuring out which deity.
Christ is falsifiable in the human, physical, experience. History would confirm that a Jew by the name of "the Savior" existed and lived/died in par with thousand year old prophecy.
Yes, there are also others Jesus-like figures that did nearly the same thing, and were executed in the same manner. The story of Jesus is not a unique one.
Sources please......
The next logical step is to falsify the "sensus divinatis", which the scripture attributes to every person. Since the invitation from Christ echoes throughout time and invites everyone to come, I would say it's very falsifiable.

Invitation from man*
Sources please.............
You have the instruction manual. Go put it to the test.
It failed.
Explain your experiment......
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:48:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:44:18 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:33:17 AM, Zaradi wrote:

Aaaaand señor harda** misses the joke and the point.

These "personal revelations" are non-falsifiable.

Of course they are falsifiable. If the revelation was contradictory to scripture we would know it to be false because Gods character does not change.

Which only presumes that the Bible is true, and that God even exists in the first place, but since I know every theist makes that assumption when making an argument I'm going to let this one slide.

All we have to go on to actually know whether or not it happened is the person who it supposedly happened to. This is incredibly sketchy. I could say that God gave me this revelation that pink unicorns were flying around and I was made of tin foil. Some might also say I was high on acid, but the only way to distinguish between the two is to piss in a cup.


But we have good reason to believe you are not made of tin foil. We have good reason to believe that you are a homo sapien. You provided no reason for your conclusion that these revelations are not testimony of the holy spirit.

And I don't have reason to believe whatever you claim to be a "revelation" is actually so. If I dream about hopping on a plane and flying to Africa, does that mean that I had a revelation from God and need to get on the first plane to Africa?

Actually, don't answer that. You're likely to answer yes, which will only give me a headache from hitting my head on a table too many times and too hard.

I think I found a new response to people who claim to have had a "revelation".
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:50:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:14:26 AM, stubs wrote:
I've heard the saying, "Agnostics are just atheist without the balls to say it."

Y'know, now that I look at this again, I can't believe how wrong this is. If anything, agnostics are like atheists but with the balls to admit that they don't know everything.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:53:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:45:36 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:41:26 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you have to claim to be fully certain is that you can in no way be mistaken, which makes you omniscient. Which pretty much makes you a deity in your own right.

omniscient is having complete or unlimited knowledge. No one is claiming that. We both know 2+2=4 but neither of us are claiming omniscience.

But wouldn't you say that to detect a being that doesn't exist in normal time or space, you would have to be omniscient in yourself to know it was there? Thus, to say that would be to attribute yourself with omniscience, which would essentially make you a God. But since God is the only God, you can't exist!

Don't you just hate it when logic never works in the favor of theism?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:56:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 11:53:26 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:45:36 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:41:26 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you have to claim to be fully certain is that you can in no way be mistaken, which makes you omniscient. Which pretty much makes you a deity in your own right.

omniscient is having complete or unlimited knowledge. No one is claiming that. We both know 2+2=4 but neither of us are claiming omniscience.

But wouldn't you say that to detect a being that doesn't exist in normal time or space, you would have to be omniscient in yourself to know it was there? Thus, to say that would be to attribute yourself with omniscience, which would essentially make you a God. But since God is the only God, you can't exist!

Don't you just hate it when logic never works in the favor of theism?

Haha ... answer him, Scotty. He perused this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

and his silly a$$ got all confused on who was defending what position. Seems kinda clear, doesn't it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:57:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:48:14 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:41:26 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you have to claim to be fully certain is that you can in no way be mistaken, which makes you omniscient. Which pretty much makes you a deity in your own right.

Negative. Personal experience is limited to the self. I think therefor I am. Religion is as real to me, as your sense of self is to you.
Omniscience requires me to know more than the internal experience. I can only prove I exist and I can only prove that I am saved.

That's why Christians...(drum roll)....testify.

That's not what he's claiming at all. To know that something or someone exists outside of our human perceptory abilities (it is outside of our perceptory abilities because if it wasn't we would literally be able to see Jesus strolling the streets in Casper mode), to know that the something or someone exists would require all-knowing abilities (i.e. omniscience). Thus, if you claim that you know of 100% certainty that god exists, you claim to have omniscience, which through Scripture means that you don't exist, because God is the one true God and the only God.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:58:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agnostics are cool. They tend not to be total tools when it comes to their beliefs.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...