Three irrefutable miracles.

[37818]

Ok, then give one specific case. Cite the reference and give he circular example.

You do not know that. If I was an atheist, for example, I would be so on the basis that I could show that there cannot be any kind of God. I would argue for example, Why does truth x need God to be true. And truth x being some obvious self evident truth. Like the concept 1 + 1 = 2.

Now the reason I cannot be an atheist is in that I know God. I just am not merely believe something. Have I not made the claim that you can know God too?

[37818]

Why? Because I've been following the discussion and I can see you're a true believer. I believe there is no argument, no set of facts, there is nothing that is going to change your mind, except perhaps time.

You do not know that. If I was an atheist, for example, I would be so on the basis that I could show that there cannot be any kind of God. I would argue for example, Why does truth x need God to be true. And truth x being some obvious self evident truth. Like the concept 1 + 1 = 2.

Now the reason I cannot be an atheist is in that I know God. I just am not merely believe something. Have I not made the claim that you can know God too?

[JimL]

You do not know that. If I was an atheist, for example, I would be so on the basis that I could show that there cannot be any kind of God. I would argue for example, Why does truth x need God to be true. And truth x being some obvious self evident truth. Like the concept 1 + 1 = 2.

Now the reason I cannot be an atheist is in that I know God. I just am not merely believe something. Have I not made the claim that you can know God too?

You can neither prove nor disprove a negative, so you can claim that you know god until the cows come home but we know that the only god you actually know is the imagined one that christianity and its bible has cultivated in your mind. Had you been raised a muslim you'd be claiming the same, except Allah would be the god that you talk to and believe that you know.

[Doug Shaver]

I don't believe any text can authenticate itself. I think self-authentication is an apologetic gimmick intended to mask a circular argument.

Ok, then give one specific case.

Case of what? A text not authenticating itself?

Cite the reference and give he circular example.

You say a text can authenticate itself. You'll have to provide the example and explain how it authenticates itself. Then we'll see if I can show how your explanation assumes its conclusion.

[Tassman]

You do not know that. If I was an atheist, for example, I would be so on the basis that I could show that there cannot be any kind of God. I would argue for example, Why does truth x need God to be true. And truth x being some obvious self evident truth. Like the concept 1 + 1 = 2.

No, if you were an atheist it would be on the basis that there is no good reason to believe in God, not that "there cannot be any kind of God".

Now the reason I cannot be an atheist is in that I know God. I just am not merely believe something. Have I not made the claim that you can know God too?

Personal testimony is not an argument. Why should I believe you?

[shunyadragon]

If there is a compelling truth in evidence, how is that proving a negative, except against the one who believes contrary to it would be wrong?

It is up to the one providing the positive claim to provide the compelling evidence for the claim. That is how the logic of argument works.

[Doug Shaver]

If I was an atheist, for example, I would be so on the basis that I could show that there cannot be any kind of God.

Yeah, you could do that, but you would not be a rational atheist if you did.

[37818]

No, if you were an atheist it would be on the basis that there is no good reason to believe in God, not that "there cannot be any kind of God".

No. For me, it would be because I had good reason not to believe in any God.

Note, existence does not need any proof. The question to ask a theist, would be why would existence need God? [You should know my answer.]

Personal testimony is not an argument.

It would be for the one already believing in God.

Why should I believe you?

You do not have any reason yet. Unless you are not telling me about it.

[37818]

Yeah, you could do that, but you would not be a rational atheist if you did.

Atheism is not rational. Else there would be definitive arguments why there cannot be any God.

[37818]

Case of what? A text not authenticating itself?


You say a text can authenticate itself. You'll have to provide the example and explain how it authenticates itself. Then we'll see if I can show how your explanation assumes its conclusion.

John 7:16-17 is such a text.

[Tassman]

No. For me, it would be because I had good reason not to believe in any God.

You are presupposing God exists. There is no good reason for such a presupposition.

Note, existence does not need any proof. The question to ask a theist, would be why would existence need God? [You should know my answer.]

It doesn’t necessarily need a god. Presupposing the existence of a creator deity is the least likely explanation for existence.

It would be for the one already believing in God.

The same applies to the personal testimony of alien abductees.

You do not have any reason yet. Unless you are not telling me about it.

Correct. There is no good reason to believe any personal testimony unsupported by substantive evidence.

[37818]

You are presupposing God exists. There is no good reason for such a presupposition.

The concept of God existed before either you or I did. The Hebrew`s identity for God being invisible and omnipresent, besides God have made Himself known from the very beginning to the first man He made from dirt.

It doesn’t necessarily need a god.

Existence [uncaused] being God's identity. God does not need a God, Him being it.

Presupposing the existence of a creator deity is the least likely explanation for existence.

God is the very existence prior to anything, not having any origin, just "Is," [Yehwah]

The same applies to the personal testimony of alien abductees.

And if they were abducted by alien entities, they would actually know, wouldn`t they?

Correct. There is no good reason to believe any personal testimony unsupported by substantive evidence.

There being no evidence except it is in existence. God being the omnipresent existence.

[JimL]

No. For me, it would be because I had good reason not to believe in any God.

Note, existence does not need any proof. The question to ask a theist, would be why would existence need God? [You should know my answer.]

It would be for the one already believing in God.

You do not have any reason yet. Unless you are not telling me about it.

What did you believe first, that a god existed, or that the christian god existed? Most likely the idea that a god existed came secondarily to your belief that the christian god exists. In other words, like most people, your philisophical musings as to whether or not a god could exist came only after the fact of you having already believed in a god. It is sometimes very difficult to overcome ones own biases, particularly when they are disigned to be difficult to overcome.

[Tassman]

The concept of God existed before either you or I did. The Hebrew`s identity for God being invisible and omnipresent, besides God have made Himself known from the very beginning to the first man He made from dirt.

Before the Hebrew god existed multiple gods existed. And before that Animism, i.e. the belief objects, places and creatures all possess a spiritual essence. In short religion evolved to explain the universe in a pre-scientific Age. And now we have science. We no longer need religion to tell us where the sun goes at night.

Existence [uncaused] being God's identity. God does not need a God, Him being it.
God is the very existence prior to anything, not having any origin, just "Is," [Yehwah]

No he's not.

And if they were abducted by alien entities, they would actually know, wouldn`t they?

No they would not. Many claim to have been abducted by aliens for dire experiments. There is no evidence supporting any of the clams, despite personal testimony to the contrary..

There being no evidence except it is in existence. God being the omnipresent existence.

IOW no evidence.

[37818]

Before the Hebrew god existed multiple gods existed. And before that Animism, i.e. the belief objects, places and creatures all possess a spiritual essence. In short religion evolved to explain the universe in a pre-scientific Age. And now we have science. We no longer need religion to tell us where the sun goes at night.

You presume the God of the Hebrews is not. Science is another word for knowledge, and is typically limited to knowledge about our physical universe.

No he's not.

So are you denying the invisible omnipresent existence?

No they would not. Many claim to have been abducted by aliens for dire experiments. There is no evidence supporting any of the clams, despite personal testimony to the contrary..

I am not aware of any concrete evidence of any extraterrestrial alien presence let alone such abductions. My argument was, if they were, they would be. And of course the abductees would know.

IOW no evidence.

Evidence requires an existence. God being the invisible omnipresent existence in which we have our existence.