How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Cerise]

Neil,

 

To believe something is to know something for we can never truly know anything.

 

 

So your "reasoning" behind this unintelligable statement is as follows?

 

Assertion: We can never know anything.

Therefore: Belief = knowledge.

 

Using that forumula, I have a theory.

 

We can never know why splashing water on a white towel makes it darker in colour.

 

I believe this is because the IPU manifests herself in the splashing of the water and the darkness is leftover of her invisbleness, for though she retain her pinkess always, still the world is touched by her hidden horn (glory!).

 

Since belief = knowledge, we know that this is true.

 

All hail the great and powerful IPU! May your pizza always be bountiful with the blessings of pineapple and harmonious with ham.

 

[Mr. Neil]

Allow me to quote from your first post-

“There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists”

 

I explained to you that if they only belief God is possible, they are not real Christians. They are only playing the part. I further explained to you that to believe is to know for we can never know anything.

Typically, non-Christians define Christians as those who practice Christianity. Fine, whether they're Christians or people claiming to be Christians is irrelevent. I'm asking how Manata accounts for the claim.

 

Are you going to participate in the topic now or are we going to keep playing semantics?

 

 

“Presuppositionalists are Christians”

 

Presupposition is not restricted to Christians.

 

You tried to introduce the big word (presupposition) and then fell guilty of is definition yourself. That is what essentially invalidated your entire premise before you ever got to the Manata part.

 

I am not twisting your words at all; you are doing that all by yourself.

Again, when on a non-Christian forum, a term such as "presuppositionalist" is in reference to a presuppositionalist Christian. Would you like to participate in the discussion now or are you going to stymie the argument further?

 

I mean, you could have figured out what I meant easily and still joined the discussion. Instead, you've hijacked my thread and gone way off topic on a number of occaisions. Either discuss the topic or leave.

[crazy-tiger]

I simply said the implications were that to have a beginning there must be something to begin it. I believe that in order to create a universe composed of space/time and energy/matter what ever created the universe must exist outside of those properties.

 

I call that all-powerful supernatural being God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you fail to realise that the universe contains EVERYTHING and that anything outside the universe DOES NOT EXIST, nor do you realise that since everything in the universe is made of space/time and matter/energy, so is your God.

 

Either your God does not exist or your God was unable to create the universe.

 

 

 

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo,

Are you really trying to open that up again? Talk about going in circles.

Sorry, I posted my message in the wrong topic. It was supposed to be in the new thread.

So if you want to, we both should remove these two messages from this topic, and add it to the other topic instead. My bad! I admit. You managed to answer before I got to remove it. I had some other things that came up and took my time, so I missed it. Sorry.

 

I simply said the implications were that to have a beginning there must be something to begin it. I believe that in order to create a universe composed of space/time and energy/matter what ever created the universe must exist outside of those properties.

 

I call that all-powerful supernatural being God.

Yes I agree, that the Agent of Cause must exist outside the properties of the Universe. Now we’re on the same page.

 

And you have all right to call that God. And I call it the Unknown.

 

You call it whatever you like. Or you can say there is nothing outside of those properties. You can “freely think” that nothing existed outside of those properties and this nothing then created everything. Feel free to develop your own theory for the beginning of the universe based on this equation-

NOTHING + NOTHING = EVERYTHING

I do think there is something outside the parameters of the Universe. Really, I do.

I just don’t think that whatever it is, that is has to be an Intelligent Being or Creature of any kind. It’s not a required effect of the argument.

 

I see the formula like this:

UNKNOWN + NOTHING = EVERYTHING

 

And you define it:

GOD + NOTHING = EVERYTHING

 

You only remove one a question by a postulate. You’re making an assumption that the Unknown has to be intelligent and Conscious. While you at the same time know that the only consciousness we know about is bound by physical and biological laws. So a consciousness outside the physical laws would not be a consciousness in the same definition as we think of it.

 

Anyway, it’s been moved to another thread. So if you like, we can take it up over there.

I’m with you there. I will post this message there too.

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

I would never be so "presumptuous" as to assume anything beyond what you actually write. To do so would be to "twist your words".

 

Face it, your entire premise was invalid before you ever reached Manata.

 

Now you are simply going in circles.

 

-----------------------

 

crazy-tiger,

 

You are a day late and a dollar short as the old saying goes. That nearly beat to death horse has been moved to another staple.

[Mr. Neil]

Accept that I clarifed myself later in the topic and am perfectly willing to conceed that I should have said one thing when I meant something else. Pretty much everyone knew what I meant. Are you going to participate in the discussion now?

 

If not, then leave.

[Ouroboros]

Romans 1:18

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, begin understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Paul is full of contradiction. He said that there is no excuse because we can SEE what is INVISIBLE. God’s invisible qualities prove his existence by being shown to people. So is God’s qualities invisible or visible? Being seen and understood is not the same thing. Paul mixes rhetoric to get to his point.

 

Facts:

The Presuppositionalist apologetics (PA) is a Christian method.

A PA argues that you have to pre-suppose one thing: “The Bible is True”.

Manata is a PA Christian.

Manata argues that, because the Bible says so, the Atheists know God but denies him against their own knowledge.

There are Christians that claim they are agnostic. (Their own claim, not mine)

I know what my feelings are, and what my opinions are and what my knowledge is.

 

So now, here’s my input:

I’m not seeing any invisible things from God.

I don’t know or believe in a God, and I don’t suppress it.

Even Christians have doubts.

Therefore Romans 1 is wrong, Paul is a bad philosopher and bad in logic.

Hence Manata is wrong because he uses Romans 1 as an argument.

[crazy-tiger]

crazy-tiger,

 

You are a day late and a dollar short as the old saying goes. That nearly beat to death horse has been moved to another staple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only beaten to death because you keep making it get up again...

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

Do as you instructed me to do, open your eyes.

 

There is no discussion to participate in.

 

You got caught up trying to use big words (Presuppositionalists) without fully understanding what you wanted to debate. The thread was invalid from the start and its flow is proof of that.

 

Regardless of how you try, if this invalidated topic is to have any life at all it will always grow into what we had before.

[Mr. Neil]

I agree with Han. Presuppositionalism is a Christian apologetic method.

 

Besides, you know damn well what context the term "Christian" is used on this forum. After all, the title "Ex-Christian" implies former practicing Christian, so therefore my statement was consistant with the terminology used on this forum. If you can't accept that, then leave.

 

There is a discussion to participate in, because my point was for Manata's argument to account for a claim.

 

I've had enough of this shit, Invictus. Either participate or leave. Or we're going to talk to the mods again.

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

You continue to amaze me. Don't you understand? Christian site or non-Christian site, it doesn't matter. Your premise was invalid because you assumed incorrectly what a Christian was.

 

Christian or atheist, we only know what we believe.

 

If a Christian believes there is a God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.

 

If an atheist beleives there is no God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.

 

When one tries to tell the other what he KNOWS, they each can view the other as a liar.

 

But you tried to apply this to people playing the part of a Christian, thus your premise was invalid.

[Mr. Neil]

If a Christian believes there is a God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.

 

If an atheist beleives there is no God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.

If someone believes something, then they believe something. They don't know it. My beliefs may be based on knowledge of related things. For example, based on my knowledge of terraforming, I believe that we may make it to Mars some day.

 

To make the two words synonymous is to really muddle the argument. Now, I realize that sensory input may not be what it appears to be. For example, we could, hypothetically, just be brains in jars being fed a faux reality. But knowledge, as far as I'm aware, is a form of belief gained through sensory input via direct experience, but belief (plain, ordinary belief) is something that is believed without direct experience.

 

So should we really be saying "experienced belief" and "unexperienced belief"? It's basically the same was what is commonly referred to as "knowledge" and "belief", respectively. So those are the terms I use and that's what I mean when I use them. They're distinct in their definitions. One is not the same as the other.

 

The definition of Christian, which is the definition that is widely used is one who believes in Christ. So as far as I'm concerned, if a person proclaims belief in Christ, but claims to not have knowledge of Christ, they are Christian.

 

---

 

Look, Invictus. Again, you're trying to make an argument that, while related to the topic, is not the topic. Please start a new topic and stop polluting mine. It's clear that you have no intention of participating.

 

Why don't you start a new topic about how to define a Christian?

 

Or better yet, go to Graveyard of the Gods and argue with Franc for a while. He likes this kind of shit. Annoy someone else.

[Ouroboros]

Neil,

 

You continue to amaze me. Don't you understand? Christian site or non-Christian site, it doesn't matter. Your premise was invalid because you assumed incorrectly what a Christian was.

 

Christian or atheist, we only know what we believe.

 

If a Christian believes there is a God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.

 

If an atheist beleives there is no God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.

 

When one tries to tell the other what he KNOWS, they each can view the other as a liar.

 

But you tried to apply this to people playing the part of a Christian, thus your premise was invalid.

 

Oh, I LOVE IT!

 

We are really starting to get somewhere now.

 

You totally deny St Paul’s argument here:

“If an atheist beleives there is no God, then in his heart, he KNOWS it.”

 

Paul claims that the atheist does KNOW, but that the atheist at the same time denies there is a God out of evilness.

 

But to add to the problem, an agnostic does not know of there is a god or not, but chooses to believe there is none, out of the sheer logic: what is not evident, is unknown until otherwise proven. And God can not be proven, because a proven God removes the faith, and faith is what God would require, so hence proving God would be heresy. Then proving God is impossible and shouldn’t even be pursued.

[Mr. Neil]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, Han! I totally missed that! Good eye, man. Good eye.

[Ouroboros]

I'm here to server.

[invictus1967]

To know something is to believe it.

 

Paul’s point was that atheists don’t really believe what they spout. Thereby, they don’t really know it.

 

Many of you here have even admitted “I don’t know where it all came from” so you don’t really know anything. When you say you do, you lie.

 

Again, your entire premise is invalid because you tried to ably that to people pretending to be Christians. There are also many who pretend to be atheist.

[crazy-tiger]

You are truly a piece of work Invictus.  You really don't "know" anything either yet you have the gall to call us liars?  You can't even PROVE your God, and frankly, regardless of WHERE you stand, unless it can be PROVEN AS FACT....they are all THEORIES.  So, welcome to the liars club.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very nice Thankful...

 

 

I always enjoy seeing someone get roasted by their own argument.

[Mythra]

Again, your entire premise is invalid because you tried to ably that to people pretending to be Christians. There are also many who pretend to be atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tried to ably? What the fuck does that mean? Cmon man, spit it out. Or is your brain spinning so fast that your words can't keep up?

 

Methinks yer kinda pathetic, Invite-us.

[Ouroboros]

To know something is to believe it.

Really? Now you’re getting into a slippery-slope here. You claim Faith and Belief is the same as Knowledge. They are similar, but they’re not the same. Knowledge is based on repeated evidence and reaffirmation of existence of something, while belief is based on the not proven and not seen existence of something. Faith requires an assumption that is to be taken by its face value, while knowledge is presented and accepted by its strength of its validity.

 

Paul’s point was that atheists don’t really believe what they spout. Thereby, they don’t really know it.

Well now, if we don’t see anything, how can we then believe it and “know” it according to your definition? Christians spout that God exists, and their claim is that “He just must exist” and it doesn’t make it right.

 

Nature proves that evolution works, and it proves that the extreme majority of events are based on accidental causes and not intentional.

 

Many of you here have even admitted “I don’t know where it all came from” so you don’t really know anything. When you say you do, you lie.

Exactly, we don’t know where it all came from, and we admit it, so that to you make us liars. We admit what we don’t know; I would call that truth-telling! We are honest about our doubts, but you are delusional about your faith.

 

Again, your entire premise is invalid because you tried to ably that to people pretending to be Christians. There are also many who pretend to be atheist.

Again…Really? So I pretend to be an Atheist. Considering you don’t even understand the concept, then how can you judge?

 

So once again, I have no notion or evidence of God, so Romans 1 is wrong, and Paul is a crappy philosopher.

 

 

Hebrew 11

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

It’s evident that the Bible talk about faith as the belief in the things we do not see or can not prove. If you want Faith to be equated with Knowledge, it’s your call, but that’s not how I see it.

 

I know my computer is in front of me, and my keyboard is responding to my finger strokes because I keep on getting the reaffirmation of it existence. The persistent re-acknowledgment of things to exist, persuade my mind to strongly maintain the knowledge of its existence. While a faith is to consistently maintain “knowledge” of things that are not seen, not validated or reaffirmed on a constant basis. I chose to go with the reaffirmed knowledge, rather than the pre-supposed knowledge.

 

To admit un-knowledge is not lying, but admitting to the failure of the human nature, that we are not a being of a super-natural form, and can therefore never know or confirm the super-natural.

 

Knowledge is the acceptance of explainable order in the chaos, while Faith is an acceptance of super-natural order outside the area of the explainable.

[Mr. Neil]

Again, your entire premise is invalid because you tried to ably that to people pretending to be Christians. There are also many who pretend to be atheist.

Then why do you keep coming back, fuckhead?

[Vulgaris Prime]

To know something is to believe it.

 

Paul’s point was that atheists don’t really believe what they spout. Thereby, they don’t really know it.

 

Many of you here have even admitted “I don’t know where it all came from” so you don’t really know anything. When you say you do, you lie.

 

Again, your entire premise is invalid because you tried to ably that to people pretending to be Christians. There are also many who pretend to be atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*HEAD-EXPLODY*

 

Does your argument consist of anything other than "I'm right you're wrong so there"? I have this odd feeling that it doesn't. Every time you get evidence that you're a liyng, stupid fuck, you just ignore it and keep posting your stupid little "you are teh liarz!!!" responses.

 

Just go away, inpricktus. You're not welcome here anymore. I'm going to see to it that you don't pollute this forum anymore. I am making it my job this week to see you banned.

[white_raven23]

Then why do you keep coming back, fuckhead?

 

It sure as hell isn't to respond to everyone's posts equally and timely.

[Cerise]

Idea! Why not just iggy invictus for now. If, at some point, he actually comes up with an argument that isn't a total cop-out that was birthed from ignoring every post we put before him, then I'm sure a moderator will let us know, right?

 

Let me be the first. So long Invictus. Enjoy the iggy bin!

[Mr. Neil]

Yeah, I've given up talking to this moron. As I said in another thread, it's just repetition, and doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity. He's clearly beyond reach.

 

...and beyond hope.

[invictus1967]

I must be away for a few days so this will be my last post for a while.

Hold the applause, please.

 

But I will leave you with one parting shot that I will post here and in other threads.

 

Until you learn to see the parts as a whole, you will never develop an understanding for them individually. I don’t just mean as I understand, but your own independently developed understanding.

 

You must see how it all interacts together. Not just the appearance of a species, but how does this appearance fit with the beginning of life. How does the beginning of the universe fit with the species. How does what exists now fit with what existed before life. How does what existed prior to the “Big Bang” fit with what exist now.

 

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

Put all the individual parts together and see the big picture. Then put yourself in the picture and look around.