davien:
Your presupposition does not express the entirety of all possible events.... for example
1."gods" could exist
2."goddesses" could exist
3."a god/goddess" could exist
4.In the event that anyone exists it could be deistic
5.It could be a "personal god"
6.It could be an "anthropomorphic god"
7.It could be an alien life-form
etc
You just grabbed number 3 and 5 and applied a circular argument that either 3 is true or not...then moved on to say "jesus" is number 5...that sir is dishonest.
And you haven't still answered my question...why can the devil have definitive proof of "god" and be free to reject "god" while we get faith alone?....why can't we have definitive proof?

davien:
Can one have definitive proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god"? (think critically)

johnydon22:

FAITH: is a strong conviction, feeling or belief that something is true without having evidence of it... So according to the definition of faith as given by the dictionary, i think their is need for you to re-evaluate what you just posted.
When it comes to matters of faith, it is purely based on belief cus their is no evidence for it... If for example you get to see God and perceive his existence in ur conscious self then you will no longer believe (have faith) that he exist but you will KNOW he exist...But as you said it is either their is God or not...which means you conviction is based purely on faith and their is nothing like evidential faith...#BeGoodBro

truthman2012:


The answer is 'no' for any 'god'.

But you can have definite proof of the true God by acting upon His word in faith.

truthman2012:


The answer is 'no' for any 'god'.

But you can have definite proof of the true God by acting upon His word in faith.

malvisguy212:
yes god could exist. But where are the claimed of this gods/godes? The way the bible teaches about God creative power, only a supreme God could have such.

davien:
This is a contradiction...

johnydon22:

Bro knowing and believing is not the same thing..... so remove the one in the bracket.

davien:
So if people don't believe in gravity they can negate it right?....
Remember "belief influences perception" ....so we should negate the perceptive effects of gravity by not believing,no?

PastorAIO:


What do you 'know' that you don't believe?



Go to your school and demand your school fees back. Where did I talk about negating anything? I'll repeat what I said:


Belief influences perception.

So preconcieved ideas will determine whether you believe what you see or not to be God, or even whether[b] you will see it at all[/b].


If you don't see something that does not mean that that thing doesn't exist. When you people drag conversations down to this abysmal level this is why I don't like to bother with NL anymore.

It is not everything that you perceive that you will register on your conscious brain. This is basic stuff mehn.
(I'm sorry if I'm sounding irritable but I'm not in such an accommodating mood today. I've just responded to one long assed post that was full of rubbish and it took a lot of my time. )

Something can happen right before your eyes and as you are seeing it, you are not registering that you are seeing it. You still believe you're seeing something else. A lot of magic tricks work by manipulating our perceptions like this.

Not perceiving it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Please if you don't get that then lettest thy servant depart in peace. I'd like a pleasant conversation but I'm not in the mood for giving myself a headache.

Pr0ton:


So your saying there can't be any definitive proof of God, and, therefore, your belief in God is based on preconception. And even that preconception is not a definitive proof.

If I'm right, how rational is it, then, to believe in something you have no definitive proof for

malvisguy212:
asking question with a question. Answer yes or no.

davien:
But the fact remains that your example already claims a flying pig appeared.....so is spotting a flying pig definitive proof of "flying pigs"?

PastorAIO:


Aw Gawd!! You've never heard of hallucinations. You've never heard of 3d projections.

If you were to see a green pig flying in the sky right now what would be your first reaction. 'oh, flying pigs exist'?!!! Or, " I must be drunk".?


The point is that Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing.

johnydon22:

FAITH: is a strong conviction, feeling or belief that something is true without having evidence of it... So according to the definition of faith as given by the dictionary, i think their is need for you to re-evaluate what you just posted.
When it comes to matters of faith, it is purely based on belief cus their is no evidence for it... If for example you get to see God and perceive his existence in ur conscious self then you will no longer believe (have faith) that he exist but you will KNOW he exist...But as you said it is either their is God or not...which means you conviction is based purely on faith and their is nothing like evidential faith...#BeGoodBro

johnydon22:

FAITH: is a strong conviction, feeling or belief that something is true without having evidence of it... So according to the definition of faith as given by the dictionary, i think their is need for you to re-evaluate what you just posted.
When it comes to matters of faith, it is purely based on belief cus their is no evidence for it... If for example you get to see God and perceive his existence in ur conscious self then you will no longer believe (have faith) that he exist but you will KNOW he exist...But as you said it is either their is God or not...which means you conviction is based purely on faith and their is nothing like evidential faith...#BeGoodBro

PastorAIO:


Outside of a system such as, say, Mathematics, there cannot be definitive proof of anything.

By proof in this case I mean something that is demonstrable. A proof is demonstrated to someone else. You prove it to someone else.

Let me answer your question with a few questions and I hope you'll understand when you contemplate the question.

Do you believe that you have Consciousness? Do you have definitive proof of your Consciousness? If not, then what is the basis of your belief in your consciousness. How rational is it to believe that you have consciousness?

Actually, you know what... just in case you don't get and it becomes a long thing... I'll cut to the chase.
The experience of Consciousness is totally Subjective. It cannot be demonstrated to another person, it cannot be proved, YET IT IS THE MOST CERTAIN THING THAT WE KNOW.

ergo... there is no connection between certainty of knowledge and proof.


Wake up!! I wasn't responding to a question. You said the bible doesn't contradict itself, and then I asked the question.

The question still stands. What time did Jesus Die? Did he die in the 3rd hour or did he die in the 6th hour?

In case you still don't get the point, 2 different gospels tell us different times. one says the 3rd hour and the other says the 6th hour.
ergo... the bible contradicts itself.
It is so pathetic that I have to do your thinking for you. all you had to do is take 10 seconds to consider the question and you would have got the answer. Or maybe not... you didn't even know where you were... you thought I was answering a question with a question.

davien:
They all have claims and all claim to be supreme...

malvisguy212:
i am expecting you quote there claimed the way the bible did.

davien:
Butturt much?

I understand delusions,I just asked a follow-up question...and here's another,is "god"comparable to your flying pig analogy? Can one "see,talk to or even show the christian god" to people and they could freely dismiss it as an illusion?...or is it a claim backed up by nothing?
And do things that objectively exist need subjective validation?

davien:

malvisguy212:
Did you know that there exists today nearly 25,000 hand-written copies of portions of the New Testament? As
historians have compared these
manuscripts, they have concluded that
the New Testament we have today is at
least 99.5% accurate to the original. No
change. (The .5% differences refer to spelling, but no change in meaning.)
all you have to do is to comperd the bible used 300 A.D and present day bible.

PastorAIO:


Like I said I was feeling irritable. and your responses seemed kinda slow. But I'm better now and with accommodate you at your own pace.

This time you seem to be probing deeper. I would refer you to my comments about Consciousness and how we are certain of it above, but lest you can't make the connection I'll start afresh.

First you need to think a little deeper on what you mean by 'objectively exist' as opposed to 'subjective validation'. Does Consciousness objectively exist? Is it not a wholly subjective experience? Can you see, talk to, or even show your consciousness to people? Would you therefore say that it doesn't exist? Are your claims to be a consciousness (or have a consciousness) therefore backed up by nothing?

If the most fundamental experience of existence is so utterly subjective then how intelligent is it to dismiss the ontological status of anything else on the basis that it is not objective?

First and foremost, Did you get the analogy? Perceiving something directly through the senses does not automatically confer it with objective ontological status. So therefore... whatever means by which you objectively proof God can also be called into question. Whether it's by seeing, talking to, or showing God to people. That is the analogy. So 'God' is NOT comparable to the analogy, BUT the means by which you seek to proof 'Gpd' is analogously comparable to the way you perceive the flying pig.

PastorAIO:


What do you 'know' that you don't believe?.

malvisguy212:
quote the claims of this gods, the way the bible provide all what we need to know about God. Thank you.

davien:
Can one have definitive proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god"? (think critically)

johnydon22:

Hey bro am sure you just asked this question just like that... it is a common knowledge that every god(s) claim to be supreme and universal according to the various religion practising it... not all religion have a canonical book like Christianity, judaism and islam... Zeus is said to be the creator of humanity by the ancient greece and so is jupiter by romans, yahweh by jews, dagon by ancient philistians and allah by muslims...and it goes on and on... according to the canaanite pantheon EL is the supreme god and the husband of asherah and calling this two gods together will give you the plural ELohim... some ancient canaanite manuscript says el is the father of 70gods including yahweh while some ancient isrealite texts recognize yahweh as the god el and consort of asherah.

malvisguy212:
science will support there claimed if it true, there are many scientific claimed the bible made that science did not discover until 100years later, this is things ONLY GOD COULD HAVE KNOWN read here https://www.nairaland.com/1305164/things-only-god-could-known

If this religious people present there case the way bible present it own, everyone would have known the truth.

johnydon22:

i dont understand you... that science would support the claims of other gods if it were true? is that what you are saying bro?

LordReed:


A funny question, similar to can one have definitive proof that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer and still choose to smoke tobacco.

davien:
Are you a theist?

malvisguy212:
view that thread I paste and see for your self, no atheists were able to respond to the op claimed.

johnydon22:

lol i viewed the thread bro... nothing special about it...anybody can write those things... even the op also forgot to mention the book of job mentioned leviathan, unicorn and many other unexisting animals...Am sure you know the book of job is a poem...

davien:
Are you a theist?