(May 14, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:37 am)chimp3 Wrote: Glorifying God? In no way do I consider any of these people to be "glorifying" a deity I consider mythical. Even CL, as nice as she is, is only an individual primate. A religious one, for sure. But for every Catholic that is like CL , there are assholes and criminals that also represent Catholicism. So, you all get over yourselves. Like me, You only represent your self. That is a far better thing anyway.

You forget that Christians consider themselves to be part of an army.....

Onward xtian soldiers!

(May 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Some of the answers to the question of what would change your belief in that thread are reminiscent of a person in love who cannot imagine the possibility that their love may end.  Unfortunately, love many times does end, in spite of the confidence expressed by star crossed lovers.

CL seems to be the only one of them who has actually understood the hypothetical. She say she doesn't know how you can prove the non-existence of something but if it can be done for God she would stop believing. Everyone else was like "Not possible!", lol.

(May 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Some of the answers to the question of what would change your belief in that thread are reminiscent of a person in love who cannot imagine the possibility that their love may end.  Unfortunately, love many times does end, in spite of the confidence expressed by star crossed lovers.

CL seems to be the only one of them who has actually understood the hypothetical. She say she doesn't know how you can prove the non-existence of something but if it can be done for God she would stop believing. Everyone else was like "Not possible!", lol.

I would disagree. To be honest, I Neo’s response was a little more complicated, and I didn’t spend enough time parsing through to comment. However Steve seems to certainly be saying yes, that it is possible(and that he would); but, that given the preponderance of evidence for, and the current state of evidence against (you don’t see too many making a serious case for hard atheism) that it is unlikely.

(May 14, 2018 at 6:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I expect all of their answers to be "nothing".

I'm only here for the beer and nachos, and I'm not seeing any wait staff around here.   <angrily taps table>

Looking back at Neo’s post, while certainly a more complicated response. I don’t get “not possible” from him either. His answer involves not just the evidence or reasons, but also the logical consequences that follow from such changes to ones basic principles. Thus it’s a little more difficult to give a black and white answer.

CL’s answer was good as well, and probably longer than I would have given.

GC's pastor prays for a person to either live or die. The person dies. GC prays for someone to live or die. The person dies. GC prays yet again that a person lives or dies. The person appears to be dying. And GC sees this as a sign of divine providence? Apparently P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.

(May 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: His answer involves not just the evidence or reasons, but also the logical consequences that follow from such changes to ones basic principles.

Which is actually more pragmatic than accurate...

Regardless of consequences some things are true and other things aren't. Right?

(May 15, 2018 at 8:45 am)Hammy Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: His answer involves not just the evidence or reasons, but also the logical consequences that follow from such changes to ones basic principles.

Which is actually more pragmatic than accurate...

Regardless of consequences some things are true and other things aren't. Right?

That itself is 2 assumptions - ontological and epistemological. Maybe there is no "how things actually are"; there aren't objects to which we can attribute anything. And even if there were objects how would you know that you had gained knowledge of them?

(May 15, 2018 at 9:10 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That itself is 2 assumptions - ontological and epistemological. Maybe there is no "how things actually are";

That doesn't make any sense. You don't seem to understand that even if there is no objective reality outside our own heads... however reality is inside our own heads is still exactly how it is. It makes no sense to say that things aren't how they actually are.

Quote: there aren't objects to which we can attribute anything.

No things-in-themselves, you mean? I'm aware of that possibility but I don't see how it's relevant. See above.

Quote: And even if there were objects how would you know that you had gained knowledge of them?

Indeed we live in phenomenal reality and not noumenal reality. Again, though, I don't see the relevance. It seems only you who is making assumptions, or rather, false inferences.

(May 15, 2018 at 8:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: GC's pastor prays for a person to either live or die.  The person dies.  GC prays for someone to live or die.  The person dies.  GC prays yet again that a person lives or dies.  The person appears to be dying.  And GC sees this as a sign of divine providence?  Apparently P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.

I think his act of praying must really be for his own comfort. Talking it over with the big guy probably helps him to feel better about it. Perhaps the value of telling someone you're praying for them comes from them hearing that they are that important to you.