(11 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:13 pm)Jal Wrote: There's a very subtle point left unspoken as yet.  Conscience doesn't usually demand 100% certainty, except on questions of massive import (viz. Should I kill that person?) 

The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets with absolute clarity, that is, 100% certainty.

Not so with us regular Christians like me. In fact I self-published a theology book arguing that the New Testament, especially Paul, urges all Christians to achieve prophethood and considers them spiritually immature until then (e.g. 1Corinthians 14:1).  

In other words the typical Christian, like me, believes the gospel at an invincible 90% certainty.  (Most Christians like to pretend it's 100% certainty, which dishonesty frustrates me to no end).

Since I am not 100% certain, I need to be honest in my conversations with people, viz., "It's just my opinion that God exists and that the Bible is true, but I can't be totally sure."

But why have conversation with other people regarding your faith at all? It seems to be either to reassure yourself or it’s an attempt to convert others.

If your thinking is truly invincible, you wouldn’t need reassurance. And if you’re trying to convert others, it seems that you don’t think anyone but yourself is capable of invincible thinking.

Tu sens comme un troll.

Boru

(10 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:37 pm)Angrboda Wrote: So we're back to where we started.  You complain about one kind of invisible forces that explains things parsimoniously, while believing in a less parsimonious invible God that you believe but do not know exists.  I don't see how you've moved the ball at all.  At the end of the day you have a double standard in spite of the inward witness.  I don't need to have an inward witness to know that having a double standard violates any semblance of claim to be acting in good conscience that you might care to make.

Your previous response to the accusation of a double standard was to attempt to show that your dismissal of invisible forces was not arbitrary, a claim which failed on account of the reasons given by Hume and other defects.  So it appears that we have come full circle.

Approaching truth with a double standard is not morally defensible as a matter of conscience, attributable to inward witness, or a structural aspect of a relationship to a heavenly father.  This is a you problem.

Sometimes you rebuttals seem so rando and disjunctive, conflating different terms and contexts. 
It's like you're taking arbitrary potshots with no real cohesion.
I won't necessarily respond to every such post.

(10 hours ago)Jal Wrote: If anyone is still wondering why I started this thread: boredom and curiosity.

Curious to hear atheist responses to my point of view.

(10 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(10 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Sometimes you rebuttals seem so rando and disjunctive, conflating different terms and contexts. 
It's like you're taking arbitrary potshots with no real cohesion.
I won't necessarily respond to every such post.

How is pointing out that you've argued in a circle random?  It's prompted by the very circle that you've traveled.  You're just trying to dodge a telling point.

Regardless, it's already been pointed out why the golfing analogy failed.  Since that's the only defense you've given to justify the double standard, this just looks like bad faith.

(9 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(10 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: How is pointing out that you've argued in a circle random?  It's prompted by the very circle that you've traveled.  You're just trying to dodge a telling point.

Regardless, it's already been pointed out why the golfing analogy failed.  Since that's the only defense you've given to justify the double standard, this just looks like bad faith.

So disjunctive.  I can't even tell whether you still want to talk about "invisible" forces, and lately I've been talking about "invincible"  belief. 
Are you interchanging these two? I can't even follow your argument.

Also, if you see no relevance, no important impact upon a person's life, of invincible conscience and invincible imperatives, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

(September 3, 2026 at 7:52 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 3, 2026 at 6:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You've put forward a belief in a God you can neither see nor touch, all the while complaining about things you cannot see or touch.

You can't touch (pun intended) the cogency of my belief in God because it's a tautology as explained earlier.

(September 3, 2026 at 6:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: The point is, there are more reasons to believe what I believe (parsimony, the emptiness of your analogies, appeals to stone and incredulity).   That makes you stupid and irrational on account of rational argument, not boring name-calling.

You've accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo on a blind faith that is NOT tautological.

(10 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(11 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But why have conversation with other people regarding your faith at all? It seems to be either to reassure yourself or it’s an attempt to convert others.

If your thinking is truly invincible, you wouldn’t need reassurance. And if you’re trying to convert others, it seems that you don’t think anyone but yourself is capable of invincible thinking.

Tu sens comme un troll.

Boru

Please replace the word in bold with "100% certain".  Only a prophet would never benefit from reassurance.

Here's the thing. 100 billion people, AFAIK, have lived and died since the world began.  Their salvation is at stake. With that much at stake, the Christian needs to know, with 100% certainty, that he is catering to every detail of God's will as to most effectively win them into the kingdom. Since there is no acceptable margin for error, every Christian should strive for prophethood.

(9 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(9 hours ago)Jal Wrote: So disjunctive.  I can't even tell whether you still want to talk about "invisible" forces, and lately I've been talking about "invincible"  belief. 
Are you interchanging these two? I can't even follow your argument.

Also, if you see no relevance, no important impact upon a person's life, of invincible conscience and invincible imperatives, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

This was posted just yesterday and is what brought us to this point.  If you can't track from one day to the next, you've got problems.

(September 3, 2026 at 7:52 pm)Jal Wrote: You can't touch (pun intended) the cogency of my belief in God because it's a tautology as explained earlier.


You've accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo on a blind faith that is NOT tautological.

At which point you've spent the past day showing that you don't know what a tautology is.

If you just want to bow out because your argument sucks, I'll understand.

(8 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(10 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Please replace the word in bold with "100% certain".  Only a prophet would never benefit from reassurance.

Here's the thing. 100 billion people, AFAIK, have lived and died since the world began.  Their salvation is at stake. With that much at stake, the Christian needs to know, with 100% certainty, that he is catering to every detail of God's will as to most effectively win them into the kingdom. Since there is no acceptable margin for error, every Christian should strive for prophethood.

‘Invincible’ was your word, not mine.

Salvation, schmalvation.

Boru

(7 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(8 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ‘Invincible’ was your word, not mine.

Salvation, schmalvation.

Boru

I am not backpedaling. I am adding nuances to foster understanding of my position.  I stick by "invincible" and raise you "100% certain".