Dualism

[fr0d0]

Well you seem to have adopted a civilised stance which is a relief. I'm not insulted at all with any supposed attack on my beliefs. That is entirely unimportant. That you assert your opinion in the style of a sanctemonious religiot could be seen as a little irksome perhaps.

For you have to agree that “the purple rabbit either did or did not create the universe”

I absolutely agree.

By suggesting a divide between ‘ludicrous philosophy’ and ‘unscientific philosphy’ (your term) without providing a clear ground for this distinction you leave me to conclude that some emotion about your particular god plays some role in it.

So, God's existence or not being besides the point here; ludicrous and serious philosophy are all we are left with.

To me it seems that you are ignorant of religion. Other religion's gods are not ludicrous to my religion. Made up silly religions, deities etc are of course ludicrous by design. What makes the religion is more than this obsessive target. Silly examples are philosophical tricks which help us discern what's really important.

You dismiss the entire history of mankind's exploration of truth as babble. I'd like to think that you'd dismiss a critic of scientific progress using the same logic. The populist scientific world view being your cultural heritage.

I believe by faith that God exists. That's me. Only me. I don't impose this opinion on anyone. Faith is necessary because there can be no proof. Faith is integral to belief. I cannot know. So how am I supposed to make 'a claim'? This seems a new concept to you, this notion accepted and believed by ancient man forward. Stunningly you ask for proof that God doesn't require proof. I find that very amusing. And this you call logic. Or perhaps you'd like to study the Christian bible because it entirely reasons God's unprovablity. This is the common concept of the vast majority of religions in my experience. It is the nature of spiritual truth. I'm not here to explain spiritual truth to you, but to defend a subject from dismissal on the grounds of an innapropriate measuring tool. Science doesn't cut it, it's quite simple.
That "special concept" is theology. Guess what... it isn't scientific concept. It constantly astounds me how often people state a willingness to annihilate a point of view because they don't agree with it. It seems wholly destructive to me. You will not live and let live. You have to obliterate my POV in favour of your own. It's more than evangelism.

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.

Yeah right. You mean you have no idea what direction and guidance is offered by Christianity. How convenient. How gob smackingly unbelievable you've lived life in ignorant bliss of these facts. But then of course you're not being genuine. I'm supposed to wait with baited breath on your cynical misinterpretations. Lets not waste each others time ok?

So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

To bring you up to speed.. Dawkins speaks of empirical and non empirical evidence. The history of my discussion with Evie includes exploration of these ideas. So I use the word proof to be more exact. Empirical evidence only. It's clear from the Christian Bible that there is never proof of God. I go as far as saying that this is a signature of God. If we can prove it, then it isn't God. I stand to be corrected on this. So far it's holding true.

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.

Sorry, I'm not a literalist. Genesis 1 is not provably a literal account. It's many other things. Sometimes incredibly complex poetry, sometimes allegorical.

tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

LOL

Are you getting it? Biblical truth doesn't impact on scientific discovery. That's what I think too.

Moreover, if biblical truths state no claim about this world, as suggested by you earlier, then there is not a shred of substance to it and it is irrelevant in philosophical debate on the nature of our world.

Ah well, no surprise there then. So because biblical truth has no impact on scientific discovery then philosophy is irrelevant. It's me who's supposed to be the one making the leaps of faith you know. So you're saying that philosophical debate follows scientific rules? How ludicrous.

You seem to have trouble with the distinction between belief as a technical model of acceptance and personal motivations of people for belief.

Your points are groundless. You need substantiation of the unsubstantiatable. Like I've said. God needs no substantiation. Moving on from the proof issue you move into reasons for that belief. This is where substantiation enters. You cannot move here though because your needle is stuck in the first groove. You are unwilling to accept the intellectual assumption in order to reap the benefits. I justify my belief through the resultant benefits. If the benefits were absent then I'd have no reason to uphold the belief. My belief would then fail.