Dualism

[fr0d0]

It seems that we are dogged by severe misinterpretation Rabbit.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

Absolutelt not. You completely misunderstand again. 'Not provable' as in made by God or not.. is what I'm saying.

This again is a consequence of your own inaccurate phrasing:
"The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable."
You do not state here: "The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. And the creation of the universe by god is not provable."

No I don't. Because that's not what I said either. I said the creation by God of the universe or the non creation by God of the universe are equally provable/ dis-provable. Perhaps it's your preconception that prevents you from seeing a simple assertion?

Like I've said, you are absolutely right that faith is indiscriminate. Faith would support belief in the nonsensical right through to the supremely sensible. What divides these potential beliefs is the resultant belief set and not the subject of faith. this is how believers logically discern between them. Yes yes yes, there is not reason from the faith statement alone to believe anything. Faith doesn't work alone.

The only conclusion is that you think your faith is true because your faith (the resultant belief set) says so. I'm glad you've opened up on this, athough it being a monsensical conclusion.

LOL You never cease with the illogical statements do you? How is that nonsensical? I'm assuming you're not illogically applying the same definition to two different meanings of the word 'faith'? (because you insist you're not playing word games here). I'm glad you finally heard the answer though.

So let's be clear. You say A+ and B+ are the same. Well my friend, everybody here on the forum can see that they are quite different. They not only differ in number of words, but also the word "general" stands out as a difference to "the existence of the christian god". What's more, B+ covers a vastly greater set of beliefs, it includes the belief in Zeus and his divine offspring, Thor, Zoroaster and also the belief in purple rabbits from the 26th dimension. So how precisely does that lot fit in with "the christian god"?

So you don't understand what I just said.

So all faiths are equally true. That is the most preposterous nonsense covered in this thread as of yet. So Zeus created everything and rules the world, and the christian god does, with Thor at his side, while Vishnu in his department is calling the shots, Zoroaster is calling all shots equally forceful, meanwhile the purple rabbit by accident created the universe.

...Which inspires yet another preposterous summation. From where I'm sitting this looks incredibly childish.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

So we're talking hypothetical reasoning that is also provable?
I take the definition of God as outlined in the Christian Bible. I also find God defined in an infinite other sources but perhaps you could get your teeth into that one. The reasoning is consistent to the nature of this God.

Does it say in the bible that the existence of god is unprovable. If yes, in what verse?

There are no claims to the contrary to the best of my knowledge. Again, prove me wrong.

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

True: 1, 2, 3, 6.

Is it right to conclude from this that according to you 4, 5, 7 and 8 are false?

Indeed. I thought that was too obvious to state.

---

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.