To explain knowledge of God

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='775205' dateline='1413429628']
The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

The 'proposition' is a method in which proof is obtained.
Again it is a receip. If one follows the receip then one gets what the receip provides, if one does not follow the receip then one can not expect to receive what the receip provides.
So no question begging here, just a strait forward question. Did you (yes or no) A/S/k as outlined in Luke 11?

You haven't addressed my issue with your argument, which is that you've stated that faith is the requirement for an answer, which is where the question-begging lays.

where have I stated this?

This is an assumption on your part. The only 'faith required is the same 'faith' needed to test any promise/primise.

What makes you think it's about volume? In your search for a wife are you looking to marry every man woman and child on the planet? Or is there just one who meets the criteria you are looking for?

Jesus uses this analogy in several places. The 'one' He is looking for is the Church.

If I want to marry even one woman, I've got to show up, with a stiff'un and a little dough. Your god isn't smart enough to reckon that the skeptics that you allege he himself created might be convinced by a press conference. By not showing himself, he knows that he damns millions to Hell. But hey, flashbulbs are annoying, right? He can't be bothered.

That's EXACTLY Right! You have to show up!!!
A/S/K is about showing up/the how and where to show up.

Your little god is entirely absent. Aside from the evil attributed him in your Bible, he is unworthy of worship for that reason alone: he is AWOL.

Maybe to you. God is very alive and active in EVERYTHING I do. I have accomplished so much with very little, and here again all I had to do is faithfully 'show up.'

its like talking to a box of rocks...

Are you not familiar with the term 'common man?'

None of the above are considered to be common. They were all set apart from the common men of their time.

By whom? Your god?

The word 'Holy' Literally means to be set apart (By or for the use of God) These men were set apart, meaning they were not common. As they were set apart from the common man. Every deity outside of Christianity ONLY Speak/interacts with 'holy' men/Set apart from the common man.

The purpose of Christianity/Christ dying is so that God can have a personal relationship with anyone who wants one. Again no other religion does this, as only the 'set apart' get to speak with their gods.

That's question-begging; we'll disregard that.

define the term and apply it as i did. just because you say it begs the question does not mean it does. To beg the question one must fit the defination. According to the defination I provided and the link that supports my defination, my statement does not beg the question as a logical fallacy. If you insist on using that term, define it and apply it other wise your objection will be dismissed/ignored.

By you? Why should I care one whit what you say? You clearly have no ability to explicate a coherent worldview.

By the bible. I know the simple atheist mind want to dismiss the bible so i can not use that as a standard of determining one's holiness. But, it was not me who brought the bible into the conversation. It is you who has done so. You did this when you used the names and stories of God speaking and interacting with those on your list. If you can use the bible to compile the list then it is a valid point of refrence to establish that those who God interacted with in the OT were considered set apart or holy.

The problem with your whole approach is you do not understand the principle of who or what a prophet or emmassary is. Maybe before you respond look up that term. Then understand anyone in the OT who speaks with or does the work of God is indeed considered 'holy prophet or emmassary.

You can natter on about your version of Christianity, a version which you yourself have admitted isn't mainstream, and yet you cannot persuade anyone of anything beyond the fact that you're incoherent.

No, they were men, they were allegedly spoken to by your god, and you have to reinterpret your own Bible in order to support your little whack-job corner of Christianity.

Ask any jew (Those who the OT was written) if Moses was an ordinary man or a prophet of God. Ask any 'mainstream' active/devoute Catholic if Moses was or wasnt a prophet of God.

Again prophets by nature are Holy Men Or 'Set apart' by God from the common man, for his own use or purpose. This is true across the 'religious' board. Meaning this is true in all religions except one. Biblical Christianity. Again Christ died so God could potentially interact with any or all of us.

You don't have a leg to stand on here, and what's funny your too deeply invested to admit your wrong/you don't understand simple terms like 'holy or prophet.' Yet you insist on having this conversation. If you wish to continue to keel haul yourself over known and verifiable truths I will be happy to oblidge you.