Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

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?

I see you are really getting into the substantiating mode here... Is it so hard to say even one small positive thing about the direction you and your christian friends have plotted for the entire human race? Mind your PR (no purple rabbit hides in there) my friend. I'm afraid that when you continue on this road the big chief from the sky will have to come down for some old testamential plagues to flog us happy with the plan we never asked for.

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.

I cannot prove that 5 = 6. Can you? Lo and behold, it is the mark of the lord, the mathmatical god has revealed himself through the numbers! His ways are mysterious indeed. Never heard such bullshit in my life, lmao.

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.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.

Somehow expected you not to be a literalist. But what the hack do you mean that Genesis 1 (we are not going through all Genesis paragraphs on by one, are we, my rash is already beyond treatment right now) is not provably a literal account? That it is not provable, that it is not an account, that its literal meaning is not provable but true? Make up your mind, boy.

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.

You are misreading here. I am not exclusively comparing science to religion here. I didn't add the equal rights and the slavery thing for nothing.

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.

Misquoting me there. Never said that philosophy is irrelevant, only irrelevant philosophy is. And relevance is being decided on in philosophical debate. I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.
And I must thank you for your wise decision to label a statement you attribute (allbeit falsely) to me as ludicrous, for as I understand your point, ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??) is the mark of the lord. The more ludicrous, the better, I reckon.

Time is up now and my bed is waiting, but there's is a lot more to settle out here. Let's have a new try at it tomorrow.