Christian Paradox

[fr0d0]

Not at any point did I assume you had any belief. Disbelief to me is lacking belief and not actively disbelieving. I'm happy to be corrected on that and will try to be more accurate.

It doesn't follow that agnostic theism is illogical... only by your own construct of that. You don't 'know' if the chair will support you, yet you believe it will, for whatever reason, in this instance verifiable evidence. So your stance on belief is illogical.

[tavarish]

[fr0d0]

It's largely a forum thing tavares. Definitions we've thrashed out over time, not necessarily widely accepted outside of here. Christians don't 'know' god exists... they believe he does by faith. Well a small minority might do... just as there are potentially atheists who 'know' God _doesn't_ exist.

You don't 'know' the chair will not fail, yet you believe without 'knowledge'. you're happy to reason the possibility and take a safe bet.

The positive claim of belief in God cannot be an absolute from knowledge. That _would_ be illogical.

[tavarish]

It's largely a forum thing tavares. Definitions we've thrashed out over time, not necessarily widely accepted outside of here. Christians don't 'know' god exists... they believe he does by faith. Well a small minority might do... just as there are potentially atheists who 'know' God _doesn't_ exist.

We keep coming back to this, and I'm tired of it. You don't get it, nor do you want to.

You make a positive claim that he exists. Whether or not you have knowledge backed up by evidence or you take it on faith, it is irrelevant as you still maintain a positive claim. I disagree with your assumption that most Christian are agnostic. Many, and I mean MANY believe that God is as real as the chair you're sitting in, and know that he's there, not just believe or have faith primarily. They absolutely know that what they have experienced is the hand of God and could have been nothing else. It has never been the church's prerogative to say "well we don't KNOW that there is a God" - quite the contrary.

The fact that you're making a positive claim denotes that you have knowledge of something to make you believe a certain way - at least in a subjective sense. If you're believing something without a reason and some sort of supporting knowledge (subjective), you are, in fact, delusional. You are believing in something for absolutely no reason at that point.

You don't 'know' the chair will not fail, yet you believe without 'knowledge'. you're happy to reason the possibility and take a safe bet.

Your analogies suck. A chair falling still falls in the realm of objective evidence and confines to the laws of nature. What you're demonstrating is taking bets on chance and hoping you'll come out unscathed.

You're using faith in a different context. Faith in religion is belief without verifiable evidence.

Faith in the chair context is trust based on past experiences and objective, verifiable evidence.

The positive claim of belief in God cannot be an absolute from knowledge. That _would_ be illogical.

I never said it was an absolute, but many religious individuals make the claim that a God exists, and it cannot be any other way and won't explore the option that perhaps the God that they've built in their mind, simply isn't.

[fr0d0]

Listen tavares... I know very well what claims I'm making. I'm sorta posing and answering questions rather than making any claims - it's not why I'm here.

I make no positive claim that God exists. that would be irrational of a transcendental entity - God just is ...and I believe he just is.

What evidence have you that most Christians are not agnostic? I know very many Christians and used to work at a very popular annual Christian Festival in the UK frequented by about 60k of them. I've been an active member of 2 large churches and active interdenominationally. I've never met a Christian who claimed to know for sure that God existed. Like I've said, and you seem to gloss over... such a stance would be illogical.

Churches take the assurance of faith and 'claim' certainty. This is simply lingo which to any intelligent bystander isn't actually anyone saying anything beyond doubt. As Adrian covered on his blog, certainty isn't knowledge.

I believe, not claim, that God 'is'. I believe through faith. At the point of faith, there _has to be_ no knowledge.. for there to be any would indeed be illogical.

[Watson]

[tavarish]

[Purple Rabbit]

[fr0d0]

Who's tavares?

That's you bud

You make claims that God exists. Let me illustrate:

This should be good...

I make no positive claim that God exists. that would be irrational of a transcendental entity - God just is ...and I believe he just is.

Look at the bold underlined. This is a claim that God exists. If you don't know what the word "claim" means.

Word swapping magic! Wow!

Shit, man. In previous posts I even gave you the link for the meaning of "agnostic theist". What are you trying to argue?

Currently I'm classifying you as 'moron'.

How do I know Christians know that a God exists?

More American imbeciles - yeah great... line em up.

I'll repeat this

I noticed

So certainty in church isn't certainty? It's not knowledge, but they have sunday schools and bible study to re-enforce this uncertain non-knowledge. Creationism also isn't taught as knowledge. Nope. Not at all.

You're getting further and further from reality. Try to understand what you're saying.

You're mixing concepts and coming to a conclusion to fit your argument, but it makes no sense. In your definition, we can never know ANYTHING.

What concepts am I mixing? In my/ Christian definition we can know quite a lot. It's a pretty tight framework that is logically consistent. The error was yours in framing it inaccurately.

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

And you'd be totally wrong in my case.

[tavarish]