Well....2Co 10:12
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
The best way I'm aware of, based on its track record, is to observe the world and then develop predictions based on those observations and then test the predictions to see if they come true. If they do so consistently, then we can rely on them as much as anything.A long discussed idea, which has never actually been reasonably developed by atheists.
By what means do you measure truth?
Is it something you "just know"? Or do you have a methodical means to work it out and come to the conclusion that it's actually true?
Atheists cannot know truth...because there is none.A long discussed idea, which has never actually been reasonably developed by atheists.
By what means do you measure truth?
Is it something you "just know"? Or do you have a methodical means to work it out and come to the conclusion that it's actually true?
I know I can get water to boil under the right circumstances.Atheists cannot know truth...because there is none.
Just ask them about the boiling point of water. They cannot even get that right.
Indoctrination.
Methods. The methods must be substantiated as viable as well.A long discussed idea, which has never actually been reasonably developed by atheists.
By what means do you measure truth?
Is it something you "just know"? Or do you have a methodical means to work it out and come to the conclusion that it's actually true?
Will you always have the right circumstances?I know I can get water to boil under the right circumstances.
LOL. I'm sure you can.I know I can get water to boil under the right circumstances.
Paul warned us about that kind of Christian.... And, many do exist that way.Methods. The methods must be substantiated as viable as well.
The Holy Ghost isn't a method. It's an emotional and psychological mental state. An unreliable garbage in/garbage out mechanism.
Reason and evidence. The subject is epistemology, and it has in fact been developed in great detail by many atheists. Science is the methodological means for determining empirical truth. Logic and philosophy are the methodological means for determining a priori truth. But these are gigantically broad topics, so I'd recommend narrowing things down a bit if you want this to be productive.A long discussed idea, which has never actually been reasonably developed by atheists.
By what means do you measure truth?
Is it something you "just know"? Or do you have a methodical means to work it out and come to the conclusion that it's actually true?
Reason and evidence.
The subject is epistemology, and it has in fact been developed in great detail by many atheists. Science is the methodological means for determining empirical truth. Logic and philosophy are the methodological means for determining a priori truth. But these are gigantically broad topics, so I'd recommend narrowing things down a bit if you want this to be productive.
That something is believed is not enough to make it reason or evidence. There is more to reason and evidence than the mere fact that it is believed. You seem to be confusing necessity and sufficiency once again.If you believe your "reason and evidence", then they are just beliefs too. And if it has anything to do with the truth and reality, then it has to be in the form of a belief and if it isn't, then it isn't even knowable in reality.
Science works, and is clearly better equipped to deal with reality than certain CARM posters. And as usual you have it backwards - knowledge is a form of belief (specifically, the subset of belief that is both true and justified). Belief is not a form of knowledge because not everything believed is known or true.Nonsense. Science isn't equipped to deal with the truth and reality, because the truth and reality is belief based and science excludes belief as a form of knowledge. But rather relies on the physical senses instead of belief.
That something is believed is not enough to make it reason or evidence.
There is more to reason and evidence than the mere fact that it is believed. You seem to be confusing necessity and sufficiency once again.
Science works, and is clearly better equipped to deal with reality than certain CARM posters. And as usual you have it backwards - knowledge is a form of belief (specifically, the subset of belief that is both true and justified). Belief is not a form of knowledge because not everything believed is known or true.
I'm not claiming to. I agree that all knowledge requires a mind. You've confused sufficiency and necessity again.How can you know it is "reason or evidence" without believing it silly?
Yes there is. A bent spoon isn't evidence of telekinesis just because someone believes it is. Evidence requires more than just belief. It requires objective relations whereby the thing being evidenced really is the best explanation for the evidence.No there isn't.
And that might be relevant if only there were anyone here arguing that science can be done without a mind. But no-one's saying that.Actually science can't even account for itself; without a believing mind in order for it to occur in.
Nope.Will you always have the right circumstances?
Well, at least I can know something.LOL. I'm sure you can.
Does it matter that it doesn't boil at the same temp?
Not to me...but to "scientists," who went over their skis it does.
Good response, though.
He also said in 1 Cor 15 that if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;Paul warned us about that kind of Christian.... And, many do exist that way.
Be fellow-imitators of me, brothers, and be watching the ones walking in this manner, just as you have us as a pattern. For many walk as to whom I was often saying to you, and now even weeping say, they are the enemies of the cross of Christ— whose end is destruction, whose god is their stomach (emotions) and glory is in their shame— the ones thinking the earthly things." Philippians 3"17-19
Body parts were often times used (bowels reigns, etc) to describe what we not refer to as human emotions.
"Stomach"or"belly" ... were often times used by the ancients to refer to their emotions. Many, Paul said not a few, followed after their emotions and made their emotions their god. All, while making justification by exploiting distortions of Scripture. Just like we see today.
Paul was in tears concerning them. Their emotions turned them into spiritual morons. For that's what they are. Enemies of the Cross.
In Christ.......
Ok. Do you have some examples to give us some idea to understand what you mean?Methods. The methods must be substantiated as viable as well.
?The Holy Ghost isn't a method. It's an emotional and psychological mental state. An unreliable garbage in/garbage out mechanism.
The Resurrection is not supposed to happen all the time..He also said in 1 Cor 15 that if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;
Guess what.... the dead are not raised, ever. It just doesn't happen. The people Paul was trying to convince were correct and Paul was wrong.