Belief vs. Fact

[Hammster]

You have merely presented the fact that you believe the universe was intelligently created, but provided nothing in the way of compelling evidence that it actually was created by an intelligent creator. You are free to hold this belief, but you are not free to pass your belief off as fact to the world at large until you can provide any kind of compelling evidence.

You are confusing evidence with proof.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

You are confusing evidence with proof.

No, you are confusing belief with evidence. Proof is evidence that cannot be denied (such as you will find in mathematics)...I am only asking for compelling evidence which does not require faith. You have not provided any. You have made a claim, and so the burden of proof is on you...and the beginning of that process is you providing compelling evidence. Until you do so, you have gotten no further than stating your unfounded claim.

 

[Hammster]

No, you are confusing belief with evidence. Proof is evidence that cannot be denied (such as you will find in mathematics)...I am only asking for compelling evidence which does not require faith. You have not provided any. You have made a claim, and so the burden of proof is on you...and the beginning of that process is you providing compelling evidence. Until you do so, you have gotten no further than stating your unfounded claim.

I'm not trying to get anywhere. You pulled something I said out of context and want to argue about it. My guess is (and it's just a guess) that you've had discussions with Christians before and have had an opportunity to try to disprove their claims. I make no claims apart from scripture. I don't intend to make any apart from scripture. As a presuppositionalist, I wholeheartedly believe that Romans 1 describes you, and that you suppress the truth. As such, I don't believe that anything short of the Holy Spirit changing your heart will convince you. That's why I post scripture because I believe that's means God uses.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

I'm not trying to get anywhere.

That's good, because you have not gotten past making a claim.

You pulled something I said out of context and want to argue about it.

It would help if you quoted what you said that you claim I took out of context.

My guess is (and it's just a guess) that you've had discussions with Christians before and have had an opportunity to try to disprove their claims.

I was raised Christian and have Christian family members, but I do not try to disprove anything, I am not making the claim, the Christian is the one making the claim and so the burden of proof is on them. I merely ask for compelling evidence but so far has never come.

I make no claims apart from scripture. I don't intend to make any apart from scripture.

Then your claims are simply beliefs, not facts and cannot be used as such to support other claims, unless you can provide compelling evidence to support your beliefs.

As a presuppositionalist, I wholeheartedly believe that Romans 1 describes you, and that you suppress the truth. As such, I don't believe that anything short of the Holy Spirit changing your heart will convince you. That's why I post scripture because I believe that's means God uses.

So you presuppose that the Bible is divine revelation...that's all fine and well if you want to limit yourself in such a way, but cannot be used as any kind of basis for fact to those of us who find there is no valid reason for such a presupposition...without compelling evidence to do so.

Again, I do not suppress anything, I simply require compelling evidence. The demand for evidence to back a claim you have made is not suppressive or argumentative...it is simply an honest and reasonable discussion method.

 

[Hammster]

Once again, there's no burden on me to prove anything.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

Once again, there's no burden on me to prove anything.

When you make a claim, you do in fact have the burden of proof, like it or not...it's just the way things work. And then if/when you cannot provide any kind of compelling evidence, you have to retract that claim as fact, and admit it to be simply your belief. And you cannot trot out scripture to support your claim...it has to be compelling evidence for which no faith is required to accept. Using the scripture to support another claim made by scripture is fallacious and unacceptable.

To do anything else is unreasonable. So you have 2 legitimate courses of action here:

• Provide compelling evidence to support your claim and we continue.
• Concede that your claim is not fact, but only a belief and we are done.

 

[Hammster]

Once again, you will not believe apart from the work of the Spirit. I've presented the truth that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. That's what I'm burdened to do. I am not burdened to try to get you to believe.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

When you make a claim, you do in fact have the burden of proof, like it or not...it's just the way things work. And then if/when you cannot provide any kind of compelling evidence, you have to retract that claim as fact, and admit it to be simply your belief. And you cannot trot out scripture to support your claim...it has to be compelling evidence for which no faith is required to accept. Using the scripture to support another claim made by scripture is fallacious and unacceptable.

To do anything else is unreasonable. So you have 2 legitimate courses of action here:

• Provide compelling evidence to support your claim and we continue.
• Concede that your claim is not fact, but only a belief and we are done.

Yet without faith you will not believe, I am curious as to whereyou think miracles come from? There are many backed up by medical evidence that there are absolutely no explanation for other than the supernatural

 

[MarkFL]

Once again, you will not believe apart from the work of the Spirit. I've presented the truth that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. That's what I'm burdened to do. I am not burdened to try to get you to believe.

I will not believe anything without compelling reason to do so as I have repeatedly stated. You have not presented what can legitimately be called truth; you have presented belief only. If you want your claim to be taken seriously by anyone who does not also share your unsupported belief, then you have to back your claim with evidence, and until you do you are DIW (dead in the water).

Because you have shown an unwillingness to be reasonable, our discussion isn't going to go beyond you making a claim and then refusing to back it up when reasonably asked to do so, so it has flopped clumsily on its face right out of the gate. Until you can back your claim that I need salvation from damnation for the horrific crime of not believing something without evidence, you have implicitly conceded that you have only belief not fact.

 

[MarkFL]

Yet without faith you will not believe, I am curious as to whereyou think miracles come from? There are many backed up by medical evidence that there are absolutely no explanation for other than the supernatural

I do not believe in miracles...which I define as divine intervention to momentarily suspend the laws of nature so that an otherwise inevitable outcome is avoided.

I believe in unlikely things happening, for which no immediate explanation can be given, but to then just throw up my hands and say it cannot easily be explained, therefore the supernatural must be at work is not a route I want or need to take.

 

[psalms 91]

I do not believe in miracles...which I define as divine intervention to momentarily suspend the laws of nature so that an otherwise inevitable outcome is avoided.

I believe in unlikely things happening, for which no immediate explanation can be given, but to then just throw up my hands and say it cannot easily be explained, therefore the supernatural must be at work is not a route I want or need to take.

Yet science which you believe in so wholeheartedly cannot explain miraculous cures backed up by the evidence. I am sure there are others but that one comes easily to mind and is well documented as to happening

 

[Hammster]

I will not believe anything without compelling reason to do so as I have repeatedly stated. You have not presented what can legitimately be called truth; you have presented belief only. If you want your claim to be taken seriously by anyone who does not also share your unsupported belief, then you have to back your claim with evidence, and until you do you are DIW (dead in the water).

Because you have shown an unwillingness to be reasonable, our discussion isn't going to go beyond you making a claim and then refusing to back it up when reasonably asked to do so, so it has flopped clumsily on its face right out of the gate. Until you can back your claim that I need salvation from damnation for the horrific crime of not believing something without evidence, you have implicitly conceded that you have only belief not fact.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The wages of sin is death.

That's why you need salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

Yet science which you believe in so wholeheartedly cannot explain miraculous cures backed up by the evidence. I am sure there are others but that one comes easily to mind and is well documented as to happening

I believe science is our only honest path to the truth about the natural world (by that I mean the realm in which we exist)...but can science explain everything? Of course not. Science is an ongoing venture, that successfully explains more and more as additional and better information is found. Scientists are fine with saying there are things about which we just don't know at present. But that doesn't mean we get to declare that there is something supernatural at work to explain those presently unknown things with no compelling evidence to support it.

I'm not sure what you mean by my wholehearted belief in science...I believe in the scientific method and of course that this method exists because we see it being used everywhere to advance the knowledge of humanity.

What compelling evidence is there that there has been divine suspension of the laws of nature? Sure, extremely unlikely things can happen, but this is no excuse to lazily declare the supernatural must have been at work to cause them...this merely means more investigation is in order.

 

[MarkFL]

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The wages of sin is death.

That's why I believe you need salvation.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Hammster]

Fixed it for you.

I know you believe that.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

I know you believe that.

Yes, I do...and the evidence, nay proof, is staring you right in the face. :stups:

 

[Hammster]

Yes, I do...and the evidence, nay proof, is staring you right in the face. :stups:

You changed it. You didn't fix it.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

You changed it. You didn't fix it.

Changing a claim as an erroneous statement of fact into a statement of belief is in fact a correction. If you insist on calling your beliefs fact without supporting and compelling evidence, then you misunderstand what fact is. What you say may in fact be true (however overwhelmingly unlikely that may be, since extremely improbable is not the same as impossible), however until such time as you can back it up, you cannot legitimately make such statements pretending they are facts.

I have made my point numerous times, and so the ball is in your court and the only way you can put it in mine is to provide that pesky compelling evidence. Until then, all you have is belief...not fact.

 

[psalms 91]

I believe science is our only honest path to the truth about the natural world (by that I mean the realm in which we exist)...but can science explain everything? Of course not. Science is an ongoing venture, that successfully explains more and more as additional and better information is found. Scientists are fine with saying there are things about which we just don't know at present. But that doesn't mean we get to declare that there is something supernatural at work to explain those presently unknown things with no compelling evidence to support it.

I'm not sure what you mean by my wholehearted belief in science...I believe in the scientific method and of course that this method exists because we see it being used everywhere to advance the knowledge of humanity.

What compelling evidence is there that there has been divine suspension of the laws of nature? Sure, extremely unlikely things can happen, but this is no excuse to lazily declare the supernatural must have been at work to cause them...this merely means more investigation is in order.

When I see incurable cancer just disappear and whole families saved because of it I dont see any other explanation although I am sure that you do. Those that demand proof of the deity will never be satisfied by anything and God is not a show off and never has been but I do know that there are things that really cant be explained any other way

 

[MarkFL]

When I see incurable cancer just disappear and whole families saved because of it I dont see any other explanation although I am sure that you do. Those that demand proof of the deity will never be satisfied by anything and God is not a show off and never has been but I do know that there are things that really cant be explained any other way

I have no explanation for a cancer that just suddenly goes away...but this does not mean I am forced to accept a supernatural explanation...it simply means doctors have more to learn.