I recently came across this article:
I want to discuss this.
Yes. Some folks do not. What would you like to discuss?
You really want the atheists to show up and say the usual stuff they usually say...
which they usually say, endlessly, every chance they get
If so, why?
It is utterly pointless!
We have pretty much figured out around here that it is "each to his own." If they choose not to face an afterlife, it really is up to them. Save yourself. Not them. Thats my advice!
Complete rubbish. Note his evidence to his so-called facts...
"EVIDENCE: My evidence is such a one. I have first hand experience that God exists. That is my evidence to the facts that I have presented. "
Why did you post this nonsense? He claims seven facts but provides no evidence to support the claims. "The moon is made of cream cheese". This is a fact because God told me and if I believe hard enough and do not doubt, it will be true. Neil Armstrong was a liar; I cannot believe him because he is considered a credible source.
WOW.. This is the most absurd bunch of foolishness I have read. And with nothing to back up his claims??
The Fact: There is a pen lying on a table.
The Belief: Now, one could believe anything about it. One could believe that, that is not a pen on the table or one could even believe that there is nothing on the table.
The Truth: The point to note is that, one’s belief of the fact does not alter the fact – or belief does not change the truth.
Notice what a fact is in this first case. Something we can all see, touch and take a picture of.
Fact 1: Man has a spirit that is eternal in nature. That means that the spirit lives forever and has no end.
No, that is not a fact, it a belief.
All seven of his facts are beliefs and his evidence is that he has first hand experience that God exists. Nothing we can see, touch hear or take a picture of.
As an exercise in logic it's pretty bad.
A presentation of 7 "facts" that in truth are only hypothesis.
A discussion of what evidence is, followed by a statement that his only evidence is that he possesses some. Not what it is, how he came by it, how he tested it or anything else. Just a bald statement that he has it.
This is followed by a conclusion virtually copied from untested and unproven hypotheses; a conclusion that can only be considered true if the hypotheses are. As none of the hypotheses are proven facts, the conclusion has no positive correlation to truth, either.
Outside of wondering how a reasoning, thinking person could produce such nonsense there isn't much to discuss.
Your problem is that you think you are person who posses some superior logical capabilities which is better than any of us. But the truth is that you have not understood what your read in that article. Below I am going to demonstrate this.
When there are some answers in the article and yet you ask questions on them it proves that you have not understood the article.
You asked "Not what it is"
The answer was already there. His experience.
You asked "how he came by it,"
The answer is already there . God gave it to him.
You asked "how he tested it"
This is a dumb question. When you have already experienced it why do you need to test it? Also how did you test anything anyway. All you did was to take someone's word for it.
What he says is the truth. The evidence is his experience. I know this because I too have experienced the evidence. Anyone can experience this evidence.
Well, My experience in frying eggs proves God does not exist. How is his "experience" any more valid, particularly when he refuses to say what that experience is? In addition, "my experience" is evidence only that he believes he has some, not that he actually does. Refusing to describe it only serves to enforce the idea that he doesn't have anything of value.
God gave him the evidence proving hell exists. Sorry, there is no God and no hell - it you want anyone to believe otherwise provide something more than "My imaginary friend told me so".
People that think it's dumb to test evidence for validity, repeatability, etc. generally end up "knowing" whatever they want to know without having the faintest idea of the "knowledge" is actually true. As in atheists go to a fantasy hell.
Allow me to help you understand what evidence is and how to test it. You have the evidence, your experience, so list a couple of specific experiences you've had that show either God exists or that hell does and we can discuss how to test them. How to show it isn't just your imagination, that your experiences were not real but that they actually prove something.
Logic operates by external, objective rules that wilderness is following. To that extent he is demonstrating superior skills in that area.
Please tell me what is wrong with the following logics.
1. One person had an experience of God. For example: God speaks to him and tells him that He is Jesus. Then the Lord explains to him various other things about Jesus. Then another person, living at a different point in time, having different faith, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the first person has the same experience. God tells him the same things. Could this be taken as evidence or not?
2. When you believe in Jesus and ask him sincerely for the Holy Spirit, He provides the Holy Spirit. Those who receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit claim to have the same experience. Are every one of these lying or are the all hallucinating the same thing?
3.Suppose heaven and hell is true, and the only way to go to heaven is to believe in Jesus. Would not atheist go to hell?
Lastly, atheist assume that we claim some non-sense and we provide only our experience as evidence. No that is not what we are saying. We are saying that the evidence of God can only be experienced. You can test God and experience it. It is not a rocket science to understand that.
That would be a serious mental disorder.
They have been indoctrinated to believe such nonsense.
That depends if heaven and hell are true in Islam. If so, save me a seat by the fire.
True, it is not rocket science. In fact, it isn't science at all, it is pure nonsense.
The problem with this article is that there are 7 items presented as 'facts' with nothing to back them up.
Just stating something at fact DOES NOT actually make it so.
The premise of the article is to assume that the 'facts' are indeed that, and not to question them - but that "belief" differently would not change it.
However, it has not been proven to be a fact in the first place. In order to be an actual fact, it FIRSTLY needs to be proven. Without proof, it's merely assumption or theory.
Experience is anecdotal evidence - where it is merely the story of someone - usually with no witnesses.
Prove, on the other hand, is physical evidence that it happened.
If heaven and hell is TRUE and if JESUS is the ONLY way to heaven wouldn't atheist go to hell?
Sure, and if Islam is true and Allah is the only way to heaven, you and I can both roast marshmallows together for eternity over an open fire. How does that sound?
by Rad Man 9 years ago
I read something a while back about how intuition evolved to get us out of dangerous situation and that if you are using it for anything else you are more likely wrong. I then noticed people in these forums say that they just KNOW God is real and that no amount of reason will prove anything...
by Thom Carnes 14 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all wrestling this other equally important issues at the time.)Peter Lopez made a valiant...
by AMAZING THINKER 9 years ago
Who are right, believers or atheists?We don't know how the universe works, and science does not yet have all the answers, so all we can do is assume what we believe in is true.Some things can't be explained, but does that mean there is no logical explanation? These are some questions for you:1....
by SaiKit 12 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 9 years ago
Why God created atheists? Isn't it his invitation to self destruction?
by preacherdon 12 years ago
There are many who are atheist and agnostic because they either don't know or don't believe God exists. Creation tells us that God exists but atheist explain Him away with evolution and Big Bangs. So, my question is, how can God prove Himself to the point where there would be no doubt? The Book of...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|