Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

[SciWriter]

Faith’s downfall:

Some use faith as a ‘reason’ to believe in God, as if it is a crutch that actually holds something up, yet, if we go beyond the shorthand notation of the word, we see that it means an invisible unknown, which is nothing at all to go by. Thus one believes because of nothing, leaving only a wish as the reason for the myth-take. It must be a common thinking error to just devise a word and then take it as some kind of real basis thereafter. The actual crutch does not exist.

The second error, as t here is nothing to push forward with, is to blindly push against anything which might take away from the wish, such as evolution, the brain’s doings, or even science in general.

The third error is then to preach God as outright fact and truth.

I suppose it can then get even worse, such as going to war over it.

 

[Lori_7]

faith is trust in something you know. you can have faith in lots of things. you can have faith in people, in science, in your intellect or other capabilities, or that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

it's really not the enigma that atheists try to make it out to be.

 

[Greatest I am]

Enigma. No.
Idiocy. Yes.

You showed your faith in tangibles that you know, like people, and then add the idiotic statement that you can know the un-knowable God.

Regards
DL

 

[NMSquirrel]

and then add the idiotic statement that you can know the un-knowable God.

um..where?

Lori said;faith is trust in something you know. you can have faith in lots of things. you can have faith in people, in science, in your intellect or other capabilities, or that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
it's really not the enigma that atheists try to make it out to be.

and knowable equals familiarity in this context not empirical facts.

 

[SciWriter]

Enigma. No.
Idiocy. Yes.

You showed your faith in tangibles that you know, like people, and then add the idiotic statement that you can know the un-knowable God.

Regards
DL

She tried a switcheroo on that one, as faith is about an unknown.

 

[kx000]

Faith’s downfall:

Some use faith as a ‘reason’ to believe in God, as if it is a crutch that actually holds something up, yet, if we go beyond the shorthand notation of the word, we see that it means an invisible unknown, which is nothing at all to go by. Thus one believes because of nothing, leaving only a wish as the reason for the myth-take. It must be a common thinking error to just devise a word and then take it as some kind of real basis thereafter. The actual crutch does not exist.

The second error, as t here is nothing to push forward with, is to blindly push against anything which might take away from the wish, such as evolution, the brain’s doings, or even science in general.

The third error is then to preach God as outright fact and truth.

I suppose it can then get even worse, such as going to war over it.

Ok, then have faith in the workings of Jesus Christ.

 

[kx000]

To answer the op, yes, defiantly yes. There is no way to know of God, so quit waisting your time.

 

[SciWriter]

To answer the op, yes, defiantly yes. There is no way to know of God, so quit waisting your time.

I'll second that about speculative nonsense.

 

[SciWriter]

Ok, then have faith in the workings of Jesus Christ.

And who was his Father that we should have faith in?

 

[Lori_7]

She tried a switcheroo on that one, as faith is about an unknown.

not necessarily an unknown entity.

you can have faith in your best friend to act according to his or her character. how well do you know your best friend?

 

[Lori_7]

Enigma. No.
Idiocy. Yes.

You showed your faith in tangibles that you know, like people, and then add the idiotic statement that you can know the un-knowable God.

Regards
DL

To answer the op, yes, defiantly yes. There is no way to know of God, so quit waisting your time.

you're both dead wrong.

 

[SciWriter]

you're both dead wrong.

Well, that says nothing.

Some people generalize with a broad brush stroke to cover that they have nothing specific to say.

 

[Lori_7]

Well, that says nothing.

Some people generalize with a broad brush stroke to cover that they have nothing specific to say.

and some people just can't keep up with the conversation. they both stated that god was unknowable. i said they were wrong. that would mean that god is knowable. does that clear that up for you?

 

[SciWriter]

i said they were wrong.

That shows nothing since it is something you feel but cannot show.

 

[Lori_7]

That shows nothing since it is something you feel but cannot show.

and yet a perfectly appropriate response, as saying that god is unknowable is something that they feel but cannot show.

 

[SciWriter]

Because God cannot be known to be shown and so there is no case to know.

 

[kx000]

you're both dead wrong.

God would never show him self to a non believer, and there is no reason for him to show him self to the faithful .

 

[kx000]

and yet a perfectly appropriate response, as saying that god is unknowable is something that they feel but cannot show.

Yessir

 

[arfa brane]

Because God cannot be known to be shown and so there is no case to know.

That's a statement which appears to depend on your personal faith, you believe there is no God but you have no way to prove it.

So in that case, you can't say that people who have faith in God's existence are any different to yourself. And how do you demonstrate to someone who claims they do know that God exists, that your belief in the opposite is based on anything other than faith? How can that be rational?
Your whole argument falls flat, in that case. You are simply indulging in speculative nonsense, you have no way to prove that your belief is anything more than that.

 

[Greatest I am]

um..where?

Wherever she speaks of God and tells us what she knows of the un-knowable.

and knowable equals familiarity in this context not empirical facts.

To know something is to think it a fact in my language.

Regards
DL