This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I need a definition of faith that is precise.

#51OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:45:08 PM
From: Proudclad | #046
I remember you having some strange views a few years ago. We might have to have a conversation some time. :P


About this?
I've already stated my definition of faith in this topic. Hebrews 11:1
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#52cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 8:45:12 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #045
And then I said that it's impossible.
And then you said "prove it".
And then I said "I can't, because doesn't actually happen in reality, but it COULD happen, because we're living in the Matrix and anything COULD happen".
And then I said "SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THEN"
And then you said what I just quoted, that it's "possible".

I'm confused. Are you saying it's impossible or not? From this you're saying both.

It's not. And you can't show that it is without appealing to some nonsense "You can't actually disprove anything because we could all be brains in jars".

And that isn't going to fly.

"The evidence includes studies of babies and children which have shown the brain is programmed to think of the mind as being separate from the body"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html

You were saying?

You misinterpreted a dictionary. You absolutely did something different.

No, YOU misinterpreted a dictionary. I just followed in your footsteps.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#53ProudcladPosted 1/14/2013 8:46:00 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Proudclad | #046
I remember you having some strange views a few years ago. We might have to have a conversation some time. :P


About this?
I've already stated my definition of faith in this topic. Hebrews 11:1


No, in general. I forget the details but I remember being surprised at some of the things you think. Like about Christmas, Jesus, etc.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#54cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 8:53:05 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #048
Prove it.
OOOOOOOHHHHHHH BURDEN OF PROOF

I did. I showed how to effortless switch a positive claim to a negative one.

But seriously, that's the only place where faith can ever possible come from, then.

If it's not based on evidence.
And if it's not based on reason.
The where does it come from?

Short answer? God.

Here we go with the >implying again.

It's more like not-implying. I'm trying to not burden myself with claims.

I have to say that I could not care any less about what you think right now.

Clearly.

No. YOU have to show that your definition IS compatible with the biblical one, because I don't see any reason why it IS compatible.

I never claimed it was compatible. I even went so far as to say that it doesn't matter for my position whether or not it is compatible. It does very much matter for your position that my definition be incompatible, though.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#55OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:54:47 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #052
I'm confused. Are you saying it's impossible or not? From this you're saying both.


I might have switched up some of the "I's" and "You's" there. Basically, if it sounds insane, you were the one that said it.

You keep appealing to this stupid "brain in a jar" scenario, wherein we can't actually prove anything, and everything imaginable "could" happen, but that sort of stuff is absolutely useless in a debate, so stop doing it.

"The evidence includes studies of babies and children which have shown the brain is programmed to think of the mind as being separate from the body"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html

You were saying?


dailymail

YOU were saying?

It's stupidly easy to google up proof of any wrong belief you want. Just because you can google it does not make it true.

No, YOU misinterpreted a dictionary.


Prove it
Burden of proof.
ooooohhhh
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#56OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 9:00:29 PM
From: Proudclad | #053
No, in general. I forget the details but I remember being surprised at some of the things you think. Like about Christmas, Jesus, etc.


Yeah. That's my thing. I surprise people with the wild and zany beliefs I have.

From: cyclonekruse | #054
I did. I showed how to effortless switch a positive claim to a negative one.


Showing the switch between a positive claim to a negative one does not prove anything about who has the bigger burden.

Short answer? God.


Faith comes from God?
That's not what the bible says.

So, if I had faith that this person was okay to drive, and then I died because of her drunk driving, God would have killed me.
Thanks God.

It's more like not-implying. I'm trying to not burden myself with claims.


Oh, so you admit you're an intellectually dishonest coward. Good.

I never claimed it was compatible.


You never claim anything, and that's what makes you an intellectually dishonest coward.

Is your definition compatible or incompatible?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#57cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 9:04:13 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #055
I might have switched up some of the "I's" and "You's" there. Basically, if it sounds insane, you were the one that said it.

You keep appealing to this stupid "brain in a jar" scenario, wherein we can't actually prove anything, and everything imaginable "could" happen, but that sort of stuff is absolutely useless in a debate, so stop doing it.

I find it very useful in a debate, actually. But I really don't need to appeal to that to suggest that everything imaginable could happen. In God, all things are possible, after all.

dailymail

YOU were saying?

It's stupidly easy to google up proof of any wrong belief you want. Just because you can google it does not make it true.

Attacking the source would work better if they weren't referencing a more reputable source:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?full=true

Prove it
Burden of proof.
ooooohhhh

I did. By doing the exact same thing you did and showing it to lead to absurdity.

How about you fulfill some of your burdens of proof?
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#58ProudcladPosted 1/14/2013 9:06:08 PM
Yeah. That's my thing. I surprise people with the wild and zany beliefs I have.

A gimmick? Or do you actually believe those things?
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#59OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 9:07:47 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #057
I find it very useful in a debate, actually.


Because you're an intellectually dishonest coward, we know.

Attacking the source would work better if they weren't referencing a more reputable source:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?full=true


A source that we can't even see unless we have a subscription.
So we don't really know how badly this was skewed by the media.

I did. By doing the exact same thing you did and showing it to lead to absurdity.


Misinterpreting a dictionary is not proof of me misinterpreting a dictionary.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#60OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 9:08:03 PM
From: Proudclad | #058
Yeah. That's my thing. I surprise people with the wild and zany beliefs I have.

A gimmick? Or do you actually believe those things?


Both
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face