Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

[Chapabel]

If he was saved to begin with, he wouldn't be denying God now. The fact that he rejects God now reflects the fact that he never accepted Him.

But he DID accept him. He got baptised and knew the Bible back to front, much better than you in fact. He was well on the way to becoming a pastor when something happened. Once saved, always saved

How can you say for certain he was saved? How do you know his heart? How can you assert something you don’t even believe in? If you can affirm his salvation, why do you deny mine?

[Chapabel]

Hey SEG, I'm sure you simply overlooked this question, so I'm just want to throw this out again...if the evolution of the universe is an orderly process, who ordered it?

No-one ordered it. The laws of physics are ordered to the point that entropy is close to zero. No gods or gremlins required.

If the laws of physics are “ordered”, a higher power must have ordered it. You continue to stumble on this. Facts are stubborn things aren’t they?

[SEG]

If you want spiritual and philosophical truths from a science fiction author, I hear L. Ron Hubbard has a lot to say.

There is a lot more literature in Scientology than in MV and thus probably more believable. It is still rubbish.

And, to claim the universe doesn't require God to have order, because it's orderly now without God, is to base an assertion on another assertion without proving the first one. You assume there is no God, so you assume God is not needed.

I don't have to prove there is no God, you are making an assertion, so the burden is on you to prove it. There is no requirement to prove a negative. You fail in 101 apologetics.

[Claire]

If he was saved to begin with, he wouldn't be denying God now. The fact that he rejects God now reflects the fact that he never accepted Him.

And, if he goes back to God?

[Claire]

.

[SEG]

If he was saved to begin with, he wouldn't be denying God now. The fact that he rejects God now reflects the fact that he never accepted Him.

But he DID accept him. He got baptised and knew the Bible back to front, much better than you in fact. He was well on the way to becoming a pastor when something happened. Once saved, always saved

How can you say for certain he was saved? How do you know his heart? How can you assert something you don’t even believe in? If you can affirm his salvation, why do you deny mine?

He did what was required, just like you. I would also say that a Voodoo priest that conducts all the required practices is saved in his own mind too. That doesn't mean that any of the bluster is true.

[Claire]

What's your explanation for order in the universe?

Ask Douglas Adams. He knew when he was a puddle.

If you want spiritual and philosophical truths from a science fiction author, I hear L. Ron Hubbard has a lot to say.

There is a lot more literature in Scientology than in MV and thus probably more believable. It is still rubbish.

Lol, you haven't even read the Work of Maria Valtorta.

And, to claim the universe doesn't require God to have order, because it's orderly now without God, is to base an assertion on another assertion without proving the first one. You assume there is no God, so you assume God is not needed.

I don't have to prove there is no God, you are making an assertion, so the burden is on you to prove it. There is no requirement to prove a negative. You fail in 101 apologetics.

I've presented evidence/reasoning for why God does exist, and in response you didn't just stop at expressing disbelief. You went on to assume and assert God doesn't exist, and therefore assume and assert God is not needed.

Let's get back to basics on claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJacUvo778

Recap:
Step 1. Make claim(s)
Step 2. Follow up with evidence
Step 3. Provide reasoning

The trifecta of argument.

[SEG]

Ask Douglas Adams. He knew when he was a puddle.

If you want spiritual and philosophical truths from a science fiction author, I hear L. Ron Hubbard has a lot to say.

There is a lot more literature in Scientology than in MV and thus probably more believable. It is still rubbish.

Lol, you haven't even read the Work of Maria Valtorta.

And, to claim the universe doesn't require God to have order, because it's orderly now without God, is to base an assertion on another assertion without proving the first one. You assume there is no God, so you assume God is not needed.

I don't have to prove there is no God, you are making an assertion, so the burden is on you to prove it. There is no requirement to prove a negative. You fail in 101 apologetics.

You assume and assert God doesn't exist, and therefore assume and assert God is not needed.

Let's get back to basics on claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJacUvo778

Recap:
Step 1. Make claim(s)
Step 2. Follow up with evidence
Step 3. Provide reasoning

The trifecta of argument.

I'm not making any claims, I don't believe your claim that God exists. If I said "God doesn't exist" you may have a point.

[Claire]

I'm not making any claims, I don't believe your claim that God exists. If I said "God doesn't exist" you may have a point.

You don't only disbelieve God exists, but other gods too, and have claimed none exist:

...all ghosts, spirits, fairies, devils, angels, elves and gods are imaginary...

Additionally, you've claimed:

...you don't need any deities to have an orderly universe.

[SEG]

You don't only disbelieve God exists, but other gods too, and have claimed none exist:

...all ghosts, spirits, fairies, devils, angels, elves and gods are imaginary...

*sigh* Cite or retract! You are telling fibs again about what you claim I have said.

Additionally, you've claimed:

...you don't need any deities to have an orderly universe.

Yes, and you don't need any ogres or unicorns either.