What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

Gawd almighty. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhoc.htm

0 Replies

The question at hand is: Is there a perspective in which all the scriptures 'make sense'. In order to declare an argument, POV or perspective as 'ad hoc', one needs to point out the inconsistency, not simply declare it so. As KBM's source says:

Quote:

A key characteristic of ad hoc rationalizations is that the "explanation" offered is only expected to apply to the one instance in question. For whatever reason, it is not applied any other time or place and is not offered as a general principle.

I'm putting out my argument and POV as a generally applicable one to the question at hand, not just one 'cooked up for the one occassion' that would be contradictory in others. Indeed, I provided another instance where it was consistent. To legitimately counter my POV, one must show how it is inconsistent, not just yell 'ad hoc!, ad hoc!'

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I also don't believe that any man can ever intervene between a woman's relationship with God and Lord Jesus, or any woman can intervene between a man's relationship with God and Lord Jesus. I think it's a perverted and blasphemous concept to think that a man has more favour in the eyes of God and Lord Jesus because of his gender. Any favour in the eyes of God and Lord Jesus can only depend on a person's honourablity and righteousness.

2 Replies

@Amoh5,

No disagreement there.

Jesus' first commandment was to 'Love God with all your heart mind and soul'. There was no provision in there about making it conditional for women to 'follow the lead of the man in your life' on this issue.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You know Leadfoot, I've read a lot of articles on skepticism towards God and Lord Jesus(as a Christian I really shouldn't), but at the end of the day, in my mind all these atheist opinions and ideas don't exist simply because my allegiance belongs only to God and Lord Jesus...

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

What atheist opinion are you referring to? If it was mine, how the hell did you get the impression I was an atheist?

If you were referring to the article FBM posted on 'ad hoc' I don't have any problem with the logic of what 'ad hoc' is, only the illegitimate use that FBM made of it.

But I agree you can't go wrong following those words of Jesus.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I was only referring to FBM's URL link recommendation which I did peek at, because most of his URL links support atheism etc etc. He always seems so sure of himself, but I was merely emphasizing that atheist ideas always fade into non-existence as far as my mind is concerned. I was not at all implying that you are an atheist.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

However, I have given these so-called atheists a physical explanation of God, but stressed the most important priority which is the spirit of God, rather than the physique of God. Because Lord Jesus said,"God is spirit", which is so true because its the spirit(or psyche) that controls the physical body, not the other way around.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The question at hand is: Is there a perspective in which all the scriptures 'make sense'. In order to declare an argument, POV or perspective as 'ad hoc', one needs to point out the inconsistency, not simply declare it so. As KBM's source says:
Quote:
A key characteristic of ad hoc rationalizations is that the "explanation" offered is only expected to apply to the one instance in question. For whatever reason, it is not applied any other time or place and is not offered as a general principle.
I'm putting out my argument and POV as a generally applicable one to the question at hand, not just one 'cooked up for the one occassion' that would be contradictory in others. Indeed, I provided another instance where it was consistent. To legitimately counter my POV, one must show how it is inconsistent, not just yell 'ad hoc!, ad hoc!'

Was everything created? If so, then what created your creator? You have to scramble in an ad hoc manner to come up with a special pleading to cover this contradiction.

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

Amoh5 wrote:

I was only referring to FBM's URL link recommendation which I did peek at, because most of his URL links support atheism etc etc. He always seems so sure of himself, but I was merely emphasizing that atheist ideas always fade into non-existence as far as my mind is concerned. I was not at all implying that you are an atheist.

In your perception of my posts, what am I so sure of? Just curious.

1 Reply

@FBM,

How are you my friend FBM? I hope I haven't said anything that has offended you. I just thought I might give Leadfoot a bit of moral support. But he does get a bit jumpy though ay, I think he thought I was implying he was an undercover atheist? I must have worded it wrong I was merely saying that you are happy with your own atheistic perception which is fine by me. Afterall the main objective is to be happy and well regardless of what perception we choose, don't you think?

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

What did I say to imply that I thought you were my friend? Are you sure that I'm an atheist? I just asked what you perceived me to be sure of. If you don't want to answer, that's cool with me. I'm not trying to get on your case about anything. Just curious.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You have often made your atheist perception well known on A2k, have I missed something?

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

Apparently you read more into my posts than was in there. I don't recall saying that I'm an atheist; I've been pretty vigorous about expressing skepticism about religious claims, which is significantly different.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I do apologise if I have misinterpreted your perception, there are a lot of rash judgements made here on A2k.

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

True that. It's an easy thing to make assumptions. I know I sound like a hardcore atheist at times, but if you look closely, I mostly just ask difficult questions that get under the skin of theists. Outside of that, I don't act like a dickhead so much. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

Do you think my explanation on the physique of God is an origin of Christian monotheism? Because I do believe that the Heavenly Father(or Father Sky) concept comes from the "polarity concept" of Mother Earth and Father Sky. The sky gives all life air to breathe and water to drink, and the earth gives all life food(plants) to eat and warmth(fire & electricity). But Christianity only focuses on the "spirit of God Heavenly Father" not his physique because Lord Jesus says only that "God is spirit" which is true because it is the spirit(or psyche) that controls the physical body, not the other way around. Some might say "why don't Christians acknowledge Mother Earth? It's because in the Christian family unit the man is the head of his family if he is honourable and righteous. Obviously if a man is not honourable and righteous, he is not the head of his family, the woman is. But one should never think that God Heavenly Father can be dishonourable and unrighteous. Therefore, he is the head of all creation(life) I think all males represent the sky and all females represent the earth.

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

Quote:

Do you think my explanation on the physique of God is an origin of Christian monotheism?

I don't really have an opinion on that. It presumes the existence of a god to begin with. When I'm annoying theists, I'm generally asking for evidence to support this claim before moving on to more detailed or esoteric beliefs.

That said, I also occasionally argue against hard-line atheists who claim to know for a certainty that there is no god. But since that claim hasn't been historically and currently associated with harm to humans, as have the various Abrahamic religions, I don't spend much effort on it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I know as a Christian that contemplating "the spirit of God" is more important than "the physique of God" Sometimes I think I'm contradicting myself as a Christian when I talk about the physique of God. But I'm only trying to illustrate the relevance of a physical interpretation, rather than prioritising its importance. But you are right about people proclaiming God or Allah, they have done a lot of horrendous things and are still doing them. I choose Lord Jesus's interpretation of God any day. These other guys are sickos...

1 Reply

@Amoh5,

Sorry, but I can't find much motivation to wrangle over that distinction as long as there's the more fundamental question looming as to whether or not a god exists at all.

1 Reply

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know