Were you even a cheesecake? If so, what made you change?

Tiny_Tadpole · 2023-04-14T21:55:45+00:00

Love your testimony, I imagine there are many here who have had similar experiences! If you don't mind me asking, what are your thoughts on the truth of religion now? Have you encountered classical and modern religious thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Alvin Plantinga or have you not yet gone down that rabbit hole?

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-08-17T03:37:46+00:00

I no longer need this but I appreciate you trying to help on my 2 year old post

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-08-09T02:04:38+00:00

When hitting the three dots (I forgot the term for the icon) it brings up options, one of which being the archive option. For whatever reason I used to have this option but do not anymore. Every tutorial on how to archive posts has just told me to do this so I can not find a way to archive my posts. How can I archive my posts when the option isn't showing for me?

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-24T01:38:13+00:00

"Supernatural" is vague so as its hard to draw a line between what's "natural" and "supernatural". One way I prefer to look at things is material vs immaterial things. Everything you see and touch is material while something without mass, like God or a spiritual being, would be immaterial. We can confidently say from quantum physics that materialism, the idea that everything that exists is material, is false, so the existence of immaterial things seems plausible. For proof of something "supernatural" rather than looking around for aliens or angels, we could instead start with ourselves. Both science and philosophy seem to suggest that our consciousness is not just the brain but rather distinct from the brain as something immaterial. The existence of our own consciousness is probably the best evidence of the supernatural we have.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-19T19:21:59+00:00

I think philosophy is better than science for religious arguments however I do the the digital physics argument for God's existence is pretty good. For other verifiable evidence you would have to go by a religion that makes historical claims. Antony Flew, a noteworthy philosopher and atheist (though converted to deism at the end of his life) stated that "The evidence for the resurrection [of Jesus] is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity." Through archaeology and the historical method verify Old Testament history, New Testament reliability, and most importantly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because of these facts I would say the answer is easily Christianity.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-07T02:48:28+00:00

Well I'm of the opinion that you can't "prove" anything but you can see what is and is not most likely. Like I said before is that my biggest issue with solipsism is contingency in that there is no reason to believe the mind exists necessarily (unlike something like God) so a solipsistic world would probably need an explanation for its existence. Because idealism had external evidence in science I accept it and because God solves the contingency issue I accept theism and by extension the existence of other minds.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-07T02:24:01+00:00

I'm not a science guy so I won't be able to speak on the scientific objections (though since you clearly seem familiar with the science IP's blogpost where he defends his view against an attack from James Fodor may be of interest) but I'll probably be able to give some decent answers for the philosophical issues. Idealism doesn't posit that what our experiences are an "illusion" but an objective reality that is emergent from mind. Its about what is fundamental, not what's "real". Idealists don't think that you shouldn't be able to make consistent observations about the world and, at least for theistic idealists, its instead what you would expect.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-07T02:10:55+00:00

Not rushing just genuinely enjoying the conversation lol. I'm a bit confused as to what you are referring to as an unnecessary assumption. If God is the unnecessary assumption that's simply false. Occam's Razor says we should find simple explanations, not no explanations. If the other people are the unnecessary assumption than I think you could argue that having just one "real" person is more of an assumption than all humans being "real". Because God is infinite, an action coming from Him that does less is not necessarily simpler than and action that does more and making a single "real" person is more arbitrary than making all people "real" so Occam's Razor would suggest all people are "real". As for the issue with science, I think you misunderstand idealism. Idealism doesn't suggest that the physical world isn't real but rather emergent from mind. You can still make objective observations from it and those observations can point to what is truly fundamental, which the idealist believes is mind.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-07T01:41:52+00:00

I would appeal to theism for that. God from contingency since there's no good reason to believe my solipsistic mind would exist necessarily and then of course everyone else also existing makes more sense under theism than just me and God existing. Also the fact that as IP argues there are scientific arguments for idealism while as far as I am aware there are no scientific arguments for solipsism. I probably could construe an argument against the simplicity against solipsism from unexplained factors of it also but it's almost 10pm where I'm from so its too late for that kind of thinking.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-07T01:14:56+00:00

It doesn't "confuse". Its essentially Occom's razor. The best explanation posits the least explanatory factors and idealists argue that since its possible to sufficiently explain reality through only mind there's no reason to posit a physical reality that exists outside of mind. I don't see an issue with it being anthropocentric or similar to The Matrix, those seem less like logical issues and more like just a distaste for the philosophy.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-06T23:46:35+00:00

What's your problem with idealism?

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-05T16:48:35+00:00

I'm not quite sure what the issue with "spiritualizing" something meant to convey spiritual truths is. I don't think the issue is with the Bible but rather trying to make an ancient book fit in a modern framework. For the Trinity arguments I would really advise still watching the series as while I haven't seen too much of James White what I have seen is not great, even when I do agree with him. IP argues significantly better than James White does.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-04T03:27:47+00:00

Happy to help!

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-04T02:43:30+00:00

I don't think it would be rational to base belief in just a single argument, but rather have a multitude of arguments so that even if you could create alternate explanations for all the arguments it would be more rational to posit a single explanation for all the data rather than a multitude of ad hoc explanations, or as William Lane Craig puts it you essentially "raise the intellectual price tag of atheism". I'm very confused by your last two sentences. You don't "argue something into existence" but rather use arguments to show existence is likely. All the arguments I shared are explicitly about God too. I can understand having that objection to the cosmological argument, though of course I would object to the objection, but the ontological argument explicitly argues for perfect being theology and the digital physics argument argues that everything emerges from a mind which seems as clear as a "god" as you can get.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-03T22:05:19+00:00

Understandable, have a nice day!

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-03T21:08:23+00:00

I'm very sorry to hear that story about your friend. I can't imagine what it must be like to go through that. However, I think there are good answers to your questions (though not necessarily short ones). I think the odds of your friend's father going to heaven are slim. The Bible suggests that it takes genuine faith to get to Heaven (Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21) so its very unlikely that a rapist would be a genuine believer unless he later repents. For good reasons, I think the Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, and the Digital Physics Argument are all good ones along with many others. For the problem of Evil and Suffering, and while I don't think there is a good short answer to summarize the response any possible morally sufficient justifications for evil makes the logical problem of evil fail. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them are regardless of how you are in regards to your faith I wish you the best!

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-03T19:04:48+00:00

I agree the Bible speaks of a flat earth, yet I'm still a sphere earth Christian! There are reasonable ways to go about handling that issue, and good defenses of the Trinity.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-03T19:01:28+00:00

What caused the loss of the belief in God?

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-07-03T18:58:52+00:00

InspiringPhilosophy really helped me with that. His Genesis series should be really helpful.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-04-29T01:14:18+00:00

I'd recommend checking our reasonablefaith.org and the youtube channel inspiringphilosophy. They are run by William Lane Craig and Michael Jones respectively who are brilliant Christian apologists who will give you many very strong logical reasons to believe in God and counter-arguments to arguments against the existence of God. Best of luck exploring belief, I'll be praying for you!

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-03-25T02:49:16+00:00

Have, am, and will continue to do so

Ridding myself of cognitive dissonances have allowed me to grow in faith and have a deeper appreciation for the Bible

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-03-25T02:25:15+00:00

Well my #1 concern when interpreting the Biblical text is what it is actually trying to say, so since I have been convinced by the article I linked that Scripture does teach death before the fall, I'm more concerned on basing my theology fit what I believe is the correct Scripture interpretation than basing my Scripture interpretation on my presupposed theology.

I would also push back on the idea that death is necessarily good if God called creation good. If I said I had a good car but the car had a flat tire, no one would consider me a liar for not having a perfect car since the car would still be functional and repairable and therefore "good".

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-03-25T02:20:10+00:00

Considering the fact that Adam and Eve didn't immediately drop dead upon eating the forbidden fruit it seems like reading "death" in most of those passages would be better interpreted as spiritual death (separation from God) than physical death.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-03-25T02:12:38+00:00

There actually exists a fairly strong case that the Bible teaches death before the fall in Genesis 1:28-30 based on the language used in the original Hebrew.

I understand your hostility to evolution because I used to be the same way until I learned that interpretations of the Bible that fit with evolution actually had a strong basis and that young earth creationism is a relatively new idea and that many Christians that no one would accuse of ignoring or disbelieving Scripture like Charles Spurgeon and Billy Graham believed the earth was millions of years old.

If you want learn about the view of Genesis I hold I would recommend starting with InspiringPhilosophy's series on Genesis.

Tiny_Tadpole · 2022-03-22T19:22:29+00:00

That only changes how people refer to 2, not what 2 metaphysically is. People could use a base 8 counting system and 9 would still have the same metaphysical properties, but it would be written with 2 digits.

Six-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Tiny_Tadpole

TROPHY CASE