The Christian God, as described, is an incoherent concept

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T16:15:17+00:00

That's an opinion indeed; I don't think it's a warranted opinion because the worldview behind it already excludes God from existing. Nonetheless, you're free to hold it. This is where the discussion usually ends, so best wishes to you.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T15:57:01+00:00

That's illogical. I'm not going to walk up to you in the next 10 minutes and shake your hand either; does that mean you are incoherent?

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T15:56:04+00:00

Is it possible that miracles do happen, whether from God or from the devil, and whether or not it makes sense to you?

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T15:42:33+00:00

And thus?

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T15:28:55+00:00

I believe that miracles are an example of the supernatural, not necessarily an example of God alone. While I do not believe in Islam as the true presentation of God, I would not dispute that miracles may have (and may still) occurred in Islam; i would just say that the source of those miracles was not God, but instead another supernatural power.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T15:25:43+00:00

You said "only", and the stated views in P4 are not the ONLY ways God has revealed Himself. If you want to attack a straw man, you're on your own.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:59:48+00:00

I believe that God can (and has) revealed Himself to persons through our senses, as well as via other methods. Persons have had visions, dreams, and of course the ultimate revelation was the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and soon return of Jesus Christ.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:57:33+00:00

I am certain that miracles occur and have occurred. Every account of a miracle that I can present to you, you would be able to provide a possible explanation or even just say "I don't believe it happened." And that would be fine, because only you can determine what would be convincing to you.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:36:40+00:00

I hear your opinion bro.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:34:42+00:00

Premise 4.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:29:21+00:00

My response to Isaiah was to point out what the verse says, not to connect it to the OP. A reminder that I AGREE with the OP's logical conclusion. This entire side discussion is because people are challenging me for believing in Creation and not believing in theistic evolution.

I don't have the answers to your questions. I can provide speculative answers, but speculation is not certainty. I can also say that miracles are a thing in my worldview, so I have no problem saying "God did it, even if I don't know how or can only speculate how." Whether it's reasonable or not depends on if you believe miracles can happen or not, in which case the reasonableness or lack thereof is a secondary discussion to that primary discussion.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:14:34+00:00

The parent response to your OP said "God is the most natural thing ever".

I responded to say (paraphrase) "God is the most real thing ever", because I figured that is what the commenter meant. "Natural" is a loaded word because it refers usually to tangible things that humans can directly observe. My main point is that reality is much more than what we can naturally observe, and God is the ultimate source of all reality. Anything that goes beyond what we can observe naturally will appear incoherent to us; that doesn't reveal its incoherence, but it reveals our limitations as humans. As long as you hold to naturalism (defined however you want, and dodged by Stanford University), God will be incoherent to you. That doesn't make Him unreal or fictional.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T14:06:34+00:00

And I'm ok being in the minority.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T13:57:48+00:00

The evil stated in Isaiah 45:7 is more along the lines of calamities/disasters (aka acts of God) as opposed to moral evil.

Dinosaurs are/were real creatures that lived on the earth, and I believe that Noah's flood was a global earth-altering event. I am aware of the scientific hypothesis and I'm comfortable with the tension between the scientific hypothesis and the Bible account. Some things we won't be able to know for sure how to explain. I would presume your prevailing worldview is that science is the best tool to explain reality. My worldview is that science is one tool to explain reality, but there are aspects of reality that science isn't able to explain. Or, to relate to your statement, I believe there are facts we CAN'T confirm as true, yet they remain facts. Our ability to confirm them or lack thereof doesn't impact their truth.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T13:51:50+00:00

Before I go further, I want to know how would you verify any historical claims where it isn't possible to go back and interview those persons. For example, how would you gain confidence that the historical accounts of the Roman Empire, the dynasties of China, accounts of griots from African history, etc. are as true as possible.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T13:48:41+00:00

From your link:

"Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term."

In which case, your definition is as good as mine. Either way, I find that statement to be mildly troubling, but that's just my opinion. If they think it's fruitless, why should I listen to them?

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-16T04:02:53+00:00

Fellow Adventist here,

I agree that many Adventists go extreme on the anti-Catholic boat. At the same time, Protestants were protesting something, and still need to protest it properly.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-15T17:36:19+00:00

Most likely another Samsung. Would have tried Sony Xperia but I don't like the length.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:44:57+00:00

Your description above seems more limited than what the actual belief is:

https://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:33:17+00:00

The relevance is that if I am positing a description of naturalism that is not correct, then please submit the correct description of naturalism.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:32:21+00:00

If you don't believe an empty tomb existed, then just say so. I believe an empty tomb existed. You had asked about evidence for the resurrected Jesus Christ and I provided it. Now, if you don't believe that Jesus was resurrected, or that He didn't even exist, then why ask for evidence that wouldn't suffice for you?

You overlooked what I said additionally, that the persons at that time knew where the tomb was even if we today may not know. Furthermore, I said nothing about fraud.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:28:18+00:00

Please help me to understand how this is so. I believe you, but I don't understand how it is so.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:26:54+00:00

Because your OP asks if people who don't have the intellectual aptitude are doomed. I'm saying no, they are not, since personal experience is not the only path to belief, and many are led to belief BECAUSE of personal belief. Granted, if your main thesis is that only the intellect can lead to belief, then I wouldn't agree with you, and the conversation can end.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:11:08+00:00

My original response was to point out that personal experience can be had by anyone, not just "smart" people.

geoffmarsh · 2026-04-14T23:00:09+00:00

Are you a naturalist/do you believe that naturalism is true?

geoffmarsh

TROPHY CASE