Speaking of a non-response! How does this not address your challenges and questions?
Certainly, gifts are not earned, rewards are.
No, again, that is not the Christian view, faith is not something that is meritorious, it is also a gift, God is the source of it, not us (Heb. 12:2)
I could reply the same! I think I will, another non-response. How have I contradicted myself, for starters?
Because I think the suffering after death is worse, as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).
Yes, and I’m not talking about Catholic purgatory, more like what Lewis described, both of us being Protestants.
Because it’s healthy to acknowledge that we need help, that we are not omnipotent, that we are not God. That’s one reason.
Actually, he’s pointing to reasoning we all do subscribe to, we reject reasoning when we see it comes from nonreasoning causes, and this is not circular. Lewis points out that naturalists feel the need to tacitly ask for an exception for the reasoning they are doing, when they are making their argument that all reasoning is caused by nonreasoning processes. If the position is that there very argument for the cause of reasoning is produced by non-reasoning processes, they know that people will dismiss their argument. Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.
And read the inscriptions? That’s not very easy, the letters are usually odd and even indistinct. But if so, and if you know Latin, then good for you, how then do you know Latin words mean what they say they mean? Eventually “evidence” turns out to be an appeal to authority, as a rule.
There you go, you’re back to saying only what you have examined and verified for yourself, can be beieved. But see above, most of what people claim as what they have verified, eventually leads to an appeal to authority, to “someone’s opinion”.
Oh dear. Doubts raise questions, they don’t answer them. Now I have pointed to various peoples’ doubts, as evidence that they are valid concerns. But I don’t consider them facts, they need to be answered with facts, and evidence, and arguments.
Certainly, the question was, where did I mention them?
It’s expected that people will defend their conclusions, but not every conclusion can be defended in detail, that would require an endless stream of justification and evidence, eventually we have to stop and say, “I believe you when you say this Latin word means that, you don’t have to prove everything to me.” And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random! Oops, I think you just did all that.
But a want does not imply a need. You may want a fleet of Lamborghinis, but you probably don’t need them.
So you are saying the causes of delirium are somehow logical?
My view is that natural selection could possibly produce a brain that has valid reasoning, just like a tornado could assemble my laptop! I think I used that example.
A rational creator might have more purposes than just making perfect machinery. And it’s good if we need help, as I have argued. And I know of one quadriplegic, who concludes that her disability has resulted in her good. Though it’s certainly not good per se.
The Christian claim is that he will, in the new creation. And that this creation has purpose, too.
"“If you think of this world as a place simply intended for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place for training and correction and it’s not so bad.” (C.S. Lewis)
In a puppet show, the puppets aren’t initiating anything in and of themselves, so I think the analogy is apt.
No, I am saying I am the author of my thoughts. That is actually what people think, they don’t think this is a delusion.
And there’s evidence for this, as well. Not to mention that people who think their thoughts are being controlled, get steered to an asylum.
I agree, just my point.
It’’s odd then, that you respond to my points, as if they were coming from a source that is not irrational. And the man in delirium is reasoning quite soundly, I think I made that point, it is the source of his thoughts that is faulty, his premises come from a nonreasoning source, from a delusion.
But you just did that with me! You say I am confused, for instance, and thus you imply that you can reject what I say, you point to the cause of my incorrect reasoning and conclusions.
There is data if I have medical records, which I do.
Many studies have been done, some showing no effect, some showing an effect. You can check into this if you wish.
Right, as I said, it’s a request, not magic, nor some heavenly vending machine. But one really supernatural answer is all that is required here, to prove there is something supernatural going on. Or Someone supernatural. As I mentioned, I was diagnosed with mitral valve syndrome, then I was told by another doctor that I don’t have it anymore, and then another doctor confirmed that heart valves don’t just get better on their own. So I conclude that prayer for me was answered, that this was not due to natural processes, but something supernatural.
I have had a number of such dramatic healings! And some not so dramatic, but as they pile up, they being to be rather undeniable.
I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”