Paul, a false prophet?

So you admit that he did say that he had a vision. What you do not add to your most eloquent post above is the fact that he also changed his story and started calling the vision a 'dream'. But he only changed his story after I challenged his positive claim of having had a vision. My challenging him on the claim of having a vision (which you declare to be impossible to prove) is equal to an atheist challenging a theist who claims to have seen God, seen Jesus, was visited by the Holy Spirit. Your action is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

You can not prove that you had a vision. A vision is like a dream. No one outside the person who has it has any concept of what the person's dream or vision was. Demanding proof of a vision simply means you have no idea of what a vision is. It's like asking a person who thinks they saw a ghost to prove they saw one, therefore demanding they prove that ghosts exist.

God may not even exist.....So asking someone to prove they had a vision sent by him is demandng that they prove his existence in a literal sense, which as we said, is impossible.

 

An amazing analogy you have established for the benefit of theists. We can now quote you on why it is inappropriate for non-theists to attempt to force theists to provide proof for the existence of God.

BTW: Above you admit that "A vision is like a dream". You did not state that "A vision is a dream". Gee that photo looks like me, so I guess that photo must be the real me. or Gee that plastic orange looks like a real orange, so I guess it must be a real orange. Yeah... "LIKE".

Then using your preferred logic above, you nor any of the other non-theists have any right or legitimate purpose in challenging any of the theists with regard to what the theists claim with regard to God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. To do so, in your own words would be "demanding they prove his existence in a literal sense, which as we said, is impossible." End of all Atheist/Theist debates relating to the existence of God.

 

I personally do not demand anything.....So I can't tell you why others do it.

But, you are the only one on this thread that is demanding proof that does not exist.

 

But that is part of the scientific method. When someone declares something to be a fact, they are required to show proof of their claim. That scientific method does not stipulate any exceptions to the rule. If you make a claim in the affirmative, then you have to prove it. I am only applying the scientific method rule/law/requirement to his stated claim which discloses an alleged FACT.

 

A vision can not be proven in a scientific way. Neither can the existence or non-existence of God. God exists solely on the faith of his followers and theirfore can not be proven to exist or not to exist. Visions from god are the same way. Someone has a dream and thinks it was a vision. They can not prove that it was, but you can not prove that it was not. Therefore, you calling him a liar over him not being able to prove it, makes you a hipocrit, since you can't prove that he didn't have a vision.

 

That is not a problem of mine. A vision is an observation. He stated emphatically that he had a vision. I demand proof of his observation per the requirement of the scientific method. If he cannot provide that proof of claim, then he is a liar.

Now you are making an absolute statement without having proof to support your assertion of alleged fact.

"dreams"? We are talking about the 'vision' that our dear visionary had. Even you have already admitted that a vision is LIKE a dream. Silently advancing the idea of a difference between the two. Now you are wanting to silently advance the idea that they are the same. You need to make up your mind.

I am not saying that he did or did not have a vision. I am saying that he admitted that he had a vision. Big difference from what you are suggesting. I am only placing judgment on what he said,,,, not what he experienced. However, because he said that his experience was a 'vision', I want proof of that assertion.

I am not the one who made the positive assertion. The burden of proof rule.... remember that one.

 

If you want to BELIEVE in Paul's vision than that is your choice......but you can't prove that he had one. and "The bible says he did" is not proof. And many early christians believed him to be a fraud.

 

Don't go changing the subject. We (you and I) have been discussing the vision that GO said that he had,,,, not the one that Paul/Saul had.

Just because GO said he had one is not proof. Am I now to assume that GO, is also a 'fraud'?

 

And GO and I have both explained that you can ot prove that someone had a vision or not. What is he supposed to do, pull it from it mind and show it to you? it's not possible to prove whether he had one or not. He believes he did, but again he can not prove it, since there is no physical evidence of his vision, it's in his mind. It might not have even been a vision. He may have just had a very strange dream and remembered enough of it to think it was a vision. But again, that can not be proven as well......Nothing that has to do with religious visions can be proven, since it depends solely on the faith of the person involved. If you can't get that through your head than drop the topic, GO and I have paid our case, if you disagree than there is no point in continueing the debate. especially since you are not making a single valid poit, and just keep on demanding that GO shows proof of his vision, which does not exist.

 

The dispute is not whether or not he had one. The dispute is the claim that he made stating emphatically 'yes' to the question "have you had a vision...". His affirmative 'yes' is all that is necessary to impose upon him the scientific requirement of 'proof of claim'.

He made the claim, it is up to him how he delivers the proof.

Irrelevant and not the point in issue.

Now you are (in a round about way) saying that he lied, when he emphatically stated 'yes' to my inquiry. I BELIEVE in God and in the existence of God: I get a lot of grief from Atheists and non-theists behind expressing such beliefs without being able to show proof of my belief. Does your rationalization then authorize the Theists to deliver to GO the same type of grief that is imposed on the Theists?

More rationalizations? Those are merely excuses that are designed to hide the fact that he admitted that he had a 'vision'. I am not interested in what MIGHT have been. I am only interested in what he states actually happened... ie... he had a 'vision'.

Oh! So if he had a vision of something that was not of a religious nature, that sort of vision could be proven?

If there is no proof, then the lack of proof of a vision is proof that he lied about having a vision. That is the same type of judgment that is passed upon the Theists... so once again, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. My point is this. He made a positive claim; I applied the scientific method based upon his observation and required proof of that observation; he has no proof of that observation; he also did not submit any declaration of truth; subsequently it is determined that he did not speak 'truth' when he made his claim.

 

1; When you asked for proof, he said he could not give it.

2; it was explained whyy he could not give it; Since it would mean proving something that happened only in his mind, which is impossible

3; The fact that he can't show proof is not irrelevant. I have explained several times that something that is based in religion can not be proven using scientific means. No matter how many time you ask for proof he can't give solid scientific proof. In the same way you can't give proof that your god exists.

 

Are you now suggesting that the requirement of the scientific method, ie... to show proof of claim... is not a requirement at all? Are you suggesting that the scientific method and its rules are a farce? Either the requirement is a valid requirement and he is obligated to show proof, else the requirement is not valid and everybody then has the right to fabricate any claim that they want and do not have to show proof of that claim. You cannot have it both ways.

I notice above that you are also now attempting to execute a variation of a former statement of yours. In the former statement you said '...a vision that is based in religion cannot be proven using scientific means...' Now you change that to "...something that is based in religion can not be proven using scientific means. " What say we stay with the specific topic of 'visions' as opposed to the generic term 'something'... by staying specific, we both know that we are still on the same page.

Right now, all you are accomplishing is showing the entire forum how pathetic the process of rationalization (making of excuses) really is.

 

Nope, I said something that is based 100% on the faith of the person who believes it can't be disproven using science, since faith is not bound by science. So your claims that he should have to show prove that he had a visin make no sense.

He feels he had a religious vision. Why should he have to prove it? Do you accept people demanding that you can't claim god exists without 100% scientific proof? Anything based in faith can not and does not have to be proven or disproven. All that matters is the person beleives in it.

 

Keep your alleged quoted comments correct. Changing what you stated previously does not help your case.

An emotional appeal? How interesting. Are you perhaps holding PM conversations with him and he is telling you what to say? How do you KNOW what he feels. Are you attached to his mind in some metaphysical manner?

The point is and remains... he made a positive claim... and subject to the rule/law/requirement of the scientific method, that claim has to be proven. All these rationalizations are simply ruining any credibility that you might have had in the past. You nor he cannot avoid that FACT by making excuses for him.

 

Well! LOL! It is rather convenient that a man who was chasing down and prosecuting Christians (apparently not enough of them) says he has a vision of Jesus, then takes over the group - then adds in paganism and changes the religion. I think he won!

 

He stated that he had a religious vision, therefore it's safe to assume to beleives he had one....It's that simple.

A vision exists only in the mind of the person who has it, therefore can not be proven to exists outside of the person saying they had a vision. Also, most visions are just dreams, they human subconcious does alot of things that can't understand.

It would be easier just to examine what exactly a religious vision is...
A religious vision is a dream, that is supposedly used by God to send a message. These dreams can be had in the sleep, such as the ones Joseph and Mary supposedly had that told of Jesus, or it can be while someone is awake, which is more rare, such as the one that Paul supposely had.

These visions are 100% completely in the mind of the person having them. In Paul's case, he had two other men with him, neither of which saw or heard any of the things that he did.

The fact that only the person having the vision can see or hear them, means that it is completely dependent on the belief of this person on whether it was a vision or not. I have had dreams myself that might have been visions, I just assume they were not. Others assume that all dreams are visions, I can't prove that they are not, and neither can you.

There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the validity of a vision, anymore than one can prove the existence or non-existence of god. It is based completely on the faith and beliefs of the person who has the vision. You asked him if he ever had a vision, and he said yes. He cannot, and does not have to, prove to you whether or not the vision was real.

 

No. He stated that he had a vision about Jesus. Quite making excuses by adding to what he stated.

Then don't you think it would be more appropriate for you to counsel him on not making affirmative declarations regarding 'religion'? No-one forced him to make that declaration. He also is aware of the rules pertaining to the scientific method and the requirement of proof of claim. So all the excuses you come up with are washed down the drain. It makes no difference what science can prove... I am not asking science to prove anything. I am requiring GO to prove a claim that he made.

So now you have to stoop to making personal attacks.

According to what authority?

We are not talking about dreams. We are talking about visions. Based on your repeated use of the term 'supposedly' in reference to 'visions', I highly suspicion that you do not believe in 'visions' anyway. In that event, all of your comments are thereby reduced to mere opinions based on your personal prejudice and bias.

Now you revert back to the use of the term 'visions'.
"hallucination, illusion, apparition, revelation, ghost, phantom, delusion, spectre, mirage, wraith, chimera, phantasm, eidolon She heard voices and saw visions of her ancestors." How interesting.

Now you revert to making false representations.
"Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. "

Proven false using the same Bible story you relate to.

I won't assume anything regarding your dreams and or visions. However, for you to say that I "can't" is highly presumptuous. You have no idea of what I can or cannot do.

Again, no-one is questioning the validity of the vision GO had, I merely challenge him to prove he had a vision.

Again, the question is not whether the vision was real or not, but rather, the challenge is to prove that he had a vision.

Are you a Theist?

 

First, I would like to point out that almost every vision in the bible comes in the form of a dream. Mary and Joseph came to them while they slept, so did the visions that Joseph, son of Jacob interpeted for the Pharoh. So, your claim that a dream and a vision are never the same thing, is wrong.


Second, I think you have the wrong idea about the definition of the word can't, or can not......."It means to be unable to". For example, I feel safe in saying that you can't jump 100 feet into the air and turning into a duck. I also feel comfortable in saying that you CAN"T prove or disprove any claims of a religious vison. I beleive this because, as I said, their belief that they had a vision is a matter of faith. It can not be proven or disproven. There is a chance that GO thinks he had a vision, but didn't. He can't prove that what he saw was a vision, anymore than you can prove it was not.

And third, While your quotes about Paul's vision does make me realize that I was wrong on the point that the others in the story did not hear anything, it also makes me laugh over the fact that you are quoting Paul's writing as fact. Paul saying he had a vision is not proof. Paul could have made the whole thing up. But, as I said before, I can't disprove him claims of having a vision.

 

Are you kidding ?

What is the problem that you see ? That we may be saved by grace and truth ???

 

I never said that a dream and a vision are not the same. I go with the definition wherein they are similar. Just like you said... "a vision is LIKE a dream". Also, we WERE speaking about on Bible vision in particular (that of Saul) and the alleged vision of GO. Stay with the already established parameters.

I completely understand, comprehend and even apprehend the meaning of the term "can't" or "can not". You apparently don't understand or comprehend the notion that you do not KNOW what I am capable of. Do you KNOW me personally? Have we ever met in person? Do you even KNOW my real name? So for you to say that I "can't" is merely your presumption, because you really don't KNOW.

Well bravo. You finally caught on. Now consider the fact that GO changed his story and switched from using the term 'vision' to using the term 'dream'. Noting that you admit that a vision is LIKE a dream (thus acknowledging a difference -- a non-sameness), he then is altering his original statement causing his original statement to no longer be the FACT (in accordance with his declaration of "yes") and instead has become a falsehood. He lied. The greatness or smallness of a lie is irrelevant, as a lie is a lie... an untruth.

 

Paul won out over James who believed you first had to become a Jew before you became a Christian.

 

Since no one can foretell the future, then all prophets are false.

 

Then all of the prophets operating within the field of science are also false prophets. Some would say "science will find an answer to that one day". A necessarily false prophecy according to your statement.

 

You have no clue about scientific method.

The fact is that you do not know what you are talking about.

The fact is that I did not declare anything to be fact.

The fact is that you have no proof of your claim to having conversations with the Holy Ghost.

The fact is that no one is required to do anything regardless of what they state.

The fact is that you called me a liar without cause which means you are delusional.

The fact is that you cant even give strait answers to simple questions.

The fact is that you have to avoid the obvious in order to maintain your beliefs.

and finally .. The big elephant fact in the room ..

It is a fact that people who claim to receive messages from the Holy Spirit through daily conversations and then relate those messages to others is speaking for God.