Well, similarly, other people understanding also doesn't help us. I can believe when I understand, not before. Either way, it seems to be sidestepping the issue of whether God *must* prove that he exists.
sorry but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. doesn't matter if we are talking about alien abduction, life on Mars, or Jesus.
You are not losing me at all. You simply are not providing evidence to substantiate your claim. It makes no difference as to the writing style of other people. Grammar is grammar whether it is used in a fictional writing or a writing dealing with substance. "is" forms a declarative statement... a declarative statement is a positive assertion... positive assertions must be backed by substantiating evidence or argument.
so you expect me to believe in a massive super-natural being without any evidence that I can observe? haha!!!! no thank you. You rely on faith, I'll rely on evidence and proof.
That's because, as you've made clear now in this post, you've badly misunderstood my claim. Here it is again: "My argument was that this is a normal way that people write about fictional characters." The claim was about popular writing styles. Of course the writing of other people makes a difference -- that's literally what the entire claim is all about. Again, this complaint is based on not understanding the claim. Grammar is far more fluid than you are attempting to make it out to be, as the examples I've provided (examples which you will find by reading any book review or any literary journal) demonstrate. This is how people generally write about fictional characters. You can hate it, you can complain about it, but pretending that this isn't the way that people consistently write about fictional characters is absurd.
... says the Bible, a book full of myths and legends. BTW, God better does not prove that he exists. Then nobody would have to believe in him anymore.
Don't ask me, I hold that he doesn't have to. I argue only that providing a solid justification for belief is (or should be) necessary for us to believe, I have not drawn the conclusion that it is God's responsibility to make sure that we do believe. However, we are not God, we don't decide whether proof should be available, we decide only what we believe given the evidence we have. If God doesn't provide proof, then we are not justified in believing, just like we would not be justified in believing in Odin if we have not been given appropriate justification for belief.
I have no expectations regarding you. Quit being presumptive and continue relying on evidence and proof. BTW: You might want to do some further scholarly study on what constitutes 'evidence' and 'proof'.
As I understand it (and as I have phrased my arguments), this discussion is about whether there lies (or would lie) some duty on God to provide evidence, not what the nature of that evidence would be.
Some beliefs have justification and some don't. This is why knowledge is typically referred to as justified, true belief. The fact that it is justified does not make the "belief" part disappear. I have very good reasons for believing I have ten toes, but I still believe I have ten toes.
That does not explain the "have to" part of the equation. " be·lief (bĭ-lēf′) n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." Notice in the above there are no requirements mandating a justification. " jus·ti·fy (jŭs′tə-fī′) tr.v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies 1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances. 2. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God. 3. Law a. To demonstrate sufficient legal reason for (an action taken). b. To prove to be qualified as a bondsman. 4. To format (a paragraph, for example) so that the lines of text begin and end evenly at a straight margin." So which of the definitions of justify best fits your agenda ?
For the person that believes, justification in the eyes of God is all that is important. " Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
We were not speaking about generalities... we were speaking about a specific statement made without any disclaimer or any other qualifications.
In a conversation with another member, you jumped into the conversation and at your second posting in that conversation you stated "You assuredly did the same in your own lit classes." I challenged that assertion of yours to which you still have not provided any evidence to substantiate your assertion. From that point you went off on a tangent addressing other issues in an attempt to avoid the challenge. Disingenious at best on your part.
That is your choice and I don't recall anyone suggesting that you do anything that you are not willing to do.
And I addressed that complaint already. It very well may be true that you somehow managed to pass your lit classes with convoluted language to the contrary; it is highly unlikely, but at least theoretically possible. But your entire conversation/complaint was based on the claim that such language somehow commits the speaker/writer to a claim about the literal, actual, physical existence of the referent. This is clearly untrue, as the examples indicate.
Wrong again... my complaint is based on the proper use of grammar. That proper use is partly defined in the definitions of terms as they are written... not as one would like the words to mean. "is" is indicative of 'be' and be means to exist. Plain and simple but that may be difficult for you to understand. Also, you still have not provided the necessary paperwork to substantiate your assertion regarding my lit classes.
There is no feature of English grammar that requires that all objects of the verb "to be" are actual, concrete, physical objects in the real world. We refer to abstract and fictional objects all of the time. If you weren't aware of that then I don't know how you got through basic math, much less lit. The "proper use of grammar" here is purely your invention. If you were to actually look at how the English language is used and consult the book reviews and literary journals I've suggested, then you would see that. You are over-reliant on your misuse of dictionaries, which are intended to be descriptive not prescriptive, and which typically offer more than one definition, even for the verb "to be," while you insist that only one of those definitions is appropriate without explaining why. If you can find me even one grammarian who agrees with your assessment that the use of a fictional or abstract object as a subject or object is necessarily a commitment to the claim that it exists in actuality, I'll gladly consider. Sadly, such a grammarian is likely as fictional as Huck Finn.
Once again you show your imprecision on the naming of a "verb" and therefore your prowess at using proper grammar. The word "to" is a preposition not a verb. So go lecture someone else regarding their convoluted use of language.
remember, back then there was no internet, he and his followers probably spread many "alternative facts" in their time too - who does that remind you of? follow me and I will get you into heaven, nobody gets people into heaven better then me... believe me