Back when I was still making up my mind, weighing the evidence and justifying the many claims of the Bible, there was one that stood out. You see Paul has written down: "For when I am weak, then I am strong." What? That was something I had stopped and relentlessly pursued such a claim to verify exactly what that means and whether it really holds up.

So addone, I want you to do what I did and interrogate this claim. Is it really true? Does it hold up in the world we know today? What is it saying exactly? I want to hear your thought process.

2 Corinthians 12:9-10 ESV

9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

i bet there is a reason your shuck n jive dont come with a link

Gibberish

Gibberish eh? So what you are telling not just me but everybody here is that you will come up with your own initial thought and declare that to be true and correct without attempting to do a little investigation on the matter?

You have a knee-jerk like reaction?

With that logic, if you hear a crashing sound in the living room and then find the younger child standing in front of the broken vase, you would immediately assume they did it.

But what if they haven't had a chance to explain that the older child broke the vase and then ran away?

I really do hope that you never have the misfortune of somebody playing that TV Broken Screen Saver prank on you. Not only would you fall for it, hook, line and sinker but it would also be recorded and uploaded to YouTube for all our enjoyment for your initial reaction.

5 user(s) are reading this topic (3 guests, 1 anonymous): , addone

Found something for you

It's religious word salad I am not going to hurt my brain trying to decode it. You haven't made an argument or presented any falsifiable evidence. Wasting everyone's time.
Come back when you can form a real argument and proof in hand not whatever this is.

Validity vs Soundness article
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

This post was edited by addone on May 16 2026 10:58pm

this is completely circular to say logic is purely descriptive. to observe a pattern, conduct science, or compare a description to an object, you must already be utilizing the laws of logic. you cannot use an empirical observation to justify the very tools required to make the observation in the first place. you are smuggling the validity of logic, this fails a basic humean skepticism on induction

when he says "If things had been different, then logic would be different." it completely undermines their capacity to argue and misunderstands what universal invariant laws of logic are, if logic is simply utility then truth itself is impossible and the possibility of knowledge becomes impossible. it becomes impossible to even form a meaningful sentence, yet alone a critique on the validity of Christianity, again this is a very basic metaphysical critique.

this person collapses everything into nominalism, which is admitting defeat on the possibility of truth itself. you can no longer argue whether God exists or not in this position. there is no longer objectivity or the possibility of access to truth.

This post was edited by majorblood on May 16 2026 11:36pm

Logic is a human discovery/invention a mental tool to help us evaluate conclusions follow premises in a systematic framework. Aristotle defined it by setting formal standards or rules which are foundational assumptions. Logic in of itself is circuar because it relies on axioms or first principals.

We can have a meaningful critique on the validity of christianity by proving physical poof for it's claims. If you don't have proof then you cannot call it real. You may induce hallucinations within yourself and assume it to be real but without demonstrable proof you can't convince me.

So why are you avoiding giving proof for its magical claims?

Why do we use logic in the first place? Its to distinguish between valid reasoning vs invalid reasoning. Why do I ask you for physical demonstrable proof? Because it tends to be reliable form of validity. Much more than haresay or faulty logic which are weak arguments. If you have both strong logical argument, physical proof and a demonstration that can be observed, measured, felt and corroborated by multiple independent sources including myself then we call it real.


So I ask you to present concrete proof of your god not epistomology or theory of knowledge or whatever philosophical meta conversation tangent you trying derail this conversation into.

This post was edited by addone on May 17 2026 04:59am

Corellation doesnt equal causation stop arguing from ignorance people.

Just because you see butterflies doesn't mean a magical being created them. Just because you prayed to jesus doesn't mean your alcohol addiction went away. Just because you found your car keys doesn't mean god made them visible to you.
Christians naively say "life can't just be an accident and so I am convinced it was made by a magical entity"

You need to be able to explain how you arrived at that conclusion, make a sound logical connection or an emperical scientific method. Is it pure ignorance/blind faith or was there some concrete proof?

John 16:13 TPT
[13] But when the truth-giving Spirit comes, he will unveil the reality of every truth within you. He won’t speak on his own, but only what he hears from the Father, and he will reveal prophetically to you what is to come.

https://bible.com/bible/1849/jhn.16.13.TPT