3RU7AL

You listed three religions that have contradictions to them concerning their gods, so logic dictates they cannot all be correct if any are. Now you are off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. Here they are again:

1. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? (they are contrary beliefs about gods)

2. What is it you want me to gather from these links? (about these specific gods?)

Here are two more questions:

1. Are Vishnu, Marduk, or Pangu the same god, and if so what is said about them should not be contradictory?

2. Do you believe the descriptions of these gods contain contradictions?

if someone like Ojeda (my personal favorite Democrat) did it, it would work because that's true to who he is and his background.  But, for most, it's not advisable.

>Are you actually YYW and how can you prove?

Sort of silly to think that I'd have to prove that I am who I say I am, but that said given the recent fake Airmax profile that's understandable to ask.

In light of that, though, the tedium of posting "proof" sufficient on this website would be greater than the utility of you all having the assurance that I am not an imposter. 

So, you've got three options:

1. Get a hangout going, like in the evening and we talk.

2. Email me.

3. Facebook.

lol

I don't know why "good" would be logically incoherent.

We're not discussing christian doctrine.

Define what you mean by the term "God"

A prime, eternal consciousness 

In short, when someone is "morally good" we're referring to their disposition or will. "Moral goodness" cannot exist apart from the mind, period, since both are only attributes of the mind. So one half of the dilemma fails. 

The other half, determining whether God's goodness is arbitrary or not, depends on whether God's nature is essential or inessential. If God's nature is essential, goodness is not arbitrary. In light of this, the dilemma fails.

It is your belief that because no evidence has been found for some events recorded in the Bible that it is a fiction, yet many other events are proven by archeological evidence. You pick and choose only the points the boost your belief and you try to make this event a falsity yet you never consider the other possibilities, a few of which I pointed out. 

And more insults and ad hominems. 

If you create something, did you exist before you created it?

Liar and troll. Thanks for not taking your own advice. 

Blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic...sound reasonable?

You really need to get your head around the fact that what you believe are the words of men.

Another assertion that you cannot prove.

I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.

What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is? 

From Ancient India - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

From Ancient Babylon - https://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc11.htm

From Ancient China - https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/pangu-and-chinese-creation-myth-00347

They contain three contradictory accounts. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? When I asked for your evidence I did not ask for a link and thirty thousand pages of reading. What is it you want me to gather from these links?

He just did. He's also said no one should discuss a religion they aren't in. He is an atheist. Making every post a hypocritical statement. 

A lot of people think 'original sin' refers to Adam and Eve being disobedient, but it actually refers to each of us being a sinner from our origin (ie conception) in our mother's womb so we are born as sinners right from our origin.   We are all of us born already tainted with 'original sin'.

That is all but one of us - Mary.  Mary was uniquely not tainted with original sin in order she was fit to bear Jesus.  Mary was conceived sinless (ie imacculate) in her mother's womb.   Hence it was Mary who was immmaculately conceived, not Jesus.  'Imaculate conception' is not the same thing as the 'virgin birth'. 

Good Catholics are taught all that, but many Protestants aren't taught Catholic theology!

He's lying. 

Keith has stated discussing a religion you are not in is wrong. Any posts by him at this point are lies and trolling. 

You assume that I assume these things because you can't seem to comprehend the idea of not having an affirmative belief of the origins of the universe. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean I assumed something.

People generally get original sin and immacuate conception wrong too.

A BBC documentary and associated book that goes into a lot of detail about instinct behaviour, and actually cites a lot of nature vs nurture research.

I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 

Which is more reasonable?

Then I choose chance.

How could you quantify the harm or benefit of a moral action? The relative harm or benefit will always be in relation to a goal. A thermometer doesnt need to involve goals to give you a reading.

They aren't even the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, women are loved by the church just as men.

No, women are not the same as men.

A man cannot carry a child and give birth.

Woman have a wonderful gift in that regard, and this modern idea that it is a shameful thing to be a mother is a reflection of how perverse the prevailing culture is.

There are plenty female martyrs.

A disciple is one who practices a discipline. There are female disciples.

Gender equality is a myth and and it has nothing to do with being desirable or undesirable.

72 years

Men and women are not treated the same way by the world. 

A man traveling around the world alone is not going to face the kind of problems a woman traveling alone will.

There were many female disciples,

but a female should not be someone who is sent out into a foreign country to spread the good news. In fact, every single one of the apostles with one exception was martyred in some gruesome way. The one that didn't die? He was boiled alive, but lived. Guess he lucked out.

But men and women are different, and they have to deal with different issues.

The idea that we are all the same is ridiculous as even in socieites that like to pretend this is the case, one cannot help but observe that it is impossible for men and women to not treat eachother differently than they do their own sex.

On an individual level? Maybe, but not on a societal level. Besides that, it is contrary to nature, and ultimately not truly desirable.

We are different, and that is ok. Lets make it complimentary and cooperative rather than a point of covetousness or contention.

If every atheist was a genocidal megaloaniac pedophile it wouldn't prove or disprove the existence of god.  If you want to argue god is a useful fiction that is a seperate issue!

Some issues aren't so black and white as abortion, which creates moral dilemmas

There is no god that can be competition to God, and man woman relations have been established by nature.

And we Christians are to submit to eachother. We serve. eachother. If you are trying to imply that the way we do marriage is wrong, Inwill have you know that I am very happy with my marriage, so is my spouse. Please, if you want an example of women being subservient to men in the way you are inagining, look at Islam. Compare the two. Women certainly have dignity and respect in Orthodoxy. I think it is worth pointing out that Mary is revered above all the saints, and that we have many female saints besides.

It seems to me that you are offended.

I just don't understand how any of them change anything about epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.

The biblical teaching is God has revealed Himself, thus it would be via His thoughts written down and by His interactions in the world and universe. 

From a created universe you would expect to find things that give evidence of a Creator, like finding reasons in what we see. We find meaning and reasons why things are the way they are. We don't create those reasons, we discover them. The reasons were there before we thought them. The laws of logic or the laws of gravity or any natural law, such as the laws of thermodynamics do not depend on your reasoning for their existence. They exist independent of your reasoning. 

"Reasoning" is a mindful process, yet these laws are not dependent on your mind, or mine, and yet you find they are reasonable. 

You start out with the premise that God does not exist 

I start out, like anyone, with the premise that nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable).

If all phenomena are unreliable then don't worry about looking both ways when you cross the street. That car coming at you is unreliable. It is not there. Nothing exists. Now see how your thought process works in the real world (Nice knowing you!). Do you see the inconsistency of such a statement? 

or there is no evidence for God and you look for your explanations by excluding God as the likely reason. 

The axiom "there is no god" is absolutely nowhere in my ontology.

It must be somewhere or you would not have stated it.

You can conceptualize God. You are discussing God. You have beliefs ABOUT God.

Nevertheless, you deny God.

How can you discuss Someone/thing you have no belief about?

If I said pink unicorn you would conjure up an image of a horse with a horn in the middle of its head, so there is a belief there.

You also have a concept of the color pink. You believe it is different than the color green or purple or you have a wrong conception of pink. "Pink" is the word we use to describe a particular color or hue. Unicorn/God is the word we use to describe a particular being.    

You build your whole worldview from its core belief on outward like the layers of onion on materialism and naturalism.   

My "whole worldview" is based on the core belief that, "I think, therefore I am".

Then have you stuffed everything into a very small narrow box in which things are hanging out that don't fit into your neat little box? Have you not contemplated how you got here unless you believe you created yourself (novel idea - self-creation; also self-refuting) or everything is an illusion? And what about your parents? You mentioned them earlier. 

Prima facie, axiomatic "atheism" has absolutely nothing to do with epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.

The worldview is constructed on particular premises. It looks for naturalistic means to explain things. 

I mean, I certainly believe it is fair to say that Spinoza's god exists.

I don't know much of Spinoza or his teaching, so what you are saying is not being comprehended except that I believe he thought everything was god or held to pantheism (the universe is god and god is the universe). The biblical God, on the other hand, is personal and distinct from the universe.

While this is true that you need your mind to comprehend anything your mind is not a necessary mind and what you perceive is not always what really is. So how can you be sure your mind is rightly discerning something?

So what was molding your development if there was no intent or agency behind it, and what maintains it (the uniformity of nature)? Again, how does chance happenstance sustain anything? Things just happen. Why should they continue to happen in a prescribed pattern that we call a law of nature? There is no reason unless there is a Reasonable Being behind the universe sustaining it. Reason comes from mindful beings. Show me a stone that is reasonable or reasoning. 

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

So, if you hear the message faith can arise from it because God's thoughts are being conveyed to you. 

Logic is verifiable by its efficacy.

But if everything is material, how do you get something immaterial like logic. It can't be touched, tasted, seen, felt, or heard. Grab hold of logic for me. 

Grab hold of the concept of verifiability for me. 

Yes, it is for you have to believe something to disbelieve God. 

This is provably false.  Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past.

Is that a belief?

The thing that makes human beings meaningful is not the fact that we were created by God so much as it is that we are created in the image of God.

And the discipline of the Christian is to clean that image so that we can be truly human rather than reduce ourselves to the bestial level through our predispositions to idolatry and being slaves to the flesh.

Yet Jesus said that the servant among you is the greatest. That is the example of love we are given by him.

What does that mean? It means that the love a husband has for their wife should resemble that of a servant

But woman being the head isn't precedent, and if and when everything in society falls apart and we are catapulted back into the dark ages, it will be very clear to everyone why woman has to submit to the man in the end, as it was for all but 99% of human history and in select geographic locations in that time.

Nah. Submission and love are two different things.

Part of the mystery of the incarnation is that it sanctifies all of creation.

Contrasts this with the error of the gnostics and other dualists who by contrast take God's creation as dirty and even evil.

Why do you take people as being of equal worth as bacteria?

You say this, but I doubt you've ever known a bacteria as you've known another person.

I am of course talking about God, not your parents.

Faith is believing confidently in anything that does not have verifiable and or logical evidence, like bigfoot or the lochness monster.

There are three kinds of faith that I'm aware of; reasonable faith, unreasonable faith, and blind faith.

The Christian faith is reasonable. It gives reasonable and logical evidence for its belief in God.

For example, prophecy deals with history before it happens, and history happens as prescribed. How reasonable is it to say that prophecy does take place before the facts before the history occurs? I believe it can be shown to be extremely reasonable and I think your case logically falls apart when you try to prove that prophecy was written after rather than before the fact. I keep challenging those who have a good working knowledge of prophecy to debate the subject. So far I have only had a few takers, and on DDO, not here to any in-depth degree of discussion. I got more assertions than proof of the position that prophecy was written after the fact/historical event.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.  All epistemology begins with the statement "I think, therefore I am".  It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

Yes, it is all about how we know what we know.

What would be necessary for you to know about your origins or why you exist? Science can sometimes answer the how, but not why. It more often than not speculates about origins. 

Epistemology rests on zero assumptions.

But do you know you are not created?

Do you know a blind, indifferent chance is your maker?

Knowledge would be a certainty. You can't be sure of something unless you know it, can you?

I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.

What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is? 

Atheists believe there are no Gods. 

The one who gave you life and everything else cannot give your life meaning as well?

Are you willing to live with faith in His standard (His Son) or do you think your own is adequate? You either meet His just requirements and standards through what the Son has done on your behalf, or you are responsible for meeting those requirements on your own merit. How well do you think your merit measures up?

Your accusations of "atheist bias" (even if 100% valid) grant zero credibility to your conclusions.

Why is that? 

Do you recognize that we all hold bias? 

If you believe God does not exist how will you ever know Someone you deny exists? 

If you are acting on your mind being necessary on understanding the universe, or even yourself, how well are you doing in that understanding? 

Why do we exist? 

Are you a fluke of nature?

What would be necessary for certainty? 

Logic is not material in nature, but abstract and immaterial. So how do you get something immaterial from the strictly material?

Atheism is not a "system of belief".  Atheism is a general skepticism of unverifiable phenomena, like Russell's teapot.

Yes, it is for you have to believe something to disbelieve God.

You start out with the premise that God does not exist 

or there is no evidence for God and you look for your explanations by excluding God as the likely reason.

You build your whole worldview from its core belief on outward like the layers of onion on materialism and naturalism.  

Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".

PGA2.0 is not arguing for a deistic being - I am not sure if anyone in this thread is.

Please explain to me which gods are real and why anyone should care.

Not sure what that has to do with my claim that your atheistic worldview is a system of belief.

Atheism is, and isn't, a system of belief. This is because the term atheism encompasses two mutually exclusive meanings.