Bones

@Bones

Meh, some people don't like formal debates that much.

"you could learn more here in the forums if you stop trying to prove yourself right. You keep threatening people with debates but it's silly, I'm right here, if you want to show me something all you have to do is reply to me." - EtrnlVw, #14

And I think he's a point, in formal debates people often try to win, and ignore their opponents arguments,

But of course your d*** move response is to say,

"Challenge sent. Don't be a pussy." - Bones, #16

Look, I don't want to hurt your feelings I think you're a cool dude. Your debates are garbage, have you even read over them? you could learn more here in the forums if you stop trying to prove yourself right. You keep threatening people with debates but it's silly, I'm right here, if you want to show me ... . I'll show you there is an answer to all your dilemmas but if you resist by assuming you can debate everything you will remain in the dark because of your own ignorance and stubbornness. 

Yes, there is causal link - between Wally Grout and shout.

Exactly so your point is null and void. If you concede the same thing between man and God, then your point fails. 

The link between Grout and Shout is rhyming slang.  Yet not between "you pay for the next beer" and "shout".

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Ok. You made an assertion. 

Wrong, as usual. You made an assertion, I asked for evidence, you said find it yourself. 

Hold on Bones, I am not making an assertion here - well except to say it is a Hebrew Idiom

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

I don't think God is a supernatural being. 

Use a descriptive word to describe God. 

God is God.  He is Divine. He is immortal.  He is the creator of everything.  He is not supernatural.  He is entirely natural so far as divine beings go. 

I think birds are birds and animals are animals.  

Yes birds can be birds, but there are other ways to refer to them - they are natural, they are mortal, they aren't omnipotent etc. Try and expand your vocab. 

Birds can fly. This is natural.  If a human flies - it is considered supernatural.  Flying itself is not supernatural except as it is applied to beings who do not naturally fly.  If God flies - it is not supernatural.  If God does divine things it is not supernatural.  It is divine - it is Godlike.  

Be technical. This is your baby - not mine.  

So no to the debating? Thought so. I did share the burden just to make it easy on you. 

I was pleased you did that. 

I don't want to debate though. I was tempted.  

I don't think you know what an idiom is. Idioms such as "once in a blue-moon" still bear a resemblance to the words in the phrase - that is, a blue-moon is rare. What you are attempting to assert is that the phrase "man (X) was made in the image of God (Y)" has no bearing, I repeat, no bearing to X and Y having similarities. Utter ignorance. 

Idioms may or may not relate to the words within their phrases.  In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers. 

Do you even understand how the Wally grout saying arose? In sports, prominent athletes often receive nicknames that  become widely used once they meet with popular approval.Wally's personality added his last name as a rhyming slang for a "Shout", thereby allowing this poetic colloquialism arises in the context of drinking in a drinking establishments such as a pub. 

Yes, I know where this idiom arose.  I understand rhyming slang. Shout is still an idiom.  I figured that in America you would still find "shout" inexplicable so I put into language you could understand.

Yes, there is causal link - between Wally Grout and shout.

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Ok. You made an assertion. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

I don't think God is a supernatural being. 

I think birds are birds and animals are animals.  

Be technical. This is your baby - not mine.  

I don't think you know what an idiom is. Idioms such as "once in a blue-moon" still bear a resemblance to the words in the phrase - that is, a blue-moon is rare. What you are attempting to assert is that the phrase "man (X) was made in the image of God (Y)" has no bearing, I repeat, no bearing to X and Y having similarities. Utter ignorance. 

Idioms may or may not relate to the words within their phrases.  In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers. 

1. It is reflective of Wally's personality. 
   
2. Grout rhymes with shout. 
   

So man has no resemblance to God?

My intention was to ask - how is resemblance to be understood?  

Big words don't prove a point. 

They do

Find me a historical paper which delivers its thesis in idioms and riddles. 

LOL! this is your baby. I am not going to do your homework for you. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

I only reply when I feel like it is worth my time. If you really believe that your points are so good that they push me into a position where I am stumped, then let’s debate. I see that you frequently type long responses, so time is obviously not an issue.

Look, I don't want to hurt your feelings I think you're a cool dude. Your debates are garbage, have you even read over them?

So now I got to take a class on computers and come up with a program to block their post instead of a moderator doing their job and saying quit asking the question seriously that's the response from management. Jesus f****** Christ. 

I'm not a computer. I do not have the capacity to sift though every claim that has ever been made

You do have the capacity to sift through posts you've read. You're telling me that this was one of the only points that left you impressed? you're easily amused. 

I will note the caliber of responses you're impressed by.

Maybe there's not much point in discussing anything with you in the future, seems like you're more interested in thinking you're right rather than finding truth.

If I make a good point you ignore it, if I make a point you feel like you can offer a rebuttal to you reply.

So are many things that you never point out are good points.

When you point out a good point that doesn't align with your own bias, then we will know to be impressed. 

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented.  Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you.   You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.  

Repeating yourself does not strengthen your argument. Like I stated, the words I am using are not controversial, the tautological definition of resemble is to "be similar". This is the definition of resemble. 

I never said your words were controversial. I said that they were a wrong usage of language. 

You want to use a literal word according to the dictionary.

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority.  It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them. 

Imagine if we were to be debating and you attempted to dismiss an entire by saying "okay good point I don't have enough intellect to dismiss your argument but I will say, you haven't gone through the month long process of peer reviewing your paper". How do you think that will work? 

I'm not saying you have made a good point.  I am saying you have missed the point altogether. Your argument is not only weak it is irrelevant.

I say use peer reviews

A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth.  Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way. 

I have already given you an argument if which is logic, valid and sound. I am interested in truth - you are interested in preserving the bible. 

No, you have given only your own position based entirely upon flawed reasoning. 

I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. 

 I have demonstrated that by drawing your attention to the distinction between literalism and metaphor and language idioms. 

But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"

And ....  You are not a theologian, are you?  

I could be Joe Biden for all I care - my argument doesn't care about it's deliverer. 

This is the point though.  You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions.

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented.  Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you.   You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.  

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority.  It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them. 

A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth.  Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way. 

But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"

And ....  You are not a theologian, are you?  

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 

Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  

If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction? 

The Bible has no literal genres.  Literalism is not a genre.

To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute. 

No it is not. You are merely supposing things. Speculation.

Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day. 

But the whole point is - you are not.  Everyone knew Galileo was a scientist. No one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a theologian. 

Petitio principii. Your objection is essentially "premise 2 is wrong because it threatens the integrity of my desired conclusion". Essentially, your argument is 

p1. The claim Bones is making is: To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 

p2. The claim threatens to magnify contradictions in the bible. 

p3. The bible is immune to critique 

c1. Therefore, Bones claim is incorrect. 

If you want to debunk premise 2, that is,  to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y (which is tautological), you must show why,  prima facie, it is incorrect. 

you use the word - "some" and then specify "omnis".  You take a specific and try to apply it generally. How does the bible use the term image and likeness.

When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 

Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. 

Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms. 

Again more nonsense.  Galileo was a scientist.  He refuted the then known world's paradigm because he used science to do so. What you are attempting to do is refute a theological concept with something that is not theological.

BTW I don't have an issue with you having novel ideas - even though you are a non-theologian.  Yet for you to try and discredit every theologian in the world on the basis of your own presumptions - and without any regard to the current practices of interpretation or even engaging with them is on you. 

I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 

p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 

p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 

c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 

p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 

p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 

p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 

c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 

p7. Humans are not infinite. 

c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)

Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub.  You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents.  Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you. 

Tell me which premise is wrong and why it is wrong. 

I would suggest every premise from P2 down is flawed.  the bible in no way suggests that humanity is infinite in any way.

My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form. 

Your opinion is backed up by your prejudice.

 You don't believe in God and therefore you want to disprove humanity is made in God's image - and is nonsense.

So you take what the bible says - and then interpret it "literally". 

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. 

I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 

p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 

p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 

c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 

p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 

p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 

p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 

c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 

p7. Humans are not infinite. 

c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)

Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub.  You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents.  Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you. 

Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.  Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 

I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character. 

Your opinion has respectfully not a lot of validity to it - unless you actually are going to engage with others.  I also reject your opinion. 

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se?

I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.

So would you say - that you disobeying God is a flaw about you?

Or are you merely talking about what you consider a hypothetical situation in a story that you actually don't have authority to talk about? 

 Your faulty premises

have led to define being made in the image of God to a conclusion that is inconsistent.

The Jews and Christians both define the image of God as something completely different to you.

God is defined as "omni-x", that is, all of his qualities are infinite in nature. He is infinitely loving, he is infinitely moral, he is infinitely powerful etc. To put simply - if you make something in the imagine of X, there must be some aspect in which X can be observed - even slightly. If I am inspired to recreate the Mona Lisa, in order to be considered successful, some aspect of the Mona Lisa must be observable. 

However, with God, his qualities are not finite, he is infinite - you can never derive an immoral being from a perfectly moral being. 

Thanks for at least attempting to articulate your position.  Perhaps though you might attempt to consult what the bible means by being made in God's image rather than putting your own spin on what you think it means.  OR perhaps you might consult some experts - commentators on what they think it means.  While you are treading down this line of thinking though - it is not helpful for me to answer you. For me - you are simply creating a definition for a concept that has been defined quite a different way. Hence, why I call it a strawman. 

Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.  Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se?

After all, if you are arguing that dependency equates to being flawed, then whether Adam had a choice to sin or not is irrelevant, if Adam was dependent upon God. 

Humanity was made very good. 

When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity. 

Evidence please. 

A posteriori and logic. 

Is that your way of saying you made it up?   

Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion?

This is not an evidence based assertion, it is a logic based one. Seriously read what I said again. 

All I was doing was taking you at your words - and asked you to provide more than just an assertion. What you have said above does not even make sense. Dividing infinity by infinity is not the same as defining perfection. 

You mistake the ability to choose to sin with a flaw.

What do you mean by flaw? I think a baby born essentially has no flaws.

I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.  

Your authoritative source is yourself.

The bible is flawed at every corner and was written by people who were as smart as our generations children.

Yet another unprovable assertion.  The bible is not flawed.

The bible is not flawed.

But nevertheless, as you are playing smart with this whole santa thing, I'll ask you one last question. I assume you know about Russell's teapot analogy. Do you think it is possible to prove that such a teapot doesn't exist. 

Yes, I have heard of it. And so have many other people.  I agree with Alvin Plantinga that at the heart of the teapot is a lie. A lie that assumes there is no evidence to disprove it.  You, like Russell simply conflate God with imaginary notions.  

I have provided opportunities to people on this site to prove the Bible wrong - and even to prove God does not exist. No one has attempted to take it up. 

One way is - since the bible says no one can choose to become a Christian all by themselves - all you need to do is demonstrate to me that you have chosen to become a christian - and then become a christian - and not just pretending for the sake of the discussion - all by yourself.

To prove you are a Christian

In other words - I would want it to be a true conversion - with church attendance - humble heart and attitude - a change of life. 

I however doubt you will take this up.  And the reason for that is because it has never been about the existence of God for you , it is a much deeper thing. Pride and humility.  You say you like truth - yet -there is more to this than truth. 

I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.  

Your authoritative source is yourself.

Strawman argument.  The bible says God created man after his image and likeness. 

Genesis 1:27:“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Quoting a verse does not get around your strawman argument. 

Humanity was made very good. 

When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity. 

Evidence please. 

Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion?

...Man was made without flaw

The very fact that man had not reached maturity

Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole. 

Do you have evidence to prove this? Can you prove his nonexistence? 

Yes.  The Bible tells me that Santa Clause is an impossibility. 

expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief).

That is how I would understand the meaning of debunk.  

The video does not do that.  

It's not a trick question. 

No, not trick, but with an agenda.  Yes.  I responded by asking you to clarify. Obviously you are talking about existence - not believe as the bible talks about belief. 

Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole. 

Debunk must have a different meaning for atheists. 

Doesn't seem like there's any reason for the atheist to be posting here if it's all been summed up in 14 minutes on a YouTube video. You guys are really wasting your time, it's kind of sad when you think about it really. 

The so-called "arguments" for God are simply interpretations of how one views the universe.

In essence, if you wish to "debunk" (or perhaps challenge is a better word here) such interpretations all you have to do is say no, I disagree with that and then offer up an alternative interpretation lol.

This doesn't really debunk anything at all, and certainly in no way shows God does not exist.

I haven't actually watched the first video (yet) because 1, I'm pretty sure what will be said and 2, it will just make me frustrated because they aren't my own arguments anyways.

What it boils down to, is that atheists accept materialism

So, I'll be watching a semi-intelligent guy "debunking" claims I have not made and can't make rebuttals to. I like the guy, just reminds me of back when I used to follow The Atheist Experience lol, same ol stuff and same ol preconceived ideas.

I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence. The greatest possible being must also be the most impressive being. It is more impressive to complete a task when one is handicapped; and the more handicapped one is, the more impressed. So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap. The greatest handicap is non-existence. So, the greatest possible being (aka god) must be non-existent.

It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing.  The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place.  This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  

This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  

Do you believe in Thor?

On what basis are asking?

I don't know whether Thor existed or not.

It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing.  The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place.  This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  

This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  

How god allegedly created humans. 

I don't think the bible says that God created humans that were perfect.

The bible says that God created man in his image, which means that the image in which man was based on is one which is perfect. Either God isn't perfect, or he isn't a very good artist.  

Strawman argument.  The bible says God created man after his image and likeness. 

Humanity was made very good. 

God did not make man to demonstrate his artistic skills.   

 God designed the humanity to be able to make its own decisions.  He did not make man to be a robot. 

Is perfection an illusion you hold in your imperfect mind? 

The temptation came from Satan.   

A perfect being would not be tempted by Satan. 

Why not? Is the temptation the problem or giving into the temptation? I think Jesus was perfected and he was tempted by Satan.  He didn't give into the temptation.