Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
In Acts 17:24-31, I've already said Paul does not use the specific words "physical" or "spiritual" as a modifier for the term "resurrection" in this particular passage. However, Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual. Perhaps you will now enlighten us all with the knowledge of such an astute biblical scholar like yourself. I can tell how strongly you desire to share your infinite wisdom with all of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
-- Matthew 7:11
Jesus was saying that people are evil, but even evil people can have enough of a conscience not to give their child a stone when the kid asks for bread.
So, a Luciferian can do a good thing like feeding homeless people, but they cannot be good. Of course, you and I are also incapable of being good on our own. Even if we do good things, our good works are like filthy rags because we are evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
"not capable of being refuted or disproved"
It might be simpler to just say Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
By man's standard of goodness, sure. People can make up whatever standard they want and decide whether Luciferians are 'good' according to that made up standard.
But by the God's standard, no. Though it is not only Luciferians who cannot be good people. Whether you're talking about Hitler or Gandhi, no one can be a good person. We are all lying, thieving, covetous blasphemers who stand condemned before God. Luciferians might have specific sins and wickedness that characterize them, but that is true about all of us.
At least, that is the Christian answer.
But by the God's standard, no. Though it is not only Luciferians who cannot be good people. Whether you're talking about Hitler or Gandhi, no one can be a good person. We are all lying, thieving, covetous blasphemers who stand condemned before God. Luciferians might have specific sins and wickedness that characterize them, but that is true about all of us.
At least, that is the Christian answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Were those human writters ever been wrong about anything?
Yes. Recall Paul's error regarding his view of Jesus prior to his conversion. But the authority of the Bible is not based on whether the human authors are capable of error. The authority of the Bible is based on whether or not the words are true. It is the written message recorded in the Bible that is inerrant, not the human authors.
So we know that the books were inspired by God because the human writers wrote a passage saying that it was inspired.
In a sense, yes. However, that would be an incomplete statement. It is not only because the human writers wrote a passage saying it was inspired. Voddie Baucham gave an extremely concise statement that would give a more complete picture of how we know the Bible is the Word of God:
"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They reported supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin."
I italicized that last bit to show there is far more than a single human claim in determining how we know the Bible is inspired. But I suppose much of the disagreement would probably come down to the question of how we can know anything at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
God is Creator of all things and is Lord over all (Acts 17:24). He created mankind and is sovereign over kings and nations (v. 26). God is completely distinct and separate from creation (v. 29). God is not only Creator of mankind, but also Judge (v. 31). Since all are guilty of transgressing God's law - or guilty of sin - all must repent of their sins to be saved from the coming judgment (v. 30-31). The proof and assurance of salvation for those who repent is the resurrection of the Jesus Christ (v. 31).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
He doesn't use either of those words (physical/spiritual) as a modifier for the term 'resurrection' in this specific passage. Let's go ahead and hear what profound insight you have for us before I comment too much further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If Jesus died a physical bodily death, why would you assume only a spiritual resurrection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is a nice try but the words themselves make the point.
Quoted from Acts 17:31 and from my original post: "and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
Can you tell me how your previous post has anything to do with Paul's message being true? Especially considering how Paul mentions those things elsewhere (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8). Perhaps you need to reread Acts 17:24-31 again to see what the message is. Or perhaps this writing from Paul will provide a more comprehensive understanding of what the message is:
"the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
-- 2 Thess. 1:7-9
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Inspiration. The authors knew they were writing Scripture under the inspiration of God even though they penned it with their own hand:
"our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
-- 2 Peter 3:15-16
By saying the "other Scriptures" Peter is making clear that he knew Paul's letters were inspired by God, making them part of the Scriptures. How exactly God made this clear to the Apostles is not specifically stated as far as I know. So it was known since the time of writing which books were considered part of the Scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"no physical resurrection"
Quoted from Acts 17:31 and from my original post: "and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
Can you provide some meaningful argument to show that Paul was not referring to a physical resurrection in Acts 17:31?
Can you tell me how your previous post has anything to do with Paul's message being true? Especially considering how Paul mentions those things elsewhere (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8). Perhaps you need to reread Acts 17:24-31 again to see what the message is. Or perhaps this writing from Paul will provide a more comprehensive understanding of what the message is:
"the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
-- 2 Thess. 1:7-9
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You said "everything" about Paul's message is refutable because that's how data analysis works. But if something is objectively true, then no amount of data analysis can possible refute it. Truth is irrefutable, even if you can't subjectively determine what is true. If Paul's message is true, all data analysis is irrelevant.
So data analysis does not make everything about Paul's message refutable. That's not how data analysis works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Who decided what did or did not get to be recorded in the bible?
God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What in Paul's message as recorded in Acts 17:24-31 is contradictory to Christ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Great question. Yes he has. Most importantly, he was wrong about who Jesus was before his conversion. He did not originally believe Jesus is the promised Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor that Jesus is God.
But Paul's message is not authoritative because Paul gave it. Just as Paul Davies is only a man, the Apostle Paul is also just a man. His message is authoritative because it was recorded in the Bible. It was also rooted in the truths of the already-recorded Old Testament. Paul is capable of lying (sin), but God is not. Since the Bible bears the authority of God who cannot lie, Paul's message is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What's wrong with using "He" in reference to God? Unless you aren't willing to use God's preferred pronouns...
And yes, Jesus is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Has Paul Davies ever been wrong about anything? If so, I don't think his manmade ideas are irrefutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
By what authority are you making such a claim? Mine is based on the authority of the Bible, which would disagree with yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Isn't that assuming data analysis gives a statement validity, or that it determines what is true?
Created:
Posted in:
"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
-- Acts 17:24-31
Created:
Posted in:
Well there can really only be one true religion. Honestly though, I don't think there is a perfect answer to this question. Since religions all have some way of dealing with ethics, there will naturally be conflicts when different religions exist together. A perfect example is polygamy and Mormonism. While they may have changed their current stance, at one point it conflicted with the societal principles concerning marriage based on biblical ethics.
So how do we deal with issues like that? Do we exempt those who see polygamy as a religious freedom issue? Or do we force them to adhere to a biblical ethic? But if we make polygamists adhere to the biblical ethic, why wouldn't we make homosexuals adhere to the same biblical ethic? But if we don't make homosexuals adhere to the biblical ethic, on what basis do we forbid polygamy?
Not sure if that's the point you were going for. I just think the biggest problem isn't defining what is a "legitimate religion." Like I said, there can only be one that is true (unless you don't believe in absolute truth, but that's a different issue). People can believe whatever they want, but I think the biggest issue is an ethical one. Namely, when does the ethical standard of a religion deviate too far from accepted norms. But that also requires us to have a consistent standard which our accepted norms come from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The only thing that dilemma has shown then is that your perception of God doesn't fit your subjective opinion about what is good. There's probably not much more reason to continue that discussion.
But a more important question is why are you such an angry and condescending person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem is that in the dilemma that was proposed, there is a conflict in terminology.
"Is an action good because god commands it, or is does god command it because it's good"
You are using a manmade definition of good that is not the same as the biblical definition. Your definition has to assume "good" is something that exists outside of God and is dependent on man. The Bible defines good as something that is both intrinsic to God's nature and something that originates from God. The concept of good then is dependent upon God, not man or man's well-being. God cannot be subject to "good." If the proposed dilemma does not allow for that definition of good, then you are also not defining God correctly. If you are not defining God correctly, then you are scrutinizing something other than God.
If the God of the Bible exists - and you must theoretically assume He does for the sake of your argument - then the concept of "good" is not a manmade one that is dependent upon man's subjective opinion regarding well-being.
So, does the dilemma you proposed allow for the biblical definition of good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
How do you see intent contributing to overall "well-being" (whatever that means)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But in terms of an action, you are saying an action that results in a net increase of "well-being" (which would seem to be a matter of opinion to you) is considered good. That seems like a results-based justification.
I'm fine using the term pragmatism in a non-technical sense to simply mean the ends justify the means. But if that still bothers you, perhaps you could explain yourself further to clarify what you mean in terms of a "good" action.
I'm fine using the term pragmatism in a non-technical sense to simply mean the ends justify the means. But if that still bothers you, perhaps you could explain yourself further to clarify what you mean in terms of a "good" action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Isn't that definition synonymous with pragmatism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you believe that Sum1's definition is ever legitimate? Or does everything fall under the second pragmatic one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And what exactly is your definition of good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But what I'm saying is that it seems a bit presumptuous to say that a 1-2% calculated (not actual) decline in growth rates based on a large number of variables, any of which could affect those numbers, provides a statistically significant case to say that mask mandates definitely work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well the first quote was provided to emphasize my point that you admitted, mainly there is no causal evidence. If the sample size does not provide causal evidence, that doesn't seem like a good basis for issuing the mandate.
For experiments regarding something like medicine, vaccines, and preventative measures? No, no they aren't.
You can say this, but that doesn't make it true. Especially when there is no causal evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Problems I have with the first study after an initial reading:
"Because mask wearing by infected people can reduce transmission risk, and because of the high proportion of asymptomatic infected individuals and transmissions, there appears to be a strong case for the effectiveness of widespread use of face masks in reducing the spread of COVID-19. However, there is no direct evidence thus far on the magnitude of such effects, especially at a population level."
This seems to be an admission that there is no direct evidence for the effectiveness of widespread use of face masks in reducing the spread of COVID-19, unless I am reading it wrong.
But there also seems to be a large amount of variables the study is trying to account for in achieving their 1-2% decline in growth rates.
"In addition, the model allowed us to control for a wide range of time-invariant differences between states and counties, such as population density and socioeconomic and demographic factors, plus time-variant differences between states and counties, such as other mitigation and social distancing policies, in addition to state-level COVID-19 testing rates."
The other "mitigation and social distancing policies" accounted for are "school closures; bans on large gatherings; shelter-in-place orders; and closures of restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues." They also did not account for "how differences in strictness and enforcement modify the effects of these mandates." This just seems like an incredibly large number of variables to try and account for to come up with such a relatively small percentage change.
I will have to look at the other sources later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
That would actually be an interesting topic, but I also am in two debates. And I squandered some of my spare time following the voting drama of a recent debate that shall remain unnamed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I only asked because I'm willing to look at evidence, but it takes time to read through and analyze a study. If you just randomly pull a sentence from an abstract, or even a conclusion, that doesn't really encourage me to consider it a reliable or relevant source. So did you read through and analyze them, or did you just read the abstracts/conclusions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you read the whole study on those or just the abstracts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I wish I had your optimism. Personally, I think Big Brother has found his opportunity to create such a panic that many people will be willing to give up whatever liberty they had left in the name of safety. But I guess time will tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
With no long-term safety data (at least 2 years) on a brand new vaccine technology, it's understandable why some people don't want to be vaccinated. And I haven't seen any reliable data that shows that masks provide any meaningful benefit in stopping the spread of COVID. At least under the current mandates for how masks are to be used (type of mask, sanitation, proper handling, length of time being worn, etc.). That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it. If there is little to no evidence to even suggest that current mandates are informed by actual data, then the liberty argument becomes a lot more powerful.
But I also never trust the government to value the liberty of citizens.
But I also never trust the government to value the liberty of citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Happened to see this so I thought I would comment. Not directly related to best debaters but it deals with tactics. I don't think it was that tricky of an approach. I simply recognized that the argument came from a worldview derived from Critical Theory. So while my arguments were practically directed at your plan for Disney, they were fundamentally directed at the underlying presupposition of Critical Theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I've never claimed any such knowledge, you have and you can't explain your claim.
Well my point was that you either have to claim ignorance or make something up to explain where matter came from. It seems then that you're claiming ignorance so I'm not sure what gives you the audacity to claim someone else is wrong.
Now you obviously have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of "nothing" to think that it comes from something or somewhere. Nothing is nothing. It doesn't come from anything or anywhere...you know...because it's nothing.
Person A: "Hey where'd you get that slinky?"
Person B: "I don't have a slinky?"
Person A: "I know but where'd you get it?"
Person B: "There's no slinky!"
Person A: "Yeah but where'd it come from?"
That would be a ridiculous conversation to have, right? Well you're Person A right now. Which means we're having a ridiculous conversation and it's not because of me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Ok...well then could you explain where matter came from without any use of speculation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yes the question is very succinct. I am just not sure how it is you expect me to explain the origination of nothing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Just to clarify, part of what you're asking is that you want me to explain where nothing came from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well you completely missed the point of a worldview but whatever, that's fine.
And how exactly would you define a brainstate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I will assume that you meant incredulity and that was just a typo. Skepticism can be a tool used in obtaining knowledge, but a worldview is simply what you believe about the world. One way to classify it is to answer 4 basic questions:
- Where did we come from?
- Why are we here?
- What's wrong with the world?
- How do we make it right?
I would answer them this way:
- The universe, including humans, were created by God out of nothing.
- All of this creation, including humans, were created to glorify God.
- After the sin of the first humans, Adam and Eve, all humans are sinful or evil by nature and are under God's judgment.
- The death and resurrection of Jesus satisfied the punishment for sin for those who have faith in Him.
A materialistic worldview would typically follow something along these lines:
- We have no explanation for the existence of matter prior to the theory of a big bang, and humans are nothing more than complex clusters of molecules.
- No reason or purpose, except perhaps to consume resources.
- Essentially a lack of sufficient government or education.
- More government.
Skepticism does not explain anything, it is simply a method of discerning what is true. I want to know what you believe is actually true.
Because whatever its source unless you disagree that we have it I really don't need to demonstrate it.
But if immaterial concepts don't exist, then empathy doesn't exist. If you acknowledge that empathy exists, then you have to acknowledge that immaterial things exists. I am not asking you to demonstrate a source of empathy. I am asking you to demonstrate that the immaterial concept of empathy itself exists. The problem is that you can't do that if you don't believe that anything immaterial exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Could you please explain how skepticism is a worldview?
Also, you have not demonstrated how empathy exists. You have stated that we can demonstrate that there is a chemical reaction in our brain, and we seem to think that reaction corresponds with the immaterial concept of empathy. But you have not demonstrated that empathy itself exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But we also established that emotions are nothing more than uncontrollable chemical reactions happening in your brain. This creates two problems.
First, you cannot choose to be empathetic. If you have no mechanism to control the chemical reactions producing what you call "empathy," than you cannot choose to be empathetic toward the death of children any more than you can choose not to feel joy over it. So you can't take any kind of moral high ground since your feelings of empathy aren't your own, they are just a random by-product of molecules bumping into each other.
Second, empathy is an immaterial concept. What you call empathy is simply a chemical reaction in your worldview. It is essentially no different than making toast. You are then appealing to an immaterial concept to make any argument at all. So you either have to abandon the immaterial concept of empathy completely or you have to abandon your materialistic worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No they are not serial killers. But they are sinners against a holy and righteous God. Every single person is born in sin and is guilty before God. The problem is that you are stealing from my worldview to even have pity on the death of children. Your worldview says that it is just a restructuring of matter; they are just meaningless clusters of molecules and it doesn't matter what happens to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know what to say to someone who thinks it is moral to exterminate unarmed civilian human populations except I disagree.
Well unfortunately that's all you can say. But what if every single person in that population was a convicted serial killer? Would making them unarmed civilians make them any less guilty and deserving of punishment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well God's law is a perfectly moral law because He sets the standard of morality and He is the judge of His creation (including us). So if someone breaks a law in which the punishment is death, then wouldn't God be unjust if He didn't carry out that punishment?
This principle would be true in the American justice system as well. If a serial killer was tried and convicted of murder and the judge just let him walk free, we would seriously question the character of that judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Now I will address your post but first I have to ask, do you think that someone who breaks the law should be punished according to that law?
Created: