Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your argument doesn't seem to be that the yahweh did not engage in genocide as that it was justified genocide.
I would actually say my argument is that only humans can commit genocide, and that the act of genocide would be a morally neutral act without the existence of God.
The turkey question was just to raise the point that most people make a distinction between humans and animals when it comes to moral issues - except allegedly RationalMadman, though I haven't heard a defense of his position yet...
You could replace the example with an exterminator seeking to systematically destroy an entire population of termites or whatever. If we treat human interactions with other humans different than interactions with animals, I don't see why we wouldn't also make a distinction between God and humans.
Now if we're talking about the Christian God, we are talking about an all-powerful being who created humans and defines morality outside of human opinion. This is why morality in this view is objective. God sets the standard and humans must follow it. So if God sets the standard or the law saying, "If you do this then you will die," it is perfectly just for God to carry out this punishment.
Now there are things that God can do that humans can't. This would be similar to saying that there are things that law enforcement can do that civilians can't. From that perspective, only humans can commit genocide because a human killing another human wrongfully is murder, and on a massive scale it is genocide. God cannot wrongfully kill someone, so He cannot commit genocide. Even from our subjective standpoint, genocide is a crime and God is not committing a crime either. He's the one who determines what crime is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am quite familiar with the stories and I am still not accusing God of a crime, especially the crime of genocide. Out of curiosity, would you consider Thanksgiving a genocide of turkeys?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well this seems like an accusation. So far no evidence has been provided and thus it remains completely unsubstantiated.Also the Yahweh commands genocide so under the biblical model it is not just excusable but expected. There is no need to address this as it is not in question. The god depicted in the bible allowed, commanded and even committed genocide over and over in the story. Either genocide is not wrong or Yahweh is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well everything depends upon interpretation in some way. If I say, "My bird is blue," you would probably assume that I was referring to the color of the bird. But I could also be using an expression to say that my bird is sad. I could also be using an awkward phrasing to express that, "My bird is named Blue." Now if I were to say, "My bird is blue with yellow wings," it could almost certainly be assumed I am referring to color.
Interpreting the Bible can follow a similar pattern. Context, repetition, and explanations within the Bible itself are used to interpret the meaning of a word, phrase, or passage. My post contained the bare essentials of what we can accept as a correct interpretation of the Bible based on context, repetition, and explanations from a straightforward reading of relevant passages. For example Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Regardless of how long one thinks it took, the passage is clearly saying that it was God who created the heavens and the earth.
If animals can get into heaven, without souls and / or without knowing Jesus, doesn't that make faith irrelevant in some way?
Well this assumes that resurrected animals would be in heaven AND that this would be possible without a soul. Also, animals wouldn't have to "get into" heaven because they were never excluded from it. Heaven is not so much about a place but about being in a right relationship with God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they rebelled against God and severed that relationship, the ultimate punishment being hell. The rest of creation besides humanity is not subject to hell because there are no other moral creatures that rejected God besides humans. Animals also don't have this type of relationship that could even be severed. It is humans who actually need forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus to have a right relationship with God. An animal does not need this forgiveness any more than a tree does. Nor does an animal even have the capacity to have faith in Jesus.
The conclusion then would be resurrected animals will either be in heaven or they won't be, and it has nothing to do with a right relationship with God or faith in Jesus.
Now I personally think that animals don't have souls and won't be resurrected, meaning that new animals will be created in heaven that will never die. I have reasons for this but it is still speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well as the one making a severe accusation against the ancestors of the Jews (arguably the most highly persecuted group in world history), I think it is upon you to substantiate your accusation with evidence of specifically who they committed the crime of genocide against, and why it should be considered genocide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I'm glad we found at least some agreement there.
Here is the statement you made previously:
Also the Yahweh commands genocide so under the biblical model it is not just excusable but expected. There is no need to address this as it is not in question. The god depicted in the bible allowed, commanded and even committed genocide over and over in the story. Either genocide is not wrong or Yahweh is.
I think there should have to be at least some burden of proof to classify the conquering of Canaan by Israel as genocide. This becomes more difficult when genocide is really a subjective human standard, but the conquering of Canaan also involves a objective deity who sets His own standard rather than just humans. I'll give a few reasons why I don't think Israel or God were guilty of genocide.
Israel was merely an instrument being used by God to carry out judgment on the Canaanites. They were much weaker than the Canaanites and Israel had no military training. It was actually God working supernaturally that allowed them to win battles. They also had strict parameters to follow that were set by God. They were only allowed to attack under certain circumstanced in some cases. Some Canaanite groups were to be completely annihilated, some were just to be conquered and the survivors taken into Israel. If Israel did not carry out God's orders exactly as He commanded, they were severely punished. So the people of Israel are not really culpable if God was the one giving commands that they had to follow, and they would not have succeeded without God's intervention.
Genesis 15:13-16 shows clearly that God actually allowed Israel to be slaves in Egypt until the wickedness of the Amorites (a Canaanite group, possibly a general reference to all inhabitants of Canaan) reached a culminating point where God would judge them. Archaeological finds and historical records have verified that these Canaanite nations had many extremely gruesome practices. It should also be noted that each encounter with a Canaanite nation (Amalekites, Amorites, etc.) carried completely different circumstances and outcomes. For instance, Israel was actually attacked by the Amalekites before even entering into this land. This is why God pronounced total annihilation upon the Amalekites as retribution for this unprovoked attack. In the events of the conquering, God was carrying out just punishment of the Canaanites.
So I think it must be established then, which specific Canaanite nations did Israel/God commit genocide against and why would that specific conflict be classified as genocide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It appears I took a few assumptions for granted and sacrificed clarity for brevity. To be clear, I am arguing from a biblical worldview. So to answer a question like “do animals have souls?” I am staying within that framework. Here are the important points that have to be established that exclude my opinion. Hopefully this is more clear.
The Biblical Narrative
God created the universe and everything in it. The original creation had no death, suffering, disease, or anything like that. This means death is not natural, even for animals. People and animals didn’t kill. Then, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God. Since humans have dominion over the world, God cursed both humans and the world that was under their dominion. All of creation was then subject to death, decay, disease, and such. This is the state of the world that we are in now. We will continue in this state until Jesus returns, the final judgment takes place, this fallen creation is destroyed, and a new and perfect creation is made by God. This creation will be similar to the original state of the first one (no death, suffering, disease, or anything like that.) This will be the eternal heaven where those who placed their faith in Jesus will be. There will also be a place of eternal suffering where those who rejected God will be. When I say “this lifetime,” I am specifically referring to the time between Adam and Eve’s fall and the ultimate destruction of the world at the final judgment, and the next life will be the one in eternity (heaven or hell).
Difference Between Humans and Animals
This distinction is important. Humans consist of both a material and immaterial part, or body and soul. This is clearly established in the Bible. Humans are made in the image of God which gives us an intrinsic value that animals do not have. This is why I specifically said, “Animals do not have souls as humans do.” I cannot definitively say they do not have souls at all but even if they do, they are not made in the image of God. Humans have the ability to determine right from wrong, which is why we will be held accountable for our actions in the final judgment. Animals do not have this capacity and are driven by instinct. This is not to say they don’t have individual characteristics that make them unique and special to us, they are just not moral creatures. Because the bible is not explicitly clear, it is possible that animals that die in this lifetime will be in heaven.
Animals in Heaven
Animals were a part of God’s original “good” creation that had no death, disease, etc. Animals are under the effects of the curse with the rest of creation which is why they die. Since they were part of the original creation, I see no reason why there will not be animals in the new perfect creation that will not experience death. The question that is open to interpretation then is whether they are resurrected animals that died in this lifetime, or if they will be completely new creations made specifically for the eternal heaven.
I can clarify my particular position on this issue, but I wanted to at least have a foundation of what we can definitively establish from the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you replace legitimate with objective I will agree but I disagree with this statement as ot stands. Humans wanting to live is a legitimate reason even if not an objective one independent of human opinion.
That's a fair adjustment.
As far as objective vs subjective standards, I suppose I should have established a more precise term than "genocide," so I'll give you a point for that. I specifically had in mind the elimination of a group strictly for opinion-based reasons ("because I don't like them") or biological reasons ("killing them will produce a genetically superior race"). Or even something similar to the international crime of genocide (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). As an example, I would not consider America going to war with Germany "genocide" even though there was a systematic killing of Nazis. I would also argued we were justified to do so.
So to see if we're on the same page so far, would you consider there to be a difference between the actions of America going to war with Germany and the Holocaust? Or would you consider both to be genocide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In fact classing genocide as right or good even if it is fictional is incomprehensible to me.
This was your previous quote from post #134. But I think that is safe to say that from a materialistic worldview, there is no legitimate reason to condemn acts like genocide, and these acts can even be justified as acceptable.
My standard is an objective one that can actually distinguish between right and wrong. Even if opinion-based systems encouraged genocide, it would still be condemned as evil. And survival mechanisms could not be used as an excuse to justify genocide, it would still hold people responsible for their evil acts. It also places intrinsic value on each human life. This value is given by God and is not subject to human opinion, thus it cannot be taken away by other humans. This objective standard is set by God, is revealed through the Bible, and condemns acts that are completely natural to the animal world like murder, theft, and adultery.
Now we can certainly address the controversial passages and events in the Bible and I'm happy to, but to do so implies that there is a moral standard to even appeal to that would condemn those things as wrong. A materialistic worldview cannot condemn anything as evil, even genocide. Nor can it praise anything as good such as altruism or empathy. All it can do is tell you that clusters of molecules are bumping into each other in ways that cause your brain to fizz with "emotion."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't reveal things about me IRL that will help narrow me down to any significant degree.
I can understand that. I will say though, that unless you are willing to condemn the food industry for the countless killing of animals which have the same status as people, it is hypocritical to condemn other groups that are killing humans as worse. I would be happy to hear an interaction with that and will not make any conclusions or accusations about your personal eating habits.
But let me try what is perhaps a less personal approach as well. Do you think that we include animals in our justice system since they regularly kill other animals and sometimes even people? Or are they not to be held accountable in any way, even for manslaughter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Life does have value to humans. It is just a subjective opinion however not an objectively provable fact.
But all of your arguments go back to the only two essential arguments against genocide that don't actually condemn it.
The opinion-based argument is basically saying genocide is opposed because an individual or group of people don't like it. But it could just as legitimately fall the other way and say that genocide is encouraged because an individual or group of people do like it. Even governments are just systems that either oppose or encourage actions based on opinion. And if humans are the ones who assign value, then they can also take it away. So the opinion-based argument leaves genocide as a legitimate and acceptable action with the proper approval by those in power.
The other argument is based on biological survival mechanisms. My safety is only guaranteed if I am contributing to the survival of the species or population. If I am a detriment, the survival mechanisms should legitimize eliminating the threat (me). The same can be said for a group of people who may be a detriment to the survival of the species. Thus, genocide is a legitimate action as long as it is contributing to the survival of the species.
Both essential arguments allow for genocide as a legitimate action no matter how you spin them. I refuse to believe in a materialistic worldview that allows for that and you should too. That is a rational reason that I believe in a duality of humans, both material and immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So just to be clear, you do eat meat then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a summary of my position on human souls from a previous post responding to secularmerlin:
A soul can most simply be explained as the immaterial part of us that our thoughts, emotions, desires, and will stem from.I believe the only way to explain human existence is a duality of material and immaterial components, or body and soul. If we are only a material body, then immaterial concepts such as logic or morals are inconsequential and should have no bearing on our existence since matter is all that matters.That is just a brief summary of a rational argument for the existence of a soul. All other distinctions between the immaterial aspects of animals and humans are drawn from the Bible.
Here is my position on the difference between human and animal souls that you may have seen in a previous post that I tagged you in:
Animals do not have souls as humans do. It seems like a safe conclusion to say that there will be animals in heaven. However, the Bible is not explicitly clear on whether particular animals will be there. I tend to think they just cease to exist since they do not have a human soul, but they certainly won't go to hell. Since they don't have souls, they are not culpable for moral choices and cannot be punished in that way.To put my view another way, there will likely be animals in heaven, just not the animals that die in this lifetime. This may not be a particularly comforting answer, but we can find comfort in knowing that there is no sorrow, grief, or death in heaven.But that still leaves one critical question: Even if your dog did go to heaven, would you be going there to meet it?
You are right that I should have included the word "intrinsic" in my explanation to make clear that I was indeed referring to an objective value that humans have. To clarify, my positive position is that an immaterial soul given by God is the only way to justify humans having intrinsic value. To deny this leaves one forced to accept the subjective value that is up to other humans to give and take away from each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well we have to deal with the inconsistencies in your worldview before we can address the soul issue. You already stated that we can't control any of our mental processes, which are nothing more than chemical reactions that move the cluster of molecules we call a body. They have no existence outside of those chemical reactions, nor do we in any way initiate them.
Unless I too percieved them as detrimental you are incorrect.
So I would only be incorrect if we both perceived them as detrimental to our survival? So if we agreed, then it would be ok to exterminate them?
Also, why would I have to justify my actions? Why would I even be held responsible for them if I can't control my mental processes and am just a product of my environment? That implies that I would have to appeal to some sort of morality (which doesn't exist) to show that I was not wrong to do what I did. But who determines that and why should I have to comply?
The problem is that if there is nothing more to our existence than random clusters of molecules, than human life has absolutely no value. Every time you try to justify why it's not ok to kill people, you have to give them value because the default position you keep going to is that we should not kill them, thus we need a good reason to justify killing them.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually think that you're ok with genocide or eugenics. I believe you when you say you are empathetic and compassionate toward others. But that compassion just doesn't fit with your view that there is nothing more to us then random clusters of molecules and uncontrollable chemical reactions, and that life has no value, meaning, or purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, no, no, you're not getting off that easy. You just completely skipped over that you think religious people brutalize people and animals, and that neither is more valuable than the other, yet there seems to be no problem with raising animals for no other purpose than killing and eating them. Would you same the same if we did that with people?
But as sign of good will, I will address your post as well. I'm not sure if you were trying to prove a point by the abortion and torture stuff. If you're saying that torturing and murdering someone is worse than "merciful" murdering, I guess I would agree with you there. Not sure how that flips anything on me though?
I also never said that the death of a creature=denial of a soul, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing for. I would however still like to hear why it's ok to kill animals for food but not people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I never said that it was, nor do I believe it is. I am saying that, from the general standpoint of your view, there is no rational reason not to exterminate any group who I perceive is detrimental to my survival, or the survival of my population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Which is particularly why I said that the group within a population is "detrimental to survival," and I did not specify whether anyone was bigger or stronger. I also clarified that this detrimental group is consuming resources and inhibiting genetic advancement, all while threatening the survival of the rest of the population. From your point of view, there is no rational reason not to exterminate that group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I think we have different thoughts on what an emotion is. I would consider disapproval more of an opinion, or a judgment based on weighing pro's and con's or something like that. But for the sake of argument I'll go with you on that.
The logical contradiction then would be that you, a product of natural selection, would act in a way that is contrary to the millions of years of programming driving you to survive/procreate. If a group is detrimental to a population, what purpose would there be in allowing them to continue to consume resources and hinder the genetic advancement of the species?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Alright, let me rephrase. You have no rational reason to disapprove of the extermination of a group that is detrimental to the survival of a population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I guess your entitled to the brain-fizz that you call an opinion, but then you have given up any rational reason to be mad about the extermination of those who are detrimental to the survival of a population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Interesting thoughts. You must not be a pet owner then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So let's try to summarize this materialistic view. We are all just purposeless clusters of molecules. We have no ability or mechanism to control any of our thoughts, will, or emotions (this would include empathy), making them all nothing more than meaningless brain-fizz that are just by-products of our environment. Even if we try to make sense of this meaningless, uncontrollable brain-fizz that (maybe) guides the cluster of molecules we call a body, the best reason for condemning the atrocity of the Holocaust is that our meaningless brain-fizz we call an "opinion" reacts (negatively?) to members of our species killing other members of our species for the purpose of genetic enhancement, even though they can't control the brain-fizz driving their thoughts, will, and emotions, and are likely just carrying out what billions of years of natural selection is instinctively driving them to do. The second-best reason is that our brain-fizz doesn't think extermination of a certain population has the greatest benefit for the survival of the species. This of course implies that if this extermination would have the greatest benefit for survival, it would be the best option. But eventually we will be replaced as the dominant species when new, more advanced species replace us through the evolutionary process, all while the meaningless universe slowly marches toward a heat death that will destroy everything anyway.
That's pretty depressing. Or at least it's causing my brain to uncontrollably fizz with some "emotion."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Since you want to nit-pick, let me simplify the question. Do we have a mechanism to control any of our mental processes such as our thoughts or will? If so, what is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not asking for a purpose. I am simply asking if we have a mechanism to control our brain-fizz or not. If we do, then what is it? If we don't, then we are really just mindless clusters of cells that are only moving according to the random chemical reactions in our brains. Our thoughts and will are inconsequential since we cannot control them anymore than we can control our actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is that which is not made of matter. Why does something need to be made of matter to exist?
You have also not demonstrated what the cause of our decisions is by any practical means, so should it be safe to presume that no cause exists? If not, what is the cause?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we take the definition of material and add the prefix im- to show it is not that, then we get "immaterial." So it's something that is not made of matter. So a soul is the part of a person which does not consist of matter (thoughts, emotions, desires, will). But you're saying that those are all actually material in nature because they are just the product of chemical reactions in your brain that are fizzing in ways that your brain can interpret. So I would then have to ask, do we have any way of controlling the chemical reactions in our brains that produce our thoughts or our will, or are we just slaves to the uncontrollable brain-fizz that produces those things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And what exactly is empathy? Can you give me the chemical reaction in your brain that produced that? Or did billions of years of natural selection give you empathy for every other member of your species as an instinct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok, what is your best argument then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You're the one who engaged me, bringing up ants and asking me to define the word immaterial for you. You seem to have a problem with my original statement because I believe that immaterial things exist, and you think that even logic and morals should be considered material.
My point was that if your view is true, the best attempt you had at coming up with a reason to condemn the horrible events of the Holocaust is that you believe there are better methods that are more "beneficial to the survival of the race as a whole" than extermination of a population. I would much rather have the problem of justifying the existence of the immaterial than having to resort to inconsistent biological arguments to condemn the Holocaust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I asked for a good reason that the Nazis should not have attempted to purify the human gene pool. You said because of altruism and cooperation. Then you proved yourself wrong by admitting that competition also exists that causes different groups to war with each other. Competition then could be seen as the reason the Nazis exterminated the Jews so you haven't given any good reason why they shouldn't have done so. Would you like to try again or should I just tell you my point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, because rival ant colonies are known for their cooperation and benevolence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How is cooperation our greatest strength when it allows our old, weak, diseased, and genetically inferior members to carry on their genes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You said that altruism is beneficial to the survival of the human race. I was specifically addressing the topic of altruism as beneficial to the human race that you mentioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So keeping old, weak, diseased, and genetically inferior members of a population alive to procreate is beneficial to the race?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps let me try to illustrate my point by asking a question.
Could you give me one reason why the Nazis should not have attempted to purify the human gene pool that does not essentially come down to "because someone else didn't like it"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A soul is immaterial so it cannot be seen. What is logic? No one can see logic, yet you are using it to question whether my assertion about souls is reasonable. A soul can most simply be explained as the immaterial part of us that our thoughts, emotions, desires, and will stem from.
I believe the only way to explain human existence is a duality of material and immaterial components, or body and soul. If we are only a material body, then immaterial concepts such as logic or morals are inconsequential and should have no bearing on our existence since matter is all that matters.
That is just a brief summary of a rational argument for the existence of a soul. All other distinctions between the immaterial aspects of animals and humans are drawn from the Bible.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that we just need to agree to disagree and move on because we are having two different conversations.
What I said:
can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.
What you said (summarized):
You're wrong because I think that morality should be determined by a jury.
I'm not arguing for the correctness of the Moral Argument right now. I'm not arguing for the existence of God right now. I am arguing for the existence of my argument that God exists (you can see how convoluted this is getting!). That's it. Nothing more. I don't know how else to say it. It was nice chatting. Have a great day.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
When you say that no theist is making "logically-coherent-sound-arguments," what you really seem to be saying is "those arguments for God don't make sense because there is no God." How is that not putting the cart before the horse?
Maybe this example will help clear things up:
More specifically, you'd have to draw a straight line from DEISM to your specific god(s)
I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that. I would argue the only way to have an objective standard of morality (e.g. stealing is inherently evil) is to have an objective lawgiver outside of humanity. There is the deistic argument.
I would also argue that the moral foundation of the Bible is objectively better than any other moral system, whether religious or secular. Even our judicial system in America is founded on biblical morality. There are also health statistics and crime statistics that could be shown in support of this statement.
SUMMARY
Deistic Argument: A god is required for objective morality to exist
Theistic Argument: If the moral principles of the Bible are objectively better than other systems, it would follow that the God who gave them is better than all others. That God claims He is the only God and all others are false.
_________________________________________________________
Now I have not given a fully researched and annotated presentation. Obviously, there are also debatable points in this argument that I'm sure you disagree with. However, I have provided an argument that is logically coherent and evidence-based. I don't see any fundamental laws of logic that I have violated, and that also doesn't automatically make me right. I have also given examples of evidence that could be used outside myself (logical case for morality, statistics, American judicial system) that support my argument. Again, my evidence doesn't automatically make me right, it just supports my argument.
Given this example, can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
This is the original post:
Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.**But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods. Intelligently designed.Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.Basically, we're back to square-one.
This was an assertion presented later on the continuation of that thread:
P1: There are people who wish to prove the existence of their specific god (this is evident).P2: If there was compelling evidence for their specific god, then they would use it (inferred logic).P3: There is currently no one using said evidence (this is the premise I will prove).C1: Therefore, there is no evidence for a specific god.
Therefore, all you would have to do is present an argument from a theistic perspective to nullify the first post, and then present evidence for your argument to nullify the second post. I am not saying that you have to believe what I am arguing for. I am just saying it wouldn't make sense to say that I'm not arguing for it. I showed in post #31 that I gave an evidence-based argument from a theistic perspective in a debate.
I am still waiting to hear a good reason why this does not nullify the two claims of these posts...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have gone on to a completely different subject. The original premise is saying that no one is even arguing for those beliefs, not whether they are true. An argument does not cease to be an argument simply because I disagree with it. The same can be said for evidence because evidence is not proof.
To answer your question, no I don't believe any of those are true. Do you believe that an argument is only valid if it agrees with your beliefs? Or is evidence only valid if it matches your conclusions?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not really trying to set a standard. I'm just saying that I don't believe the premise has any validity if someone can show they are making an evidence-based argument from a theistic perspective. If you can give me a good reason why I might be wrong I would be happy to hear it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@PressF4Respect
Well I'm just concerned about the original premise of the thread. All one would have to do is make an evidence-based argument for a particular god to render this premise void. In the debate I previously cited, I was arguing for the Christian God over all others from the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible as an historical document (evidence). Regardless of whether one agrees with me, I have made an argument using evidence.
At this point, it would seem that the original premise would be nullified, or you would have to show why my argument lacks evidence and is not theistic. However, to simply say that you don't find the evidence compelling or logically coherent should not be grounds to say it is no evidence at all. It's just evidence you don't agree with.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Does that change in word usage to "logically coherent" somehow make my argument strictly deistic rather than theistic?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I forgot to tag you in my previous post #31 in this thread. That post explains that I have argued, with evidence, for the Christian God over all others. This should satisfy P2
Created:
Posted in:
I'm confused as to what you guys think is the end of the Christian era/age. If we're referring to the one Jesus was talking about with His disciples, then there will be nothing after the "Christian Age" except tribulation, death, and judgment for those who haven't repented of their evil ways.
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.-Revelation 21:8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Animals do not have souls as humans do. It seems like a safe conclusion to say that there will be animals in heaven. However, the Bible is not explicitly clear on whether particular animals will be there. I tend to think they just cease to exist since they do not have a human soul, but they certainly won't go to hell. Since they don't have souls, they are not culpable for moral choices and cannot be punished in that way.
To put my view another way, there will likely be animals in heaven, just not the animals that die in this lifetime. This may not be a particularly comforting answer, but we can find comfort in knowing that there is no sorrow, grief, or death in heaven.
But that still leaves one critical question: Even if your dog did go to heaven, would you be going there to meet it?
Created:
Happened upon this thread, maybe this will help or maybe not. You can decide. I am currently in a debate over the existence of the Christian God, who I believe to be the one true God while all others are false (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1388/the-christian-god-does-not-exist, I'm not trying to advertise, just showing evidence that it's true). As far as I can tell, deism and theism are just terms stemming from the word "god" in Latin and Greek respectively. We have attached additional meaning to them. If you're just differentiating between them by saying Deism is belief in any god, and theism is belief in a particular god, then I believe you can argue from both. Logically, it would make sense to justify the existence of a god in general to exclude atheistic arguments, and then move on to justify the existence of a particular god to exclude arguments for any other god.
Now if you're using deism in the sense that a deity created the world and is no longer active (like setting a top in motion and then sitting back to watch it spin where it will), then you would be right that theists should not use this specific argumentation if they believe that their god is still active in the world. Based upon these definitions, I would argue strictly from a theistic perspective and vehemently oppose deistic argumentation. The overall point of this, I am using theistic arguments, with evidence, to prove the existence of a particular God. This should satisfy P2. However, the addition of the word "compelling" is subjective since you may not find it compelling but others do. If you dismiss my argumentation for my God on the basis that you do not find it compelling, then we would have to know, what would qualify as compelling evidence according to P2?
Created:
Posted in:
BrotherDThomas!!! You can block me all you want because you are too EMBARRASSED OF YOUR OWN FAILURES!!!! Why do you continue to be TRUTH SLAPPED?? All you do is RUN AWAY to the comments rather than actually debate anyone!!
Created:
Posted in:
BrotherDThomas……..or should I say21stCenturyIconoclast!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can't RUN AWAY FROM ME! I OWN THE ENTIRE INTERNET!!! I see that you are still HIDING IN THE COMMENTS SECTION rather than ACTUALLY DEBATING anyone! You were publicly shamed in the DEBATE.ORG comments section so you had to RUN AWAY like the Namby-Pamby21stCenturyCharlatan you are!!! Read on to remember our last encounter that proved you to be a PSEUDO-ATHEIST.....
YOUR EMBARRISING QUOTE FROM DEBATE.ORG THAT MADE YOU RUN AWAY: “I will now use this threads url address of 1_john_5. 20 in other forums showing him RUNNING AWAY 9 TIMES in what lengths a pseudo-christian like him will do TO HIDE FROM THEIR SERIAL KILLING JESUS CHARACTER! Priceless stupidity, And at 1_john_5. 20's expense, AGAIN! LOL!
I am in many forums from time to time, Therefore I promise that 1_john_5. 20will be infamous as others are directed back to this thread!
WHAT I TOLD YOU ON DEBATE.ORG THAT MADE YOU RUN AWAY: “IS THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENING? This thread is actually going to be advertised showing you RUNNING AWAY from the opportunity to SCHOOL a pseudo-Christian! I knew that pseudo-atheists were irrational, But Namby-Pamby21stCenturyCharlatan has just set A NEW RECORD FOR IRRATIONALITY! HE DOESN'T EVEN BELIEVE HIS OWN DISBELIEF!
Now the entire internet will gather here to see how you RAN AWAY from the chance to defend your PSEUDO-ATHEISM at this url:
The history books will record this event as the time that YOU could not even publicly stand up to the priceless stupidity of an inept pseudo-Christian!There will be toilet paper with your face printed on EVERY SHEET!
Why would I thank you later when I can thank you now? You have PROMISED TO ADVERTISE the url for this thread! All I have to do is search for the url in quotation marks to make sure you are proving to all your forums how you did nothing but HIDE IN THE COMMENTS SECTIONS! Or will you be RUNNING AWAY from this promise too! GO Namby-Pamby21stCenturyCharlatan! PROVE TO US THAT YOU WON'T RUN AWAY FROM THIS TOO!
WHY YOU SHOULD RUN AWAY LIKE THE FAKE ATHEIST YOU ARE!!!: I searched for the url you were going to make me “infamous” with. IT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND!!! You were too EMBARRASED to even try to defend your PSEUDO-ATHEISM so you RAN AWAY!!! Now DebateArt.com and THE REST OF THE WORLD will see you for what you are, a COWARDLY PSEUDO-ATHEIST! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Created: