Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Christians have often uttered the adage, "We don't hate homosexuals. We just hate what they do".Such a dictum has no weight to it since homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals in what they do. In any case, isn't "we just hate what they do" no more than a euphemism for saying "we hate them"?
It should not be a question of hate but of doing what is right. That begs the question of what is right and who decides.
If there is no absolute standard what makes your standard any better than that of the Christian standard?
If we take a look at the Bible we can see where Christians get their mandate to hate homosexuals. The book of Leviticus states that "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman."But then, the same chapter tells Christians (men) not to cut their hair.Do we see many Christian homophobes wearing long hair as well?Which brings us to the word "homophobic".Here we can get a good insight as to why Christians are so hateful.As with any phobia, homophobia is a fear of homosexuals.Experts will tell us that the key cause of fear is ignorance or lack of knowledge (of what is feared). This is born out by the saying that the greatest fear is the fear of fear itself.
I do not see that hate represents Christian teaching for we are told to love others and hate evil. Evil is what someone does. Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments in two. The second is to love your neighbour and to do what is right towards them. That and the First is what the whole law hinges upon. We are not to hate those who are created in the image and likeness of God but we are also not to condone wrongful action in ourselves or others but to understand and recognize it as wrong.
All Christian institutions urge their followers to shun any information (for example, scientific publications) that contradicts their beliefs and even promote the idea that followers should not associate or do business with others outside their circle.
How could we interact with the world of humanity if we did not associate with others outside our worldview? Is that the mandate Jesus gave His followers? No.
Is it not fair to say then that Christians hate gays for no other reason than ignorance?
Here again, who is ignorant? If you have no ultimate, absolute standard why is your standard any better than any other? How can anyone criticize others unless they are aware of such things without being hypocritical or consistent with their own selves?
So, until you can give me reasonable and logical arguments that you are not ignorant regarding morals my case stands.
Do you have a necessary standard of right and wrong or is 'might makes right' the standard rather than 'right makes might'?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am feeling overly nice today
Well, that is so nice of you!
I will just post the passage in question with its revealing, disgusting and sickening outcomes. If you want to turn yourself into another pretzel to try in vain to make Jesus not a brutal serial killer in Hosea 9:11-16, then that will be your apologetic and deceiving hermeneutic prerogative at your laughable expense, okay?
What you posted is a snippet of the greater context. Thus, you do not represent biblical teaching accurately. Here is the theme of the rest of the context as it related to the overarching theme of the Old Covenant:
Ephraim Punished
9 Do not rejoice, O Israel, with exultation like the nations!
For you have played the harlot, forsaking your God.
You have loved harlots’ earnings on every threshing floor.
For you have played the harlot, forsaking your God.
You have loved harlots’ earnings on every threshing floor.
7 The days of punishment have come,
The days of retribution have come;
Let Israel know this!
The prophet is a fool,
The inspired man is demented,
Because of the grossness of your iniquity,
And because your hostility is so great.
The days of retribution have come;
Let Israel know this!
The prophet is a fool,
The inspired man is demented,
Because of the grossness of your iniquity,
And because your hostility is so great.
10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness;
I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.
But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame,
And they became as detestable as that which they loved.
I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.
But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame,
And they became as detestable as that which they loved.
15 All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are rebels.
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are rebels.
17 My God will cast them away
Because they have not listened to Him;
And they will be wanderers among the nations.
JESUS AS YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE IS TO BRUTALLY MURDER INNOCENT ZYGOTES, FETUS' AND BABIES LIKE HE DID IN HIS GREAT FLOOD SCENARIO, PRAISE!:“The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)The irony of this narrative, and in comparison, is like when our Jesus brutally drowned innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood ( Genesis 6:5) where His creation were evil in that instance as well.
God is the giver and taker of life. That is His prerogative, not ours. He determines how long upon this earth we have and as I said before, and you totally ignore, if God takes an innocent life He will restore it to a better place.
BUT, Jesus created evil in the first place as explicitly shown in Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6, and then drowns His entire creation because of it!
Isaiah 45:7 (NASB)
7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the Lord who does all these.
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the Lord who does all these.
Amos 3:6 (NASB)
6 If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?
As God promised and they agreed to if the people failed to walk or follow His ways He would withdraw His hand of protection from them and let their enemies overcome them. The covenant He made with them was an "if/then" covenant. It showcased that those who follow God receive blessings and are protected by Him. Those who do not He withdraws His hand of protection and allows their enemies victory and by their cruel manner of bondage and restraint to the point of death.
Jesus, you ol' kidder you! Then to make matters worse, Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, is omniscient, therefore He knew way beforehand that He was going to murder innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood AND His enacting abortions in the book of Hosea! WOW! Is this how our ever loving and forgiving Jesus is to act? Huh?
A loving God will not ignore injustice and wrongdoing. How would a judge be good or just if he ignored what was right and good? Those traits of injustice and sin not only affect those who practice them but those around them. Evil is likened to yeast in dough, it spreads to affect the whole batch.
++++++++++++++++++++++PGA2.0, when Jesus is shown to brutally murder innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies with many examples shown within the scriptures, do we now stay away from making Family Planning Clinics stop aborting zygotes and fetus too? If we continue to picket said Family Planning Clinics in the name of Christianity, isn't that totally hypocritical to our faith because of Jesus murdering innocent life as well ?!
I have already answered this in this post and the previous one and you ignored my answer.
++++++++++++++++++++++PGA2.0, what division of Christianity are you associated with? While awaiting an answer from you, let your additional Devil Speak and insidious apologetic spin doctoring begin upon this topic at your expense.
I am not of a division with other Christians in fundamental beliefs regarding the Lord Jesus. Christians profess certain fundamental truths about Him or they believe falsely or are immature in their belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Or are religious people deluded to start with?
It depends on the religious worldview for logically two opposing beliefs cannot both be true. Not only this, since we are limited beings we are not going to be correct in many areas of our understanding. But, a worldview is only as good as its starting or core presuppositions, the foundational beliefs that everything else is built upon. Thus, I would say that an atheist or agnostic can be just as deluded as a religious person, and in fact, I would contend an atheist or agnostic has a religious belief in the sense that their worldview also attempts to answer what any logical worldview holds to, that is, 1) What are we? 2) Who are we? 3) What does it matter? 4) What happens to us when we die? 5) How do you know? So, the atheist or agnostic worldview tries to answer life's ultimate questions just like a religious worldview does.
If we look at the first question, we would need to consider the effect religion has on followers.
And also the effect of atheism and agnosticism.
For example, followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven.
Regarding the Christian faith, there are many reasonable proofs so that argument does not wash. Making sense of the universe requires a necessary being of which you nor I am that being. Other than such a being why is your relative, subjective opinions and ideas better than mine in regards to origins and meaning?
Also, the fundamental principals of religions state that humans have a "soul". Again there is not one piece of evidence to support such a concept and the word soul is normally used as a metaphor.
On the other hand, are you just a physical entity and can you make sense of your being strictly from such a standpoint? I do not believe you can. It begs many questions. How does consciousness come from matter? How does life come from inorganic matter? What caused the material universe if you believe in a beginning? If you do not believe in the beginning of the universe how do we get to the present from eternity? You have an infinite regression of causes.
To this extent, could we say that religion influences or even, forces followers to become deluded.
Could we say atheism and agnosticism force followers to become deluded by that particular bias?
It could be that religious followers are deluded regardless of religion and find themselves attracted to the abstract, nature of believing in an unknown, contrived entity. For example, comprehensive research and authoritative studies have concluded:"The God gene hypothesis proposes that human spirituality is influenced by heredity and that a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences."
Could agnostic and atheistic followers be substituting their own selves in place of God? Do they want to be the necessary being in determining what is and what should be?
Could the delusion in some religious followers be due to both factors, i.e., hereditary and conditional? In which case would some religious followers be more deluded than others
And finally, since the post is highly speculative and conjectural, let us ask, could it be that atheism and agnosticism are more deluded than others? What about that question? Has it been considered? Could their hereditary and environment have conditioned them as they jump on the bandwagon of neutrality or elitist thinking? Could their thinking be funnelled by the popular propaganda machine of media, education and politics? Has the nuts and bolts of their worldview been dismantled to find out what is under the engine?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Listen, my extreme MO on this forum is vouchsafed by Jesus' inspired words, to wit: "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2)reprove: reprimand or censure someone.rebuke: express sharp disapproval or criticism of someone because of their behavior or actions.exhort: strongly encourage or urge someone to do something.Do you want to call Jesus's inspired words as LIES shown above in how I am to act regarding preaching His words to the ignorant pseudo-christians like you? Yes?
Each person should be careful about how they build on His words so I will be using this reply in the sense of a rebuke and reprimand. Paul warned those who misrepresented the gospel message that there were consequences.
Galatians 1:6-10 (NASB)
Perversion of the Gospel
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
Perversion of the Gospel
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
Thus, it is the onus of someone professing faith in Christ to do his/her best to accurately represent His teaching, not twist it.
2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB)
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
So, when God brings understanding it is important to not misrepresent that understanding or the person will be proven a false witness by that very Scripture.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NASB)
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Like I have said many times, it is really hard in being a TRUE Christian in the 21st century, where when you have read ALL of the bible, you therefore run upon another biblical axiom that shows are beloved Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, being a brutal sadistic serial killer abortionist.As if Jesus’ Great Flood wasn’t enough in being an abortionist, by murdering innocent zygotes, fetus,’babies, and children, then Jesus’ serial killing abortionist nature holds true once again with His brutal and horrific killing of innocent children and fetus’ as dictated by him in the narrative below:JESUS AS YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE SAID: “The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)
Since I am short of time today, I will be brief by not addressing the whole OP or in detail.
Please note what is being done here. It is called 'selective citing' or 'collapsing the context' and what it does is it does not present an accurate understanding of the Christian worldview but a tainted and biased one. Once a person takes into consideration the rest of the context or the overall theme (doctrine) that person would understand that God and Israel are in covenant relationship (Deuteronomy 28) and that God is judging wrongful action. As I have argued many times before, God is just. God will not take an innocent life by restoring it to a better place. That is something that makes us different from God. We do not have the ability to restore a life taken.
In reading yet another example of our ever loving and forgiving Jesus being shown once again to be a sadistic brutal abortionist murderer of innocent fetus' and children, really tests my faith in wanting to worship Him at times. Fellow Christians, since Jesus is shown in not being pro-life in the Hosea narrative above, does this test your faith as well?
Again, I contend that this, the outrage of loaded language (i.e., sadistic brutal murderer of innocents, brutal, revengeful, and disgusting abortionist, advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortion), is antithetical to what the Scriptures teach of Jesus.
We Christians are against abortion 100 percent, but then the bible shows that our Jesus was a brutal, revengeful, and disgusting abortionist that turns us into hypocrites upon the abortion issue! Furthermore, our Jesus advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortions within the Bible, now what do we do in His defense!
Matthew 19:13-14 (NASB)
Jesus Blesses Little Children
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “[a]Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “[a]Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Footnotes:
- Matthew 19:14 Or Permit the children
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@ludofl3x
Answering "God" does explain some things.Except neither you nor he can demonstrate that this explanation, or start of an explanation, has one thing required to be valid: existence.
I can demonstrate that the Christian worldview, not yours, Ludo, is necessary for making sense of the universe and our existence. I can demonstrate that the Christian worldview is consistent with what we see and witness experientially, that is life coming from the living, that such a being as God explains the cause of the universe. Not only this, I can give reasonable and logical evidence that what the Bible conveys over and over again is true in the use of prophecy and with its internal consistency. The one thing I can't do is make you believe. Your worldview commitment gets in the way but why anyone would believe such a stretch as blind random chance happenstance is beyond me. It does not have answers to your existence that are plausible.
The rest of the arguments he makes flow from the assumption, rather than demonstration, that this entity exists at all.
Why would I throw pearls before swine? IOW's, why would I take the time and commitment to explain something that a person is not interested in hearing and will only mock? I have been down that road too many times before. First, show me you are interested in the discussion and are willing to make it reciprocal.
If we can't do that, then god is on the same playing field as the fairies and the grecoroman pantheon and mind in a vat. Both of you go through a lot of distraction tactics to avoid this question.
I would say the same of your worldview commitment.
His seems to be mainly argument from authority + argument from incredulity + et tu quotue.
Arguments depend on evidence from an authority. You have demonstrated your worldview is already committed to ignoring the evidence of prophecy and evading the moral argument questions as to them making sense of morality.
Also, "I think you're wrong therefore I am actually right," which isn't true either.
But exactly the same could be said of Ludo's argument. Why would someone commit to a worldview unless they thought it was true?
Look PGA, I don't have a ton of time to go through your stuff, but I appreciate your effort. You have not, however, demonstrated the existence of this character from the book is anything other than how Batman exists. I have answered all the questions honestly, but you keep asking them. If I knew what caused the big bang, I'd have a nobel prize right now. I just don't think it was a character from a book. You fervently believe this character said magic words, you think the earth is young despite the scientific evidence, you cite oral tradition as corruptible then think the bible is infallible and factual...this is probably as good a place as any to end, I can't sort through four or five posts that have repetitive questions I've already answered. I look forward to engaging you in the future in other topics.
So what have you actually answered? You don't know yet you remain committed to philosophical naturalism. Basically, you are ignorant of how and why and what yet you dismiss the universe as created. I'm saying that your view is not reasonable because it does not have what is necessary to make sense of ultimately anything regarding origins. You favour the Big Bang model of cosmology yet even with this you have no clue how it happened, neither do, as you point out, the proponents of this model. The Big Bang does explain that the universe had a beginning and the evidence points to this but how is it a reasonable model that has no agency for the Big Bang? Because of this glaring deficiency others have proposed multiverses and other theories, even suggesting that nothing produced something.
Take care!
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything.It is part of an explanation. For example, to best understand how my watch disappeared, it is important to know WHO took it, not only how it was taken. The HOW can depend on the WHO.If it was my wife taking it to engrave a happy 25th anniversary message on the back for me, she knows my safe combination, if it was my neighbors son, he was unmonitored when I left it open.Answering "God" does explain some things.It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.He is right. Observe from my example above. If someone should accuse my neighbor's son of taking my watch, he would immediately reply that since he doesn't know the combination to my safe, HOW could he have taken the watch?You are saying it was not God, so then PGA is asking you how it was done, because only God has the combination to the safe. He is completely right to ask you "how", given your answer for, "who".You can ask him the same thing too. But given that you've admitted that you don't know how, you cannot possibly know the who.Now, if we can establish that only my wife knows the combination, and the safe showed no signs of being broken into, then I must conclude it was my wife and not my neighbor's son.PGA is convinced that only God could have created the universe, and our observation of the universe says everything has a cause, he logically concludes that cause must be God.
Good points!
So though PGA doesn't yet know the intricate workings of "how", but at least can now eliminate the rabbit's hole of the neighbor's son.
The workings of how would be God speaking the universe into existence.
For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
He has part of the explanation. The "who". Much more than you have.
He does not have a who, only it. The 'it' is blind random indifferent chance happenstance. Now, how that "it" has the agency to do anything he has not explained.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Bible=/= evidence for it being true.
How do you know? Consider God communicating to His creation - humanity - via His word and presence. Not only this but His word would necessarily correspond to what is the case. If He said that in 490 years from a revelation Jerusalem would once again be destroyed and that took place it would be a confirmation and it would be evidence.
I don't think prophecy is any indication of divinity (see my sports illustrated 2014 Houston Astros prediction of a 2017 WS championship, which is far more specific, accurate and impressive than anything purportedly prophesied in the bible), there is no inherent connection between prediction and divinity.
How many specific things were fulfilled by that prediction, btw? (I can't remember,) Nevertheless, one prediction and was it unreasonable? The Astros would have had many early picks in rebuilding their team since they were at the bottom of the pack. How many people over the years have predicted other teams without much luck or who got lucky?
I do not think that you understand nor appreciate the specific nature of biblical prophecy or its fulfillment.
And morality existed before the bible, so that's not a good one either because you could appropriate morals of the day into a book and pretend some power gave them to a 900 year old guy on a mountain.
Because it existed before the written record how does that discount the written revelation? Morality is explained by the necessity of God --> an eternal, unchanging, omniscient, objective, absolute measure.
As for the 900-year-old guy, you assume that the present is the key to the past and that God has to be explained exhaustively by human natural reason. That is a mistake in your reasoning, not mine.
Please prove true that people lived to 900 years, or 600 years, that snakes and donkeys can talk, the ark story, that anyone ever rose from the dead...it's just mythology. And it's not even original.
Again, you either think that the present is the key to the past (because the present is where the data is contained) and/or that miracles are not possible, that God can't do with the natural order things we are unable to do?
Again, how do you know that the oral tradition was not passed down from generation to generation and became corrupt (telephone game) through time until God decided to correct the misconceptions developing via His presence and Spirit interacting with Moses and others?
Again, you don't. You have been funnelled into a particular way of thinking by your society and those gatekeepers who influence you.
If you can't prove the bible god empirically, can you empirically prove other gods are false?
What do you mean by proof? I can give reasonable and logical proof. Whether you accept that is not for me to decide.
Logically, only one God can be the necessary creator. All religions contain views of God that do not comport; they contradict each other. Thus, logically, only one can be true.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The Bible is evidence. Prophecy is evidence. Jesus Christ as a historical Person is an evidence. The unity of the Bible is evidence. Morality is evidence. Something instead of nothing and how to make sense of it is evidence. The complexity and diversity of life is a piece of evidence. Uniformity of nature is evidence. Truth and knowledge are pieces of evidence. Logic is evidence. The information we find and discover in nature is evidence. The laws of nature and mathematics are evidence. The causal tree or origins is evidence. Consciousness is evidence.The Bible's the claim, not the evidence.
It is both. What is said in the Bible often can be confirmed outside the Bible. The names, places, events for instance. There is also internal confirmation and external confirmation. Do you understand what evidence is?
Historical evidence for Jesus is GENEROUSLY considered disputable, as records of him outside of the bible are extremely scarce.
First, there are numerous eyewitnesses of His ministry, life and death who write about Him. Paul records over 500 who witnessed His resurrection. Some are willing to go to death confessing Him as Lord and Savior. Then there are numerous outside sources of His existence, including early church fathers, outside Jewish sources like Josephus, and pagan sources. Then there is the prophetic message that only fits Him. Then there is the internal consistency of the Bible that in almost every page of the OT that speaks of Him. Then there is His teachings that are mind changing to millions of people throughout history - the personal experience of His truth.
Morality is not uniform, so it can't be evidence of a single mind behind it.
It is not uniform or consistent with your worldview. As I have said by now many times, your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of morality as anything other than personal or group preference or might makes right. How does that make sense of morality, of what right actually is? It does not and that becomes evident by history lived apart from God.
You don't make sense of something rather than nothing, what a terrible argument (Because something is here, therefore Jesus is the reason?).
I have no idea what you mean? What does the underlined mean?
How can something precede the eternal Son?
How does a universe with a beginning begin? Can it create itself out of nothing/no thing (self-creation)? Explain how nothing can create something.
How does math = evidence for Jesus?
It shows a Mind is behind the universe. That Mind has to be the sufficient cause of mathematics because mathematics is a conceptual thing - it requires mindfulness to think about it. The universe displays principles of mathematics that we discover, we do not invent them. These principles exist before we do so we are not the necessary mind for their existence.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
How do such beings develop from mindless matter (Ma?GPa?)?Don't know.
Then how do you make sense of it? How can you say God is not the most reasonable explanation?
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.Yes, it does. It explains origins and existence. It says how, by His word, He spoke and it was so. Whether you believe the Bible or biblical evidence is another matter. It is also logical and reasonable.So according to you, the most logical explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation, the speed of light, the rapid expansion of the universe, the MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION is "an unseen entity not described in any book at all until the last two thousand years said magic words and the entire universe sprang into existence, then made sure the evidence didn't look like he did that at all"? To you, this is the most logical and reasonable explanation? Clearly we have different standards of reasonable.
The most logical explanation to these things is that the universe had a created beginning (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth).
You do not think that your essence and personality, what makes you 'you' is immaterial?
If the entire universe is physical matter how do you explain the laws of logic? How do you see, feel, touch, taste, hear them? They are not dependent on you but without them, you could not make sense of anything. So, some things in a naturalistic, materialistic universe are not physical. Go figure. How can that be?
All we ever witness, experientially, is conscious, intelligent beings deriving their existence from other such beings.What percentage of the time in which humans have existed in their current form on earth has the microscope been employed?
Very short in relation to humanity's existence if it was invented in 1590, but very long in relation to my life span.
Wait, maybe a better question. How old do you think the earth is?
Relative to what? I don't know how old it is but I suspect it is younger than scientism says it is. If I have sorted it out correctly it would be young.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Does no intention, no purpose, no agency, but mindless, indifferent, random chance happenstance make sense or seem like the likely explanation?Define "make sense."
Is it reasonable and logical to believe it is what corresponds to the actual?
To me, it means, in this context, comports with the evidence.
Providing you are correctly interpreting the data/evidence. Where you start determines what you end up believing. Core beliefs are the hardest to dislodge or let go of for they are the ones you have the most invested in.
In which case, yes, indifferent randomness makes the most sense.
There is no reason or logic to random chance happenstance so how can you make sense of it? Flip a coin as to whether heads or tails turn up. Unless there is an intentionality to the flip why would you expect continually to flip heads? No reason. Roll a six repeatedly one million times. Is that likely? Do you think 'time' is the factor that makes it happen? Things just happen randomly. Why should they continue to happen in a uniform manner?
Again, do you have any answers to my questions?
From the amount of empty space to stuff like famines and floods, that's what it looks like.
Maybe to your confirmational bias, but not from mine. So who is right? Stack up the reasons why you feel you are right.
Also, tell me what caused the Big Bang. Tell me how consciousness comes from non-conscious matter. Those are just two small hurdles.
I don't think you and I see the phrase "making sense of" anything as the same thing.
Is it logically consistent? If not, you have a problem with your reasoning that doesn't make sense.
You want to feel better about the randomness, so you say "God has a plan for this horrible or senseless shit" and say you've made sense of it.
I have a reasonable explanation for why evil exists and why bad things happen. A mindless universe is indifferent to your feelings, it doesn't care, and if you believe the universe is random why are you so concerned about God whose existence you don't believe in? (Another inconsistency)
Why do you spend so much time debating what to you would only be a concept that you don't believe exists? (Inconsistent/irrational)
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm asking for what is more reasonable and logical to believe - God creating or chance happenstance in explaining our existence and the existence of the universe? What makes sense in origins?I'm not convinced these are the only two options, as the laws o f physics may have dictated it. It's never 'logical' to believe something that has no evidence to support it. Would it also be logical to believe in fairies doing it? Why not, because there's no book about them?
Two logical options, but you could argue for the universe as an illusion, or that the universe is eternal but I don't see them as a good option.
Concerning illusion, you can believe it but you certainly do not live your life consistent with such a belief, do you?
With an eternal universe, there would be an infinite number of causes. We understand a chain of causes in everything we see. Where does it stop in an infinite universe? Whatever is contingent on something else owes it existent/cause to something else. We have a cause yet we live in the present. Infinity has no end or no beginning. How do you get to the present from infinity?
Do you believe you had a beginning?
So those examples do not seem feasible but argue for them if you like.
So, either we were created or we are here by chance happenstance (which has no intent, agency, or reason to our being or existence overall). Unless we get to a first cause that is uncaused (i.e., outside of the physical realm of existence - outside the box we call the universe, that does not have a beginning or end) we have to surmise that something came from nothing. How can that ever happen? If there is nothing how can nothing create or be responsible for itself? First, the universe would have to be self-creating? That is a self-refuting principle. Something would have to exist before it could create itself. If you think otherwise, please explain how something from nothing is possible.
I will also remind you that many concepts are possible in thought such as an infinite series of numbers expressed mathematically but they cannot be demonstrated experientially or in the world or universe we live in.
***
How can the laws of physics dictate anything? They don't have intent do they? So, you can't get away from thinking in terms of being. You are giving personal characteristics from concepts of mind to describe what we see. Not only this but we discover these laws. We don't create them. They were there before we were born, thus, they are not dependent upon us thinking them. Our minds are not necessary for there existence. The interesting question is without any mind would they exist; what would exist? Would there still be a universe with a mind to contemplate it?
Norm Geisler gives an example of a painter and a painting as an analogy of God and the universe. The painting is not the painter although His mind and body are responsible for creating it from his mental and physiology capacities. The same with a universe. The universe is not God but God is responsible for creating it through and from His mind alone.
As for fairies, do you think they have sufficient power to create the universe? If so, what is your proof? How are you going to reason for beings that have left no trace of themselves in writing or reasonable confirmation in history? The Bible, if from God, is our highest authority because it says it is a revelation from Him.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The information is contained in the Bible either through direct statements or from logical inference. Whether you accept the Bible as what it claims is another matter.Claim =/= evidence. I knew this was coming. Please prove the bible true. Remember, it contains talking snakes, a global flood, a boat that held two of every species of animal, bird and insect for more than a month, angels, a man wrestling a god, and a magic horn that brings down fortress walls.
The evidence is via history and the internal consistency of the Bible itself.
When you ask to prove the Bible true, two things,
1) What would you accept as evidence? Are you open or closed-minded? I can reason with you regarding the evidence (and I have to some extent) and point to the Bible and its verifications. As I said, my favourite line of evidence is prophecy. Next is morality. Are you open to reasoning?
2) You do realize the biblical God is a Spirit, right? Thus, I can't show you Him empirically.
If you are interested, Norm Geisler narrows down the options in his book, here,
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As for the NT documents, it is most reasonable and logical to believe they were written before AD 70 since almost every one of them mentions the soon coming judgment and not one of them mentions the already destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which we know from history happened in AD 70. That omission alone is central to the NT teachings, primarily the Olivet Discourse spoken of in Matthew Mark and Luke and also Revelation and also elaborated upon by Paul, Peter, James and John.1. You say: "As for the NT documents, it is most reasonable and logical to believe ....." WAIT! Where do the original New Testament writings in Keone Greek exist at this time?
"At this time?" Do you mean today or do you mean "at that time" (1st-century)?
I am not interested in your wishful thinking, opinions, and hearsay, understood? I am only interested in ABSOLUTES with direct historical citing from the original writings of ALL chapters of the New Testament, do you understand?
Do you understand that very few original papyrus documents exist from the 1st-century? Do you understand the persecution of the early church? Do you understand that most of these originals were written to specific churches and copied for other churches? Do you understand how long it would take for the gospel message to spread, yet Paul and others report that the word of God was being preached throughout the world and to the ends of the earth, to all creation. That was Paul, speaking in the 1st-century. History tells us he died by the hand of Nero around AD 64-68.
I'm not interested in your fantasy feelings either. Show me absolute historical evidence that the originals did not exist during the 1st-century. Also, show me from the hundreds of time statements in the NT that any of them are speaking of the already destroyed temple and city. Do you know what the OT centred around? It centred around temple worship and an OT economy. It centred around the coming Messiah. Give me instances in the NT of the already passed OT rituals and temple worship - just one. Do you understand the importance of the temple and city to these OT people and these Jewish writers (for the most part) fail to mention what would be the most important event in their history? I think you are ignorant of all these factors. A.T. Roberson, had this to say about AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem,
"ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark."
I've read his book and seen the evidence. Have you?
Where does the original writings exist to make your statements a reality?
Show me other original writings that exist from that period. They are few and far between. What is amazing though is the sheer number of early copies. Do you know why that is important? I bet you don't.
Are you going to ignore all ancient history in which the original documents are not available?
2. You say: " ... since almost every one of them mentions the soon coming judgment ..." Again, where do these original Keone Greek New Testament writings exist to support your discourse?
Where do the earliest documents we have available exist to support your discourse?
I have a far more reasonable position than you do, yet your bias thinks otherwise. Thus, I suggest you present the proof for your claim which you have not so artfully avoided. Where is your evidence for the Mithras documents dates and how many were found?
I don't mind this discussion regarding the NT though since I have been studying it for years and think you are ignorant of the evidence.
To use the term "soon" like you did, and as Jesus proffered to many in the time period He was on earth, biblically speaking,"SOON" MEANT IN HIS GENERATION!
Yes, He spoke of it happening before that generation He came to was over. Do you know how long a generation was and how long after His death the temple and city were destroyed?
It was to be in the generation of the living that Jesus was associated with (Matthew 16: 27, 28) and not 1987 years later!
Yes, I agree 100%, so what is your point?
(Mark 13:26-30) Since Jesus has not returned, let alone in the generation that He said he was 1987 years ago, this proposition alone makes me question if Jesus was in fact real! What do you say without any ungodly Satanic spin doctoring that I will call you on, get it?
That is because you try to interpret passages like Matthew 24:3 in terms of the end of the world, not the end of the age. What age was Jesus speaking of in Matthew 24:3?
Also, when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18 that not one letter of the law of Moses would pass until all was accomplished what did He mean?
Also, Matthew 16:27-18, in which Jesus is speaking to His disciples says, "some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” what does He MEAN? And what does He mean when He said in verse 27, " the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."
Do you understand how the Father came in judgment in the OT??? I bet you have no clue. Why is that important? Because Jesus said He would come in like manner. How did His Father come in glory and judgment in the OT? I bet you have no clue. Prove me wrong.
As for the other documentation that you want from me, you have your homework cut out for you in showing me the above required information so as for you to stand upon firm ground, and not upon quicksand from information from some insidious apologetic web site, understand?
You made the claim about Mithras. Axiom - He who makes a claim bears the burden of proving it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Don't know how it started. I can't stress that enough. I know the evidence points to the big bang cosmological model. Not to Jesus.
There are two assumptions I will address here, 1) that the evidence points to the Big Bang, 2) that the Big Bang was not a result of God in the Son, Jesus speaking the universe into existence by His word.
By the way, you're not 'making sense' of how anything started this way, what you're doing is called 'taking credit for' more accurately.
I'm asking for what is more reasonable and logical to believe - God creating or chance happenstance in explaining our existence and the existence of the universe? What makes sense in origins?
Does no intention, no purpose, no agency, but mindless, indifferent, random chance happenstance make sense or seem like the likely explanation?
Well?
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.
Yes, it does. It explains origins and existence. It says how, by His word, He spoke and it was so. Whether you believe the Bible or biblical evidence is another matter. It is also logical and reasonable.
We are conscious, intelligent beings. Follow that chain back. How do such beings develop from mindless matter (Ma?GPa?)?
The whole philosophical naturalistic worldview (your worldview) hinges on how it can and is developed around that confirmational bias. BUT what we witness is different than what is supposed and said to happen. All we ever witness, experientially, is conscious, intelligent beings deriving their existence from other such beings. So what is more reasonable and logical to believe - God, a mindful, conscious, intelligent necessary Being or mindless, thus purposeless, non-conscious, chance happenstance inorganic matter?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE: "Please give the earliest stone tablets, manuscripts, or copies available of Mithra and what is written."I will show you these entities of Mithraism right after you show me the earliest stone tablets, manuscripts, or God forbid,Satanic Copies available for Jesus.
Nice deke! (a deceptive movement or feint that induces an opponent to move out of position)
I asked you to show me the documents you are referring to and when they were written.
As for the NT documents, it is most reasonable and logical to believe they were written before AD 70 since almost every one of them mentions the soon coming judgment and not one of them mentions the already destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which we know from history happened in AD 70. That omission alone is central to the NT teachings, primarily the Olivet Discourse spoken of in Matthew Mark and Luke and also Revelation and also elaborated upon by Paul, Peter, James and John.
The sheer number of biblical documents (over 5,000 Greek complete gospels and 24,000 partial manuscripts) and the confirmation of the message over centuries confirm the message has not changed in transmission. Not only this, the early church fathers confirm many references to Scripture in there writings.
How reasonable and logical to believe are your Mithras documents? How many have been found and to what extent were they intact?
You certainly do not deny that Mithra existed in history before Christ, do you?
No, I do not deny the belief in Mithras before Christ. That is not what I am getting at.
If you do, then start wiping the egg from your face now! LOLPsst, heads up, our Jesus was not mentioned in historical papers by others until 93CE, which makes it even worse for us regarding His validity!
Prove it. First, you have to establish that the early Christian writers did not write the original documents before that time. Let's see your evidence, not some dump from a secular site. List it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please give the earliest documented stone tablets, manuscripts, or copies available of Mithra and what is written.So age = likeliest path to truth?
Not necessarily at all. Internal and external consistency is another possible way to think of it.
It is a question that could entail evidence as to which came first and who borrowed from whom? If the earliest writings of the similarities are two-three centuries after the Christian manuscripts in the 3rd and 4th centuries that list the similarities then even though Mithras myth was before Christ what was borrowed from Christianity in its transmission?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
With origins, you say you don't or can't know, yet you deny God is the most reasonable answer, correct?I deny that anything undemonstrated is the most reasonable answer, just waiting for evidence.
It is your secular naturalistic view that believes God is not demonstrated.
This ruse that there is no evidence is a total sham. It is a parrot talking point used by atheists.
The Bible is evidence. Prophecy is evidence. Jesus Christ as a historical Person is an evidence. The unity of the Bible is evidence. Morality is evidence. Something instead of nothing and how to make sense of it is evidence. The complexity and diversity of life is a piece of evidence. Uniformity of nature is evidence. Truth and knowledge are pieces of evidence. Logic is evidence. The information we find and discover in nature is evidence. The laws of nature and mathematics are evidence. The causal tree or origins is evidence. Consciousness is evidence.
How do you make sense of the Big Bang?In what way?
I listed two ways below. Why did it happen? What caused it?
How do you make sense of the Big Bang? What exploded? What caused the explosion? Why?How many times have I said I'm not an astrophysicist?
And do you think they know? Or is origins not so much science but philosophical naturalism/scientism starting from one or the other core worldviews - God or chance happenstance? If they don't know then how much of your worldview is sheer fantasy, make-believe, fairy-tales? Why do you think their position of natural materialism answers such questions of existence? Are they the necessary minds in understanding why something exists and how that something began or how it got here?
What I see in your stance is someone who may not want to think about the consequences of your worldview and why it matters what you believe. IMO (and I could be wrong), I do not believe you want to admit such a God as the biblical God exists even though it is reasonable and logical to believe in Him. Thus there is always another excuse not to do so. If I am wrong, I would gladly begin a discussion on what I see as compelling evidence for God revealed in prophecy. That would be a two-way street. It would require your input and my questions answered with respect to what is more reasonable to believe. I can't do more than that. Are you willing? Stephen was not.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Thank you for answering some of my questions! It helps me to delve into what holds your worldview together more thoroughly.
With morality, how do you make sense of right and wrong from a relativistic position, or do you believe in objective morals? If so, how are they determined from a subjective mindset, and which subjective mindset(s)?The same way you do: individually.
Your philosophic naturalistic assumption is that your source is the same as mine. Again, you only look for your answers to morality through humanity and via naturalism. How do you think that makes sense of morality? You assume that is all we have. So which person or group do you think knows what is the actual right or is there such a thing from your worldview perspective? Is right just preference? Is it a consensus through majority rule or does might make right? Then how do you explain two conflicting cultural views on the right? Which is the actual right view since logically they both can't be true regarding the same thing?
I don't need a reward or a punishment to decide right from wrong.
You don't recognize a reward or punishment for right and wrong? Justice relies on addressing wrongs and applying punishment to them.
So, if someone does what is wrong in your opinion since without an objective measure it would only be based on opinion or preference (to my understanding - prove me wrong if you disagree), say murdering someone you love very much, you can distinguish it is wrong but you don't need a punishment applied? If the murderer got away with murder you would be okay with that (no punishment).
I don't believe in objective morals because morals change over time.
Then how do you know they are right now, or right then, or if either was ever right? Logically, A=A. Right is right. The right can't logically be right and wrong at the same time regarding the same thing. And truth does not change. Either it is right to kill an innocent human being just because you don't like them or they don't look like you and you want to, or it is wrong. It can't be both. There is a contradiction present and something is fatally flawed with such reasoning that can't nail down what actually is the case or what is actually the right.
At one point it was moral to murder people who didn't look like you.
Maybe from your perspective which is relative but from the Christian worldview it is never right to kill someone just because they did not look like you or you don't like them.
Now it isn't. Slavery was moral at some point, now it isn't. Sorry but morality is subject to the time and society in which the group exists.
Slavery was never morally right. There is a difference between an indentured servant and a slave. If you work for an employe and are not self-employed you have a contract with them where you are required to perform particular duties in exchange for enumeration or some other benefit. You are not allowed to beat them or treat them cruelly. That is not a biblical position.
Morality is subjective to secular or subjective individuals or groups that either 1) do not recognize or 2) obey the biblical teaching about loving others and treating them in the image and likeness of God in which they have been created.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
What do you mean by 'atheist?' Does that mean you don't know if it was God but until you see evidence you will reject Him and live from the atheistic position of looking at life and meaning strictly from a position devoid of God?By atheist I mean I do not believe in god or gods. That's it.To be consistent, do you mean that you explain everything from naturalistic materialism origination from the physical universe? Or do you just say, "Who knows, who cares," yet spend your time debating just that?I have yet to find a proposition that nature can't make sense of. I don't say who cares, I say who knows and then "If you do, please show me how."
Make sense of why? Why the Big Bang or whatever you believe happened via nature. Make sense of what caused the Big Bang.
And I ask you what is necessary to know? Is your limited or my limited mind sufficient? You have revealed yours is not. I confess mine is not. What then is your ultimate authority? Is it still yourself? Is it some genius? Which one(s)?
The Christian claim is if knowledge of such things is to be known it requires such a God as revealed by Scripture. Then I say, "Look at the evidence for this God," from prophecy, from the internal (biblical) and external (pagan or extra-biblical sources) writings, their consistency, from how the Bible looks at morality and so on.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE THAT CAN OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS: "Why do you think Christianity is a myth since you put it in the same category as myths? What is the earliest manuscript evidence of Zenu and how does it correspond to what actually is by its revelations? What makes you think it preceded the biblical account, how well attested is it historically, how similar is it, and how do you know it is not a copy-cat to some degree?SILENCE! The last thing you want to do as a Christian, is to bring forth the notion that another God or faith may be a copycat situation! Many Hell bound non Christians purport that our Christianity is nothing but a copycat of Mithraism! The god is found as “Mitra” in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as “Mithra.”THEREFORE, THE GOD MITHRA EXISTED WAY BEFORE OUR JESUS THE CHRIST, WHERE OUR CHRISTIANITY IS A COPYCAT OF MITHRAISM! THEREFORE, MUMS THE WORD, SHHHHHHHH!Since Mithra existed way before Jesus, then our Jesus is nothing but a copycat of Mithra as shown below!
Please give the earliest documented stone tablets, manuscripts, or copies available of Mithra and what is written.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
As for accepting the propositions, I would like you to explain how your worldview adequately explains my charges.I don't understand this sentence. I'm an atheist, that means I don't believe in gods. What charges?
What charges? See Post #131.
What do you mean by 'atheist?' Does that mean you don't know if it was God but until you see evidence you will reject Him and live from the atheistic position of looking at life and meaning strictly from a position devoid of God?
To be consistent, do you mean that you explain everything from naturalistic materialism origination from the physical universe? Or do you just say, "Who knows, who cares," yet spend your time debating just that?
The charges are of making sense of morality, origins, etc.
With morality, how do you make sense of right and wrong from a relativistic position, or do you believe in objective morals? If so, how are they determined from a subjective mindset, and which subjective mindset(s)?
With origins, you say you don't or can't know, yet you deny God is the most reasonable answer, correct? You think the Big Bang is the most accepted scientific position, correct? How do you make sense of the Big Bang? What exploded? What caused the explosion? Why?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Not to Jesus. By the way, you're not 'making sense' of how anything started this way, what you're doing is called 'taking credit for' more accurately. Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.Why not Jesus? Again, a philosophical naturalistic position does not allow for intentionality.Why not the Titans of Grecoroman myth? Or Zenu, the scientology guy? It's pretty evident to me, your Jesus explanation is not in any way explanatory.
Are you starting from a position of gods then? I thought you espoused atheism. You live from an atheistic position - correct? Or do you believe that a god or gods wound up the universe and left it for humanity to play in? If so, which god/gods? Let's examine it from the god/gods you put your trust in, if you are not an atheist.
Why do you think Christianity is a myth since you put it in the same category as myths? What is the earliest manuscript evidence of Zenu and how does it correspond to what actually is by its revelations? What makes you think it preceded the biblical account, how well attested is it historically, how similar is it, and how do you know it is not a copy-cat to some degree?
Still completely unaddressed is how me not knowing how time started affects whether I'm a Hitler Socialist or whatever with those distractions.
Because once you deny God naturalistic materialism becomes the basis for your explanation of everything. That would become the default, the way you sift and view life. Science or scientism becomes your god. As I have said repeatedly, the core or foundation you build on reflects in your understanding of everything. You start from one of a few basic starting points and build the web of belief from the core. The analogy would be like that of a spider-web or a house foundation. The foundation starts with the cornerstone and works out from it.
Do you have a sense of what is right and what is wrong???
Where does that derive from? Is it just the way your electro-chemical composition reacts and why SHOULD mine react in the same way? Please answer these questions. That is the weakness of atheism. It rejects Christianity yet does not have an adequate basis for it to rest upon in its own right.
Is it just physiological, genetic, and environmental factors that shape it? What makes those right and how do you derive an ought or what should be from an is?
Are we human beings just matter and energy in space (physiological) or is there something more to us?
***
What have I noticed to date on your position? You have not defined it nor explained how it is possible. Again, you focus on the Christian position without explaining why you hold to a position (atheism or the denial of God) that makes no sense and can't. There is a void of understanding or complete silence from you when questioned but I continually answer you to the best of my ability.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You are welcome to go through life not making sense of things because you have a worldview that can't. It does not have what is necessary.What exactly do you think my life is like without "making sense" of how the universe started?Just that, a life that cannot make sense of life's ultimate questions.THis probably ends our discussion, as it seems clear you have no way to elucidate at all what you're talking about.
I've given you various examples, such as origins and what would be necessary barring God, also from a moral standpoint, from a standpoint of science and uniformity of nature. I understand you do not like the message.
Besides that, I have continually asked you to make sense of life from your starting point and you keep telling me that you don't know how to make sense of life. That has been my point all along. Atheism knocks Christianity but it offers nothing in return except the continuance of living life outside of the godly Christian parameter. Hence, the 20th-century has been the bloodiest to date in the form of humanity's inhumanity and the 21st-century is up in the air as to its promise of a better life for the many. You have worse and worse leaders, leaders who do not recognize the dignity and sanctity of life but just ultimate power. They think nothing of flying planes into building or killing whoever is necessary to achieve the goal of power and wealth for the few.
I have asked several times now what "making sense of life's ultimate questions" actually means, in practical terms, and what sort of useful or actionable information does this impart, and you can't answer it outside of restating the question.
I have answered from a metaphysical, ontological, axiological, teleological, and eschatological standpoint.
How does your starting point make sense of:
What am I?
Who am I?
Why am I here?
What difference does it make?
What happens to me when I die?
What does your life, which you think makes sense of the ultimate questions (even these are extremely ill defined) have, in practical, demonstrable terms, that my life, which according to you does not? Please be specific. You know beyond doubt how the universe started ("God did it!"). Now that you know and I don't, what do you do differently than what I do, besides go to church?
The Christain worldview gives a meaning and ultimate purpose for life. It explains why I am here and what difference it makes in living life according to God's revelation principles (the Golden Rule, love your neighbour, and foremost, love God) as better. I understand why it is good to treat others as I would like then to treat me, it is not just my predetermined physiology reacting to my environment and genetics factors. An atheist cannot come to grips on why morality makes sense from anything other than a relativistic perspective because that is the only means available once you eliminate an objective, absolute, omniscient, unchanging Being.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The universe is evidence that something very significant happened that can't be adequately explained from a naturalist materialistic position (or inside the box, so to speak). If you think otherwise then please give the evidence that it can.I'm not an astrophysicist. I don't know how the universe started. Neither do you.
We both (as does everyone including astrophysicists) work from a presuppositional and philosophical starting point for you have to build on some starting point.
As for the evidence of God, I see it in everything I look at in all the complexity and diversity of life. I see it in the laws of science, the starting point for morality,You're putting it there.
For good reason.
You take it away in your denial.
Demonstrate that any god is in any law of science.
You can show precise mathematical equations for these laws. You do not invent these laws, you discover them. Why would a random chance universe show such precision and why would you expect uniformity from such a universe? No reason. Thus, naturalistic materialism needs reams of time for the possibility of such things as the universe to be what we see. Not only this, science needs uniformity for its predictions and laws. Why would you expect such laws from an unintentional random chance universe?
Morality...slippery slope considering the wide range of stuff that is considered immoral over time, and if morality were universal., we'd all agree on it. Any case, please demonstrate that this is so, that morality comes from any god.
The reason you find no consistency in morality is you deny what is necessary for consistency. As I said before, you can't make sense of it except to say might makes right. Hitler's Germany becomes no better than any other system of morality if morality is relative and subjective. You do not have what is necessary for better for there is no best to compare it to that is not made up and is shifting and changing. Humanity without God is thwarted with all kinds of relativistic views and opinions. Morality becomes whatever some relativist makes it be by might makes right.
But, if Hitler's Germany became the worldwide rule (like is possible with Xi's China or Putin's Russia in the future where suppression of opposition rules), and you were a Jew, how livable would your world become? As a Jew, with worldwide dominance by such a regime, you would have no choice but to accept that your existence was a bad thing, thus undermining experientially your existence no matter how you thought. Those are the possible stakes.
Socialism is a godless system of big government that your very country seems to be enthralled with. Be reminded about how well this godless system works where ever it is tried.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
So how does your fairy tale magically start?"Once upon a time, a long, long, time ago...nothing exploded into something (self-creation)...and that something acquired consciousness. We don't know how or why but it did and don't tell me God because God is not reasonable...."Don't know how it started.
Yet you live your whole existence from the one position that ignores or denies the other. I don't believe you can know. Your worldview lacks what would be necessary to know.
I can't stress that enough.
Neither can I, that you don't know nor could you from your starting point and the way you look at the world, the universe.
I know the evidence points to the big bang cosmological model.
Then it points to a start for the universe. So then, do you believe in self-creation (what is in the box explains the box, that somehow materializes itself from nothing, or does the reason have to come from outside the box, so to speak)?
Not to Jesus. By the way, you're not 'making sense' of how anything started this way, what you're doing is called 'taking credit for' more accurately. Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.
Why not Jesus? Again, a philosophical naturalistic position does not allow for intentionality.
How does creation for purpose and with meaning not make sense of the universe? Why does consciousness coming from a necessary conscious being not make sense? All we ever witness is conscious beings giving rise to other conscious beings. Thus, experientially, it is consistent.
By revelation (i.e., the Bible) we understand (and it explains) that we are not a product of chance but of a loving God who has a purpose for us. It is consistent with the INFORMATION and intelligence that can be found in the universe (i.e., Someone put it there for us to discover).
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The universe is evidence that something very significant happened that can't be adequately explained from a naturalist materialistic position (or inside the box, so to speak). If you think otherwise then please give the evidence that it can.I'm not an astrophysicist. I don't know how the universe started. Neither do you.
We both (as does everyone including astrophysicists) work from a presuppositional and philosophical starting point for you have to build on some starting point.
As for the evidence of God, I see it in everything I look at in all the complexity and diversity of life. I see it in the laws of science, the starting point for morality,You're putting it there.
For good reason.
You take it away in your denial.
Demonstrate that any god is in any law of science.
You can show precise mathematical equations for these laws. You do not invent these laws, you discover them. Why would a random chance universe show such precision and why would you expect uniformity from such a universe? No reason. Thus, naturalistic materialism needs reams of time for the possibility of such things as the universe to be what we see. Not only this, science needs uniformity for its predictions and laws. Why would you expect such laws from an unintentional random chance universe?
Morality...slippery slope considering the wide range of stuff that is considered immoral over time, and if morality were universal., we'd all agree on it. Any case, please demonstrate that this is so, that morality comes from any god.
The reason you find no consistency in morality is you deny what is necessary for consistency. As I said before, you can't make sense of it except to say might makes right. Hitler's Germany becomes no better than any other system of morality if morality is relative and subjective. You do not have what is necessary for better for there is no best to compare it to that is not made up and is shifting and changing. Humanity without God is thwarted with all kinds of relativistic views and opinions. Morality becomes whatever some relativist makes it be by might makes right.
But, if Hitler's Germany became the worldwide rule (like is possible with Xi's China or Putin's Russia in the future where suppression of opposition rules), and you were a Jew, how livable would your world become? As a Jew, with worldwide dominance by such a regime, you would have no choice but to accept that your existence was a bad thing, thus undermining experientially your existence no matter how you thought. Those are the possible stakes.
Socialism is a godless system of big government that your very country seems to be enthralled with. Be reminded about how well this godless system works where ever it is tried.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have to reiterate, take smaller bites, man. I don't want you to feel disrespected but I have to cut out most of what you post to get to your point.
Okay, small bites but lots of them.
You are welcome to go through life not making sense of things because you have a worldview that can't. It does not have what is necessary.What exactly do you think my life is like without "making sense" of how the universe started? Do you imagine I can't figure ANYTHING out, like I leave my shower running all the time, I've used a clothes iron as a telephone?
Just that, a life that cannot make sense of life's ultimate questions. That would mean it is inconsistent in the way you live experientially to the way you think overall, a universe without meaning and purpose yet you seek and live with both. You fight against God and a universe "with meaning and purpose" built into it for a universe to have meaning and purpose would mean there would be intentionality behind it, yet you deny this once you put your marbles all in one basket of denying what is necessary for intentionality. So, with denying God your outlook would focus on and start with naturalistic materialism.
I never said you could not figure out anything. What I said was your worldview lacks what is necessary for making sense of it without first borrowing from the Christian worldview. Thus, it is inconsistent.
If you don't want to look at the nuts and bolts of your worldview, that is your business. You have to go back to origins to do so and to what that means.
There is zero impact at all on my life outside of one simple question: do you believe in gods. The answer is no. Everything else I seem to have found myway.
That question shapes your whole worldview. What are the gods? They are contradictory human inventions. As I said, without God/gods, you seek or look at the explanation of things only through naturalistic materialism as the answer.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Since you don't claim to make sense of it or are unable to how can you rule out God as the most reasonable answer to existence?I don't rule it out.
Yet your worldview is geared towards a strictly naturalistic viewpoint that does not make sense of your existence. That is the way you look or explain existence. It does not make sense but you are welcome to it. You are welcome to go through life not making sense of things because you have a worldview that can't. It does not have what is necessary. That should tell you something right there.
I haven't seen evidence to support it, and furthermore I've never seen convincing evidence of anything that is clearly supernatural.
The universe is evidence that something very significant happened that can't be adequately explained from a naturalist materialistic position (or inside the box, so to speak). If you think otherwise then please give the evidence that it can. So you are left in a more disadvantaged position than I am.
As for the evidence of God, I see it in everything I look at in all the complexity and diversity of life. I see it in the laws of science, the starting point for morality, the unity of the Bible as a written revelation so that we can know God personally, and the reasonable and logical verification of prophecy. So just stick your fingers in your ears and pay no attention to what I have said.
Without any supporting evidence for a claim, why would I keep including it as part of the "most likely" answer?
Because it is reasonable and logical. If you want an irrational and illogical worldview then stick with your naturalistic materialism. You are welcome to it.
It's exactly as likely to me as aliens or fairies or magic or in a giant's eye.
So how does your fairy tale magically start?
"Once upon a time, a long, long, time ago...nothing exploded into something (self-creation)...and that something acquired consciousness. We don't know how or why but it did and don't tell me God because God is not reasonable...."
That is one scenario, granting you believe the universe had a beginning.
Do you believe the universe had a beginning? Or shall I start from another ridiculous scenario of philosophical naturalism?
I work from what I can see. If you'd like to present evidence, go ahead. You never do, because you want me to do what you do: accept the proposition and THEN build support underneath it. That's not how it works. You build supporting evidence to arrive at a conclusion, rather than look at a conclusion (as you have done, as EternlView does) and then work backwards to find "just so" support.
I've laid out the evidence to others and I'm not willing to go through the effort in doing it for those who are not interested. For instance, with prophecy, my claim all along has been the evidence is reasonable and logical, most compelling, to believe from what the Bible states and what history reveals.
It is also a two-way street. If I agreed to do so I would expect you to answer my questions also.
As for accepting the propositions, I would like you to explain how your worldview adequately explains my charges. That interests me, for I don't think your worldview has any idea of how to do so. Why would anybody believe a worldview that can't make sense of the most important issues in life?
I'm willing for others to ask the tough questions and try to answer them. I do not see the same response from atheists, generally speaking.You're willing to answer them so long as no one questions your answer: Jesus.
I do not fail to address those questions either. Usually, I answer the whole post.
Meaning of life? Jesus. Purpose of life? Jesus. Origin of life? Jesus. These aren't answers insomuch as they are guesses, because you cannot demonstrate them or prove them in any way, one, and two, "Jesus" isn't even answering the question.
They are not guesses. The information is contained in the Bible either through direct statements or from logical inference. Whether you accept the Bible as what it claims is another matter.
It's akin to "What's your favorite pizza topping?" "Star Wars." I don't speak for all atheists. I think I've shown I'm open to dialogue. What I'm not open to is you saying "The bible is true," then me saying "can you tell me how you know?" and you responding "BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND IT SAYS IT'S TRUE." That's not dialogue and it's not an honest engagement of the question.
May I ask you a question that I hope you will answer?
I'll go ahead and ask it after I build up the background.
The Bible discloses God is Spirit. Therefore, knowing God is not something we can quantitatively verify. But in verifying a witness we check to see whether that witness statements line up to reality and are not contradictory. So, as the Bible explains, to know God is to know the Son. Not only that but if you do not believe in the biblical God how are you going to believe in what that God says? No matter how reasonable why would you believe? Those are rhetorical questions. I'm getting to my question to you shortly. Hebrews 11:6 states,
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
QUESTION: If you do not believe that God is then why would you come to Him to receive a rewarder of those who seek Him?
And if you do not believe He exists (or are not willing to put your faith in His existence based on His word and authority) you will not come to Him in the prescribed way, through the Son and through the New Covenant He established. No matter how good the evidence it will be like Jesus said,
Mark 8:11-12 (NASB)
11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He *said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
The Christian moral? God is not under obligation to give you a sign. He has given His word. If that is not good enough then what will be? But with faith, God opens up and verifies His word.
[Here is the rest of the context - Nevertheless, the Christian worldview is logical, rational, and makes sense of existence.]From a necessary Being comes other beings.From personal, intelligent, mindful, logical, loving Being comes other beings of the same likeness.From a necessary moral Being comes other moral beings.Demonstrate the first premise: why is a being necessary, start there.
You ignore the rest of the context that I included above in brackets. I'm describing why a Christian worldview makes sense. From an evidentiary and an experiential standpoint that is what we see and witness. Your worldview starts with a presupposition that explains the world strictly in naturalistic terms. Do you grasp that if that is the case then to make sense of being and consciousness you must begin by something that is neither conscious nor intelligent yet somehow produces both? You also begin with materialism and naturalism if no supernatural Being is behind the universe. Go ahead and explain how that happens and how it is reasonable and logical to believe. (Silence as usual)
Why a necessary being? Because you are not it. We derive our existence from something or someone. The Christian worldview teaches it is from Someone. You do not have the answers nor from you do all other conscious beings originate. If you want a reasonable explanation (which evolution nor naturalism supplies) you start with such a being - God. As I said before, ultimately you have two scenarios, God or blind, indifferent, random chance happenstance; intent or the unintentional; purpose or chaos and randomness; intelligence or no reason. Yet we find and DISCOVER these attributes from nature. In nature or the somehow mechanical universe, we see that there are patterns and we put purposes to what we see/understand. We describe gravity, thermodynamics, energy, nature in precise mathematical formulas to explain what we see physically or understand in principle logically.
As Van Til expressed, it is like a train traveller journeying through the English countryside that sees the words on a hillside, "Welcome to Wales." The words convey information. Does he think they just materialized via hundreds of years to spell out that phrase or were they put there at that specific point for a purpose to provide information?
Show me the evidence for such beings.Not until you tell me you'll accept it as real. Frustrating, right? My evidence: earthquakes and hurricanes and tsunamis that kill indiscriminately, both christian and non christian, unpredictably and without explanation, are more easily explained by grecroman patheistic feuds than they are by a personal loving god who just wants to love up on everyone but accidentally maybe kill thousands of people or cripple their way of life, for not loving him even though he would have programmed them not to love him.
The universe doesn't care or have an answer to why this happens. Why do you care that it happens? You see, whether it is atheism or Christianity, each worldview has an explanation. Is that explanation satisfactory?
With the Christian worldview the problem is answered like this: If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent why is there evil in the world? The answer is that God allows it for a purpose. Earthquakes and floods are a result of original sin in which God placed restrictions on the universe (decay) and restrictions on humanity (death). He prevented them from living forever but gave only a limited amount of time to live. Since humanity in their federal head - Adam - rejected God He allowed them to live outside of His light and understanding (thus they lived and experienced the work of their own hands - evil). Some people look at this evil and look for a better way which is God and restoration to His light and understanding.
Romans 10:16-18 (NASB)
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
And their words to the ends of the world.”
Yes, I understand you do not like me quoting Scripture but ask yourself why? Why do you take such offence that you try to inhibit my freedom of expression?
Please note something here. The word, written by or attributed to the Apostle Paul says, "And their words to the ends of the world."
That is a done deal. Now remember what Jesus said,
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Did the end come? I say it most definitely did. What end was Jesus speaking of in His PROPHECY?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Your words at times appear open to evidence of God but then betray themselves by an unwillingness to take the bias somewhat out of your responses. They also display that you do not have the answers.I don't claim to have the answers.
Neither do you have a worldview that is necessary for making sense of your existence. But that says nothing to you. Thus, you are welcome to live your life on that basis. I have learned a long time again that you cannot convince someone of evidence against their will. There will always be another 'what if.'
Obviously there is more to say than what I post but I want to challenge you to see that what you have incorporated into an explanation of existence cannot make sense of itself. That should speak volumes in itself. Do you realize the doubt and lack of faith you exhibit in your position response after response?As I've already explained, your answer doesn't seem to "make sense" of any of that stuff either, it just sticks an answer in there and pretends it has to be correct, as far as I can see. I don't claim to "make sense of why man is here" or "Make sense of life" or "of origins." I'm not even sure the answers exist. I look at the evidence as to how life developed, how this planet formed, etc. etc. and make my assessments based on the inference from evidence. I've never seen compelling evidence for any god at all, and I certainly don't see any evidence for any SPECIFIC god. You don't have any to present, or you'd have done so before somehow invoking Nazi propaganda, culture shock, persecution complexes, etc (all distractions from this point). Of course I have doubts about my own positions! It's what keeps us curious and as a whole drives us toward solutions.
Again, that is because I claim you can't make sense of your worldview without borrowing from mine.
Since you don't claim to make sense of it or are unable to how can you rule out God as the most reasonable answer to existence? Yet you seem to from my perspective. You look at the universe from a naturalistic perspective. You work from a closed box, that is that only what is contained in the box is able to explain the box.
Again, my purpose is not to provide evidence of God until I understand the person I communicate with is open to dialogue. I'm sick of being shut down just when I'm gearing up. It is a two-way street and although I willingly answer questions I do not see the same commitment. I'm honest with my worldview examination. I'm willing for others to ask the tough questions and try to answer them. I do not see the same response from atheists, generally speaking.
The Nazi example and the propaganda example are only ways to express how I believe you have been indoctrinated into a particular point of view. I'm sure you could claim the same with me. Understand this, however, there is no neutrality. You are committed to a particular frame of thinking. With the Nazis, we have evidence of how they shaped their culture. Every society is shaped to an extent. With the Democrats, liberal, leftist, the media, the education system, Hollywood, the Arts, a particular worldview bias is always present and presented to your thinking. It is the mode of indoctrination. You may not be aware of it which would be a shame. Many have taken to documenting how from the Age of Enlightenment the focus and paradigm shift has taken place to shape a naturalistic worldview as the measure of all things.
One last brief problem: "Making sense" is not the same thing as "true" or "correct."
It can be.
And "you're wrong" does not then default to "I'm right."
True. All I can do is present evidence and reason in the process. Sometimes a person is not open to evidence. Thus, why would I throw pearls before the swine? Thus, we start with claims to feel out whether someone is open to the evidence. Whether you accept evidence or not depends largely on how committed and enhardened you are to your worldview.
Black holes don't 'make sense', subatomic particle behaviors don't 'make sense,' the distance between celestial objects doesn't 'make sense', but they're all true and real.
Because we don't yet understand something does not necessarily mean it does not make sense. God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours.
Nevertheless, the Christian worldview is logical, rational, and makes sense of existence.
From a necessary Being comes other beings.
From personal, intelligent, mindful, logical, loving Being comes other beings of the same likeness.
From a necessary moral Being comes other moral beings.
I've used this example with you before: the Grecoroman pantheon of gods makes far more sense of the world than the Christian monotheistic view of an all loving super awesome god with a grand plan. You don't think they're real or true.
Show me the evidence for such beings.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The point was and is to respond to your points to show the weakness of the argument against God because that is what is being done here. Sometimes that is not feasible. Obviously there is more to say than what I post but I want to challenge you to see that what you have incorporated into an explanation of existence cannot make sense of itself. That should speak volumes in itself. Do you realize the doubt and lack of faith you exhibit in your position response after response?
Your words at times appear open to evidence of God but then betray themselves by an unwillingness to take the bias somewhat out of your responses. They also display that you do not have the answers.
I.e.,
What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist.I don't have one, nor do I need one.
I don't care how it got here, that knowledge would in no way illuminate that way I live my life, because there is no evidence I see for any god. I'm ready to change my mind, but I need a reason to do so, and no god has ever given me one.
What you appear to be missing is that your worldview is the mirror at which you look at every aspect of life. How you begin is important. If it is wrong you build your worldview structure from a faulty foundation that affects every aspect of what you think. Not only this but you are aided by a secular culture that indoctrinates you in avoiding critical thinking by funnelling how you think to some extent. I understand this since I was involved in a peer group during my youth. I was submerged from Africa culture into Canada culture and a culture shock took me decades to sort out. I understand to some extent how cultures affect people and how buzz words and demonizing language is used to change cultures by the very gatekeepers of that society. I have looked at the propaganda techniques Nazi Germany used to alter mindsets. I see the same thing happening in your country today. But more than this, I see worldviews that lack what is necessary to make sense of life's ultimate questions and even the "I don't care" enough attitudes to not even look into these questions yet there is an interest that betrays the statements made. I see worldviews that are so inconsistent. They borrow from the Christian framework without realizing they do so. I wonder why others would do that and not be curious enough to investigate their foundations, then I realize that to do so would mean either a paradigm shift or living with the irrationality of that inconsistency.
People say they do not care why then spend a lot of time debating these very positions of why we are here. They agree that there is no ultimate meaning to the universe and then spend a lifetime looking for it but exclude the way that finds that meaning.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I screwed up the last post (lost an hour of response due to editing) and am frustrated enough to let it sit for a few days.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I intended to establish a starting point for reasoning and claim the biblical God is the One who meets the criterion. I'm curious as to how any other worldview makes sense of starting points or first causes.
We've been through this already (I'm cutting out a bunch of stuff we've reviewed on other threads). Your proposition "God did it" doesn't "make sense" of anything either, and I'm not claiming to have an answer to "how did the universe get here." That has little to do with atheism at all, and honestly I don't care how it got here, that knowledge would in no way illuminate that way I live my life, because there is no evidence I see for any god. I'm ready to change my mind, but I need a reason to do so, and no god has ever given me one. Your insistence that your specific god did it relies on presupposition of such a character (Rather than demonstration of such a character: you are using the story about this character to support its veracity, this is the claim not the evidence, you refuse to understand or acknowledge this), special pleading (everything has a beginning therefore God started it, and god doesn't have a beginning, contradicting your reason for God to begin with) and a bunch of other distractions ("What's your worldiview, mine's truer, how do you make sense of morality, I make sense of the whys of life by adding santa claus to the mix and calling it an answer") from the crux of the matter: there is no demonstration of this character at all.
We just invent purposes to cope. We derive our existence from a mindless, meaningless universe that is without purpose and meaning.
Clearly this makes you uncomfortable. But this is what makes the most sense, I'm sorry.
What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist.
I don't have one, nor do I need one. And yes, it exists, it's the one thing we can agree on. That's all I can say, and all I care about. The life I have and what I do with it, it's only my responsibility and I'm not part of some giant plan that no one ever gets to see.
But, everywhere you look, you see meaning and purpose.
No, I specifically do not. I do not see "meaning" or "purpose" in the vastness of the universe. I see vastness and apparent unimaginable emptiness. I don't then observe that and say "Well, someone must have meant for it to be this way, so it was probably Jesus." I don't see meaning in famines, I don't see purpose in pediatric cancer, I don't see the capital W why in meteor showers. You do, and that reason? Jesus loves us all, so so much, especially the pastor in I think Kenya yesterday who stabbed himself and his wife on the altar of their church, and he loves us so much that he gives us school shootings to remind us. Oh, wait: the bad stuff isn't DIRECTLY done by Jesus even though he'd know they were going to happen, all that stuff, that's MAN doing it because we departed from Jesus...
I'm sorry, but none of that makes any "sense." Maybe I'm off topic here, I don't know.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Either we are ultimately a creation of a personal God (who in the biblical case has revealed Himself that we can know) or are here because of random mindless chance. Thus, to make sense of life you have to do so using one or the other particular worldviewYou haven't gotten from a god / superbeing who's just really into creating universes to biblical god.
I intended to establish a starting point for reasoning and claim the biblical God is the One who meets the criterion. I'm curious as to how any other worldview makes sense of starting points or first causes.
I'm stating that it is an either-or scenario in how we originated.
I'm asking you to look at the reasonableness of these two positions. I also claim the biblical God is a revelation we can make sense of in explaining our existence through. We can know given His existence since the Bible says it is a revelation from Him provided the Bible rings true, which has good supporting evidence that is reasonable and logical. What I'm saying is that your worldview does not give sufficient reason (none when you look at its starting point) when you investigate its nuts and bolts or what holds it together on making sense of anything. What I'm saying is that your worldview is not reasonable or logical if you deny God as the cause. If you think otherwise, then explain. Does your worldview give sufficient reason for existence or why we exist? Most atheists I dialogue with always fail to explain. They usually ignore any pointed questions towards their own worldview while criticizing the Christian worldview.
Not only that, the culture we live in is stacked against any worldview that is not secular. We are funnelled into this worldview from before we even start school but are indoctrinated into it from that point forward as a likelihood, IMO. It takes real critical thinking to reason your way out of indoctrination and brainwashing. As a largely secular culture, we are bombarded by secular thought and reasons 24/7. Our schools and institutions of higher learning are governed by the gatekeepers of our societies who are again focused on power and control of what you and I think to a large degree.
I know you don't do that by design, you simply shrug your shoulders and say "I presuppose him because everyone presupposes something" which isn't exactly true either.
I start with a presupposition, just like you do. The difference in our two starting points is my mine is sufficient in making sense of existence, yours is not.
But you don't then "make sense" of life in any of what you state after this. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'make sense of': I thought you were going to say there was some useful knowledge or some unlocked level or something that only Christians or more broadly only the religious can access.
Take as a 'for instance' morality. Morality is a mental process. It requires mindful beings for its existence. But how do you, ludofl3x, make sense of morality if there is no objective, absolute, unchanging, eternal, omniscient reference point, a necessary being. You are not that being. Please explain that to me from your moral relativism. Unless you can establish an objective, absolute, unchanging reference point, why is your any BETTER than any other? Again, from an atheistic position, it is not, and I challenge you to establish contrary to this statement.
Again, how does the atheistic (speaking of naturalistic materialism) account for the whys of life, and even the hows? Natural theology, which does not get into specific revelation, has numerous reasoned arguments for the natural world that spring from God or gods. It is when you get to specifics that not every god is reasonable or believable. Even evolution can be looked at through a theistic view if you take that approach. With origins, we are both speaking in terms of scientism rather than science. You (if you are an atheist) are precisely on the same playing field as the theist.
What you seem to be saying in your paragraph about atheism (which doesn't deal with any of the stuff you then pin to it, really it's one answer to one question, and doesn't try to be more) is that since you think God's real, then that's why life is here.
No, I am stating that God is the only way of making sense of existence. From an atheistic position and worldview, there is no purpose to our existence ultimately. We just invent purposes to cope. We derive our existence from a mindless, meaningless universe that is without purpose and meaning.
Thus, you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of reality. So, what I am saying is that YOU live inconsistently from your beginning presupposition.
Not the PURPOSE of life, more the cause of it. I wouldn't say that's 'making sense' in the way I understood it. I thought you were talking more about the MEANING of life. Not how it got started.
The two are interconnected only within the theistic worldview. If there is no purpose for life, it is ultimately meaningless. What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist. But, everywhere you look, you see meaning and purpose. So you live by adopting the Christian worldview at the same time denying it. Thus, you operate with a living contradiction. You keep using the Christian worldview to make sense of anything. Inconsistency wreaks of irrationality.
If the universe is eternal, how do we get to the present (infinity on both sides)? The same for multiverses?
Would you deny the present or say everything is the eternal present? But you had a beginning and therefore a past.
If the universe is eternal there would be no end to the causes (infinite regress). Unless the cause transcended the universe and/or the universe had a beginning, IMO, an eternal universe or multiverses springing into existence does not make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
RE: "Greetings! On behalf of the moderation team, I'd like to give a warm welcome to our two new moderators. Christopher_best is being demoted to debate moderator and PressF4Respect is demoted to the forum moderator. Please give them their condolences.
F for respect
For more info, see this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3513/new-moderator-welcome"
I'm not following. Is this a promotion or demotion? If a promotion, congratulations to the two!
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I do not believe in magic; I believe in the supernatural God.Explain the difference exactly. To me they're the same: anything that can be explained by "a god did this" is exactly as explicable saying "magic did this," or " a god did this using magic." You touch on it a little further down in your response: "Well, we don't see it as magic, we see it as God and he reveals the answers," to roughly paraphrase.
They very well could be the same to you since you use the 21st-century meaning but the biblical definition of magic carries with it a negative connotation. Since my worldview is biblical I do not associate what God does as magic but a miracle. Magic is a dark practice often mentioned with sorcery, witchcraft, spells, incantations, and manipulation.
You say the magical ingredient is billions and billions of years, like that's magic...but we have evidence that this amount of time has passed. Unlike evidence for a supernatural being living outside of space and time and being totally undetectable.
That interpretation of the evidence is based an looking at the data through a particular worldview prism that has dominated western thought since the Age of Reason. That interpretation relies on humanity as the measure of all things. That interpretation relies on the present being the key to the past. You assume that the conditions in the past can be accurately interpreted by present information and conditions and the conditions of the past are speculated and conjectured upon. There are many secular worldview models of how the universe began if indeed it began.
Just as your position is unfalsifiable. Yet the biblical evidence forms a reasonable and logical faith, the atheist faith does not.So you cannot prove Xenu didn't do this? Must be true then.
The reason to believe it is flimsy. The evidence does not support such a view.
I'm not going into the weird math conversion you do to make that one prophesy sort of work, we've had a long discussion on that already and you simply don't see it my way, which is based on facts and numbers being numbers, and Idon't see it your way, which is based on some weird conversion chart that isn't in the bible and a bunch of hebrew scholars making a mythological text seem like it worked in retrospect.
I gave you two different scenarios, one that takes the 490 as literal years and another that looks at it from the perspective of the fulfillment of the prophetic conditions. Either way, the Messiah was to come to a people in covenant relationship with God. That is no longer possible after AD 70. What they agreed to (before God), after AD 70, can no longer be followed.
It's not compelling and never will be.
It is not compelling to you because you are closed to the reasonableness of the Bible. But the evidence is both reasonable and logical from both biblical positions. You would have to be honest with what is known instead of letting personal bias get in the way. I do not believe you do that.
And you never explained why the Astros 2017 prediction was somehow less impressive in spite of being super specific and totally indepedenetly verifable, so I don't think you really have any interest in that discussion. Neither do I. This one though:
It was one claim if I remember correctly. Biblical prophecy includes a number of different issues. It concerns Israel and their relationship with God on many fronts. It includes the Deuteronomy 28 curses, the promised Messiah, the promised new covenant and the inadequacy of the old covenant. The Bible speaks on life's ultimate questions whereas the Astros predictions are mere fluff. It does not speak on such issues that humanity is engrossed in and tries to explain. There are unity and consistency in the Bible.
I claim hands down the Christian position is the one that has the ability to make sense of life's ultimate questions.I am interested in. Please make sense of one of life's ultimate questions, whatever that is, without saying "because God is here." I have never understood how that 'makes sense' of life's ultimate questions, it just punctuates them and provides no real information.
When you give caveats such as excluding God His existence in explaining anything you act from your personal confirmation bias, not mine.
Either we are ultimately a creation of a personal God (who in the biblical case has revealed Himself that we can know) or are here because of random mindless chance. Thus, to make sense of life you have to do so using one or the other particular worldview. So, how well do the two different views make sense of anything?
Go back to the start - origins - and make sense of life by looking at who are we, what are we, why are we here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die as explained and made sense of by the two basic worldviews, one from material naturalism and the other from a personal Creator as to these questions.
Atheism (or a belief that denies a personal God): Who are we? We are physical, biological blobs comprised of atoms that stem from a common ancestor that we do not know how it originated from inorganic matter. We originated by chance happenstance, somehow. There is no reason why our common ancestor or we would exist if life is materialistic and solely naturalistic. Thus, our existence is ultimately meaningless too. There is no ultimate purpose to it yet we invent purpose to give the meaningless meaning. When we die we return to the cosmic void where everything is once again meaningless.
From the meaningless, irrational, chaotic, randomly chanced comes meaningful beings, reasoning being, purposeful beings, uniformity of nature.
Christianity: Who are we? We are creations of a living, loving, benevolent God comprised of not only the body but mind and spirit. The reason we exist is that God chose to create us, in His likeness, for a purpose to know Him and enjoy Him forever or to reject Him and live apart from Him forevermore. Thus, we have an ultimate purpose and meaningfulness that we can know and enjoy, not only in this lifetime but in eternity to come.
From a living, loving, logical, reasoning, personal Creator comes other living, loving, personal, logical, reasoning, creative beings. This is what we witness and experience. We derive our existence and attributes from our parents who are such beings.
Now, does it make more sense that we come from a necessary Being or from random chance happenstance? Please answer the question.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
First, two of every kind or two of every animal? Would you consider a dog a kind or a poodle, a wolf, an Alsatian, Doberman a kind? Second, would the size make a difference to space? If so, the young would reduce space...Second, who is to say what conditions existed that increased longevity or even if God designed that in humanity until the point where He reduced the lifespan. Some, like Henry Morris, have suggested the ultraviolet rays were blocked by the water in the atmosphere since the Bible explains it had not rained until the time of the Flood which could possibly affect their lifespan. Whether it was through supernatural means or natural means that they lived so long, we are not told. But God's existence grants the supernatural. You would try to explain everything through the natural if you did not believe in God.I'd ask you how many animals "two of every kind" means in your view, because you'd still be talking well into the thousands, and what they ate, how they didn't blow the boat up with a thousand animal farts, etc, but I've highlighted the problem with your argument: you invoke magic as essentially the most probable explanation.
That is the biblical revelation - two of every kind, not two of every animal.
I do not believe in magic; I believe in the supernatural God.
The atheist worldview would have a magical aspect to it in why things would begin to exist and out of what? Not only this but out of chaos and disorder comes existence and life, intelligence and purposes. Information is found and followed down the presuppositional chain to the present. Why would you expect to find information and purpose in the purposeless?
The magic ingredient for an atheist is time, billions and billions of years. They form their foundational building blocks around such a presupposition. "Once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago..."
You haven't proven magic exists (in fact you seem pretty sure Harry Potter isn't real).
There is a difference between magic and the supernatural God. God has the means to alter nature, just like there is a difference between intention and blind random happenstance. What you call magic or the unexplainable Christians see as the biblical God who has revealed the hows and whys.
You see, you're essentially getting to an impossible position to hold based on what we know about the world around us, and then saying "Well, magic could be involved, you can't prove it isn't, which means it is likely." You even do it in the next section, where you talk about how god 'shortens' man's lifespan by a factor of 90%. And people live to more than eighty years, so...I guess that part's wrong? Or let me guess, it means "eighty and then whatever else you live to"?
Again, the atheistic magical ingredient is time. It supposedly makes the universe possible.
Seventy and eighty are a generality. That does not mean every person will live no longer than those ages.
"Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71 years (70 years for males and 72 years for females) over the period 2010–2015 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2015 Revision."
As for animals talking, if God decided to make an animal talk how would that be hard for an almighty God?Not hard at all, nor is it hard to do it by magic! I'd point out that your position here is unfalsifiable, that we've never seen an animal that communicates in to humans in human language without human training (ASL for apes, etc), but you somehow think that makes your argument stronger, not weaker. If you can't test it, it can be dismissed. Watch, I'll make you do it: "A trillion years ago, Xenu the Great forged the universe from a pile of his own hair." If you can't prove it wrong, it's probably right?
Just as your position is unfalsifiable. Yet the biblical evidence forms a reasonable and logical faith, the atheist faith does not.
Sure it makes sense. He wanted His people to trust Him and His word. He wanted them to understand His power working in and with them.So, making talking animals is super easy and likely happened. Making people trust him and his word requires those people, the ones he wants to understand him as the basis of all law and morality, to commit mass murder. WHY DIDN"T HE JUST MAGIC THEM SOME TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING?Prophecy is not evidence, not when it isn't what was prophesized.
First, define evidence and why your definition fits the criteria. Again, you are asserting. Now give some good reasons and let's look at the evidence from both sides of the equation. If I thought you were willing I would set up a webpage to discuss this further, but I'm not going to waste hundreds of hours on a discussion that is all one-sided. I have done that way too many times before.
I can show you that what was prophecied is most reasonable to believe from the evidence available. Was Jerusalem prophesied to be destroyed once again after the Babylonian destruction? Is there reasonable evidence to believe the OT writings preceded this destruction. Is it reasonable to believe the NT writings preceded the destruction of Jerusalem and that such a man as Jesus existed before the fall? Do the NT writings contain warnings of imminent danger and destruction to that generation? Was the OT Messiah to come before the fall of destruction and the end of the OT age?
So, the question is which is the more reasonable and logical belief? I claim hands down the Christian position is the one that has the ability to make sense of life's ultimate questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR LANDSo, on your relative ideas!Universal intersubjective moral values.
Your proof, other than your assertion?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Again, you pick a highly fictitious work and compare it to the Bible. The analogy sucks.THe bible contains a story about a boat that held two of every animal on the planet, and insect, and probably plant too, and they all survived for 40 days when the entire earth was covered with water.
First, two of every kind or two of every animal? Would you consider a dog a kind or a poodle, a wolf, an Alsatian, Doberman a kind? Second, would the size make a difference to space? If so, the young would reduce space.
The boat was built by a guy who lived to be 600, and he built it by hand, and the animals didn't blow the boat up with farts or the literal tons of shit, or eat each other.
Second, who is to say what conditions existed that increased longevity or even if God designed that in humanity until the point where He reduced the lifespan. Some, like Henry Morris, have suggested the ultraviolet rays were blocked by the water in the atmosphere since the Bible explains it had not rained until the time of the Flood which could possibly affect their lifespan. Whether it was through supernatural means or natural means that they lived so long, we are not told. But God's existence grants the supernatural. You would try to explain everything through the natural if you did not believe in God.
We know that God eventually limited the lifespan of humanity.
Genesis 6:3 (NASB)
3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Later we are told,
Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
10 As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
Or if due to strength, eighty years,
Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
For soon it is gone and we fly away.
Or if due to strength, eighty years,
Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
For soon it is gone and we fly away.
How is this somehow less believable than Lord of the Rings?
We know the Lord of the Rings is a fictitious fantasy. The Bible discloses itself as the word of God. It contains a historical narrative. Where does the Lord of the Rings take place again?
" The Lord of the Rings takes place in Tolkien's fictional world, called Middle-earth."
We know the Amorites, Amalekites, Hittites, Canaanites etc, lived. We know these lands exist. We know cities existed/exist. We have historical confirmation of some of the people mentioned in the Bible existed. We have historical confirmation of many of the events.
You saying the analogy sucks sounds kinda like you think so because you don't have a better argument. Oh, and your book features talking animals too. And giants. And also demons. Why are demons more real than orcs or ogres exactly?
Again, giants in relation to what? Is Andrea the Giant huge with respect to the average Joe? Goliath was said to be around nine feet nine inches tall.
Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
As for animals talking, if God decided to make an animal talk how would that be hard for an almighty God?
As for spiritual beings, the belief is held by many cultures throughout history.
Because God has given many convincing proofs. Not only that, the alternatives are inconsistent and make no sense. The tail chasing you have to go through for an atheistic belief is laughable to my eyes.I'm glad my lack of belief is laughable, I don't care, but why are muslims' beliefs laughable?
Islam was influenced by many different religious beliefs - Judaism, aberrant Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the pagan gods of the region. It forms 600 years after Christianity and borrows much from it and the OT.
Why are they so much more convinced than you are? You say "they're inconsistent and make no sense." How, exactly?
The influence of all these different beliefs combined in the Qur'an is not consistent with their earlier sources.
The following book was instrumental in my understanding of the differences:
Other books also played a part:
Because I can say the same thing about the bible. Like it makes no sense for God to tell anyone to go smite his enemies on his behalf, I mean he could just do it himself, he's way more powerful than armies.
Sure it makes sense. He wanted His people to trust Him and His word. He wanted them to understand His power working in and with them.
Also, why would god make people he ended up thinking were so shitty he had to bomb their town with brimstone and turn them into salt? I mean that seems a little strange to me, blaming his creation for being so shitty. It'd be like me building a tree house in such a way that I knew it would fall, then being mad at the tree house for falling. Right?
He chose Israel to make known to the world Himself and His purpose for humanity. He showed the weakness of Israel in living up to His perfect standard of righteousness, and He continually pointed through prophecy and what was to come, the solution, His Son.
I could convince you for the simple fact is that you do not want to be convincedI have asked you in this very thread, please present your extra-biblical (outside the bible) evidence for the truth of the entire bible. If the entire thing isn't true, how do I know which parts are and which parts aren't? If you cannot provide this, I would welcome any evidence that would definitively prove that any other world religion is demonstrably false. Just one.
I have tried this numerous times before on this forum through two threads and found that those who demanded evidence were not interested in a serious discussion of the evidence, IMO. If you were sincerely interested I would make an exception with a new thread, but it would be a two-way street. It would mean not only me answering your questions but you answering mine too.
Here are those two threads, plus I had others on different debate forums:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/399/for-stephen-prophecy-is-reasonable-and-logical-to-believe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But the outrage would show that you and others believe these things are most definitely wrong. Based on what - your relative ideas?Primary Mammalian Instinct.(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR LAND
So, on your relative ideas!
ANY FACTORY SHOULD BE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTAMINATION (and death and injury).
I agree.
IN THE SAME WAY YOU WON'T LET YOUR NEIGHBOR LEAVE POISONED OR TOXIC TRASH IN YOUR HOUSE.
I agree.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have very good reason to believe the authors are those mentioned.So the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Okay then, most modern scholarship on the bible would disagree, but to me "biblical scholarship' is a bit of a contradiction. It's like knowing Lord of the Rings REALLY REALLY REALLY well. GOod for them, but it doesn't make it true.
Don't give me that bunk of "most modern scholarship." It is a particular group of scholars that are influenced by modern higher criticism.
Again, you pick a highly fictitious work and compare it to the Bible. The analogy sucks.
Less likely to be true for the reason I stated earlier. Two beliefs that state opposites cannot both be true.So how do you know yours isn't the belief that's false? Their holy book supports their beliefs too, you know.
Because God has given many convincing proofs. Not only that, the alternatives are inconsistent and make no sense. The tail chasing you have to go through for an atheistic belief is laughable to my eyes.
Do you believe the disciples/apostles were radicalized?I don't believe the stories in the bible are real factual accounts. You apparently believe them to be contemporaneous journalism. This question to me is the same as "Do you believe The Sparrows were radicalized" in the Song of Ice and Fire universe, or if I believe the oracle at Delphi was a real soothsayer, and not just high on weird fumes in her cave.
Again, you are welcome to your beliefs but I do not believe contrary beliefs to the Bible can make sense of themselves when pushed to the core or central tenants of that belief system.
As I said before, I recognize it is not likely I could convince you for the simple fact is that you do not want to be convinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...it is you who choose not to believe GodBelief is not a "choice" any more than love is a "choice".
Sure it is. I can choose to treat someone kindly or be patient with them to an extent, even with those who many would consider as not deserving such mercy or compassion.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
I can choose how I am going to respond to you, with love and compassion, with hate and malice, or somewhere in-between.
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or not do some particular thing.You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
Sure you can. You can weigh the evidence and reasonableness of a position or worldview and change your beliefs.
I can't stop believing in air.I can't stop believing in water.
That is because the belief is reasonable, obvious, and logical to believe in, plus such a belief corresponds with your senses.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
Yet some do choose to believe in him despite the evidence against his existence.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Some people do choose to believe in unicorns based on a feeling or what they see as evidence. When you hear something you have a choice of whether you are going to believe it or not. That may depend on how reasonable you find the evidence.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
It can be. It is whether the belief you place faith in is reasonable, unreasonable, or blind. That is the question. Granted, our culture, our environment, our family, our subgroups, may radically affect what we believe.
It is our core beliefs that are not easily rejected or dislodged. Those beliefs require a paradigm shift. Upon those beliefs sits the whole foundation of beliefs. The outer core of belief is constantly changing and being modified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
PFOA = a TEFLON byproductFinally DuPont reported its findings about PFOA to the EPA in 1991. By then, it had been in the water stream for decades. As Tennant predicted, DuPont had used a field near his property as a PFOA dumping ground since the ‘80s.If PFOA so severely damaged Tennant’s cows, what was it doing to the local West Virginia population? How far had the PFOA traveled in the water supply? (Spoiler: Very far.) Scientists believe PFOA is likely contaminating the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans, across multiple states.PFOA contamination is now a global problem, as well. Though PFOA is no longer manufactured in the United States, China produces thousands of pounds of PFOA daily. Cases are sprouting in Australia. But there’s been a breakthrough. In May 2019, 180 countries agreed to ban the production and use of PFOA. [LINK]
This is another case for objective morality.
It tells me sometimes the truth is hard to get at and not all laws are just. Sometimes people and companies get away with wrongful actions. But the outrage would show that you and others believe these things are most definitely wrong. Based on what - your relative ideas? How does that make anything right or wrong? How can you show moral outrage and call something wrong unless there is an objective measure that discloses what is right?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Not so with the biblical accounts. These people went to their deaths believing they had seen the risen Messiah."Not so" refers to not knowing the authors of the biblical accounts as you do with JK Rowling...how's that bolster the case for your belief? You don't know who wrote them, so they're more likely true because (______________).
I have very good reason to believe the authors are those mentioned.
And the 9/11 hijackers went to their deaths believing they were going to be handsomely rewarded in Muslim Heaven. Do you think that makes their belief more or less likely to be true?
Less likely to be true for the reason I stated earlier. Two beliefs that state opposites cannot both be true.
Do you believe the disciples/apostles were radicalized? If so, what is your reason and how does it coincide with the biblical narratives?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You are asserting that the same kind of evidence is available in these accounts that are available in the biblical accounts. For one, where are the prophetic accounts and where do they relate to the historical evidence? For goodness sake, Star Wars is a fantasy set in the future. Where do you find evidence of such creatures, planets, peoples? We know the author and where does the author show his story-line corresponds to any facts about the future?Where did I assert that there is any evidence of them being true? All I said was your initial response, "no one believes those are true!", seems to leave unsaid that "people believe the bible's true."
You associated Christianity in its verification with these authors, books, or movies of fiction in their evidence by "no one believes those are true."
Your analogy does not work since it is trying to bridge a gap that you cannot prove exists. You see, countless millions throughout history have trusted the Bible to be God's revelation, not a fiction. As such they give many convincing proofs of their integrity and verifiability with history. Where do these listed sources do this?
ME: "The Scriptures verify themselves to a great extent."
YOU: "So does The Matrix, Star Wars and Harry Potter. That doesn't mean what they verify about themselves is real. We've had a very long discussion on claims versus evidence, specifically the problem with using the claim as the evidence. This is what you usually are doing, in my experience. If you have extra-biblical verification of any of the bible's supernatural claims, I'd be interested."
I don't believe any of them are true.
I am aware of that, and I understand that no amount of proof will convince you and sway you from your worldview confirmational bias other than God's Spirit. So what? That is your faith, what you take to be. That is not going to destroy my faith.
I'm saying they have the same mythological elements.
I would agree with the Matrix, Star Wars, and Harry Potter yet not so with the Bible. The Bible has supernatural elements in compliance with God, not mythological elements.
Can you prove that such creatures, planets and peoples DON'T exist?
I can give reasonable evidence. That is proof.
Because that's what you're asking me to do with the bible. I don't have any reason to believe any of them are real, and the only essential difference between them is age.
That is just the point. That is not the only essential difference. There are many glaring differences. We know that these authors have created a fiction whereas that is not the case with the Bible. There is a unity with the Bible that those not well versed in it miss. Prophecy is approximately 30% of the writings.
That's all I said. I'm not bothering with your nonsense prohopecy claims because (a) they aren't in the book, (b), even if they were correct it wouldn't prove Jesus died and came back and (c) I've had this boring discussion with you where you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence.
Which is why it is a waste of time having a discussion on the Bible with you. You continually prove my point. You are not open to evaluating the evidence.
The rest of your post agrees with me (no, you wouldn't believe it if it were another religious text claiming that their hero was resurrected), followed by your usual "Random chance makes me uncomfortable so I choose to believe in something else." It's your right and you're not going to change your mind, so I don't care to go over it. AGAIN.
No, I would not. I understand that two contrary worldviews or claims cannot both be true when speaking of the same thing. Either God exists or He does not. Either the Bible is true or it is not. Either the universe is created or it is a product of indifferent chance happenstance.
Now, if you want to believe such absurdity as a chance universe that is your choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.So are you saying an adult can't choose something for themselves that is not based on a childhood choice? I think this is a hasty generalization, thus pure fallacy.(1) Do the "choices" you make as a child, affect the "choices" you make as an adult? (Y/N)
Sometimes, depending on the choice. Do those choices made young in life become ingrained as your worldview? Or do you still believe things that were proven to you to be wrong that you made in childhood? Do you still choose to believe such things?
(2) Do the "choices" of care-takers affect the "choices" of their children? (Y/N)
Depending on the choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not arguing for freedom of the will,Ok, so no-free-will. Case closed.
No, the case is not closed. You still make choices that are influenced by your will. Your will was influenced by many other things (baggage) but YOU still chose. Thus, even though those choices may be bad in many cases, you are responsible for those bad choices. When you come before a court of law, charged with murder and the facts are indisputable that you committed the act you can't say that you did not choose to kill the other person or else they would still be alive, whether that choice was made from rage or precalculated and plotted over a long period of time, you knew the law and you chose to disregard it.
Those who chose an action made the choice to do the action. They chose to reject God. They chose to mock God. They chose to lie which is against what is best. Thus, they are guilty. A good judge will not overlook such crimes. He would not be good if he overlooked justice for wrongful actions.
I'm arguing that even though our wills are in bondage to sin,Bondaged-will, I agree....in bondage to doing things that God has said is wrong, we CHOOSE to do them anyway.We "choose" to be shackled? Do all prisoners "choose" to be shackled, or is this some sort of "special case"?
In the case God has presented to you (generic you) it is you who choose not to believe God, not even to believe this God exists in many cases. Thus, yes, in such a case you choose your bondage. You can't free yourself from such bondage of the will. It is not your desire to be free. Misery loves company!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
God or chance happenstance. That is our dividing line.Does god have free-will?
Yes. He is omniscient. He knows all things, and He always does what is good for that is His nature. He chooses to shun evil and judge it.
Created: