Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"all toupees look terrible".
Wait, what do you mean? That's ridiculous. I don't know who you've been talking to or who told you what. This is natural. It's all mine! Why would you even bring this up, I mean it is patently false. I mean I agree, all toupees look terrible, but mine isn't one, it's natural hair. Only my hair. STOP LOOKING AT ME. It's REAL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you think assuming your answer and then either consciously or subconsciously fitting your research to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion might not be the most honest way to arrive at that conclusion might not be the best way to do research and arrive at what you're sure is the truth? It sounds like maybe you'd be at risk of BIASING for CONFIRMATION of a certain hypothesis that way. If only there was a name for such an error prone methodology. It sounds almost like "Seek and ye shall find" idea...like if you want to find god, look for that version of god, rather than start from a null hypothesis. Hm, food for thought.
:)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not "logical" to believe something without concrete data
Well, what if you PRESUPPOSE it? Then can I say I arrived at it via logic? For example, "Jim's parents are divorced. And he's gay as a result of that. Now, let me look at my available data: Jim is definitely gay. And his parents are definitely divorced. What do you know! I'm right!"
Is that valid logic?
Created:
@PGA2.0
See how nice I am? Have at it. My initial question:
If somehow some scholar you respected, like you thought this person was the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject, came out tomorrow and said "You know that weird prophecy we are all over? Well, I hate to say, but the truth is, we've discovered some pretty damning evidence that it just was not that way, ever. It's totally wrong," would you then STOP believing in God?
If somehow some scholar you respected, like you thought this person was the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject, came out tomorrow and said "You know that weird prophecy we are all over? Well, I hate to say, but the truth is, we've discovered some pretty damning evidence that it just was not that way, ever. It's totally wrong," would you then STOP believing in God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are in agreement I will continue, otherwise, let's discuss it further.
You are discussing a different topic. If you want to discuss that topic, go ahead and start a topic. THIS TOPIC, which for 20 pages you've skirted, is about proving if your version of god is the correct one. We have tried this several different ways and you're talking about some scholar's interpretation of a prophecy that I'm pretty certain has no real impact on if you believe in god or not, scandinavian socialism, divorce rates, gay kids...just anything but this. Here we are again:
THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?
Alternatively:
I'm starting with the presupposition that the roman pantheon is real. I know it's real, because it comports with reality, and if I start with the knowledge that Zeus and his cohorts are behind all of the stuff I see, how would I follow that? Hmm. Well, wars exist and are objectively terrible for everyone involved...but why would Mars care about people dying? So long as there's war, he's doing his job. Would an ominbenevolent god allow for this atrocitiy? Maybe, but why? Hmmm. A tidal wave wiped out 250,000 people in Sri Lanka that one time, and I know Neptune, god of the sea, causes those, and also doesn't really care about what happens to the people on land, they're not his problem. That makes sense if I start with the presupposition that Neptune's there. What's that? Someone's telling me it's not Mars or Zeus or Neptune? It's instead some single god from a far less advanced culture? WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT?
And finally, I can't find the author, you have the option of dealing with the following example, I'm going to paraphrase and credit to whoever (Brutal?) wrote it up:
Ten people on board a boat witness a child go overboard. All ten pray for the child's rescue, but they pray to different gods, each exclusive of the other nine. The child is saved. How do you determine whose prayer was answered?
Any one of these three propositions, you have either said nothing, or you've used your claim (bible) as evidence. Do you have anything else on THIS TOPIC? You want to talk about other topics, I'm game, but start other topics. In fact, I'll start one for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why not just ask the simple questions? No need for an outline, dude, this is passing time, not homework.
To be honest if you need an outline, it's really unlikely that I'm going to read the whole thing anyway. Keep it short and let the discussion bring in whatever it brings in. Otherwise you end up talking about gay immigrants who have nothing to do with how Cronos created the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Can I ask, do you look exactly like your parent? Like EXACTLY. At any point in your life, did you look exactly, photographically indistinguishable from your mom or dad?
Maybe another way to ask it is do you believe that it is possible to breed dogs selectively? Let's say you like black labradors, but you like them with shorter tails so they're not constantly knocking stuff down with their joy. Do you think it is possible to selectively breed black labs for shorter tails?
Created:
Posted in:
Seriously, is there a button or setting that keeps a user from seeing posts by a specific user?
Asking for a friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Eh, at least this particular one isn't a nasty jerk about it! Plus it makes the slow parts of my work day go quicker. The problem isn't arguing with them, it's apparently getting them to stay on one topic at a time. There is literally nothing inherent to this topic about immigrants or gay people or how our moral system develops, none of those questions are at hand. I'm glad to discuss them, but again, start a topic!
I also don't know why I keep getting asked for what I believe, it's pretty plain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I appreciate that, but the topic is, exactly, convince someone that your particular views are correct. This cannot be done in any valid way through presupposition, because the greek pantheon version of the presupposition in equally valid to any other religious presupposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Common sense tells me that something can't create itself. It would have to exist before it could create, so self-creation is self-refuting. It is an absurd idea. So, if something started to exist my common sense tells me there must be a cause or agency for it.If the universe had a beginning then it is logical to assume it had a cause because the alternative is self-creation.
GREAT! Now we're almost to where you seem to want to engage the topic. All of the above is for the most part granted by the OP, 19 pages ago. In fact, the experiment doesn't even rely on logic, it simply says "this is what happened for sure, a thinking agent created the universe." Sadly, then you start to wobble again. and try to go through what you think I believe happened instead. That is, once again, immaterial. The question isn't what do I think happened to the universe, at all. Here it is again, from me, to you, page 18:
HIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?
There is not even an attempt to answer this. Nor is there an attempt to refute the pantheon being real, but maybe someday. You simply complain that you're not allowed to use your claim as evidence. You hold up the book, say "The stuff in here is true!" and your answer to the sensible 'how do you know?' question is "THE BOOK SAYS THAT IT ITSELF IS TRUE." That's restating your claim. Not supporting with argumentation.
I'm starting with the presupposition that the roman pantheon is real. I know it's real, because it comports with reality, and if I start with the knowledge that Zeus and his cohorts are behind all of the stuff I see, how would I follow that? Hmm. Well, wars exist and are objectively terrible for everyone involved...but why would Mars care about people dying? So long as there's war, he's doing his job. Would an ominbenevolent god allow for this atrocitiy? Maybe, but why? Hmmm. A tidal wave wiped out 250,000 people in Sri Lanka that one time, and I know Neptune, god of the sea, causes those, and also doesn't really care about what happens to the people on land, they're not his problem. That makes sense if I start with the presupposition that Neptune's there. What's that? Someone's telling me it's not Mars or Zeus or Neptune? It's instead some single god from a far less advanced culture?
WHY WOULD I BELIEVE THAT.
This is the question, dude. If you want to ask me anything, feel free to start a topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've said I'm an atheist like fifty times now, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand. You are lost.I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Some thinking agent, some superpower, DECIDED to create the universe. THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?
Created:
Posted in:
Cool, cool, coolcoolcool.
Somewhat related question, how does the "ignore' feature work on this board? I see block user, but...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Jeez, where were you like 16 pages ago?!? I've been trying to make that point this whole time, he keeps ignoring it. Maybe I'm a poor communicator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My job is to prove it is reasonable as opposed to other worldviews.If you reveal your worldview I will try to contrast the differences between the two. I notice your profile gives no clue. It is easier that way. You don't have to explain yourself but can have free roam to criticize others.
Let me make this super, duper simple for you. First, I've said a hundred times now, I'm an atheist, but second, that isn't the topic. You want to ask me if being an atheist makes sense? Start a topic and I'll participate as warranted. I will boil the core question which you've avoided for 18 pages down again, and you can answer yes or no.
I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Some thinking agent, some superpower, DECIDED to create the universe. THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?
Everything else is a distraction. The question of why the universe is here. The demand that "Well YOU can't make a universe, can you? Therefore it was god!" My worldview. Immigration rants. Big bang cosmology. Homosexuals. The origins of existence (AGAIN THIS IS GRANTED!). Who can make sense of what. Problem of suffering. "The big questions." Scholarly writings about an ancient text. All of it is irrelevant. In every instance so far, you seem to answer this question with "well, I presume he's there, and then some stuff makes sense!" Do you understand that every faithful person on earth would say that exact same thing, with the exact same certainty, and you would tell them they're wrong? Why are they wrong? You answer "I could tell you but I'm not going down THAT rabbit hole again. It's too easy! I just know that their gods don't comport with reality." I will resubmit my counter.
Let's say for a moment that I'm a believer in the Roman pantheon.This pantheon contains multiple gods, all of whom have certain jobs and departments, and none of whom seem to really care what I do every day, and sometimes whatever gods are up to, it causes bad things to happen here on earth. Stuff like wildfires, or earthquakes, or lightning striking a person, or droughts or floods. Gods just do what gods do, and sometimes, people are collateral damage. This view comports demonstrably with reality (natural phenomena / non-interventionist gods / wars / free will / diaspora of moral views). It predates Christianity and it comes from a culture whose gods allowed them to conquer most of the known world, for centuries, so they must have been right! When I die, I will be dead and the gods will continue their godly melodrama unseen, which means that calamities and prosperity will both happen on earth in equal measures but completely irrelevant to them.
Why am I wrong?
I'm willing to engage with you on any number of topics, even though I have a very strong suspicion you're not interested in honest discussion, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But stay on THIS topic in here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If we are agressive, theists will focus on the agression rather than the argument. Atheism is correct and it is positive - it isn't just about laying waste to 2000 years of civilisation!
So do you believe it's overtly 'aggressive' to ask a theist then to demonstrate how they go from 'some being created the universe' to "MY being created the universe, yours didn't"? I don't think it is, not inherently. Yet believers, not one in 17 pages now, have bothered to make a coherent argument, and instead have focused on all sorts of other distractions. Really, does ANYONE decide they believe in god because of the Olivet discourse or some arcane writing by some saint in 600 AD? I've even offered a less difficult alternative: how does one disprove any religion as false? No one's taken a crack at either. PGA's spent a lot of words and time writing stuff that has nothing to do with this central question. Do you think it's because the question was aggressive, or because I'm an atheist and not worth talking to, or some other reason?
I think it's because there's no valid answer, otherwise we'd have seen one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not sure those are strictly the choices. It's just as simple for me as "I can't believe in something simply by choice, I need convincing reasons."
Give you an example: I used to believe the only way to evaluate batters in baseball was on the traditional metrics like batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, and I would hand wave any other assessment techniques because they are not readily apparent. After learning what they were trying to measure, and after several years of watching baseball with those metrics in mind (not wholly giving myself over to them first), I can now see the absolute necessity like batting average on balls in play, hard contact rate, average exit velocity rate...and I'm convinced they are a truer way to predict what a player will do over a longer course of time than less precise metrics like the traditional ones. I remained open for convincing on something I didn't believe in, evidence was presented, I studied it, and concluded the metrics correlated with how a player performs to the naked eye. These are the stats that MAKE UP the traditional stats. The evidence is exceptionally strong and changed my mind. If I had said "Well I know what I already know, and I don't care about those statistics that nerds invented!", then I'm liable to make very, very bad decisions if I'm running a baseball team, like give a guy who has an insanely high batting average on balls in play (essentially a luck measurement) and an insanely low hard contact rate (meaning he's not hitting the ball very hard but just happens to have the ball land in the right spot) a contract that will handcuff my team.
Jeez, I wish baseball was on right now! Sorry.
I believe something similar happened to soccer (a numbers / science revolution in the last ten years), but I'm only just learning to appreciate that sport on the surface after watching my kid play it incessantly for the last six years. I can't do it with soccer yet, it took me four years to figure out offsides :).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I wanted to bump this thread, you wanted to talk morality and this is a topic about it, I was hoping you'd take a look.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think it'd naturally follow: I don't have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed, and thus I believe the worldview that doesn't require gods to exist is most consistent with reality." It seems a distinction without a difference. I'm at the Dawkins 6.9 on the 7 point scale of being convinced, but that doesn't mean I am certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Fair enough, I'll amend: "I do not have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed or exist today." I remain open for the convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Distraction.The laws of the universe, not a one of them, are in the bible, so it's weird that you bring them up. THere's plenty of laws about stoning non virgins and what you can wear and eat though.Is it reasonable that if I shake a dice one million times I get the same number every time without that dice being fixed? Why should I find uniformity or consistency and sustainability in nature? Why should we have the laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics? We discover these uniformities. Why if things are just random? Why should they continue to "act" in a precise manner that we can predict things because of these constants? Do you have a reason why this is so?
Sure I can. What is the reasoning behind "Quetzocoatl?"
As I don't believe in him, or it, I don't have any reasoning for it. My point is since you've chosen to presuppose Christianity, reason and logic must have been used to disqualify him. What was that logic and reason? I have already given reasonable arguments for the existence of the greek / roman pantheon, you didn't bother refuting them. I think it's like page 11.
There are accounts from writers that claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim He rose from the dead after death and willing die for this belief. The OT constantly predicted a Messiah and Jesus fits these predictions. What is the most reasonable explanation for these countless coincidences? Why is there such unity between testaments?
Claims. The bible is the claim. It is not evidence for itself. Again: being accused of something is not evidence for whatever you're accused of. EVIDENCE is evidence.
You either start with such a being or you start with chance happenstance. Where is your starting point and how do you make sense of the universe, or do you? If the universe does not follow the intent and purpose of such a being then what sustains its uniformity and why do things happen in a way in which we can predict outcomes?
IS your answer "because JEsus said so?" Because mine is "I don't know why nor do I care, it has no impact on me." You're adding more than you're earning again and with nothing gained from an explanatory perspective. EVEN IF IT'S JESUS, it doesn't explain WHY. It just takes "I don't know" into "I don't know, but Jesus did it." You keep asking me to make sense of the universe, I don't care about making sense of it. It's here and that's all I know for sure. Same as you. Adding Jesus into it, adding some 'reason' into it, demands that you then explain the reasons for things that you suddenly have an even harder time of doing. Watch: if Jesus made the universe for a purpose and you know that purpose, why do so many planets exist outside of our solar system? What are their purposes? What purpose does a child getting cancer and dying serve for Jesus?
How do you arrive at morality? Do you look at morality as based on a necessary Being or do you believe morality is a mechanism that is a result of evolution and chance happenstance?
We will see. Will you participate in a thread on prophecy if I create one?I was going to show the reasoning behind the seventy sevens or seventy weeks of Daniel as a starter. From there I can tie it into a host of prophetic messages. I can show that the prophecy is most reasonable in not only understanding the Bible but also confirmed reasonably by history.IOW's, I can show my faith as a reasonable faith. Can you do the same with yours? I'm still waiting for you to identify what you believe in as to your starting presuppositions - God/gods or chance happenstance. Go ahead, name your poison.
If your thread on prophecy relies on the bible and the bible alone, not stuff outside the bible, I'd be quite interested in it. I'd also be interested in how you square all the stuff the bible gets wrong, demonstrably, against one prophesy you can't prove without going outside the bible. I do not have any faith in anything supernatural. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I do not presuppose anything.
How do you arrive at morality? Do you look at morality as based on a necessary Being or do you believe morality is a mechanism that is a result of evolution and chance happenstance?
It's a product of evolution. Are you going to ask "who are you to say what's good versus what's bad?" That's a different topic.
PLEASE address the topic at hand. For once. Page 18 now. Not an attempt.
Created:
Posted in:
What core beliefs does atheism claim besides "the claim of anything supernatural has not met the burden of proof"? You've yet to provide any reasoned evidence why the creator would be your god without referring to your own claim, and not any other god. We're at page 17. You've done this move several times, well I COULD show you something but you wouldn't believe it on its face. I COULD demonstrate this that or the other, but what good is it. I can demonstrate to you, for a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that is true whether you believe it or not. Your claim seems to be because you believe it's true, it is, and that's that.I can give reasoned evidence for its truth claims and I have a worldview that can make sense of origins. The atheist worldview can't. It is too inconsistent in making sense of its core beliefs, on what everything else rests.
here is a purpose for life, to know and enjoy God, the reason He created us - a personal relationship in which we can enjoy His goodness and mercy. Sin, or our willingness to do our own thing, has gotten in the way. That is my Christian reasoning.
Can you use REGULAR reasoning to demonstrate why anyone should believe your Christian reasoning? Why are Hindus wrong (without using the bible)? There are far, far more people on earth today, and even more from the past, who'd never heard of Jesus, don't care about him, from lands he never mentions. Strange way to create stuff to believe in you for your glory, isn't it?
In your worldview how do you explain evil and injustice?
People do bad things, that's just how some people are. How you explain it: God planned it and is okay with it happening, he's going to make sure those folks burn in some hell someplace well after, for example, they murder your wife. Doesn't that make you feel much better?
Will you accept what is reasonable?
Will it be regular reasonable, or Christian reasonable? You keep asking this then never presenting anything. I'm still waiting on any answer to the core question: how do you prove any other deity false without referring to yours by default?
First, prove He does not exist. You know you can't do that, so you employ doubt as to His existence.
I don't claim something that I can't prove exists, exists. You do. Your job is to prove it's there to me. That's how burden of proof works, but you know that and continue to ignore it. I employ the same doubt about your god that you do about every other god, it should be easy to understand. "Making a universe out of his word" = magic.
You can start any topic you like and I'll participate as warranted, I've said that several times. One more time for you now: without referring to your own religion, can you prove, or make a reasonable case, that any other god of your choosing definitely does not exist and never has? The alternative is can you prove that a creator of the universe has to be the god you worship without referring to the claim itself (the bible) but this has already proven too difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!
Right, it SAYS that. You don't arrive at that conclusion, you conclude it without demonstrating it's true in any way. That's the point of the topic. You like the idea so you presuppose it's correct, you don't follow logic to it. I've asked you to, and you can't prove that your god is the right god and someone else's religion is wrong. It was before you got all distracted with your politics stuff. What exactly IS your specific reason for being here, the one god has told you? Is it this one:
My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.
It doesn't EXPLAIN that. It asserts that. And "his pleasure and glory" creates a number of problems. First of all, it doesn't sound as noble as I think you hope your existence would demand. Your reason is essentially "as a toy," which is not much more appealing than 'no PURPOSE required' or 'imbue your own PURPOSE.' (emphasis to keep the distinction between purpose and 'reason' which you tend to conflate). Second of all, if you're created for his pleasure and glory, why's he always so mad at all of his creations? Again, you might say free will, but then you're taking away any 'plan'.
You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can.
I presume based on this, you must have incontrovertible proof of stuff that happened before the big bang, or how how life came from non life. It can't be from the bible, because that asserts that it happened, it doesn't explain how it happened. It simply says 'by magic.' There is no functional difference between "god did it by his holy word" and "by saying googityboogityboo." And again, I hate to keep harping on this for you, but the topic removes the big bang cosmology inasmuch as it GRANTS A CREATING AGENT. The topic agrees that there's something before the big bang, something that created the universe. Your answer to "why would that be Jesus" is still pending.
Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview.
Mind and senses are all we have that are demonstrable, repeatable and reliable. "When it comes to origins" is an immaterial add on to that sentence, we can derive what little we can from our studies, and appealing to magic doesn't advance the ball. You're still at "a creator," not "god of the bible," as it pertains to the topic. You say "you've already stated you don't know!" as if you DO know. You don't. You think you do, but you can't show any steps that go from "Quetzocoatl is wrong" and from there to "Jesus is right." You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it. That's not how conclusions work in any other scenario: "I think X, so that's correct" is all you've done. No one thinks "therefore I'm god," that's just rhetoric.
No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you.
Which one of us believes in an all powerful being with a plan for every individual in the universe that plays along with a stated purpose in the plan? BEcause that one has no control over their existence. And MY life depends on me, just like yours.
Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death?
He can't prove we decompose? Can you prove that there's a soul? An afterlife? His are observations of physical science. Yours are fairy tales from a book. There is no 'after death' for living things that anyone can demonstrate, and if there is, you'd have a lot of work to do to still demonstrate that such an afterlife is yours and not, let's say, the Islamic version somehow.
I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat.
Yes, exactly. So you bring him in with no justification demonstrated, even when granted that A creator exists. I have bad news for you, though, I think you're going to find out you're in our boat all the same :).
Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.
Taking your ball and going home is not only unbecoming, it's also in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: but gin your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"
In lieu of challenging his rather straightforward axioms, please simply show how you got from a thinking agent to god of the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
For clarification purposes: you did not write the body of that post, correct? Because it's incongruous with the topic title, and having seen it in the other topic, I know that's not what you think, you're taking issue with someone else, but you might want to just clarify lest people who didn't go 400 replies deep in that thread missed it :). Links appreciated, but save yourself the questions.
It is indeed stunning how anti-Christian most "Christian politics" are, to the topic at hand. I guess fuck the beatitudes, right?
Created:
Posted in:
Couldn't we jut pray away the illegal immigration problem, like we're told to do with guns? Sorry, I'm now contributing to my OWN topic going off topic :). As you were!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So it's best to pray to a generic 'God' and not be too specific which god?
Provided the correct answer isn't the god of the bible, maybe. If any god were real (and again, I don't think they are, this is purely hypothetical) and you weren't sure which one it was, I think it's probably safest not to pray at all. It would leave you the most wiggle room. Like when my mom complains I never call her, I always tell her she never calls me. Phones work both ways, and i'm the one who's not retired and has a 15 hour schedule day to day with kids.
It's half joking. :) I have to put that there because religious people are famously humorless about stuff like that, they might not be able to identify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Obviously an omniscient god would definitely hear it, and ignore it, as he does with so many of the prayers pointed directly at him, apparently. I mean he wouldn't act on it, but if it's the god of the bible, he'd hear it, not act on it, AND put your ass on the 'make sure to torture this person forever' list.
I think the most likely answer from any theist, but specifically I've HEARD this answer from a number of Christians, is the god somehow understands that you meant to be praying to him, not your false god, and he grants your wish so that maybe you come to realize the error of your ways somehow. Of course, without showing up properly and saying "By the way, I'm the Bible God, I'm the one that did that. Just call me direct next time." I would imagine if he attempts an answer, PGA will end up somewhere near this mark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So which god is the real god?One thing is clear, they both can't if the beliefs conflict each other in what God is. One of the beliefs is an idol.
So you don't have an answer to this either? You're just restating the point of the experiment.
If only one of the people could potentially be right, how do you rule out the nine who are wrong? I
There's an even more difficult version. What if all ten of the people prayed to different gods, none of those gods were your gods, and the child was saved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The very fact that it would be the Romans and not someone else who did this is significant.
So it is somehow supernaturally significant that the occupying force from the biggest army on earth did to Jerusalem exactly what they'd done to hundreds of cities and cultures BEFORE Jerusalem and after? Sorry, but I don't see how. Nor do I see how this somehow means your god created the universe. Connect the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So you're proving my point: the biblical prophesy isn't in any version of the bible and relies on something outside the bible to make it work. It is therefore not STRICTLY a biblical prophesy, then, is it? Why is (of years) added there parenthetically, is that what Gabriel said, or is that something the cited author, who is not the author of the bible, adds?
Why not just say "rome" instead of some fourth kingdom strong as iron that requires interpretation and definitely invites misinterpretation? I'm sorry dude, but those aren't specific prophesies. A specific prohpesy would be "Rome is going to come in here and tear this temple down 490 years from now." Not something about a statue and what it's made of and a lion with five heads on it each with two faces...that's a fever dream. Not prophesy. Honestly that passage is ridiculous.
A better real world example. I can prophesy "the Packers will beat the Bears when they first play during the 2019 regular season." We have a defined result on a defined day. OR, I can say:
"A team from Wisconsin will take on a team from the east of its city, and will one day be victorious." This now opens up my prophesy to be correct much more easily. It's far less impressive if one day the Wisconsin Badgers beat the PEnn State Nitanny Lions eventually, or the Bucks beat the Magic eventually. Both prophesies are true, but one is specific and not subject to interpretation. The other is basically the same thing as a cold reading medium, playing percentages to make sure I'm right.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Fucking Doug!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Reasonable? Do you think contradictory gods are reasonable to believe for the cause of evil over God providing humanity the consequences of judgment from sinful actions?And what is the evidence that these gods really exist? They call it Roman and Greek mythology. What evidence is there that gives credibility to their existence since you do not even believe in them?
I think they make more sense, I laid out why, and they even have a better explanation for bad things happening, plus their lack of interest in human goings-on makes far more sense given their level of power. I don't get why you think they're contradictory though. Zeus and Mars don't contradict each other. THe evidence that Zeus exists is thunderbolts. The evidence that Mars exists is war and aggression. The evidence that Eros exists is human lust. The evidence that Neptune exists is tidal waves. Their lack of interaction with us directly is because simply, they have better things to do, they're gods. Once in a while a Zeus will come down and rape someone making a Perseus or a Hercules (not unlike how the holy spirit slams his chromosomes into some poor virgin hebrew girl, who could NOT have gotten pregnant by accident), but for the most part, they do their gods stuff and don't care about what we do. In fact it fits pretty well with how the world works, especially if you can ignore all the scientific evidence. Plus, on the whole as a people, Romans or Greeks or Egyptians were far smarter than Hebrews and contributed a lot more to history than they ever did, so isn't it reasonable to think they were also right about this?
See?
Why, then, could not a team of gods have decided to create the universe rather than one god, who then had a plan, which included getting so mad at his creation when they do what he knew they'd do in the first place when he created them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
Long way to say no. You don't have to use my worldview, whatever that means, to prove that any other religion is wrong, do you? You can certainly do that without the bible.
To be clear, I don't start that it's unreasonable to believe anything. I start with "What reason do I have to believe XYZ." I don't view the bible or anything in it differently than you view any other religious text. But here's your other problem: even if the prophecy in the bible was accurate (and it isn't, 70 weeks does not equal 70 years, it only equals 70 weeks), it's contained in a book with many, many other inaccuracies and falsehoods. Light before stars, for one. And it doesn't get better. Talking animals. A boat big enough for 2 of every animal to be on it (well, not YOU, unicorns!). Contradictions in the new testament. EVEN IF your prophecy was 100% accurate, it would be difficult to then explain why everything else is so INaccurate.
I've given my view on the rather unimpressive prophecy of the temple you've laid out. Not impressive, not specific, not actionable, too open ended, requires weird exegetics and extra-biblical sources to somehow almost work.
If something is not reasonable then why would it be believable?
I'm granting you that it's reasonable that the universe was created by a thinking agent. I am asking that you show that agent to be god. Your argument so far is "the bible says it is, so it is." My counter is well tons of other religions and THEIR texts and traditions say it isn't. Why are they wrong? Your argument: "bible says they are. Also it said the temple would be destroyed!!! But was inexact about the date but still, it was eventually destroyed, because that's what Romans did to everything everywhere they occupied...except THIS time it was because god was involved somehow." It's not an answer to the question. Acknowledging that perhaps you cannot lead to your god from 'creator of the universe' without leaning on the bible, I've offered the alternative. Prove another religion wrong without using the bible. You've declined and said, yet again, "The bible says they're wrong, and you won't let me say that." Their books say YOU'RE wrong. Which is correct? Leave aside for now that the jewish prophecies are so convincingly fulfilled that jewish people don't believe they were.
@3rutal, nice example!
Created:
Posted in:
This is a big area of disagreement between sects of Christianity, so I figured since the creator => specific god thread has officially come off the rails, it was time for something new.
CHRISTIANS: which version of salvation do you think is correct, and why, and how do you support your choice from scripture? There's the always popular once saved, always saved folks, who feel that once you accept Jesus, you are definitely getting into heaven (creating a space for uninterrupted sinning with no consequence, it would seem). There's the saved through works folks, which places some emphasis on doing good deeds all the time. There's the depends on the day and time folks, like Catholics who think "Well I just left confession, I'm sin free now so I guess this is a good time for a tragic car accident", those that say you can't get in if you're covered in sin. There's the predeterminists, the ones who think being saved or damned is not up to anyone but is already determined at the time of birth.
Which one's right? Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would anything pertaining to Brahman being personal or pantheistic have any bearing on if it were real / the creator of the universe?The question comes up on is Brahman personal or impersonal? Can you provide passages that speak of Brahman as personal or is Brahman pantheistic - everything and in everything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
This is an interesting question, are you talking about the malicious intent of the author, or of the character of the snake? I never could find malice in what the snake was saying, which was basically wouldn't it be nice to know what your boss is thinking, what he thinks is good versus bad? Again not sure why god put this snake in the garden in the first place, or the trees for that matter. If Adam was basically like god's employee, and the garden was basically where he worked, then god did a real bad job of eliminating occupational hazards and interviewing prospective garden residents.Where did such malicious intent come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@disgusted
I get what gus is saying here: if you're going to use the biblical prophesy argument, you have to use ONLY the bible, or some biblically spelled out conversion chart for time periods that's IN the bible. Otherwise you are polluting the prophesy by using extrabiblical sources that potentially have a reason to want to have the prophesy work out just right. I don't see why an all powerful god wouldn't either correct the math or typo in the bible on its own. IF you're arguing for prophesy accurately in the bible, it seems like you give too much ground by saying "In this case, I'll allow some scholar 600 years from when this was supposed to be written originally inform why it was not in fact 70 weeks, but instead it MEANT to say 490 years." It's either in the book or it isn't. You know, the book with talking animals and a worldwide flood that left no evidence after having covered the earth for 40 days (which maybe meant 280 weeks?) and pairs of every single species of creature on earth were stored together on a single boat for that long.
Besides, predicting that a Roman occupied city would have its temples destroyed is not exactly the wildest prediction of all time, especially if you leave it open ended. It's how they expanded their empire to cover as much of the world as it did for so long: destroy a culture and make it basically Roman. Their architecture is everywhere in the ancient world for a reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I find you guys never engage in the proofs Christianity offers.In the same way that you don't accept "proofs" from other religions.Convince me they are reasonable.
Loathe as I am to give any oxygen to this distraction...
I feel like the most reasonable supernatural explanation would have to be a pantheistic version. For example, Roman gods are reasonable because they seem to have "departments," areas of expertise (eventually this would be co-opted by CHristianity in the form of saints). They don't really care too much about humans and what they do (which makes sense, I mean how much time do you spend worrying if ants or frogs are treating each other fairly?). Humans are really afterthoughts that are often collaterally affected by the disputes these gods have with each other. Under the pantheon model, if your husband's boat is sunk at sea in a terrible storm, it's not because part of some plan put your otherwise innocent husband on a boat with a guy a monotheistic god was really mad at and had to kill all on board to get him. It's simply that Jupiter, the god of thunder and lightning and storms or whatever, and Neptune, the god of the sea, were having it out and you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, a fine lady caught your eye that isn't your wife and you two want to fuck for fun? Sounds like the influence of Eros or Aphrodite is in the air, and you're just caught in the crossfire! Better decide if it's them or one of the trickster gods like Pan the half goat, who often lured folks into bad situations like that only to reveal it to the wife or husband later. Trickster gods, mischief gods, gods for all manner of natural phenomena, none of them omnipotent or ominscient but with their own agendas, never really concerned with humanity in general, that helps explain things like "problem of evil," or why morality is so different from one person to another, with much more reason than "Well, your son's leukemia is something you should be thankful to Jesus for because he planned it."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible, throughout, claims to be His word, His revelation, His interaction with humanity so what is said should conform to what we discover from history and it should be philosophical reasonable and logical
Right, my point exactly! The claim cannot be evidence. It has to be the claim. Being accused of something is not evidence for whatever you're accused of.
The question is can you prove that the creator of the universe is in fact your god.Again, it revolves around what would you consider proof? The evidence is most reasonable but even facts can be disputed.
So no, you cannot prove it this way.
My evidence would be in the logic of if the biblical God is real then Zeus is unreasonable, as simple as that. The Laws ofLogicstate that two contrary things cannot both be valid at the same time and in the same manner. If God is the biblical God then He is not Zeus. So all I have to do is show the biblical God is reasonable to believe and Zeus is not.
No, you'd have to show that the bible god is real, and Zeus isn't, or the bible god is reasonable and Zeus isn't. Don't conflate reasonable with real. You're starting from a position of "it's reasonable to assume there's something that created the universe" which I grant. You do not and have not, now in ten pages, made any advance towards 'and here's why it's the same character this one book claims it is.' I continue to wait, but you continue to point to the claim (The bible says he's real, it's his word, it claims to be his revelation) as the evidence. I've even offered you a way out of using your god or the bible: demonstrate any other deity conclusively false, without referencing your faith to do so. Their falsity should not be dependent on your faith at all, it's either true or it isn't, right? In other words, if Roman pantheism is false, it doesn't make Christianity true, they are independent of each other.
It is the most reasonable outcome.
Great! Now please show the following work: from creator of the universe, to the god of the bible being the most reasonably responsible party. Don't use the bible because that's the claim not the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you prove yours is?What evidence would you accept? You want me to conform to your standards.
Can I prove my what is? I don't have any gods. As you've presented no evidence that does not treat the claim as evidence, I've yet to see any independent evidence at all. The question is can you prove that the creator of the universe is in fact your god. Are you saying you believe it even though there is no evidence? Present your evidence (not your claim, which is THE BIBLE, as doing so is you saying "The bible god is real because the bible says he is"), and we'll examine it. Present your argument that your god is real, or even better, why Zeus isn't, without referring to the bible. Not can you make sense of your own worldview (obviously you can retrofit the bible onto any worldview if you work at it enough), not is morality objective or subjective, these are all DIFFERENT TOPICS. I invite you again to start your own topics on those and I'll participate as warranted.
Why would I not use the claims to show the strength of the evidence?
Because this is backwards. You use EVIDENCE to support your CLAIM. Not your CLAIM to support your EVIDENCE. Or, alternatively, you can simply say no, I can't, I believe it anyway, and there's literally no way I can ever change my mind, but I'm going to stop saying I used logic and reason to objectively arrive at my outcome. It's simply the outcome I like best.
To that, I have no argument. Just stop talking about logic and reason like they apply in any way to your claim and we'll get along just fine! :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, I start my proof of God with prophecy. Are you willing to engage?
Prophecy presupposes he's there already. Start your proof of god with proving he's there, to the exclusion of all others. I presume you've already done this and DECIDED to be a Christian, so this should be rather easy for you. Unless, of course, you're mistaking the claim for the evidence. Yes, or no? Can your version of god be proven to exist, without referring to the bible, which is what claims he exists in the first place? The rest of your questions are different topics.
I grant {1} because if I don't there isn't a topic. {2} is immaterial because again, it is granted. Your leap to {3} is what's completely unearned. You've made no case for any monotheistic entity at all, you've not eliminated any pantheistic gods, or any deistic traditions at all, you've just jumped to "must be one deity" for some reason.
Everything else is off topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So the answer to the yes or no question, which again is:
can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question.
...is no, right? Because again you didn't attempt it, even after saying "been there done that". I'm not asking you to disprove every religion. I'm asking you to prove you're right, without using the claim as the evidence. Or debunk any other religion, your choice, without referring to your own. This is the topic at hand. The rest of your distractions, I'd suggest starting other threads about if you like, and I'll participate as warranted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't start with my version, I start with the biblical revelation that states God is the only God and I use my logic that confirms this is so.
That's your version. A Muslim starts with his version, a Hindu his version, a Cherokee his version...and all would argue it exactly as you do. To whit...
Why would I believe in God if I didn't believe He existed? You first have to start with that presupposition.
I can think of no other proposition that requires you to believe in it to figure out you believe in it. That's not how reasoning or logic works.
You have admitted several times you can't do that,How have I done that?
You mean besides not even attempting it in eight pages? Each of your posts seems to come down to "bible quote" (without demonstrating that bible is true, again it's the claim not the evidence) + "Special pleading / argument from incredulity" X "confirmation bias." If you could do it, you'd have done it, I've asked directly several times. I'll ask again: can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question.
And why would I discard the biblical God as my reference? I find reason in Him, not in you or in some other god. I don't find any other gods as sufficient reason for the universe, nor do I have to. The counterfeit is based on the real, not the other way around.
Looks like I left one out: "personal preference." If you've 'been there, done that' proving other gods false without referring to your own god or religion, it ought to be easy, but here we are. You have not answered this one either, and my guess is because you're smart enough to see that your own arguments against most other religions are exactly the same level of problematic for your religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
No, you either start with a Creator or a chance happenstance universe as your starting point, from which everything else originates from. You explain things through one of two such worldviews.
Except this is not exactly what you do, is it? You don't start with a creator. You start with YOUR version of the Creator, which just happens to be god. If there's a way to go from little c creator to capital g God of the Bible, you would have to find that way. You have admitted several times you can't do that, and that your view doesn't work unless you start with the view that it's already correct. Try the inverse, let's forget your god for a second: please demonstrate that [ANY OTHER GOD YOU WANT TO CHOOSE] is not real WITHOUT REFERRING TO YOUR GOD OR THE BIBLE. Can it be done?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus only had 23 from the female and 23 from God.
Staggering! Where did you get information that god had chromosomes??? And how you'd somehow figure out that no one in any of Mary's bloodlines were ever related to the first two people on earth, who would NECESSARILY have to be everyone ever's parent...again you're not really looking for honest debate with this sort of stuff. You are literally the first person I've ever heard claim god has literal genetic material.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is a given that I start there just like you start with the presupposition that the Christian God is not real. It is a given that if I start with Him I don't start with other gods.
This effectively ends the discussion, because only one of us actually starts with a presumption of anything beyond what's immediately presentable existing, and it isn't me. I start with no presumption, only the notion that I've not ever seen any convincing evidence that any god is real, or that any god is realer or less real than any other, and that since most things seem explicable through natural phenoman, adding a layer of magic on top of it is unnecessary. I am open for convincing. You, on the other hand, admit freely that in order to prove your god is right, you have to start with the notion that your god is right, without that god having earned it. This is an inhibitor to honest debate. The rest of your post is moot. You start many of your sentences with "if a biblical god is true" and instead of answering the IF part (which is central!), you just proceed as if he IS true. That's not how it works, convincing other people.
And your other problem tying yourself to the bible is that so much of your contortions seem supported extra-biblically (like the insane notion that 70 = 490ish years). It's either the bible alone, or you have to take into account the scholarship (overwhelming in number) that contradicts your accounting as much as you take into account the ones that support it. For example, you can't point to the hebrews trekking across Egypt without also pointing out that god must have erased all the evidence supporting it for some reason, as modern archaelogists do not find any evidence of hebrews wandering around for 40 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous
Where's the chromosomal component?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How about you just start with why your god is real and the hundreds of other gods aren't. You say yourself he's only revealed in the bible (which speaks again to the fact that the bible is claim, not evidence), so you don't need the bible for this argument. All the other ridiculous tripe, like how I can't say something is wrong without borrowing from Christianity, is distraction from this. Keep it simple: what is the evidence that your god is real and, for example, the Greek pantheon isn't? Don't fixate on why the Greek Pantheon is wrong, please demonstrate, again without pointing to the claim as evidence, that your god is real. THat's all I'm asking.
those who don't want to believe will not believe
What I want to believe has no bearing on anything being true. It's either true or it isn't. Gravity doesn't care if I believe in it.
I don't need authority to say the bible isn't evidence of itself, it's common sense. If I wrote on a piece of paper "Xenu is real" and let it age for a thousand years, would the piece of paper and the writing on it be evidence that Xenu is real?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It's a fair critique of the way it's posed, I must admit. I guess I put it in there because that seems language that theists would most identify with, and would more effectively crystallize the idea that you were not to maintain beliefs in your old gods anymore.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
The way I figure it, I'd at least be among the number of people who could honestly say "Well I didn't think any of the stories about a deity I heard made any sense, so I didn't believe any of them, because I had no evidence that convinced me. Since you left no evidence I didn't figure out you were there, which kind of seems by design, almost everyone (or perhaps LITERALLY everyone) had it wrong. Now I have evidence and I don't have to believe anything, I can just know." I feel like at least that line of logic would work before being catapulted into the void Python style.
Created: