JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
"Would this be a moral act?" - Without God who determines what is moral? Your question assumes morality which is only put forth forcefully by God. What you believe morality is has no bearing on others. Only a codified, written, enforced (in this life or next) moral code has any bearing on what people should or should not do. Your question is invalid.
""Would this be a moral act?" - Without God who determines what is moral"
By your own God's morals
"Your question is invalid"
Nope, you are just trying to dodge it. Here is it again:
If your God told you that for reasons you would not understand it is very important that you to kill the next 5 babies you see, would you do it? Would this be a moral act?
@tedrick79 "Without God who determines what is moral?" You and society as a whole determine what is moral. Enforced moral codes have a crime, punishment system that is agreed to by the majority of a society. You are placing God as your moral determiner not yourself. So if God told you to I am forced to assume that to you it is moral. As is the rest of JanJiska's part 2.
@deadmouse217 So you would agree that, in the past, those who participated in acts such as slavery and infanticide weren't doing anything morally wrong?
@cherrytoasterpastry From their point of view no. From the point of view of everyone else yes. Those acts and others like them undermine the purpose of society, to create a cohesive group of individuals, and are usually not tolerated by other neighboring society's. That is why there are not that many society's that promote slavery when there used to be many. Even national and cultural society's are a part of the world society that has crime and punishment system agreed on by the majority.
"The fact that you can relate to their suffering, then, only encourages you to bring the same suffering on them. "
Erm ... what?
If your God told you that for reasons you would not understand it is very important that you to kill the next 5 babies you see, would you do it? Would this be a moral act?
The leap in logic appears to be yours. You seem to have the very common creationality idea that because you can barrage someone with dozens of extremely complicated questions to which they cannot give definitive one line answers that must mean your God is real. As I explained previously this is simply not the case and is nothing but a dishonest God of the gaps argument.
In your case of course things are right if God says they are (eg stoning to death someone who gathers sticks on the Sabbath) and wrong if he says they are wrong (homosexuality). The real world is not like this, which is why the theists have to continually reinterpret their texts etc and hence why constant eternal Gods seem to vary their opinions through the ages.
It is not because these things are often context dependant and relative to each other, there are more shades of grey than black and white in the real world. This is a stram man argument often used by creationalists. I disagree with torture but I would torture you in a second if my daughter had been kidnapped.
Sorry I did not see your reply as it was marked as spam.
What defines wrong?
Very open ended question with many special cases and pitfalls. For example I think torture is wrong as I can empathise with the victim but I would torture someone if I needed information to save my daughter's life etc.
9:22 - Of course Stein tries to disprove the First Cause argument, which serious philosophers don't even bother trying to tear down anymore. Stein and all atheists completely miss the point that God is transcendent of and the Creator of all Natural laws. God did not need a first cause. He IS THE first cause. He simply Is. No End and no Beginning. The argument against the first cause is a invalid, because it redefines God in the attempt to disprove Him.
@Myusernamerulez - Yes. Here's why: Even Stein and the atheist he refers to in another great debate themselves agree on a definition of God as being "A supreme personal being, distinct from the world, and creator of the world.” He then goes on to try to refute the Causal Argument as proof against God, when by his own definition, and the entire point of God being, that, God is in fact distinct – transcendent – of the world, not subject to its laws which He created.
The Cosmological Argument does NOT say everything must have a cause, Stein is either IGNORANT, or a blatant LIAR, the CA states that everything that has a BEGINNING must have a Cause, God has no beginning, therefore He does not need a Cause.
@JanJiska The CA does not specify a particular god, tho the god in question must meet certain prerequisties. It must be, Timeless (Eternal), Imaterial (Spirit), Spaceless, (Omnipresent), Powerful (Omnipotent), and highly intelligent (Omniscient), the only God I know of that meets these requirement is YHVH. However, the CA is not an argument for YHVH, once it is established there must be A GOD, then further arguments proove it must be YHVH. God bless.
@JanJiska No if this is a computer program then its not a Universe. Furthermore, the universe that the Programer would actually be in, would still require a True God.
The Creator by no means would HAVE TO be one we know about, He could have remained silent & distant, but since there's a being that claims to be the creator & presents evidence to support His Claim in a logically consistant manner, I choose to believe Him.
CA reveals the TRUTH of A GOD, the Bible reveals the TRUTH of THE GOD.
They were genocidal. I do not agree with genocide. I do not like bullies and I do not like murdering. No supernatural power has to give me a guide book, I decided that on my own. You may not agree and you are welcome not to.
Your turn:
If God came to you and told you to murder then next 5 babies you saw for reasons you would not be able to understand, would you do it?
"As I recall, that wasn't "justice." I seem to recall he was either not the bad guy or overly punished."
Depends on your definition of justice. Some would argue it was entirely just.
"Or, to put it another way, what causes you to agree with those beliefs?"
My life experience has lead me to conclude that they are an appropriate belief system. I update them as I gain more experience and knowledge. As I said sir, this is all accounted for by evolution.
Nohing, they are merely my opinions. If you think that God was right to kill millions of animals in the flood then that is your opinion. I do not need a supernatural power to give them worth.
However, I think that more people would be in line with my belief that murder is wrong than yours which is whatever God says to do is right including murder.
I understand that you do not think that murder, torture, rape etc are wrong if your God is doing or ordering it.
"You defined morality as a bunch of beliefs, essentially, but you have yet to explain that part of your which being causes you to espouse those beliefs."
This is what I was referring to when I suggested you researched the evolution of morality.
I answered it, I suggested that you look at google. It is a huge, complicated subject and would never fit in these replies. Dawkins covers it in The God Delusion, you can also find it on wikipedia. Sir, you have clearly made no effort to research the claims you are making or you would know this.
"Then sir, mustn't you then accept the view that all morality is simply relative"
Yes.
" If morality is relative, though, you have no right to attack God's "atrocities," "
Indeed I do because I think some of things he does and orders his followers to do are disgusting and even if I thought he was real I would never worship him. I also think many of his laws (rape victims must marry their rapists etc) are absurd and I would never support them. Luckily our goverment agrees
"When I refer to gods being internally incoherent, of course, I am excluding the God of the Bible from this category"
Despite numerous contraditctions in the bible and God being inconsistant with the laws of logic? I assume that you are not going to try to claim your have studied every other religion in the depth you have your own.
Remember - there is only one correct, perfect and sensible god in the universe and every religion has it.
"What IS the evolutionary explanation for morality, sir"
Try google?
"Of course I would know it. It's part of my being whether or not I am born again. It's part of your being, also."
So if your God told you to murder a baby (as he has requested murder several times in the bible) would you do it? Bear in mind his reason might be beyond your understanding.
Without looking it up - what are the 10 commandments he gave to Moses on the stone tablets?
"Even if you did, I'd be hard pressed to take my morality from them because they are all man-made and internally incoherent."
No more than your God is to non Christians. Also, how do you know that any creator has revealed himself. Perhaps he will in the next 5 minutes and all other religions were simply man made.
"What defines "right," sir?"
A combinations of beliefs, attitudes and opinions based on my life experience. No orders from above I'm afraid!
Are you telling me that if, somehow, you have never been exposed to the Christian God you would not know that murder, rape etc were wrong? Seriously would you know or not know that?
God ordered his followers to kill others numerous times in the bible (including babies). What would you do if he ordered you to kill a neighbour's baby?
"You are making a moral statement, sir, with no grounds to make it on. "
Why? Why can I not get my morals from a different God?
Although I don't I build my morals on what I think is right determined by my upbringing and experience. I do not have to disaprove of homosexuals etc because an old book tells me too. I behave the way I do because I think it is right, not because I fear punishment or expect reward - unlike theists.
"And it was NOT God that murders homosexuals, teenagers,etc. It was those PEOPLE who claimed to "come in the name of Jesus" that did that. Those are NOT Christians"
God instructs people to be murdered many times in the bible and several times kills them himself. If you do not know this you could not have read the bible!
"your religion holds this view and you subscribe to this religion therefore you must support it?" makes no sense.
how can you NOT think there is a God, you thnk this universe, the intricacy of our bodies and how it works, the animals, the sea, the beautiful sunset, nature...etc you think its by CHANCE, ooooh my heart aches for those who don't believe in Him. He is the best thing that has every happened to me and I KNOW i can't live w/o Him.
@JanJiska I do not have to speak for my God, He can speak for himself, so I will not waste precious in trying to convince you of His existence. My question to atheists is that if you all are so knowing that there is no God, why argue so vehemently that there is no God. Why even reply to my comment if you personally know there is no God. For me if someone has an opinion tht I do not agree I do not go out of my way to break their argument because as far as I am concerned it is not valid.
Your God does not seem to be speaking to me, I guess it must be his will that I am an atheist?
I do not know for sure that there is no God, I do not know for sure that there is no tooth fairy either.
If you came across me trying to convince your children that the tooth fairy was real and they risked suffering an eternity of terrifying torture unless they bowed did and did as they were told by her, would you simply let them believe it?
@JanJiska John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that whoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
@JanJiska I feel that if atheists are so convinced in knowing that there is no God, having research foundations and TRYING to prove that there is absolutely NO God whatsoever in sooo many different ways proves that there is an ounce of belief in their heart that they may be wrong. Again I do not have to sit here and convince you that there is a God, but through my experiences and what I've been through He has been faithful to me & nothing or NO ONE one can remove that agape love I have for Him.
@JanJiska You trying to "disassemble" my arguement by quoting and refuting everything I say is not going to change what I believe. This is purely my opinion and if you do not believe it, that's your business. It is not my place to judge. But as of now my relationship with Him is blossoming and I am trying to draw close to Him. Try to prove and argue against me if you want, but you will never put a seed of doubt in my mind. ~Psalms 91~
I already stated that proving a universal negative cannot be done so clearly I was not trying to do this.
I was correcting your misconceptions - believe the world is made of cheese if you want it does not bother me. If you start making publc statements about it and threaten my children with torture if they do not agree with you then I will make public statements about you being wrong and will point out flaws in your arguments
@JanJiska Where in my argument did I personally threaten you children with torture if they do not believe in God? No where. I believe God "sends" no one to hell, He does not "send" anyone to heaven either. Because God loves us all and love is not controlling He gave us free will (you have the free will to choose not to believe in Him). Those that do not believe in Him CHOOSE to live without him and He is a God of justice.
@JanJiska First, you making rash assumptions "your religion holds this view and you subscribe to this religion therefore you must support it?" makes no sense. Causation does NOT equal correlation. And it was NOT God that murders homosexuals, teenagers,etc. It was those PEOPLE who claimed to "come in the name of Jesus" that did that. Those are NOT Christians. Do you think God hates the very creation He made? He loves all. It is the SIN of people that He hates.
"And it was NOT God that murders homosexuals, teenagers,etc"
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
@JanJiska Ok since you do not believe in God, let's put this in earthly, logical terms. Let's say that a random person chose to kill someone in your life that you love dearly. And he does not receive in justice for killing that person, would that be okay? See everyone has a CHOICE to do what they want, just like that person had a choice in committing that crime OR not to. You can do what ever you want, just be prepared to deal with the consequences your actions yield.
Belief is not a choice. The millions of children and animals killed in the great flood had no choice. Women raped and forced to marry their rapists have no choice (your God's rules BTW). The man who was stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath had a choice - but his punishment was horrific compared to his crime. If he has to die, why was it is such a savage way?
@JanJiska As a rationalizing person, you must take into consideration that not all Christians are this way. I understand where you are coming from in that those that claim that theyare Christians have done A LOT of bad things that have given us the name "hypocrite." But trust me not all of us are like that. I am terribly sorry if the Christians you have come across have been judgemental bc those are not true Christians.
"As a rationalizing person, you must take into consideration that not all Christians are this way"
But they should be shouldn't they? That is what it says in the bible:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Stein misunderstands the first cause argument. It is not *first* as in first in time, but first as in primary. It is a logical necessity that god should exist, according to that argument (which I don't concede for other reasons).
I think that that is the standard repsonse to the theistic claim that there must be a god (theirs of course and not anyone else's) because everything needs a creator. Hence their god needs a creator - although they normally recover well with the phrase "erm ... anything but my god needs a creator"
Oh PUH-LEEEEZE, is that where this atheist lands first, the infinite regress? who made God? (coz that's logical)? Oh come on, have we not addressed this - God ALWAYS has been, is and always will be (Ps 90v2).
"I continued, 'When an engineer has built a bridge, the fact that a cat can pass over the bridge is no proof that the bridge is good. A train must pass over it to prove its strength. The fact that you can be an athiest when everything goes well does not prove the truth of athiesm. It does not hold up in moments of great truth
"The fact that you can be a Christian when everything goes well does not prove the truth of Christianity. It does not hold up in moments of great truth"
Like when that pilot prayed as his plane was crashing, or when my in laws prayed for their father and it made no difference. I am sure the people in Haiti prayed a lot and it did not change anything etc
"the political officer asked me harshly, 'how long will you continue to keep your stupid religion?"
"I said to him, 'I have seen innumerable athiests regretting on their deathbeds that they have been godless; they called on Christ. Can you imagine that a Christian could regret when death is near that he as been a Christian and call on marx or lenin to rescue him from his faith?"
the man who said this was richard wrumbrand, he spent 15 years in prison for spreading the gospel in communist Russia, he saw athiest in his prison die, I'm just saying when things get tough even athiest turn to God, I'll never regret believing in God. I'd wrather die ignorant and hopeful then doubtful and fearful
I am sure that lunatis asylums have plenty of people who do not doubt that they are Napoleon etc. Although your point is flawed as there is no way you can be sure that what you have experienced is the creature you think. Any supernatural creature could be claiming to be your god - any appropraitely powererful supernatural creature could have walked around calling themselves Jesus and performing miracles
Copernicus, Keppler, Pasteur, Newton, and many others were Christians. This doesn't mean that science is not possible outside of Christianity, but it does mean that humans through science would have discovered many things MUCH later if at all without Christianity. This is really beside the point, though. If someone claiming to be a Christian is involved in gang rape, it doesn't invalidate Christianity any more than Stalin invalidates Atheism. What matters is what is true. Bahnsen was right.
Pretty much everyone in Europe through the middle ages was a Christian. The alternative was death, this proves nothing other than the Catholic church was very powerful in those times. The scienctific discoveries in China were far ahead of anything Europe had to offer until their Emperor pretty much banned science.
Christianity is nothing special, it is merely one of thousands of religions that has existed throughout history which happens to have got a good foothold in Western Europe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How on earth can you claim that medicine is a heritage of the Christian world view when the bible instructs you to pray to be healed rather than seek medicine and scientists have the base assumption that god is not involved in anything when they do their research. Also for a long time the Christian West was streets behind the Muslim East in terms of medicine? Or was your God napping then?
The great cities and learning centers of Christianity before 700 AD were spread throughout the Persia, the Levant, and Northern Africa. These were all areas taken over forcefully by Islam, as was most of the knowledge they contained. Try to imagine what would happen to our society if our greatest cities and universities were all suddenly taken.
In response to the comment about "pray to be healed rather than seek medicine," consider that Luke (the author of the book) was a doctor, that Paul instructed Timothy to drink wine (for *medicinal* purposes), and Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan talked of bandaging wounds. The Christian worldview offers much more than the straw "spiritist" man you make of it.
The atheist worldview does not remotely offer everything we have today. Consider the great works of art or great speeches of history produced by Christians.
But more importantly, even if the atheist worldview *did* offer "everything we have today," it can't give peace about death. It offers little for today, but nothing for tomorrow.
Consider the great works of art, speeches etc produced by people generally. Religion has little to do with it.
Atheism gives the same peace about death that most theists really have. I would guess very few theists on a crashing plane think "Great! I'm on my way to heaven!" and I have seen very few Christian rejoice when a loved one dies and goes to heaven.
As for offering anything after death - as far as we know there is nothing. Grow up and accept it.
Um, we do have an idea of what lies past death. We have tons of people who have died, were brought back, and talked of their experiences. And ofcourse we dont rejoice when a loved one dies, I mean we dont have traditions like wakes at all right? oh wait....but even then, we are still human, and subject to missing those who go on before us.
It would appear that Atheism, as a belief system, is just as divided as every other belief system. I've never met an atheist that didn't simply and dogmatically deny the existence of God. That is their primary tenant of belief. I find it interesting that Stein has his own definition of Atheism that doesn't deny the existence of God but only questions the argument FOR God. I guess Atheism has it's own denominations. That's new to me.
Atheists are humans like anyone else. The same as Christians might use know instead of strongly believe so might atheists.
I strongly believe that there is no god but am willing to have my mind changed. This is the same as I strongly do not believe in ESP or that there is a table floating behind my head. I know neither of these for sure but I belief strongly enough for the words to be almost synonomous.
However, the burden of proof is with the claimant. The same as anything else is life
If you strongly believe that there is no god, doesn't that make you now the claimant? It seems to be a bit of a dodge to put the burden of proof on the theists when you are making a claim as well.
Have you any evidence that there is no God? Atheism is a reason based faith so what are your reasons?
And the proof of the Christian one (that can be substituted for any other religion) seems to be lacking.
As far as I can tell it centres mainly on telling young children that the are a member of your religion and that they must stay so or suffer eternal torment etc. Then construct a set of excuses as to why nothing you say can be proved.
I did, which is when I spotted that there was no reason why Christianity should be any more plausible than any other religion and it mainly (not always) depends on which religion is thrust on you before you are old enough to defend yourself.
There is just as much proof for aliens etc as any supernatural God.
Perhaps if you paid closer attention you could spot the same fact and break the cycle.
We both agree on not believing in thousands of other gods, Christianity is not a special case
It would appear that you have no valid response to give. It is not suprising - normally theists use this approach or simple abuse as coping mechanisms for arguements which undermine their standpoint. I probably do the same when I am confronted with things I do not want to admit but cannot deny.
Out of interest - how do you think that other religions justify that nothing happens when their followers pray to their fake gods?
And now we come to abuse (the last stand of the desperate), as I predicted.
Bahnsen IMHO failed to explain why the 'worldview' is Christian rather than any other super natural power. He also failed to explain why having a god in charge would mean the laws of logic could be relied on to be constant when a god could vary them at will (and has done several times according to your bible). Just because a god allows something to happen 100 times does not mean he will not change it on the 101st.
In this debate, he does not. There was one question at the end where he mentioned how little time he had to answer it and then proceded to not meet the demands of the question.
Or was it somewhere else on here and I missed it (quite possible), if so I would be appreicative if you could point me towards it.
If it is in another source could you point me towards it, please?
Or, of course, you could give me the answers directly - if you have them?
#1 there is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. All atheists are different and happen to not believe in a god. We are all different and there is no over riding philosophy.
#2 you did not address why all theists adopt an atheistic world view whenever anything major happens e.g. if you child stopped breathing would you sit down and prey or rush to hospital? It is only possible to progress with knowledge and experience if you assume there is no superpower which can change things on a whim.
"you did not address why all theists adopt an atheistic world view whenever anything major happens"
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. What you are describing is really a Christian theistic world-view, not an atheistic world-view.
As an atheist, what basis do you have for believing that medicine will work? Or that steel struts will bear weight? Or that tomorrow be like yesterday?
Deduction from observation, when things are repeatedly experienced often enough we can begin making a framework of assumptions. Nothing is ever certain so we build off assumptions.
As a theist what basis do you have for believing any kind of constant, your God could vary it in any time in any way. Why would a steel strut support anything as god might change the law of physics at some point. You cannot comprehend how his mind works so you can never truely predict how he is going to act.
"Deduction from observation, when things are repeatedly experienced often enough we can begin making a framework of assumptions. Nothing is ever certain so we build off assumptions."
So you arbitrarily assume X and Y and Z...?
Observation cannot be the basis of all your knowledge. It is a self-refuting position.
My basis for doubting Christianity is probably the same for yours for doubting every other religion that has ever existed anywhere in the world. Along with why I do not believe in ghosts, aliens, ESP, the bogeyman etc.
If something can be proved then I will believe it, I find it strange that you cannot comprehend this. The more extreme the claim then the more rigid the proof required. It is very straightforward.
"If something can be proved then I will believe it..."
"Proved" according to your metaphysical & epistemological presuppositions. But those presuppositions are philosophically arbitrary, if not self-contradictory.
My reply seems to have not been posted?! I will try again:
I fixed your post for you:
"My religion is coherent. Other religions relgions are not. Why *not* select my religion over the others?"
Every theist will claim that their religion is the correct one. Most of them will be able to point out flaws and contridictions in other religions and will be able to explain away the one's in their own.
You already do. In having a reasoned discussion based on evidence you are employing an atheist world view. The same as when you go to a doctor rather just relying on prayer.
Because it is the only one based on analysis and deduction of verifyable facts which can be openly investigated by anyone. Any scientific point is only accepted when it can be proved using impartial data. From this we can deduce assumptions about the world (no one knows anything for certain) which allow us to live.
Nope, even if it required some kind of magical superpower (which it does not) there is no reason to believe it would be the Christian one rather than one of the thousands of alternatives.
We can and do make plenty of knowledge based claims, if fact you have to remove god from any equation to reliably make any kind of knowledge base otherwise he might change things randomly. As Christians do all of the time.
Bahnsen failed to show the contrary in this debate as I proved earlier.
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
What does an atheist world view offer? Medicine, scienfic research etc - everything apart from goblins, fairies, vampires, gods etc.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I often find that people resort to trying to laugh at someone if they are unable to defend their position. Usually it is closely followed by name calling and flimsy excuses (although sometimes the flimsy excuses come first).
God is self-caused. he exists outside the confines of space and time. The universe cannot be self-caused. It had to come from somewhere (if you don't believe that then you have to propose a valid theory about it's origin or non-origin). If it has been expanding and contracting indefinitely, it would fizzle out.
A self-caused universe doesn't fit any parameters of science.
I think the best answer to that is this: follow any belief system to its logical conclusion and you'll find that w/o fail everyone except Biblical Christianity is ultimately self-contradictory. Also, Biblical Christianity offers the best answers to life's big questions; meaning and purpose of man. Value of human life. Origins of all energy and matter. The tri-fold nature of man; heart, soul, and mind. The problem of evil-this one is always going to be difficult but is answered best by B. Christ.
Please explain to me why every belief system followed to its conclusion is self contradicting. You must have studied for decades to learn that about every religion that has ever existed!!
The bible's answers to these questions are very poor (mudering homosexuals etc). Science and reason provide far better answers. Even better, anyone can access and verify science research to see of they agree.
Gordon Clark spent years following belief sustems to their logical conclusion and found them so self-contradictory. No religion can be defended like Biblical Christianity. You might think the Bible's answers are poor but you may not understand them since the bible says, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." So you're at a serious disadvantage.
Gordon Clarke was a Christian, he was not impartial. He researched other religions to find flaws with them. I am sure that someone else could easily do the same with Christianity.
"No religion can be defended like Biblical Christianity"
Yes they can, by people who truely believe in them.
Funny, because natural scientist state as fact that everything has a cause, but now you are stating that the entire universe, all of it, didn't have a cause at all. What's sad is that most natural scientists believe it, but of course cannot prove it. They just assume it, just like everything else in their bogus theories.
Cause and effect break down at the quantum level - they are simply a macroscopic manifestation of how energy behaves. The universe didn't need a 'cause' because time did not exist before the universe. To say God started it off does not solve the problem but only worsens it.
Most if not all refutations to TAG I have read accuse the first premise of TAG (assuming logic exists) begs the question, however the person refuting TAG is using logic to refute TAG! I think TAG is a really good argument.
i thought the cosmological argument wasn't that everyTHING had a cause but rather "everything which COMES INTO EXISTENCE, has a cause (cause and effect), and infinite regression of causes is illogical (since time itself had a beginning), therefore the first Uncaused Cause we can believe is God"...
i believe the law of causality (cause and effect) is true, so wouldn't it be illogical to say there's a natural explanation for nature itself? "who caused God" confines him to nature, when he's not
I'm a fundamentalist, but I think the cosmological argument fails on several levels: the logical impossibility traversing of an actual infinite is tenuous; why must there be only *one* unmoved mover instead of a different one for everything that comes into existence; why can't the universe itself be the uncaused cause of itself (just because everything IN the universe needs a cause outside of itself, doesn't mean the universe itself does: that's a fallacy of composition).
However, Stein's objection is equally guilty of fallacy by making the category error that an uncreated being is subject to the same laws as creation (viz., every effect needs a cause). I think such discussion misses the real point of Bahnsen's argument, however. The TAG poses that all human experience, including supporting **AND** denying the cosmological argument, is unintelligible, apart from the presuppositions of the Christian worldview. This is a much more profound statement.
There can't be an infinite regression of causes. so its necessary to start at ONE. by quantum mechanics, laws of physics, etc. we know this much:
1) The Universe (Space/Time) had a beginning.
2)Entropy according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, clearly shows us that the universe is NOT static, but decelerating (winding down, so who wound it up?)
3)matter/energy can't be created/destroyed NATURALLY, yet the universe didn't always exist. so how did it get there? from nothing?
"There can't be an infinite regression of causes."
^ Not sure about that. Any subsection of infinity is infinitely long, but you can also be at a particular point in traversing it. So you can go back or forwards for infinity, but you are currently somewhere particular in the infinite succession. As I said, I'm a fundamentalist Christian, so I don't believe that's true, but it seems logically possible considered in the abstract.
(cont.) My point was that Bahnsen's argument is MUCH stronger than such a cosmological argument. Bahnsen is arguing that both to affirm *and* deny Christianity, presupposes that Christianity is true. Really, that's a very profound statement. Whether his argument goes through, you'll have to judge for yourself, but if it does, it is light years removed from proving the necessity of a generic first cause (which could, logically, simply be the universe itself).
The Transcendental argument is a very good starting point in apologetics. Since atheists presuppose logic, reason, and sensory awareness (senses actually make sense of reality and correspond to what is being perceived) they need to give account for this position. If they can't, it seems there is no good reason to take atheism seriou
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago in playlist Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate
"Would this be a moral act?" - Without God who determines what is moral? Your question assumes morality which is only put forth forcefully by God. What you believe morality is has no bearing on others. Only a codified, written, enforced (in this life or next) moral code has any bearing on what people should or should not do. Your question is invalid.
tedrick79 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tedrick79,
""Would this be a moral act?" - Without God who determines what is moral"
By your own God's morals
"Your question is invalid"
Nope, you are just trying to dodge it. Here is it again:
If your God told you that for reasons you would not understand it is very important that you to kill the next 5 babies you see, would you do it? Would this be a moral act?
JanJiska 6 months ago
@tedrick79 "Without God who determines what is moral?" You and society as a whole determine what is moral. Enforced moral codes have a crime, punishment system that is agreed to by the majority of a society. You are placing God as your moral determiner not yourself. So if God told you to I am forced to assume that to you it is moral. As is the rest of JanJiska's part 2.
deadmouse217 4 months ago
@deadmouse217 So you would agree that, in the past, those who participated in acts such as slavery and infanticide weren't doing anything morally wrong?
cherrytoasterpastry 1 month ago in playlist More videos from gregbahnsen
@cherrytoasterpastry From their point of view no. From the point of view of everyone else yes. Those acts and others like them undermine the purpose of society, to create a cohesive group of individuals, and are usually not tolerated by other neighboring society's. That is why there are not that many society's that promote slavery when there used to be many. Even national and cultural society's are a part of the world society that has crime and punishment system agreed on by the majority.
deadmouse217 1 month ago
(part 4)
"The fact that you can relate to their suffering, then, only encourages you to bring the same suffering on them. "
Erm ... what?
If your God told you that for reasons you would not understand it is very important that you to kill the next 5 babies you see, would you do it? Would this be a moral act?
JanJiska 9 months ago
(part 3)
"Also, you make an all-too-common leap in logic"
The leap in logic appears to be yours. You seem to have the very common creationality idea that because you can barrage someone with dozens of extremely complicated questions to which they cannot give definitive one line answers that must mean your God is real. As I explained previously this is simply not the case and is nothing but a dishonest God of the gaps argument.
JanJiska 9 months ago
(part 2)
In your case of course things are right if God says they are (eg stoning to death someone who gathers sticks on the Sabbath) and wrong if he says they are wrong (homosexuality). The real world is not like this, which is why the theists have to continually reinterpret their texts etc and hence why constant eternal Gods seem to vary their opinions through the ages.
JanJiska 9 months ago
"No, I think my question is reasonably specific"
It is not because these things are often context dependant and relative to each other, there are more shades of grey than black and white in the real world. This is a stram man argument often used by creationalists. I disagree with torture but I would torture you in a second if my daughter had been kidnapped.
~(cont)
JanJiska 9 months ago
@callofduty497,
Sorry I did not see your reply as it was marked as spam.
What defines wrong?
Very open ended question with many special cases and pitfalls. For example I think torture is wrong as I can empathise with the victim but I would torture someone if I needed information to save my daughter's life etc.
Can you narrow down your question?
JanJiska 9 months ago
9:22 - Of course Stein tries to disprove the First Cause argument, which serious philosophers don't even bother trying to tear down anymore. Stein and all atheists completely miss the point that God is transcendent of and the Creator of all Natural laws. God did not need a first cause. He IS THE first cause. He simply Is. No End and no Beginning. The argument against the first cause is a invalid, because it redefines God in the attempt to disprove Him.
WatchHawk 9 months ago
@WatchHawk So your basically saying god is a causeless cause?
Myusernamerulez 1 month ago
@Myusernamerulez - Yes. Here's why: Even Stein and the atheist he refers to in another great debate themselves agree on a definition of God as being "A supreme personal being, distinct from the world, and creator of the world.” He then goes on to try to refute the Causal Argument as proof against God, when by his own definition, and the entire point of God being, that, God is in fact distinct – transcendent – of the world, not subject to its laws which He created.
WatchHawk 1 month ago
@WatchHawk
And you know this how?
Myusernamerulez 1 month ago
The Cosmological Argument does NOT say everything must have a cause, Stein is either IGNORANT, or a blatant LIAR, the CA states that everything that has a BEGINNING must have a Cause, God has no beginning, therefore He does not need a Cause.
ChristusVlCTOR 10 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR,
Any god or just the Christian one?
JanJiska 10 months ago
@JanJiska The CA does not specify a particular god, tho the god in question must meet certain prerequisties. It must be, Timeless (Eternal), Imaterial (Spirit), Spaceless, (Omnipresent), Powerful (Omnipotent), and highly intelligent (Omniscient), the only God I know of that meets these requirement is YHVH. However, the CA is not an argument for YHVH, once it is established there must be A GOD, then further arguments proove it must be YHVH. God bless.
ChristusVlCTOR 10 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR,
So the God in question could be a software engineer who has written this universe as some kind of software?
You say that the only God you know of that has these qualities is YHVH, why would the creator have to be a god we know about?
JanJiska 10 months ago
@JanJiska No if this is a computer program then its not a Universe. Furthermore, the universe that the Programer would actually be in, would still require a True God.
The Creator by no means would HAVE TO be one we know about, He could have remained silent & distant, but since there's a being that claims to be the creator & presents evidence to support His Claim in a logically consistant manner, I choose to believe Him.
CA reveals the TRUTH of A GOD, the Bible reveals the TRUTH of THE GOD.
ChristusVlCTOR 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristusVlCTOR,
"No if this is a computer program then its not a Universe. "
We could be coded to think that it is.
"the universe that the Programer would actually be in, would still require a True God."
Require is too bold a word about such speculation imho.
"CA reveals the TRUTH of A GOD"
Why is it not just another God of the gaps argument?
"the Bible reveals the TRUTH of THE GOD."
Everyone's holy text revealts the TRUTH OF THEIR GOD!!!
JanJiska 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callofduty497,
"I have looked at Google, and I have looked at Dawkins, and I have looked at wikipedia, and I have looked far beyond those sources, sir."
Then perhaps you would be as kind as to summarise your understanding for me, sir?
Therefore I will know exactly where to begin my explanations and I can ensure I do not waste any of your valuable time.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callofduty497,
"What was wrong with Hitler's philosophies?"
They were genocidal. I do not agree with genocide. I do not like bullies and I do not like murdering. No supernatural power has to give me a guide book, I decided that on my own. You may not agree and you are welcome not to.
Your turn:
If God came to you and told you to murder then next 5 babies you saw for reasons you would not be able to understand, would you do it?
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callofduty497,
"As I recall, that wasn't "justice." I seem to recall he was either not the bad guy or overly punished."
Depends on your definition of justice. Some would argue it was entirely just.
"Or, to put it another way, what causes you to agree with those beliefs?"
My life experience has lead me to conclude that they are an appropriate belief system. I update them as I gain more experience and knowledge. As I said sir, this is all accounted for by evolution.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"What makes your opinions authority"
Nohing, they are merely my opinions. If you think that God was right to kill millions of animals in the flood then that is your opinion. I do not need a supernatural power to give them worth.
However, I think that more people would be in line with my belief that murder is wrong than yours which is whatever God says to do is right including murder.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callofduty497,
I understand that you do not think that murder, torture, rape etc are wrong if your God is doing or ordering it.
"You defined morality as a bunch of beliefs, essentially, but you have yet to explain that part of your which being causes you to espouse those beliefs."
This is what I was referring to when I suggested you researched the evolution of morality.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
" Why do humans unanimously cheer when the "bad guy" gets "justice" in movies?"
They don't. Did you cheer when Shylock was sentenced in the Merchant of Venice?
"These make it clear that morality is a steady standard, something inherent in all of our beings. An absolute."
No they do not. If they did there is no evidence that it involves your God.
"But sir, why do you hold those beliefs?"
I hold them because I agree with them. Do you agree with God killing babies?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"Is it really just relative?"
Because people all have the ability to empathise. Read up on the evolution of morals and all of these questions will be answered.
"If it is relative, then why do Americans all unanimously protest the abusing of animals"
"Why do humans all unanimously instinctively flinch when they watch torture scenes in movies"
"cultures around the world unanimously condemn ... genocides"
I am sure that there are some that don't.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"I have not yet had an answer to that question."
I answered it, I suggested that you look at google. It is a huge, complicated subject and would never fit in these replies. Dawkins covers it in The God Delusion, you can also find it on wikipedia. Sir, you have clearly made no effort to research the claims you are making or you would know this.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"Then sir, mustn't you then accept the view that all morality is simply relative"
Yes.
" If morality is relative, though, you have no right to attack God's "atrocities," "
Indeed I do because I think some of things he does and orders his followers to do are disgusting and even if I thought he was real I would never worship him. I also think many of his laws (rape victims must marry their rapists etc) are absurd and I would never support them. Luckily our goverment agrees
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"When I refer to gods being internally incoherent, of course, I am excluding the God of the Bible from this category"
Despite numerous contraditctions in the bible and God being inconsistant with the laws of logic? I assume that you are not going to try to claim your have studied every other religion in the depth you have your own.
Remember - there is only one correct, perfect and sensible god in the universe and every religion has it.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callofduty497,
"What IS the evolutionary explanation for morality, sir"
Try google?
"Of course I would know it. It's part of my being whether or not I am born again. It's part of your being, also."
So if your God told you to murder a baby (as he has requested murder several times in the bible) would you do it? Bear in mind his reason might be beyond your understanding.
Without looking it up - what are the 10 commandments he gave to Moses on the stone tablets?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"Even if you did, I'd be hard pressed to take my morality from them because they are all man-made and internally incoherent."
No more than your God is to non Christians. Also, how do you know that any creator has revealed himself. Perhaps he will in the next 5 minutes and all other religions were simply man made.
"What defines "right," sir?"
A combinations of beliefs, attitudes and opinions based on my life experience. No orders from above I'm afraid!
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
Are you telling me that if, somehow, you have never been exposed to the Christian God you would not know that murder, rape etc were wrong? Seriously would you know or not know that?
God ordered his followers to kill others numerous times in the bible (including babies). What would you do if he ordered you to kill a neighbour's baby?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"And that's because evolution cannot explain it"
Yes it can and it does. You obviously do not know anything about evolution.
"Evolution depicts a world of selfish barbarians who care about nothing but their own genetics "
No it does not. It is far more complicate than that.
"committing genocide "
Like your God and people who have acted in his name?
"We see a world of compassion and hatred of those genocidal crooks"
But a love for your genocidal God?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"You have to borrow from God the very morality you use to tear Him down"
Rubbish, as explained in my previous reply.
"Without God, you have no right to complain against vicious massacres."
With God you support massacres if he says to (as you did in your previous comment). You would also support Hitler, Pol Pot etc if your God said to.
I do not support murdering people because I think it is wrong, no one had to tell me that - did your God have to tell you?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"You are making a moral statement, sir, with no grounds to make it on. "
Why? Why can I not get my morals from a different God?
Although I don't I build my morals on what I think is right determined by my upbringing and experience. I do not have to disaprove of homosexuals etc because an old book tells me too. I behave the way I do because I think it is right, not because I fear punishment or expect reward - unlike theists.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@callofduty497,
"You're probably thinking of the Amalekites when you bring this up, so let's analyze them."
No, I think thinking of milltions of people that God killed and ordered killed, not just them.
JanJiska 11 months ago
"And it was NOT God that murders homosexuals, teenagers,etc. It was those PEOPLE who claimed to "come in the name of Jesus" that did that. Those are NOT Christians"
God instructs people to be murdered many times in the bible and several times kills them himself. If you do not know this you could not have read the bible!
"your religion holds this view and you subscribe to this religion therefore you must support it?" makes no sense.
Why not? Do you disagree with some of Gods rules?
JanJiska 11 months ago
how can you NOT think there is a God, you thnk this universe, the intricacy of our bodies and how it works, the animals, the sea, the beautiful sunset, nature...etc you think its by CHANCE, ooooh my heart aches for those who don't believe in Him. He is the best thing that has every happened to me and I KNOW i can't live w/o Him.
Invictaism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Invictaism,
"you think its by CHANCE"
No. Life is by evolution via natural selection. Sunsets, seas etc are what they are so I guess you could call them by chance.
Even if it does require a creator. Why should it be the one that you worship and not one of the many others or one that has never been discovered?
"He is the best thing that has every happened to me and I KNOW i can't live w/o Him"
Sorry to hear that. I get along just fine.
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Invictaism,
"how can you NOT think there is a God,"
The same way you do not believe in all of the other gods that have been worshipped and the same way I do not belive in fairies.
" He is the best thing that has every happened to me and I KNOW i can't live w/o Him."
You have my sympathy. I grew out of my imaginary friends when I was a child.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@Invictaism,
"you think its by CHANCE"
No, that is not what atheists think.
If it did require a creator then why should it be yours and not one of the other ones?
"He is the best thing that has every happened to me and I KNOW i can't live w/o Him."
Try it, it is quite easy.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I do not have to speak for my God, He can speak for himself, so I will not waste precious in trying to convince you of His existence. My question to atheists is that if you all are so knowing that there is no God, why argue so vehemently that there is no God. Why even reply to my comment if you personally know there is no God. For me if someone has an opinion tht I do not agree I do not go out of my way to break their argument because as far as I am concerned it is not valid.
Invictaism 1 year ago
@Invictaism,
Your God does not seem to be speaking to me, I guess it must be his will that I am an atheist?
I do not know for sure that there is no God, I do not know for sure that there is no tooth fairy either.
If you came across me trying to convince your children that the tooth fairy was real and they risked suffering an eternity of terrifying torture unless they bowed did and did as they were told by her, would you simply let them believe it?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that whoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
Invictaism 1 year ago
@JanJiska I feel that if atheists are so convinced in knowing that there is no God, having research foundations and TRYING to prove that there is absolutely NO God whatsoever in sooo many different ways proves that there is an ounce of belief in their heart that they may be wrong. Again I do not have to sit here and convince you that there is a God, but through my experiences and what I've been through He has been faithful to me & nothing or NO ONE one can remove that agape love I have for Him.
Invictaism 1 year ago
@Invictaism,
" TRYING to prove that there is absolutely NO God"
I doubt any atheists try this. It is like trying to prove there is no invisible pink unicorn, disproving gods is impossible and unrequired.
"through my experiences and what I've been through He has been faithful to me & nothing or NO ONE one can remove that agape love I have for Him. "
Many people from many different religions say exactly the same thing about their gods.).
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska You trying to "disassemble" my arguement by quoting and refuting everything I say is not going to change what I believe. This is purely my opinion and if you do not believe it, that's your business. It is not my place to judge. But as of now my relationship with Him is blossoming and I am trying to draw close to Him. Try to prove and argue against me if you want, but you will never put a seed of doubt in my mind. ~Psalms 91~
Invictaism 1 year ago
@Invictaism,
"Try to prove and argue against me if you want"
I already stated that proving a universal negative cannot be done so clearly I was not trying to do this.
I was correcting your misconceptions - believe the world is made of cheese if you want it does not bother me. If you start making publc statements about it and threaten my children with torture if they do not agree with you then I will make public statements about you being wrong and will point out flaws in your arguments
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Where in my argument did I personally threaten you children with torture if they do not believe in God? No where. I believe God "sends" no one to hell, He does not "send" anyone to heaven either. Because God loves us all and love is not controlling He gave us free will (you have the free will to choose not to believe in Him). Those that do not believe in Him CHOOSE to live without him and He is a God of justice.
Invictaism 1 year ago
@Invictaism,
"Where in my argument did I personally threaten you children with torture if they do not believe in God"
Your religion holds this view and you subscribe to this religion therefore you must support it?
"Those that do not believe in Him CHOOSE to live without him "
Belief is not a choice, you do not choose what to believe anymore than you choose to be hungry.
Your God of justice recommends murdering homosexuals, teenagers etc and has killed many innocent people.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska First, you making rash assumptions "your religion holds this view and you subscribe to this religion therefore you must support it?" makes no sense. Causation does NOT equal correlation. And it was NOT God that murders homosexuals, teenagers,etc. It was those PEOPLE who claimed to "come in the name of Jesus" that did that. Those are NOT Christians. Do you think God hates the very creation He made? He loves all. It is the SIN of people that He hates.
Invictaism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Invictaism,
"And it was NOT God that murders homosexuals, teenagers,etc"
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
More instructions from God to kill people:
Leviticus 20:27
Exodus 22:17
Exodus 22:19
Romans 1:24-32
Zechariah 13:3
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Ok since you do not believe in God, let's put this in earthly, logical terms. Let's say that a random person chose to kill someone in your life that you love dearly. And he does not receive in justice for killing that person, would that be okay? See everyone has a CHOICE to do what they want, just like that person had a choice in committing that crime OR not to. You can do what ever you want, just be prepared to deal with the consequences your actions yield.
Invictaism 1 year ago
@Invictaism,
"See everyone has a CHOICE to do what they want"
Belief is not a choice. The millions of children and animals killed in the great flood had no choice. Women raped and forced to marry their rapists have no choice (your God's rules BTW). The man who was stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath had a choice - but his punishment was horrific compared to his crime. If he has to die, why was it is such a savage way?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska As a rationalizing person, you must take into consideration that not all Christians are this way. I understand where you are coming from in that those that claim that theyare Christians have done A LOT of bad things that have given us the name "hypocrite." But trust me not all of us are like that. I am terribly sorry if the Christians you have come across have been judgemental bc those are not true Christians.
Invictaism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Invictaism,
"As a rationalizing person, you must take into consideration that not all Christians are this way"
But they should be shouldn't they? That is what it says in the bible:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
JanJiska 1 year ago
Stein misunderstands the first cause argument. It is not *first* as in first in time, but first as in primary. It is a logical necessity that god should exist, according to that argument (which I don't concede for other reasons).
1noen1 1 year ago
No idea where it came from. There are several theories about it but nothing conclusive.
Are you going to try to claim that being as I do not know everything that means that your god, no one else's of course, must be real?
Seriously?
JanJiska 1 year ago
I could listen to Bahnsen for hours. The guy was a genius and a devout man of God.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
I think that that is the standard repsonse to the theistic claim that there must be a god (theirs of course and not anyone else's) because everything needs a creator. Hence their god needs a creator - although they normally recover well with the phrase "erm ... anything but my god needs a creator"
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska So where did the physical universe come from? Did all physical matter just appear out of nothing, with no cause?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
Oh PUH-LEEEEZE, is that where this atheist lands first, the infinite regress? who made God? (coz that's logical)? Oh come on, have we not addressed this - God ALWAYS has been, is and always will be (Ps 90v2).
bradmorris67 1 year ago
Gordon Stein is my hero! Check out Christopher Hitchens "The Portable Atheist".
iTroglobite 1 year ago
"I continued, 'When an engineer has built a bridge, the fact that a cat can pass over the bridge is no proof that the bridge is good. A train must pass over it to prove its strength. The fact that you can be an athiest when everything goes well does not prove the truth of athiesm. It does not hold up in moments of great truth
johnyaplseed 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It does not hold up in moments of great truth "
Like when?
"The fact that you can be a Christian when everything goes well does not prove the truth of Christianity. It does not hold up in moments of great truth"
Like when that pilot prayed as his plane was crashing, or when my in laws prayed for their father and it made no difference. I am sure the people in Haiti prayed a lot and it did not change anything etc
JanJiska 1 year ago
"the political officer asked me harshly, 'how long will you continue to keep your stupid religion?"
"I said to him, 'I have seen innumerable athiests regretting on their deathbeds that they have been godless; they called on Christ. Can you imagine that a Christian could regret when death is near that he as been a Christian and call on marx or lenin to rescue him from his faith?"
johnyaplseed 2 years ago
"I have seen innumerable athiests regretting on their deathbeds "
Bloody hell, are you an assassin or something?
"Can you imagine that a Christian could regret when death is near that he as been a Christian and call on marx or lenin to rescue him from his faith"
No but then again that is not what Lenin or Marx promised to do.
Proof that a theist being occaisionally happier than an atheist is no more impressive than a drunk being happier than sober man.
JanJiska 1 year ago
the man who said this was richard wrumbrand, he spent 15 years in prison for spreading the gospel in communist Russia, he saw athiest in his prison die, I'm just saying when things get tough even athiest turn to God, I'll never regret believing in God. I'd wrather die ignorant and hopeful then doubtful and fearful
johnyaplseed 1 year ago
@johnyaplseed
I have been at death's door twice once when I was at gunpoint and once when I almost drowned. Neither time did I appeal to your God.
"I'd wrather die ignorant and hopeful then doubtful and fearful "
What if your money is on the wrong God? Pascal's wager is a flawed one.
JanJiska 1 year ago
I have experienced God, I do not doubt he is the one true God
johnyaplseed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnyaplseed
"I have experienced God, I do not doubt he is the one true God "
Millions of people from different religions say the same.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@johnyaplseed
I am sure that lunatis asylums have plenty of people who do not doubt that they are Napoleon etc. Although your point is flawed as there is no way you can be sure that what you have experienced is the creature you think. Any supernatural creature could be claiming to be your god - any appropraitely powererful supernatural creature could have walked around calling themselves Jesus and performing miracles
JanJiska 1 year ago
"Bloody hell, are you an assassin or something?"
That comment made my day, bravo. :D
carnemolidazh 1 year ago
Thank you - thank you
I'll be here all week!
:-)
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
u can not disprove the god theory
lukeism2 2 years ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
it's called god of the gaps, those gaps will be filled... and jesus will be a myth, just like perceus
lukeism2 2 years ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
i am gods equal, pray to me and you'll get the same results as praying to god.
technology has come so far in recent years... it's not the dark ages anymore...
lukeism2 2 years ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
i'm a bit of both
lukeism2 2 years ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
Comment removed
Parture 2 years ago
How I miss the great Dr. Bahnsen.
Gen1Rev22 2 years ago
"Dr" Bahnsen "expertise", talking points, and debate methods are rather weak and boring.
didate 2 years ago
Your rebuttal is weak & boring.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
test
JanJiska 2 years ago
It seems so as if Mr Stein doesnt know whether unicorns exist, since. as he says, he cannot disprove it.
This a very strange worldview, bordering on philosophicly induced insanity.
2000deg 2 years ago
It's very difficult to prove a negative. But I don't know of too many atheists who actually are agnostic on the existence of unicorns. :)
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
Copernicus, Keppler, Pasteur, Newton, and many others were Christians. This doesn't mean that science is not possible outside of Christianity, but it does mean that humans through science would have discovered many things MUCH later if at all without Christianity. This is really beside the point, though. If someone claiming to be a Christian is involved in gang rape, it doesn't invalidate Christianity any more than Stalin invalidates Atheism. What matters is what is true. Bahnsen was right.
dtower76 2 years ago
Pretty much everyone in Europe through the middle ages was a Christian. The alternative was death, this proves nothing other than the Catholic church was very powerful in those times. The scienctific discoveries in China were far ahead of anything Europe had to offer until their Emperor pretty much banned science.
Christianity is nothing special, it is merely one of thousands of religions that has existed throughout history which happens to have got a good foothold in Western Europe.
JanJiska 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How on earth can you claim that medicine is a heritage of the Christian world view when the bible instructs you to pray to be healed rather than seek medicine and scientists have the base assumption that god is not involved in anything when they do their research. Also for a long time the Christian West was streets behind the Muslim East in terms of medicine? Or was your God napping then?
JanJiska 2 years ago
The great cities and learning centers of Christianity before 700 AD were spread throughout the Persia, the Levant, and Northern Africa. These were all areas taken over forcefully by Islam, as was most of the knowledge they contained. Try to imagine what would happen to our society if our greatest cities and universities were all suddenly taken.
dtower76 2 years ago
In response to the comment about "pray to be healed rather than seek medicine," consider that Luke (the author of the book) was a doctor, that Paul instructed Timothy to drink wine (for *medicinal* purposes), and Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan talked of bandaging wounds. The Christian worldview offers much more than the straw "spiritist" man you make of it.
dtower76 2 years ago
"The Christian worldview offers much more than the straw "spiritist" man you make of it. "
Including many instances of gang rape, murder etc?
However, the 'atheist world view' offers everything that we have today. There is no need to make up imaginary friends and ask them for help anymore.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Sorry, I am slightly confused (I have just got back from a rather intensive battle re-enactment so I am half asleep!).
Are you saying that science is only possible through Christianity?
JanJiska 2 years ago
The atheist worldview does not remotely offer everything we have today. Consider the great works of art or great speeches of history produced by Christians.
But more importantly, even if the atheist worldview *did* offer "everything we have today," it can't give peace about death. It offers little for today, but nothing for tomorrow.
dtower76 2 years ago
Consider the great works of art, speeches etc produced by people generally. Religion has little to do with it.
Atheism gives the same peace about death that most theists really have. I would guess very few theists on a crashing plane think "Great! I'm on my way to heaven!" and I have seen very few Christian rejoice when a loved one dies and goes to heaven.
As for offering anything after death - as far as we know there is nothing. Grow up and accept it.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Um, we do have an idea of what lies past death. We have tons of people who have died, were brought back, and talked of their experiences. And ofcourse we dont rejoice when a loved one dies, I mean we dont have traditions like wakes at all right? oh wait....but even then, we are still human, and subject to missing those who go on before us.
nariiscryer 2 years ago
Where is that in the Bible?
KixDanis 2 years ago
Matthew 7:7-11, Matt 21:22,Mark 16:18 ,John 15:7, James 5:14-15, Romans 8:32, Exodus 15:26, II Kings 20:5, Psalms 34:17-19, Psalms 103, Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 57:18-21, Jeremiah 30:17, Hosea 6:1
Although I am sure that they are ALL out of context, special cases etc.
Trusting doctors, hospitals and scientific medicine is one of the many ways theists employ an atheist 'worldview'.
JanJiska 2 years ago
It would appear that Atheism, as a belief system, is just as divided as every other belief system. I've never met an atheist that didn't simply and dogmatically deny the existence of God. That is their primary tenant of belief. I find it interesting that Stein has his own definition of Atheism that doesn't deny the existence of God but only questions the argument FOR God. I guess Atheism has it's own denominations. That's new to me.
redpillpreacher 2 years ago
Atheists are humans like anyone else. The same as Christians might use know instead of strongly believe so might atheists.
I strongly believe that there is no god but am willing to have my mind changed. This is the same as I strongly do not believe in ESP or that there is a table floating behind my head. I know neither of these for sure but I belief strongly enough for the words to be almost synonomous.
However, the burden of proof is with the claimant. The same as anything else is life
JanJiska 2 years ago
If you strongly believe that there is no god, doesn't that make you now the claimant? It seems to be a bit of a dodge to put the burden of proof on the theists when you are making a claim as well.
Have you any evidence that there is no God? Atheism is a reason based faith so what are your reasons?
redpillpreacher 2 years ago
I do not believe in your God for probably the same reason that you do not believe in thousands of other gods.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Everyone has a world-view. Every world-view bears its own burden of proof.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
And the proof of the Christian one (that can be substituted for any other religion) seems to be lacking.
As far as I can tell it centres mainly on telling young children that the are a member of your religion and that they must stay so or suffer eternal torment etc. Then construct a set of excuses as to why nothing you say can be proved.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Then you ought to pay closer attention.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
I did, which is when I spotted that there was no reason why Christianity should be any more plausible than any other religion and it mainly (not always) depends on which religion is thrust on you before you are old enough to defend yourself.
There is just as much proof for aliens etc as any supernatural God.
Perhaps if you paid closer attention you could spot the same fact and break the cycle.
We both agree on not believing in thousands of other gods, Christianity is not a special case
JanJiska 2 years ago
Ah. More empty assertions. Nice.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
Another 'say nothing' comment? ;-)
It would appear that you have no valid response to give. It is not suprising - normally theists use this approach or simple abuse as coping mechanisms for arguements which undermine their standpoint. I probably do the same when I am confronted with things I do not want to admit but cannot deny.
Out of interest - how do you think that other religions justify that nothing happens when their followers pray to their fake gods?
JanJiska 2 years ago
If you had understood Bahnsen in this debate, you wouldn't being yammering like this. You obviously failed to grasp his points.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
And now we come to abuse (the last stand of the desperate), as I predicted.
Bahnsen IMHO failed to explain why the 'worldview' is Christian rather than any other super natural power. He also failed to explain why having a god in charge would mean the laws of logic could be relied on to be constant when a god could vary them at will (and has done several times according to your bible). Just because a god allows something to happen 100 times does not mean he will not change it on the 101st.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Well, maybe if someone had asked him those questions, you would have heard his answer. He does answer those questions elsewhere...
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
In this debate, he does not. There was one question at the end where he mentioned how little time he had to answer it and then proceded to not meet the demands of the question.
Or was it somewhere else on here and I missed it (quite possible), if so I would be appreicative if you could point me towards it.
If it is in another source could you point me towards it, please?
Or, of course, you could give me the answers directly - if you have them?
JanJiska 2 years ago
You can find lectures by Bahnsen on the topic of world-views elsewhere on Youtube.
in short, pagan religions have the same kinds of problems that atheist philosophies have: They undermine the basis for human knowledge & experience.
The monism of Hinduism, for examples, makes logical distinctions impossible, just as the empiricism of Stein makes induction impossible.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
#1 there is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. All atheists are different and happen to not believe in a god. We are all different and there is no over riding philosophy.
#2 you did not address why all theists adopt an atheistic world view whenever anything major happens e.g. if you child stopped breathing would you sit down and prey or rush to hospital? It is only possible to progress with knowledge and experience if you assume there is no superpower which can change things on a whim.
JanJiska 2 years ago
"There is no such thing as an atheist philosophy."
There is no one atheist philosophy, but there are lots of atheist philsophies. And among educated Westerners, most bear a family resemblance.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
"you did not address why all theists adopt an atheistic world view whenever anything major happens"
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. What you are describing is really a Christian theistic world-view, not an atheistic world-view.
As an atheist, what basis do you have for believing that medicine will work? Or that steel struts will bear weight? Or that tomorrow be like yesterday?
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
Deduction from observation, when things are repeatedly experienced often enough we can begin making a framework of assumptions. Nothing is ever certain so we build off assumptions.
As a theist what basis do you have for believing any kind of constant, your God could vary it in any time in any way. Why would a steel strut support anything as god might change the law of physics at some point. You cannot comprehend how his mind works so you can never truely predict how he is going to act.
JanJiska 2 years ago
"Deduction from observation, when things are repeatedly experienced often enough we can begin making a framework of assumptions. Nothing is ever certain so we build off assumptions."
So you arbitrarily assume X and Y and Z...?
Observation cannot be the basis of all your knowledge. It is a self-refuting position.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
BTW, are you saying that you have no philosophy? None at all?
Then what is your basis for doubting Christianity? If you have no philosophy, you have no basis for doubting *anything.*
It sounds as if you have nothing to offer.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
My basis for doubting Christianity is probably the same for yours for doubting every other religion that has ever existed anywhere in the world. Along with why I do not believe in ghosts, aliens, ESP, the bogeyman etc.
If something can be proved then I will believe it, I find it strange that you cannot comprehend this. The more extreme the claim then the more rigid the proof required. It is very straightforward.
JanJiska 2 years ago
"If something can be proved then I will believe it..."
"Proved" according to your metaphysical & epistemological presuppositions. But those presuppositions are philosophically arbitrary, if not self-contradictory.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
Arbitraty and self contrdictory, rather like the selection of one religion over another?
JanJiska 2 years ago
Christianity is coherent. Non-Christian relgions are not. Why *not* select Christianity over the others?
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
My reply seems to have not been posted?! I will try again:
I fixed your post for you:
"My religion is coherent. Other religions relgions are not. Why *not* select my religion over the others?"
Every theist will claim that their religion is the correct one. Most of them will be able to point out flaws and contridictions in other religions and will be able to explain away the one's in their own.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Fine. When they show up, we can have that argument.
In the meantime, do you have a philosophy that is not self-defeating to offer us?
No? Why should I accept your worldview?
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
You already do. In having a reasoned discussion based on evidence you are employing an atheist world view. The same as when you go to a doctor rather just relying on prayer.
Because it is the only one based on analysis and deduction of verifyable facts which can be openly investigated by anyone. Any scientific point is only accepted when it can be proved using impartial data. From this we can deduce assumptions about the world (no one knows anything for certain) which allow us to live.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Nope. That'a heritage of the Christian world-view, not your atheist philosophy.
You cannot make any valid knowledge-claims on the basis you have put forward. As Bahnsen showed in this debate.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago 6
Nope, even if it required some kind of magical superpower (which it does not) there is no reason to believe it would be the Christian one rather than one of the thousands of alternatives.
We can and do make plenty of knowledge based claims, if fact you have to remove god from any equation to reliably make any kind of knowledge base otherwise he might change things randomly. As Christians do all of the time.
Bahnsen failed to show the contrary in this debate as I proved earlier.
JanJiska 2 years ago
"The more extreme the claim then the more rigid the proof required."
What claims are extreme? What is "extreme" depends on your world-view. So, again, the question is: What does your world-view haev to offer?
Nothing, as far as I can tell.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago 2
The extreme claim is:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
What does an atheist world view offer? Medicine, scienfic research etc - everything apart from goblins, fairies, vampires, gods etc.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Extreme? Not in the Christian world-view.
Your world0view may consider the existence of God or the Resurrection of Christ to be extreme, but so what? Your world-view has nothing to offer.
Science makes no sense in your world-view. Neither does logic or mathematics.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago 4
It makes perfect sense. Hence the Christian reliance on it. There is no god that can arbitrarily change things at will.
Science makes perfect sense, hence us building space ships that can travel to the moon rather than just praying to be there.
What do you mean by 'our world view has nothing to offer'?
JanJiska 2 years ago
@DetectiveTackett the law of bio genesis, the law of cause and effect, the theory of relativity, the second law of thermodynamics. Check it out
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
"You might think the Bible's answers are poor but you may not understand them"
In the same way you might not understand other religions answers.
"So you're at a serious disadvantage. "
Nope, I am at a massive advantage because I am impartial, whereas you have already decided that Christianity is a special case.
JanJiska 2 years ago
"Impartial."
Hahahahahha.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I often find that people resort to trying to laugh at someone if they are unable to defend their position. Usually it is closely followed by name calling and flimsy excuses (although sometimes the flimsy excuses come first).
JanJiska 2 years ago
Stein: "An atheist is not someone who denies that there is a God."
Is he serious?
Stein's definition of "atheist" is just plain wrong. It would include SOME atheists, agnostics, and even fideistic theists. Ugh.
heart4moocows 2 years ago
God is self-caused. he exists outside the confines of space and time. The universe cannot be self-caused. It had to come from somewhere (if you don't believe that then you have to propose a valid theory about it's origin or non-origin). If it has been expanding and contracting indefinitely, it would fizzle out.
A self-caused universe doesn't fit any parameters of science.
ToshiroHoshi 2 years ago
Even if that were the case how can you detemine which god it is?
There are thousands to chose from! I could even make up some more if think we are lacking?
JanJiska 2 years ago
I think the best answer to that is this: follow any belief system to its logical conclusion and you'll find that w/o fail everyone except Biblical Christianity is ultimately self-contradictory. Also, Biblical Christianity offers the best answers to life's big questions; meaning and purpose of man. Value of human life. Origins of all energy and matter. The tri-fold nature of man; heart, soul, and mind. The problem of evil-this one is always going to be difficult but is answered best by B. Christ.
ToshiroHoshi 2 years ago
Please explain to me why every belief system followed to its conclusion is self contradicting. You must have studied for decades to learn that about every religion that has ever existed!!
The bible's answers to these questions are very poor (mudering homosexuals etc). Science and reason provide far better answers. Even better, anyone can access and verify science research to see of they agree.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Gordon Clark spent years following belief sustems to their logical conclusion and found them so self-contradictory. No religion can be defended like Biblical Christianity. You might think the Bible's answers are poor but you may not understand them since the bible says, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." So you're at a serious disadvantage.
ToshiroHoshi 2 years ago
Gordon Clarke was a Christian, he was not impartial. He researched other religions to find flaws with them. I am sure that someone else could easily do the same with Christianity.
"No religion can be defended like Biblical Christianity"
Yes they can, by people who truely believe in them.
JanJiska 2 years ago
I like how Bahnsen is respectful and professional and Stein goes right in with an insult and a sort of offended incoherence in his manner of speech.
cronocoffin 2 years ago
Bahnsen annihilated Stein in this debate.
reformedman 3 years ago 9
Yep, I am an atheist and even I agree
JanJiska 2 years ago
Totally annihilated man.
TheMusicGene 2 years ago
If you mean Bahnsen totally annihilated Stein, then totally.
BenjaminWirtz 2 years ago
He might have been refering to when the Christian God annihilated man numerous times in the bible.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Funny, because natural scientist state as fact that everything has a cause, but now you are stating that the entire universe, all of it, didn't have a cause at all. What's sad is that most natural scientists believe it, but of course cannot prove it. They just assume it, just like everything else in their bogus theories.
moonlifter 3 years ago 2
Cause and effect break down at the quantum level - they are simply a macroscopic manifestation of how energy behaves. The universe didn't need a 'cause' because time did not exist before the universe. To say God started it off does not solve the problem but only worsens it.
lonerook860 3 years ago 2
Most if not all refutations to TAG I have read accuse the first premise of TAG (assuming logic exists) begs the question, however the person refuting TAG is using logic to refute TAG! I think TAG is a really good argument.
workingclasstheist 3 years ago
The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy: Fatal to Stein's posture.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
i thought the cosmological argument wasn't that everyTHING had a cause but rather "everything which COMES INTO EXISTENCE, has a cause (cause and effect), and infinite regression of causes is illogical (since time itself had a beginning), therefore the first Uncaused Cause we can believe is God"...
i believe the law of causality (cause and effect) is true, so wouldn't it be illogical to say there's a natural explanation for nature itself? "who caused God" confines him to nature, when he's not
gmn545 3 years ago
That's right. Stein misrepresented the cosmological argument. It says everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
GreekOrthodoxy 3 years ago
I'm a fundamentalist, but I think the cosmological argument fails on several levels: the logical impossibility traversing of an actual infinite is tenuous; why must there be only *one* unmoved mover instead of a different one for everything that comes into existence; why can't the universe itself be the uncaused cause of itself (just because everything IN the universe needs a cause outside of itself, doesn't mean the universe itself does: that's a fallacy of composition).
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
However, Stein's objection is equally guilty of fallacy by making the category error that an uncreated being is subject to the same laws as creation (viz., every effect needs a cause). I think such discussion misses the real point of Bahnsen's argument, however. The TAG poses that all human experience, including supporting **AND** denying the cosmological argument, is unintelligible, apart from the presuppositions of the Christian worldview. This is a much more profound statement.
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
There can't be an infinite regression of causes. so its necessary to start at ONE. by quantum mechanics, laws of physics, etc. we know this much:
1) The Universe (Space/Time) had a beginning.
2)Entropy according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, clearly shows us that the universe is NOT static, but decelerating (winding down, so who wound it up?)
3)matter/energy can't be created/destroyed NATURALLY, yet the universe didn't always exist. so how did it get there? from nothing?
gmn545 3 years ago
"There can't be an infinite regression of causes."
^ Not sure about that. Any subsection of infinity is infinitely long, but you can also be at a particular point in traversing it. So you can go back or forwards for infinity, but you are currently somewhere particular in the infinite succession. As I said, I'm a fundamentalist Christian, so I don't believe that's true, but it seems logically possible considered in the abstract.
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
(cont.) My point was that Bahnsen's argument is MUCH stronger than such a cosmological argument. Bahnsen is arguing that both to affirm *and* deny Christianity, presupposes that Christianity is true. Really, that's a very profound statement. Whether his argument goes through, you'll have to judge for yourself, but if it does, it is light years removed from proving the necessity of a generic first cause (which could, logically, simply be the universe itself).
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
The Transcendental argument is a very good starting point in apologetics. Since atheists presuppose logic, reason, and sensory awareness (senses actually make sense of reality and correspond to what is being perceived) they need to give account for this position. If they can't, it seems there is no good reason to take atheism seriou