SHOCK NEWS - On 23rd February at an Oxford Uinversity debate Richard Dawkins , the renound atheist, declared himself to be an AGNOSTIC ! WOW ! Here we have the Furher of the new atheist movement saying he NOT an atheist but an agnostic. Maybe in a few more years he might change his agnostic relegion to Chritianity like another former atheist C.S Lewis !
@MrSulake You should buy one of his books. Especially great are his summaries on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and the uniqueness and prophetic seal of the bible.
@MrSulake being exposed to this Ravis' mental meanderings more times than I care to remember during luchbreak at work, I can't tell you how many times he or his introductory narrator claimed he would tackle or answer some position head on, only to find Ravi busily erecting strawmen to to attack. What a joke. Ravi is not even coherent! He is self contradictory! LOL
Actually, most atheist have admited that even if God himself presented to them, they will reject Him and not worship Him anyway...actually R. Dawkins indirectly has admitted that...no se me espongen ateos, pero es la neta, which means "atheist don´t get sponged, that´s purely the truth"
I've only watched a few of his videos because a friend of mine insisted. Every one that I watched today turned out the same. He also misquotes Nietzsche and Hawking..
Once again Ravi takes a prominent writer/philosopher's words out of context to back his ill-informed logic. What Huxley ACTUALLY said was nothing of the sort. The quote can be found here: update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ah_quote. htm
@luker4459: that is not the science we see today; everything from what causes autism to how one considers global warming becomes widely accepted so long as it is propagated by the proper media and political structures. That is not to say that there aren't honest scientists out there, too, but science isn't nearly as devoid of political process and manipulation as you try to make it appear. Also, you can't just say whatever you want with religion and faith. That just isn't true.
if science is constantly overturned, how do you define where you are on a continuum of knowledge, and what separates bunk from non-bunk? And science has debunked itself by making one claim that makes another seem foolish and on and on ad nauseam, for example the development of morphine as a painkiller being replaced by what was believed at the time to be more safe, heroin.... also the whole immutability and dogmatic thing... how would you define scientific law? Can one be overturned?
Why do most of the christian apologists quote themselves and tell anecdotes of how they have done so well in other speeches? They think they are a messiah chanting their miracles.
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
I never fail to find it interesting that in seeing the amount of time atheists devote to hating Christianity, they seem to fail to realize that they are still devoting their life to Christianity.
@tiggyd85 Not necessarily. A true Christian does not spend his life worry about satan or hating satan, his fate is already sealed. A true Christian spends his life drawing ever closer to God.
oh and @Tobytrim: science has debunked science hundreds of times in my lifetime. Examples (strangely lacking in your steadfast conviction that Christians are goners): Causes of cancer, universal expansion or stasis (or multiple dimensions!), Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics, life on other planets, number of species in any given biological phylum.... I respect science deeply but don't believe it has debunked nearly as much as you claim.
@smitc21 science has debunked science hundreds of times in my lifetime.
No it hasn't. Science can't be debunked, as it makes no dogmatic assertions claiming to be the" immutable and infallable word" of an all-knowing being. What you mean is that science has improved human knowledge, and corrected, or redirected, what earlier scientific enquiry has brought us. That's what science is about. It has no need to threaten people with persecution, or excommunication for improving it's understanding.
Of all the daft presuppositional ideas that theists offer as to why other people don't accept their superstitions, this is both the silliest and the most dishonest.
Ravi rambles, and anecdotalises through these emotionally charged, non sequitor, stories, which he never properly sources, and ignores the fact the scientific evidence HAS steadily debunked what Christians believed for centuries. There are people who accept this science and have to compromise their belief in the same god.
@particle58 "What has science debunked about Christianity?"
Wow! There's a very demanding question - given the variety of Christianity that's out there, and the degrees of cherry picking from the bible, and compromising of interpretations, required in the light of new knowledge. I suppose I would have to know degree of denial in YOUR particular version of Christianity to know whether you have to deny science, or the literal bible..
@particle58 "Thats not a very good answer is it? Again, what has science debunked about Christianity?"
Don't be silly! It's the most complete answer possible given the hundreds of compromised misinterpretation that have been necessary to keep the original text of Christianity seeming valid.
However, assuming you are a sincere and deluded biblical literalist: - Y.E. creationism, geocentricity, flat earth, global floods, Jesus' and "yahweh's understanding of astronomy and physics - etc.
@Tobytrim What verse says the world is flat? What about astronomy and physics does "Jesus" or "Yahweh" get wrong? Can you point me to the verse? Creationism has been refuted, can you explain how since Darwin's theories have never been made into scientific law. Geocentricity was a view held by the roman church's political system, based on their misinterpretations of the bible, and eventually accepted Galileo's(who was ironically supported by the Jesuits) discovery in the early 18th century.
@particle58 "Quote whatever you want little homie, still wont disprove the existence of a God you are incapable of understanding"
Theists, of any faith, can't demonstrate that they believe any more than fairy tale characters. I don't need to disprove the existence of those, The bible itself disproves "God" by the very definitions made within it!
If these texts are all you have to define "God", and they have got it wrong, then you don't even have a "God" for me not to understand!
@particle58 "Give me the contradicting Bible verses that deny the existence of God"
Are you serious??? There are thousands. The Bible is nothing BUT contradictions!!
One should be enough for any rational mind.( I hold no expectations on yours!- Lol!): Consider an all knowing (Rev 19:6), omnipotent (Matt19:26), and immutable "God" (Jas 1:17, Mal 3:6, John 3:19-20) who is pleased with what he has done (Gen 1:31) then NOT pleased(Gen 6:6). Not even "God" can be a logical contradiction!
@Tobytrim I know the difference between law, theory, hypothesis, etc. There is not enough evidence to establish evolution as scientific law, however there is enough evidence to classify it as a valid, reliable, scientific theory. Gravity is a LAW, whereas evolution is a THEORY. Meaning the theory of evolution provides a number of possible answers to scientific questions concerning the descent of man but not all of these questions are answered by evolution, which is why it is still a theory.
@particle58 " I know the difference between law, theory, hypothesis, etc. There is not enough evidence to establish evolution as scientific law"
No you don't know, or you wouldn't make this stupid argument- Lol!!
A "law", in science, is simply an observation, consistant enough to make predictions from. A "theory" in science, is a collection of observable facts which explain another observation,
For example, something falling is the FACT of gravity, What causes it to fall is the THEORY.
@particle58 "Gravity is a LAW, whereas evolution is a THEORY."
BOTH gravity and evolution, are observable fact, which are explained by their theory., which is a model of explanation formed from observable facts. There is no difference.
Evolution is supported by by over 277,000 tested, repeated, and repeatably, testable peer review observations .
And why am I having to explain this to you???? If you'd honestly tried to find out the truth, you would know this!!
@particle58 "Sure quote them, and I'll quote Christians who said the opposite"
Ha ha! Well you could start with Galileo, I suppose. He was a Christian. The trouble is that he obviously supported Copernicus' heliocentricity theory as a scientist. He was going against the dogma of his own church remember.!
Martin Luthor, Calvin, and Knox , the founders of the Protestant Church, were also strong "geocentrists" at that time too, on biblical grounds. You would be quoting much later Christians!
@particle58 Martin Luther: "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... "
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
These people, and the Catholic Church, WERE Christianity. Any Christians you could quote would be jumping on the established heliocentricity bandwagon, long after the Church's dogma against it had been debunked. You'd be a hypocrite to quote them.
@particle58 More from Calvin: "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7)
" By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."
" We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
@particle58 "Science" is not in the business of debunking christianity. However it seems to me an awful lot of christians seem to be in the "Business" of debunking science.
@Tobytrim Ah yes but you must realize that the reason all those christians believed in demonstrably false ideas is because they did not have the right Magic Bible Decoder Ring!
@maxpolaris99 "Magic bible decoder ring"??!! ................... I always thought that, after one accepted the "lord and saviour", a hand came down from Heaven with a special explanitory leaflet??
Incidently, what kind of a sick bastard washes out toilet paper??? -Regardless of what is written on it???!
You are s waste of time, infantile, playing being the intellectual. Now, atheist, agnostic, whatever. Go away and be merry on whatever belief you find more suitable. Just stop the " I don't like this", "This guy is no good" "that guy is no good". " he doesn't convince me". Just go!
@barrigudo00 " and I suppose you are a certain good apologist?!!? "
- Well I'm clearly able to point out flaws in someone's argument, but I personally haven't really run across a successful religious apologist... of course they have a disadvantage
" Grow up spoiled brat, you're a complete waste of time."
- Is that it? Name calling? And ironically name calling that admonishes me to grow up?
@Roper122 Now now Roper don't be to hasty in your interpretation. I'm sure barrigudo00
being a good christain meant no offense. Its much more likely you misinterpreted his meaning like you skeptics are so apt to do with The Word of God. :)
@Roper122 he is actually very good at "this". His stories are only there to illustrate his points to the listener. He argues that the apologist must argue from three levels: the theoretical, to line up the logic of the argument; the arts, to illustrate; and "kitchen table talk", to conclude and apply.
@Roper122 He does stick to facts and mounts sensible arguments all the time, just because he simply tells personal stories to illustrate these arguments, it does not make his arguments any less valid.
And you saying that he is not a good apologist is laughable, this man is looked up to as one of the greatest christian apologists of our time.
@Roper122 Aww man, it's you?! I've heard nothing from you but sarcasm and bullying. All you did with theistic arguments was 'dodge' it. You don't play with reason and faith. You play a child's play of words.
@turboisken, You ask if God knew man would rebel, then why did He follow through with His creation? God created us to bring honor and glory unto Himself, & to be able to extend His perfect love to us, & give us the choice to love Him in return. Love is a choice or it wouldn't be love. We would be preprogrammed machines that have no will, no feelings,& no love, because after all there is no choice in the matter. We would be a race of robots. Love is only love if it is a choice.
@samuellis What a testimony Samuel! It is difficult to understand how human minds can rationalize God into a god or worse yet, an ignorant belief. Have you ever listened to Dr. Carl Baugh out of Glenrose, Tx? He is a dinosaur digger and WAS an atheist. His testimony is when he tried to disprove the Christian belief regarding the age of earth, being 6-8,000 yrs. old vs. billions of yrs. based on evolution. Creation Science. Try to get, it'll rock your world!
But my question to you SIR is. God created Man in his own Image.
How come man sinned? because of free will? God also has Free Will
GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE hence man will have the same attributes on how God uses FREE WILL If U deny this, lets go on Since God is God, he's omnicscient hence he knows the past and the future n because he is d designer of each of us hence he designed our free WILL n HE will b the one 2 decide which soul will have d will which will choose 2 believe in him
@turboisken, Being made in the image of God refers to three things. We are body (the physical nature of God displayed in the person of Jesus Christ), the soul (the part of man which is the seat of our emotions, our intellect, our will etc)and that which sets us apart from all other creatures is our spirit (God is also Spirit and He interacts with us through the Holy Spirit). Yes we have a will, and God has a perfect on Holy will that is devoid of error or sinful thought. (next post)
@turboisken To finish my thoughts on your question from my previous posts. In God's foreknowledge He knew yes that many would rebel, but He also knew that many would accept and follow Him as Lord of their life. Would if have been fair to cheat those who would choose to follow Him out of that relationship with Him? Not only that, but it would mean that evil would have been vicotrious over God before time, space, and matter were even created. God offers an escape it's up to us to except Him.
This was a great video, I was an Athiest for the pass 10 years but the Lord has truely blessed me with the intelliectual knowledge to know and come back to him. I now acknowlegde that the God is my savior and creator. Thanks for the video again God bless you and yours....!
@samuellis What a testimony Samuel! It is difficult to understand how human minds can rationalize God into a god or worse yet, an ignorant belief. Have you ever listened to Dr. Carl Baugh out of Glenrose, Tx? He is a dinosaur digger and WAS an atheist. His testimony is when he tried to disprove the Christian belief regarding the age of earth, being 6-8,000 yrs. old vs. billions of yrs. based on evolution. Creation Science. Try to get, it'll rock your world!
There seem to be quite a few comments that are resting heavily upon the idea that people of the past were less intelligent, less inventive and so forth. Let us not flatter ourselves, at present. It might very well be that had the wheel not yet been invented, we'd be incapable of doing it, much less any other accomplishments if which we boast.
@dumbcube69 Because he hasn't debated anyone, partially as a result of his terrible logic, and partially as a result of there being so many kooks out there that Ravi may have just drawn a number that hasn't yet been called.
OR, because he is fully aware of how badly his apologetics would stand up to critical inquiry.
@Reerrpad5515 everywhere i go. i see this double standard.
you have to be atheist to have flawless logic if your anything other then that..even agonostic...your stupid. wrong and pick up a history book.
i saw a video once that an agonostic made with dead on logic that if this that and this are right then this must prove this to be true. so in process god has a strong possiblity of existing
Ravi just happens to do the same except he actually gets it done
@dumbcube69 That's not true, you can be an apologist with flawless logic, but once the topic turns to their favorite bed-time story logic goes out the window. Logical thought is followed through for some steps, and then a glaring fallacy or flaw is thrown in, mucking up the whole argument.
Ravi doesn't "get it done", he gets $. WLC is an excellent debater, but every one of his five-part "proofs" has been soundly thwarted.
"I don't know" < still the most logical answer, and so very rare.
@Reerrpad5515 no dude it is true. just pretend to be a christian for a day on youtube and say "christians have sound logic"...see how many angry upset disgruntaled comments you recieve back. fact is if your christian you must be unable to pass the 3rd grade. cause your the scum of the earth, a waste of space, an idiot. mirror in the past and sooo much more.
if im so wrong then why bother with me in the atheistic world view...if when u die nothing happens then leave me be.
@dumbcube69 I haven't personally insulted you, Servint7, or anyone else on youtube, as far as I know, without first receiving an insult myself, and then only when frustrated beyond my, albeit limited, patience.
If it really were just "between you and god", I wouldn't be bothering with commenting. It is much, much more than that for so many religious people who believe that they possess absolute truth, and insist that I adhere to it's commands.
@dumbcube69 Moreover, I will not stand idly by while bronze-age religious mythology presses it's agenda further and further into the circles of power within my government, resulting in unreasonable and outright foolish laws that do significant harm to both the psychology of it's citizens, and the finances of it's institutions.
You want to embrace new-age spirituality, just be one with everything, go, have fun, enjoy. As soon as the 'oneness' becomes public policy, we have a problem.
@Reerrpad5515 i would ask you this 1 simple question then. why fight what isnt real if your so secure in your ways, if you have all (or most) of the answers then why continue to wage a war that you've already won
unless your not secure...which then raises a need to wage the war in the first place.
lastly it isnt my fault alot of smart people who happen to be christians take power, why dont you rise up and rally somewhere...get some attention and run for president
I couldn't possibly hope to explain it any better than Christopher Hitchens did when he answered this precise question.
"why dont you rise up and rally somewhere" - I am. One comment, one discussion, one mind at a time. I insert doubt, check irrational certainty, and move along. I don't wish to produce atheists, only increase the ranks of "Doubting Thomas". Atheism is a choice, doubt is mere honesty.
@Reerrpad5515 "I couldn't possibly hope to explain it any better than Christopher Hitchens did when he answered this precise question."
The problem with Hitchens response is that though it may reflect how he views the christian religion, it does not reflect the way of Jesus. Hitchins claims that religion is in love with death, as if death isnt a reality. Religion is in love with a place that is perfect and that place must come after death because this world sucks more often that not.
@Servint7 the problem is that there are as Russel Peters puts it "rednecks" who dont care about people and they give religion a bad name by pressing their hypocritical views on others with a detrimental effect promoting human suffering. But not all religious/spiritual people are like that. Which makes it so frustrating to have to try and defend those, for lack of a better term, "crazies", with whom one has no belief in common with except a label.
@Servint7 "the problem is that there are..."rednecks" who...give religion a bad name". - OK, I can agree with you that the fundamentalists are the problem, but as Sam Harris says, this is only because the fundamentals of religion are a problem. If the fundamental claims and edicts of religion were in line with what is most productive to human happiness, I would be rejoicing in the widespread religious literalism in the world. However, they are at odds with progress, scientifically and morally.
@Servint7 The rather glaring issue I have with religion is it's insistence upon separating morality from reality, and grounding it in a worldview based upon rewards/punishments in the NEXT life. The rules are not reasonable in a world devoid of a sky-daddy, but are completely reasonable if you accept that assumption. This separation is causing undue suffering, and squandering scarce resources in a deluded attempt to secure happiness for yourself in the afterlife. That is the problem.
@Reerrpad5515 Interesting...what resources are being squandered when churches try to help the homeless and hungry and provide relief to those in much need through physical & spiritual efforts? How should people be "acting"...and how do you know in all cases its an "assumption"?
Resources are scarce?...if all the rich in the world bought all the food/relief neccessary for their fellow humans....nobody in the world would go hungry ever again, this is fact. What is scarce in this world is love.
@hexusziggurat "what resources are being squandered when churches" - find out how much of their resources are actually going towards helping the poor, and you'll have your answer.
"if all the rich in the world bought all the food/relief neccessary for their fellow humans" - This is a fairy tale, it would never happen and never work. Not to mention there isn't enough food to purchase anyways, which gets back to my comment about resource squandering...(try puting a farm in place of each church).
@Reerrpad5515 hehe, you're seriously going to point a finger at churches "squandering" resources when helping the poor....i must say...at least they are willing to help!
"This is a fairy tale, it would never happen and never work. Not to mention there isn't enough food to purchase anyways"
There would be enough food if the R&D was done by that very money. And the reason why it won't work....humans. So theres your issue more than anything...some humans won't do what you want them to.
@hexusziggurat "hehe, you're seriously going to point a finger at churches "squandering" resources when helping the poor" - I didn't say the resources are squandered doing that, I said look at the actual percentage going towards the poor, compared with their overall *untaxed* income. It's less than impressive.
"some humans won't do what you want them to." - sure, but irrelevant.
@Servint7 "Religion is in love with a place that is perfect and that place must come after death because this world sucks more often that not." - Yet this place is, in the opinion of anyone who does not accept supernatural claims of eternal rewards, the only thing we have. That is the rub with religion, it rejects the possibility of making this world better because, if you take heaven and revelation seriously, why bother? It's all going to end in some glorious conflagration anyway.
@Reerrpad5515 "Moreover, I will not stand idly by while bronze-age religious mythology presses it's agenda further and further into the circles of power within my government, resulting in unreasonable and outright foolish laws that do significant harm to both the psychology of it's citizens, and the finances of it's institutions."
...Communism? Lets face athiesm in Gov. doesnt have a great track record either.
@Servint7 Communism stands with Theocracy as brothers under the same banner: Bad Ideas. I am not a champion of communism, nor is a particular political ideology part an parcel of atheism. Non-belief in a deity, or deities, or even if you prefer, denial of a higher power, does not entail belief in communism.
In fact, the concept of democracy was borne out of ancient greece, home to both pagans and atheists, such as they were at the time. Communism is a recent addition to the political realm.
@dumbcube69 Atheists, by and large, don't care what you believe, and wouldn't even name themselves as such were it not necessary to differentiate themselves from the theists I mentioned above.
Remain a Christian, convert to Hindu, worship Thor, I really don't care, its none of my business. When you insist that I must adhere to Thor's edicts, or Jesus' teachings, and divert tax dollars and massive amounts of public attention, you can expect to see myself and other atheists speaking up. Loudly.
@Reerrpad5515 he says that we cannot be moral without a "big brother"...
then from where do morals arise?...who taught you your morals...who taught them and so on ever backward until we find out.
everything he brings up negative comes from revaluations....of course the end of the world book.
and i see nothing wrong with loving someone whom i dont like. i would much rather love them then hate them dude, makes no sense to walk around angry all the time
@dumbcube69 Watch the video again, he does not indicate we cannot be moral without "big brother", but that we can.
Where do morals come from? Good philosophical question, but why is a higher power any more compelling than social cohesion? There are any number of thoughts on this, and the actual origin of every idea of moral action may not come to light, despite our efforts. This does not mean we should not address morality as it is NOW, and weigh it against human and animal suffering NOW.
@Reerrpad5515 so...basicly do what you want so long as it aint hurting anybody who cares right? dude wow thats absolutely nuts- people left to their own devices eventually destroy everything in their wake.
this is a very simple truth. 1+1=2 right? no in an atheist world view...i equals 2 for me and 79 for you because it works for you...if that hadda work in school i would have had a 4.0 lol
@dumbcube69 "so...basicly do what you want so long as it aint hurting anybody who cares right? dude wow thats absolutely nuts- people left to their own devices eventually destroy everything in their wake."
Technically, "destroy everything in their wake" goes against "ain't hurting anybody", right?
"i equals 2 for me and 79 for you because it works for you" - Thats moral relativism, not atheism. I don't think everyone's ideas about morality are right, or I wouldn't be here, arguing against you
@Reerrpad5515 mind you i said eventually...so just you wait a see
alright so we've established that people live their lives according to how it "feels to them" type deal....also not everybody has the same moral law. example- in some cultures is moral to not eat yur neighbor...in some cultures is completely moral to eat your neighbors...catch my drift?
so here we have reached the end...lest you wanna bring up something else?
@dumbcube69 "mind you i said eventually...so just you wait a see" - What difference does it make if it happens tomorrow or 1000 years from now? The contradiction between "aint hurting anybody" and "destroy everything" is still there if it happens.
I have, I hope, established that while there ARE different moral scales, some of which are influenced heavily by culture, not all of these scales are best suited to human happiness. Cannibalism is objectively not suited to happiness for you or others
@dumbcube69 He does not say you may not love someone you don't like, only that he does not feel loving your ENEMIES is a moral action. Not liking someone is a personal preference, an enemy is a person who has made not just this preferential choice about you, but is actively working against you. There is a difference.
science can prove that there need not be a God in order for life to have begun, though this does not disprove the existence of God it does prove that a fundamental tenant of religion may not be a truism.
@iohioenergy As far as I understand it, science has not proven that. The Miller - Urey experiment used faulty data and acquired weak results. And even though science may be able to take pieces of nature and do experiments with nature, it cannot create nature from nothing. Science is really good at explaing what nature does... it has not done a good job, and in my opinion cannot, explain where foundational reality came from.
@nacker "explain where foundational reality came from." - Explain your version, then. Don't just give it a brand name, give me the precise thing you expect science to provide.
I'll wait.
Poor job or no, science is the only game in town actually looking for an explanation. Lets play a game: you're my employee, I ask you to sneak into Elmer's glue factory and tell me how they make their superglue. You return, and say that Elmer did it. I fire you.
@Reerrpad5515 I think that I completely agree with you. My comment wasn't meant to be a negative critique on science. The glue factory inspector should study how the glue was made and be faithful in that pursuit. I'm not a "God did so let's not study it" kind of guy. As a follower of Jesus I believe that God created the world for us to explore and enjoy to His glory. The better our science is, the better we can honor God in dealing with creation (nature).
@Reerrpad5515 I think we would both agree that the automated glue factory investigator (if the factory happens to be automated) should not come back and say, "After looking at the way this factory is set up to allow for the produciton of glue, I think it is possible to say that Elmer does not exist."
@nacker Very clever rejoinder, however...one small critique: If the worker returned after 150 years, having studied the matter at great lengths, and explained how the glue factory had, GIVEN a single errant molecule from which the theory is assumed, and through natural processes, necessarily built itself, the question would remain where the original molecule came from. That COULD be elmer.
Extensive study would be necessary, of course, but continuous experimentation could yield to this thesis.
@Reerrpad5515 "Extensive study would be necessary, of course, but continuous experimentation could yield to this thesis."
this statement seems to be the cry of science! Yes science has proven beyond reasonable doubt many things, but for those things that it doesnt have a secure handle on it has this hope that one day with enough testing and the right technology all will be known. Or am i misinterpreting?
@Servint7 "this hope that one day with enough testing and the right technology all will be known." - That is the general idea. We have come quite far, you must admit, and our rate of attaining knowledge is rapidly, one might say exponentially, increasing. As our ability to store and disseminate this knowledge grows, more and more people will be able to contribute meaningfully, and this will only speed up the process.
Will we ever know everything? Only when we become gods ourselves(as I said)
@nacker Hi. I guess we all have a choice: to believe fallible people or an infallible God. If God says that He made the world in six days, what audicty to contradict Him based on "radiometric dating" and the "geologic column." I will trust God.
@shilohrenovation I agree to a point... I guess the question is, "Did God really say that He made the world in six days." We have to read the Bible for what it is. Different literary types require different interpretive methods. When Romeo said, "Juliet is the sun..." he didn't mean that she was the sun.
If in the entire universe, there were only one molecule. One singular molecule, where did it come from, since everything physical must have a beginning? Everything physical must have a beginning. Science does not have an answer for this.
My God and Savior Jesus Christ, created the universe. He does not depend on molecules for his existence, molecules depend on Him. You’ve heard it said that Jesus is the answer, and that is right, He Himself is the answer.
@ladsut "My God and Savior Jesus Christ, created the universe." - OOOOORR the flying spaghetti monster, or the flying space turtles of hinduism, or the universe is eternal according to buddhism, or ...
speculation is fun, but it's not wise to build your life around such nonsense.
@Reerrpad5515 The argument of the flying spaghetti monster is an embarrassment to thinking atheists. You cannot rename a concept with a funny name and think that makes a point. The concept of an unmoved mover has been a valid belief system among the most intilligent and sincere people throughout all of history. Each concept can be studied and discussed on its own merit. The spaghetti monster and space turtles and the infinite universe (or universes)... as well as the concept of God.
@nacker Some discussions (like the spaghetti monster) make take less time to discuss. But the elaborate theories of infinite and multiple universes... and the concept of the unmoved mover and its (his?) attributes call for serious discussion. They do not allow for intellectually irresponsible and belittling sweeping statements or comparisons to gravity-defying itallian dish attrocities.
@nacker "You cannot rename a concept with a funny name and think that makes a point." - That is not what I did, and is in fact precisely the point I was trying to make. You cannot take "mysterious" or "unexplained" or even "logically necessary" and then say this now justifies belief in things as nonsensical as the FSM, God, flying space turtles, etc.
Unmoved mover may be logically defensible, going from that to any of the other mythological fairy tales is speculation.
@Reerrpad5515 I agree that ignorance does not prove the existence of anything. I do not agree that moving beyond the unmoved mover is speculation. There are some very good logical arguments from that point toward a volitional deity.
@Reerrpad5515 Ok. But let's have a conversation resembling 2 rational human beings both desiring to know truth... not 2 school yard nerd-bullies arguing in front of people trying to prove who is the smartest. I am really tired of fighting on forums accomplishing crap-nothing when I could be learning from someone and hopefully them learning from me. And time will limit my ability to reply consistantly as I'm sure it will for you.
@nacker For me, the argument begins with the concepts of "nothing," and "infinity." Of courst the argument "from nothing" is one of the chief arguments for the existence of an unmoved mover... but that explanation often begs the question, "where did the unmoved mover come from?!"
Now, since the argument from nothing is a valid argument, we can investigate (philisophically) what the unmoved mover would need to be in order to not necessitate creation, a natural beginning, or a combination.
@nacker Time cannot be infinite. Infinity exists only as a concept, and even then it is mischevious. So this unmoved mover is also the mover of time. If it is outside time, then it is not the case that the unmoved mover, over a certain amount of time, reached the necessary moment for creation to occur. So how else could it reach the point of creation? One explanation is that the mover is in fact volitional. It has a will and a purpose.
@nacker I believe I have done what I said could be done, - work intellectually and logically from an impersonal unmoved mover to a volitional god. (at least with a will and some sort of desire to exert that will though not necessarily with emotions).
But I have not done what you asked to be done - argue from deism to theism. I operate under the understanding that deism is an advanced form of agnostism (not really but kind of) that says, "Intellectually I believe in God, but can't know him."
@nacker It believes that the universe declares that a God exists, but that this being likely created the world (in some sort of fashion) and is now out of our reach for knowing etc. I love this point of view, and in fact, I agree with it entirely. Unless this God chooses to reveal to us more of his characteristics and personality, we are hopeless, with our limited and created minds, to fully discern the mind of the unmoved mover.
@nacker What is interesting to me is that going from materialism to deism is easier for many than going from deism to theism, or even all the way to Christianity.
What I love about Christianity as a religion, is that it actually says - "Seek and find." The God of the Christian Bible (and actually of the Jewish Bible as well) says, "Come, let us reason together."
@nacker The Christian God did not reveal himself to a singe person in some hidden cave. Their holy writings were not written by a solitary elite. But a community of believers shared their experiences with God. And then a man walked the earth, within measurable history, and claimed to be God. He was killed. And history argues that he came back to life... proving his claims.
Check this stuff out. Seek out valid sources of history and see if the Jesus claim has any merit.
@nacker I believe that the argument from Deism to Theism is found within the pages (and within the stories behind) the pages of Christian Scripture. And my life, walking in relationship with Jesus (often very poorly), has been an added testiment to what I have come to believe through philisophical, historical, social, and scientific pursuits.
@nacker I would point you to both Victor Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis for a more detailed discussion of the volitional argument, and Thomas Paine's book The Age of Reason for a refutation of the bible as a document neither internally consistent nor valid by it's claimed authorship.
@nacker "Would you please summarize their arguments?"
I did: Stenger laid out the problems with the volitional argument in his debate with WLC, namely that outside of time means all events are simultaneous (hint: no time), therefore eliminating the "choice" requirement, and making any discussion of a "moment of decision" nonsensical.
Paine just tears the bible apart chapter by chapter, I couldn't possibly summarize, nor would any of my thoughts do his justice.
@nacker "Seek out valid sources of history and see if the Jesus claim has any merit."
Or Socrates, or Caesar, or Alexander the Great. Historians can speak about what may have happened, what probably happened, but they can very rarely speak about what DID happen. That just isn't the sort of thing historians can do. Does it have merit? sure, but so does the story I tell about a fun night drinking. That doesn't make either true, and I rarely use resurrection as an embellishment to my stories.
@nacker " The God of the Christian Bible (and actually of the Jewish Bible as well) says, "Come, let us reason together.""
The bible may say this, but you have not given me, or anyone else, reason to believe this was either written or inspired by a deity.
In addition, the bible also contains quite a few other, less....shall we say... conciliatory phrases, which seem to have been given far more credence over the years. This would seem to suggest evidence against a divine (or even good) author.
@Reerrpad5515 The Bible is not a 21st Century AD (BCE) document. It isn't a 1st Century BCE document... or a 4th Cenutry CE document. It is the compilation of traditions spaning thousands of years and different (and changing) cultures. To expect it to reflect exactly what we would want out of a Holy Bible in our culture and present understanding represents cultural prejudice and leads to poor scholarship.
@nacker "To expect it to reflect exactly what we would want out of a Holy Bible in our culture and present understanding...is in line with assuming divine authorship or inspiration for said text"
FIX'D.
Look, I agree, it's a culturally contingent document from our distant, less civilized past. That is not an argument in it's favor.
This, also, is not a logical argument spanning the deism-theism gap.
@nacker "If it is outside time" - "over a certain amount of time, reached the necessary moment"
notice a problem here? If it is outside of time, it need not have any such will or purpose, because every action would occur outside of time, which would mean that both the choice, and the creation, would be simultaneous, thus eliminating the necessary "choice" stage, if the "creation" stage is even necessary (and stages altogether).
@Reerrpad5515 "If it is outside time" - "over a certain amount of time, reached the necessary moment"
""notice a problem here?""
That problem was the point. The case is not that some being operated inside of a temporal system, bound by that system, and when conditions were correct it produced space and time. So why would it produce? I think the most logical explanation is volition, since everything else would depend on sequence.
SHOCK NEWS - On 23rd February at an Oxford Uinversity debate Richard Dawkins , the renound atheist, declared himself to be an AGNOSTIC ! WOW ! Here we have the Furher of the new atheist movement saying he NOT an atheist but an agnostic. Maybe in a few more years he might change his agnostic relegion to Chritianity like another former atheist C.S Lewis !
MrMaxTruth 22 hours ago
God rules.
andy854 1 week ago 2
@andy854 Fact.
Jakyle1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The best
Zwemer100 1 month ago
What makes you think Ravi won the debate?
RaynorGo 2 months ago
@RaynorGo What makes you think they think. Because Ravi has a series titled "Let My People Think"? hahahah
maxpolaris99 1 week ago
Appeal to emotion, personal experience and anecdotal evidence. Great speaker with nothing to say.
MrSulake 2 months ago
@MrSulake You should buy one of his books. Especially great are his summaries on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and the uniqueness and prophetic seal of the bible.
mundarda 4 weeks ago
@MrSulake being exposed to this Ravis' mental meanderings more times than I care to remember during luchbreak at work, I can't tell you how many times he or his introductory narrator claimed he would tackle or answer some position head on, only to find Ravi busily erecting strawmen to to attack. What a joke. Ravi is not even coherent! He is self contradictory! LOL
maxpolaris99 1 week ago
Pre-commitment to Atheism is what keeps the Atheist going. That's all.
sidd82 3 months ago
@sidd82
Actually, most atheist have admited that even if God himself presented to them, they will reject Him and not worship Him anyway...actually R. Dawkins indirectly has admitted that...no se me espongen ateos, pero es la neta, which means "atheist don´t get sponged, that´s purely the truth"
realhomosapiens 2 months ago
@realhomosapiens Most atheists have admitted, really? Where did you get that info
there realhomo? Can you point me to a study or have you interviewed mosts atheists yourself?
maxpolaris99 1 week ago
@maxpolaris99
Well, at least that´s I´ve found an every single one I´ve asked the question...mayby you don´t fall into that category, or do you?
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
@sidd82 I could never find a better illustration of what is meant by "The kettle calling the pot black" Projecting a little are we Sidd82?
maxpolaris99 1 week ago
I've only watched a few of his videos because a friend of mine insisted. Every one that I watched today turned out the same. He also misquotes Nietzsche and Hawking..
tiggyd85 3 months ago
@tiggyd85 Ravi is a walking talking fallacy generator! :D
maxpolaris99 2 months ago
@maxpolaris99 haha, perfectly said!
tiggyd85 2 months ago
@tiggyd85 don't waste any more time, all his material is essentially the same.
Extremely repetitive, big on style and rhetoric low on substance.
maxpolaris99 1 week ago
Once again Ravi takes a prominent writer/philosopher's words out of context to back his ill-informed logic. What Huxley ACTUALLY said was nothing of the sort. The quote can be found here: update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ah_quote. htm
tiggyd85 3 months ago
Good post
Jehstfan 3 months ago
@luker4459: that is not the science we see today; everything from what causes autism to how one considers global warming becomes widely accepted so long as it is propagated by the proper media and political structures. That is not to say that there aren't honest scientists out there, too, but science isn't nearly as devoid of political process and manipulation as you try to make it appear. Also, you can't just say whatever you want with religion and faith. That just isn't true.
smitc21 4 months ago
if science is constantly overturned, how do you define where you are on a continuum of knowledge, and what separates bunk from non-bunk? And science has debunked itself by making one claim that makes another seem foolish and on and on ad nauseam, for example the development of morphine as a painkiller being replaced by what was believed at the time to be more safe, heroin.... also the whole immutability and dogmatic thing... how would you define scientific law? Can one be overturned?
smitc21 4 months ago
@smitc21 Just pray for a better painkiller!
maxpolaris99 2 months ago
Why do most of the christian apologists quote themselves and tell anecdotes of how they have done so well in other speeches? They think they are a messiah chanting their miracles.
foroparapente 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 5 months ago
I never fail to find it interesting that in seeing the amount of time atheists devote to hating Christianity, they seem to fail to realize that they are still devoting their life to Christianity.
ltcell 6 months ago 31
@ltcell by that logic, all Christians devote their life to Satan.
tiggyd85 2 months ago
@tiggyd85 Not necessarily. A true Christian does not spend his life worry about satan or hating satan, his fate is already sealed. A true Christian spends his life drawing ever closer to God.
mishaelf 1 month ago
@mishaelf Nice
zcjxxx 4 weeks ago
oh and @Tobytrim: science has debunked science hundreds of times in my lifetime. Examples (strangely lacking in your steadfast conviction that Christians are goners): Causes of cancer, universal expansion or stasis (or multiple dimensions!), Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics, life on other planets, number of species in any given biological phylum.... I respect science deeply but don't believe it has debunked nearly as much as you claim.
smitc21 6 months ago
@smitc21 science has debunked science hundreds of times in my lifetime.
No it hasn't. Science can't be debunked, as it makes no dogmatic assertions claiming to be the" immutable and infallable word" of an all-knowing being. What you mean is that science has improved human knowledge, and corrected, or redirected, what earlier scientific enquiry has brought us. That's what science is about. It has no need to threaten people with persecution, or excommunication for improving it's understanding.
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@tobytrim: it is spelled "non sequitir"
smitc21 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smitc21 "it is spelled "non sequitir""
Actually, it is spelt "Non sequitur" - Mine was a typo. What's YOUR excuse?
Tobytrim 4 months ago
No meaning so they can pursue thier sexual desires...so sad This story of the vietnam refuges is so touching and incredible
doobersmanster 7 months ago
I love how Zacharias speaks. He could be talking about burgers, and I would still listen. :D
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
@DigitalDecadence yes Ravi is a good example of the success style can have over substance.
maxpolaris99 2 months ago
Of all the daft presuppositional ideas that theists offer as to why other people don't accept their superstitions, this is both the silliest and the most dishonest.
Ravi rambles, and anecdotalises through these emotionally charged, non sequitor, stories, which he never properly sources, and ignores the fact the scientific evidence HAS steadily debunked what Christians believed for centuries. There are people who accept this science and have to compromise their belief in the same god.
Tobytrim 7 months ago
@Tobytrim What has science debunked about Christianity?
particle58 4 months ago
@particle58 "What has science debunked about Christianity?"
Wow! There's a very demanding question - given the variety of Christianity that's out there, and the degrees of cherry picking from the bible, and compromising of interpretations, required in the light of new knowledge. I suppose I would have to know degree of denial in YOUR particular version of Christianity to know whether you have to deny science, or the literal bible..
Of, course, if you are a biblical literalist ,
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@Tobytrim Thats not a very good answer is it? Again, what has science debunked about Christianity?
particle58 4 months ago
@particle58 "Thats not a very good answer is it? Again, what has science debunked about Christianity?"
Don't be silly! It's the most complete answer possible given the hundreds of compromised misinterpretation that have been necessary to keep the original text of Christianity seeming valid.
However, assuming you are a sincere and deluded biblical literalist: - Y.E. creationism, geocentricity, flat earth, global floods, Jesus' and "yahweh's understanding of astronomy and physics - etc.
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@Tobytrim What verse says the world is flat? What about astronomy and physics does "Jesus" or "Yahweh" get wrong? Can you point me to the verse? Creationism has been refuted, can you explain how since Darwin's theories have never been made into scientific law. Geocentricity was a view held by the roman church's political system, based on their misinterpretations of the bible, and eventually accepted Galileo's(who was ironically supported by the Jesuits) discovery in the early 18th century.
particle58 4 months ago
@particle58 "What verse says the world is flat?"
It assumes it in: Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:17. Matt 4:8, Dan 4:11, Job 38:13,Job 38:4 Jer 16:19, Matt24....and many more.
" What about astronomy and physics does "Jesus" or "Yahweh" get wrong?"
Matt 24:29 (same in revelations1) Gen 1;14-17 - need I go on?
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 ""can you explain how since Darwin's theories have never been made into scientific law."
This question is based on your own laughable ignorance of the meaning in the term "law" in science......I simply can't be bothered....
" Geocentricity was a view held by the roman church's political system, based on their misinterpretations of the bible"
Ha! Would you like me to quote denials of it by the protestant reformers too, at the same time.? All Christians, same Bible passages!
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@Tobytrim Quote whatever you want little homie, still wont disprove the existence of a God you are incapable of understanding.
particle58 4 months ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 "Quote whatever you want little homie, still wont disprove the existence of a God you are incapable of understanding"
Theists, of any faith, can't demonstrate that they believe any more than fairy tale characters. I don't need to disprove the existence of those, The bible itself disproves "God" by the very definitions made within it!
If these texts are all you have to define "God", and they have got it wrong, then you don't even have a "God" for me not to understand!
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@Tobytrim Give me the contradicting Bible verses that deny the existence of God.
particle58 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@particle58 "Give me the contradicting Bible verses that deny the existence of God"
Are you serious??? There are thousands. The Bible is nothing BUT contradictions!!
One should be enough for any rational mind.( I hold no expectations on yours!- Lol!): Consider an all knowing (Rev 19:6), omnipotent (Matt19:26), and immutable "God" (Jas 1:17, Mal 3:6, John 3:19-20) who is pleased with what he has done (Gen 1:31) then NOT pleased(Gen 6:6). Not even "God" can be a logical contradiction!
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@Tobytrim I know the difference between law, theory, hypothesis, etc. There is not enough evidence to establish evolution as scientific law, however there is enough evidence to classify it as a valid, reliable, scientific theory. Gravity is a LAW, whereas evolution is a THEORY. Meaning the theory of evolution provides a number of possible answers to scientific questions concerning the descent of man but not all of these questions are answered by evolution, which is why it is still a theory.
particle58 4 months ago
@particle58 " I know the difference between law, theory, hypothesis, etc. There is not enough evidence to establish evolution as scientific law"
No you don't know, or you wouldn't make this stupid argument- Lol!!
A "law", in science, is simply an observation, consistant enough to make predictions from. A "theory" in science, is a collection of observable facts which explain another observation,
For example, something falling is the FACT of gravity, What causes it to fall is the THEORY.
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 "Gravity is a LAW, whereas evolution is a THEORY."
BOTH gravity and evolution, are observable fact, which are explained by their theory., which is a model of explanation formed from observable facts. There is no difference.
Evolution is supported by by over 277,000 tested, repeated, and repeatably, testable peer review observations .
And why am I having to explain this to you???? If you'd honestly tried to find out the truth, you would know this!!
Tobytrim 4 months ago
Sure quote them, and I'll quote Christians who said the opposite :D
particle58 4 months ago
@particle58 "Sure quote them, and I'll quote Christians who said the opposite"
Ha ha! Well you could start with Galileo, I suppose. He was a Christian. The trouble is that he obviously supported Copernicus' heliocentricity theory as a scientist. He was going against the dogma of his own church remember.!
Martin Luthor, Calvin, and Knox , the founders of the Protestant Church, were also strong "geocentrists" at that time too, on biblical grounds. You would be quoting much later Christians!
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 Martin Luther: "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... "
Tobytrim 4 months ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 4 months ago
Or try this, again by Luther:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
Remember that this people were the "reformation"
Tobytrim 4 months ago
Or this by Calvin:
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
These people, and the Catholic Church, WERE Christianity. Any Christians you could quote would be jumping on the established heliocentricity bandwagon, long after the Church's dogma against it had been debunked. You'd be a hypocrite to quote them.
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 More from Calvin: "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7)
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 And calvin goes on :
" By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."
Tobytrim 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@particle58 Luther further said:
" We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
Tobytrim 4 months ago
@particle58 "Science" is not in the business of debunking christianity. However it seems to me an awful lot of christians seem to be in the "Business" of debunking science.
maxpolaris99 2 months ago
@maxpolaris99 Amen to that!
tiggyd85 2 months ago
@Tobytrim Ah yes but you must realize that the reason all those christians believed in demonstrably false ideas is because they did not have the right Magic Bible Decoder Ring!
maxpolaris99 2 months ago
@maxpolaris99 "Magic bible decoder ring"??!! ................... I always thought that, after one accepted the "lord and saviour", a hand came down from Heaven with a special explanitory leaflet??
Incidently, what kind of a sick bastard washes out toilet paper??? -Regardless of what is written on it???!
Tobytrim 2 months ago
@Roper122 one word for you in very plain English.
"Yep".
You are s waste of time, infantile, playing being the intellectual. Now, atheist, agnostic, whatever. Go away and be merry on whatever belief you find more suitable. Just stop the " I don't like this", "This guy is no good" "that guy is no good". " he doesn't convince me". Just go!
barrigudo00 7 months ago
@Roper122 and I suppose you are a certain good apologist?!!? Grow up spoiled brat, you're a complete waste of time. Brainless idiot.
barrigudo00 7 months ago
@barrigudo00 " and I suppose you are a certain good apologist?!!? "
- Well I'm clearly able to point out flaws in someone's argument, but I personally haven't really run across a successful religious apologist... of course they have a disadvantage
" Grow up spoiled brat, you're a complete waste of time."
- Is that it? Name calling? And ironically name calling that admonishes me to grow up?
" Brainless idiot. "
- Yeah.. I suppose that is it.
Let me know when you have a point : )
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Now now Roper don't be to hasty in your interpretation. I'm sure barrigudo00
being a good christain meant no offense. Its much more likely you misinterpreted his meaning like you skeptics are so apt to do with The Word of God. :)
maxpolaris99 2 months ago
Oh yes... Ravi tells a story, about how someone told him a story, about how convincing his arguments are?
Ohhh I'm convinced.
He's just not very good at this at all.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 he is actually very good at "this". His stories are only there to illustrate his points to the listener. He argues that the apologist must argue from three levels: the theoretical, to line up the logic of the argument; the arts, to illustrate; and "kitchen table talk", to conclude and apply.
tomdenman 7 months ago
@tomdenman ...I'm sorry, I rate apologists on whether they are able to at least try to stick to facts and mount a sensible argument
So...no...he's not very good at all.
But he has successfully convinced you that his stories carry any weight...so I suppose that's something.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 He does stick to facts and mounts sensible arguments all the time, just because he simply tells personal stories to illustrate these arguments, it does not make his arguments any less valid.
And you saying that he is not a good apologist is laughable, this man is looked up to as one of the greatest christian apologists of our time.
tomdenman 7 months ago
@tomdenman ...I've never seen a good argument from him. Sorry.
A better apologist wouldn't waste valuable time on pointless stories.
He preaches.
It's boring and irrelevant... He's not very good.
If he's one of the greatest...you've got big problems.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Aww man, it's you?! I've heard nothing from you but sarcasm and bullying. All you did with theistic arguments was 'dodge' it. You don't play with reason and faith. You play a child's play of words.
gatsbyfaulkner 7 months ago
@gatsbyfaulkner " I've heard nothing from you but sarcasm and bullying "
- Funny I could've sworn you've heard an argument that caused you to give up and run away.
Hmmm.
" All you did with theistic arguments was 'dodge' it. "
- I'm right here... bring on anything you like.
" You play a child's play of words. "
- Oh? You mean like " If atheism solved all human woes " ? That kind of childish wordplay?
I think you'd better leave here too... you're not doing any better : )
Roper122 7 months ago
@turboisken, You ask if God knew man would rebel, then why did He follow through with His creation? God created us to bring honor and glory unto Himself, & to be able to extend His perfect love to us, & give us the choice to love Him in return. Love is a choice or it wouldn't be love. We would be preprogrammed machines that have no will, no feelings,& no love, because after all there is no choice in the matter. We would be a race of robots. Love is only love if it is a choice.
westflgator 8 months ago
@samuellis What a testimony Samuel! It is difficult to understand how human minds can rationalize God into a god or worse yet, an ignorant belief. Have you ever listened to Dr. Carl Baugh out of Glenrose, Tx? He is a dinosaur digger and WAS an atheist. His testimony is when he tried to disprove the Christian belief regarding the age of earth, being 6-8,000 yrs. old vs. billions of yrs. based on evolution. Creation Science. Try to get, it'll rock your world!
TheMichelArm 10 months ago
But my question to you SIR is. God created Man in his own Image.
How come man sinned? because of free will? God also has Free Will
GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE hence man will have the same attributes on how God uses FREE WILL If U deny this, lets go on Since God is God, he's omnicscient hence he knows the past and the future n because he is d designer of each of us hence he designed our free WILL n HE will b the one 2 decide which soul will have d will which will choose 2 believe in him
turboisken 10 months ago
@turboisken, Being made in the image of God refers to three things. We are body (the physical nature of God displayed in the person of Jesus Christ), the soul (the part of man which is the seat of our emotions, our intellect, our will etc)and that which sets us apart from all other creatures is our spirit (God is also Spirit and He interacts with us through the Holy Spirit). Yes we have a will, and God has a perfect on Holy will that is devoid of error or sinful thought. (next post)
westflgator 8 months ago
@turboisken To finish my thoughts on your question from my previous posts. In God's foreknowledge He knew yes that many would rebel, but He also knew that many would accept and follow Him as Lord of their life. Would if have been fair to cheat those who would choose to follow Him out of that relationship with Him? Not only that, but it would mean that evil would have been vicotrious over God before time, space, and matter were even created. God offers an escape it's up to us to except Him.
westflgator 8 months ago
Wow Zacharias never stood a chance.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago
This was a great video, I was an Athiest for the pass 10 years but the Lord has truely blessed me with the intelliectual knowledge to know and come back to him. I now acknowlegde that the God is my savior and creator. Thanks for the video again God bless you and yours....!
samuellis 1 year ago 30
@samuellis What a testimony Samuel! It is difficult to understand how human minds can rationalize God into a god or worse yet, an ignorant belief. Have you ever listened to Dr. Carl Baugh out of Glenrose, Tx? He is a dinosaur digger and WAS an atheist. His testimony is when he tried to disprove the Christian belief regarding the age of earth, being 6-8,000 yrs. old vs. billions of yrs. based on evolution. Creation Science. Try to get, it'll rock your world!
TheMichelArm 10 months ago
@samuellis You should make a video and post on youtube for other Athiests :D
Indianmalujl 2 months ago
Praise God friend!! :)
Apologist4Christ973 2 months ago
There seem to be quite a few comments that are resting heavily upon the idea that people of the past were less intelligent, less inventive and so forth. Let us not flatter ourselves, at present. It might very well be that had the wheel not yet been invented, we'd be incapable of doing it, much less any other accomplishments if which we boast.
cheshirelizzy 1 year ago
I could hear that over and over. This is one if the best if Ravi on You Tube.
cheshirelizzy 1 year ago
thnx for the upload
vdofam 1 year ago
I'm sending you both a pm, a comment I found on another debate, that I think may explain it better than I can.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
He Speaks With The Power of God dude!!
JesusRad20 1 year ago
this guy serves it up hot lol. i havnt seen anyone take em down yet
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 Because he hasn't debated anyone, partially as a result of his terrible logic, and partially as a result of there being so many kooks out there that Ravi may have just drawn a number that hasn't yet been called.
OR, because he is fully aware of how badly his apologetics would stand up to critical inquiry.
Any of the above would suffice.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 everywhere i go. i see this double standard.
you have to be atheist to have flawless logic if your anything other then that..even agonostic...your stupid. wrong and pick up a history book.
i saw a video once that an agonostic made with dead on logic that if this that and this are right then this must prove this to be true. so in process god has a strong possiblity of existing
Ravi just happens to do the same except he actually gets it done
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 That's not true, you can be an apologist with flawless logic, but once the topic turns to their favorite bed-time story logic goes out the window. Logical thought is followed through for some steps, and then a glaring fallacy or flaw is thrown in, mucking up the whole argument.
Ravi doesn't "get it done", he gets $. WLC is an excellent debater, but every one of his five-part "proofs" has been soundly thwarted.
"I don't know" < still the most logical answer, and so very rare.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 no dude it is true. just pretend to be a christian for a day on youtube and say "christians have sound logic"...see how many angry upset disgruntaled comments you recieve back. fact is if your christian you must be unable to pass the 3rd grade. cause your the scum of the earth, a waste of space, an idiot. mirror in the past and sooo much more.
if im so wrong then why bother with me in the atheistic world view...if when u die nothing happens then leave me be.
orrr....*cont*
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 I haven't personally insulted you, Servint7, or anyone else on youtube, as far as I know, without first receiving an insult myself, and then only when frustrated beyond my, albeit limited, patience.
If it really were just "between you and god", I wouldn't be bothering with commenting. It is much, much more than that for so many religious people who believe that they possess absolute truth, and insist that I adhere to it's commands.
I shall not: watch?v=5b1aIuoCq4w
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 is it more then that- you really only wish to see more atheists to cement your views and show others "see i am right afterall"
being a christian isnt about getting notification of your deeds from others, it is between you and god
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 Moreover, I will not stand idly by while bronze-age religious mythology presses it's agenda further and further into the circles of power within my government, resulting in unreasonable and outright foolish laws that do significant harm to both the psychology of it's citizens, and the finances of it's institutions.
You want to embrace new-age spirituality, just be one with everything, go, have fun, enjoy. As soon as the 'oneness' becomes public policy, we have a problem.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 i would ask you this 1 simple question then. why fight what isnt real if your so secure in your ways, if you have all (or most) of the answers then why continue to wage a war that you've already won
unless your not secure...which then raises a need to wage the war in the first place.
lastly it isnt my fault alot of smart people who happen to be christians take power, why dont you rise up and rally somewhere...get some attention and run for president
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69
Watch this video: watch?v=5b1aIuoCq4w
I couldn't possibly hope to explain it any better than Christopher Hitchens did when he answered this precise question.
"why dont you rise up and rally somewhere" - I am. One comment, one discussion, one mind at a time. I insert doubt, check irrational certainty, and move along. I don't wish to produce atheists, only increase the ranks of "Doubting Thomas". Atheism is a choice, doubt is mere honesty.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 "I couldn't possibly hope to explain it any better than Christopher Hitchens did when he answered this precise question."
The problem with Hitchens response is that though it may reflect how he views the christian religion, it does not reflect the way of Jesus. Hitchins claims that religion is in love with death, as if death isnt a reality. Religion is in love with a place that is perfect and that place must come after death because this world sucks more often that not.
Servint7 1 year ago
@Servint7 the problem is that there are as Russel Peters puts it "rednecks" who dont care about people and they give religion a bad name by pressing their hypocritical views on others with a detrimental effect promoting human suffering. But not all religious/spiritual people are like that. Which makes it so frustrating to have to try and defend those, for lack of a better term, "crazies", with whom one has no belief in common with except a label.
Servint7 1 year ago
@Servint7 "the problem is that there are..."rednecks" who...give religion a bad name". - OK, I can agree with you that the fundamentalists are the problem, but as Sam Harris says, this is only because the fundamentals of religion are a problem. If the fundamental claims and edicts of religion were in line with what is most productive to human happiness, I would be rejoicing in the widespread religious literalism in the world. However, they are at odds with progress, scientifically and morally.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Servint7 The rather glaring issue I have with religion is it's insistence upon separating morality from reality, and grounding it in a worldview based upon rewards/punishments in the NEXT life. The rules are not reasonable in a world devoid of a sky-daddy, but are completely reasonable if you accept that assumption. This separation is causing undue suffering, and squandering scarce resources in a deluded attempt to secure happiness for yourself in the afterlife. That is the problem.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 Interesting...what resources are being squandered when churches try to help the homeless and hungry and provide relief to those in much need through physical & spiritual efforts? How should people be "acting"...and how do you know in all cases its an "assumption"?
Resources are scarce?...if all the rich in the world bought all the food/relief neccessary for their fellow humans....nobody in the world would go hungry ever again, this is fact. What is scarce in this world is love.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat "what resources are being squandered when churches" - find out how much of their resources are actually going towards helping the poor, and you'll have your answer.
"if all the rich in the world bought all the food/relief neccessary for their fellow humans" - This is a fairy tale, it would never happen and never work. Not to mention there isn't enough food to purchase anyways, which gets back to my comment about resource squandering...(try puting a farm in place of each church).
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 hehe, you're seriously going to point a finger at churches "squandering" resources when helping the poor....i must say...at least they are willing to help!
"This is a fairy tale, it would never happen and never work. Not to mention there isn't enough food to purchase anyways"
There would be enough food if the R&D was done by that very money. And the reason why it won't work....humans. So theres your issue more than anything...some humans won't do what you want them to.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat "hehe, you're seriously going to point a finger at churches "squandering" resources when helping the poor" - I didn't say the resources are squandered doing that, I said look at the actual percentage going towards the poor, compared with their overall *untaxed* income. It's less than impressive.
"some humans won't do what you want them to." - sure, but irrelevant.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Servint7 "Religion is in love with a place that is perfect and that place must come after death because this world sucks more often that not." - Yet this place is, in the opinion of anyone who does not accept supernatural claims of eternal rewards, the only thing we have. That is the rub with religion, it rejects the possibility of making this world better because, if you take heaven and revelation seriously, why bother? It's all going to end in some glorious conflagration anyway.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 "Moreover, I will not stand idly by while bronze-age religious mythology presses it's agenda further and further into the circles of power within my government, resulting in unreasonable and outright foolish laws that do significant harm to both the psychology of it's citizens, and the finances of it's institutions."
...Communism? Lets face athiesm in Gov. doesnt have a great track record either.
Servint7 1 year ago
@Servint7 Communism stands with Theocracy as brothers under the same banner: Bad Ideas. I am not a champion of communism, nor is a particular political ideology part an parcel of atheism. Non-belief in a deity, or deities, or even if you prefer, denial of a higher power, does not entail belief in communism.
In fact, the concept of democracy was borne out of ancient greece, home to both pagans and atheists, such as they were at the time. Communism is a recent addition to the political realm.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 Atheists, by and large, don't care what you believe, and wouldn't even name themselves as such were it not necessary to differentiate themselves from the theists I mentioned above.
Remain a Christian, convert to Hindu, worship Thor, I really don't care, its none of my business. When you insist that I must adhere to Thor's edicts, or Jesus' teachings, and divert tax dollars and massive amounts of public attention, you can expect to see myself and other atheists speaking up. Loudly.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 he says that we cannot be moral without a "big brother"...
then from where do morals arise?...who taught you your morals...who taught them and so on ever backward until we find out.
everything he brings up negative comes from revaluations....of course the end of the world book.
and i see nothing wrong with loving someone whom i dont like. i would much rather love them then hate them dude, makes no sense to walk around angry all the time
that video on reinforces my ideals now
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 Watch the video again, he does not indicate we cannot be moral without "big brother", but that we can.
Where do morals come from? Good philosophical question, but why is a higher power any more compelling than social cohesion? There are any number of thoughts on this, and the actual origin of every idea of moral action may not come to light, despite our efforts. This does not mean we should not address morality as it is NOW, and weigh it against human and animal suffering NOW.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 so...basicly do what you want so long as it aint hurting anybody who cares right? dude wow thats absolutely nuts- people left to their own devices eventually destroy everything in their wake.
this is a very simple truth. 1+1=2 right? no in an atheist world view...i equals 2 for me and 79 for you because it works for you...if that hadda work in school i would have had a 4.0 lol
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 "so...basicly do what you want so long as it aint hurting anybody who cares right? dude wow thats absolutely nuts- people left to their own devices eventually destroy everything in their wake."
Technically, "destroy everything in their wake" goes against "ain't hurting anybody", right?
"i equals 2 for me and 79 for you because it works for you" - Thats moral relativism, not atheism. I don't think everyone's ideas about morality are right, or I wouldn't be here, arguing against you
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 mind you i said eventually...so just you wait a see
alright so we've established that people live their lives according to how it "feels to them" type deal....also not everybody has the same moral law. example- in some cultures is moral to not eat yur neighbor...in some cultures is completely moral to eat your neighbors...catch my drift?
so here we have reached the end...lest you wanna bring up something else?
dumbcube69 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 "mind you i said eventually...so just you wait a see" - What difference does it make if it happens tomorrow or 1000 years from now? The contradiction between "aint hurting anybody" and "destroy everything" is still there if it happens.
I have, I hope, established that while there ARE different moral scales, some of which are influenced heavily by culture, not all of these scales are best suited to human happiness. Cannibalism is objectively not suited to happiness for you or others
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 different moral scales...as in like wut, what situation can u think of that permits these breaks in moral law?
as far as the cannibalism iw as just trying to paint a picture
dumbcube69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dumbcube69 "different moral scales...as in like wut, what situation can u think of that permits these breaks in moral law?"
Oh, I don't know...how about... cannibalism?
"as far as the cannibalism iw as just trying to paint a picture"
I appreciate the fodder.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@dumbcube69 He does not say you may not love someone you don't like, only that he does not feel loving your ENEMIES is a moral action. Not liking someone is a personal preference, an enemy is a person who has made not just this preferential choice about you, but is actively working against you. There is a difference.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
science can prove that there need not be a God in order for life to have begun, though this does not disprove the existence of God it does prove that a fundamental tenant of religion may not be a truism.
iohioenergy 1 year ago
@iohioenergy As far as I understand it, science has not proven that. The Miller - Urey experiment used faulty data and acquired weak results. And even though science may be able to take pieces of nature and do experiments with nature, it cannot create nature from nothing. Science is really good at explaing what nature does... it has not done a good job, and in my opinion cannot, explain where foundational reality came from.
nacker 1 year ago 16
@nacker "explain where foundational reality came from." - Explain your version, then. Don't just give it a brand name, give me the precise thing you expect science to provide.
I'll wait.
Poor job or no, science is the only game in town actually looking for an explanation. Lets play a game: you're my employee, I ask you to sneak into Elmer's glue factory and tell me how they make their superglue. You return, and say that Elmer did it. I fire you.
What did you do wrong?
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 I think that I completely agree with you. My comment wasn't meant to be a negative critique on science. The glue factory inspector should study how the glue was made and be faithful in that pursuit. I'm not a "God did so let's not study it" kind of guy. As a follower of Jesus I believe that God created the world for us to explore and enjoy to His glory. The better our science is, the better we can honor God in dealing with creation (nature).
nacker 1 year ago 33
@Reerrpad5515 I think we would both agree that the automated glue factory investigator (if the factory happens to be automated) should not come back and say, "After looking at the way this factory is set up to allow for the produciton of glue, I think it is possible to say that Elmer does not exist."
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker Very clever rejoinder, however...one small critique: If the worker returned after 150 years, having studied the matter at great lengths, and explained how the glue factory had, GIVEN a single errant molecule from which the theory is assumed, and through natural processes, necessarily built itself, the question would remain where the original molecule came from. That COULD be elmer.
Extensive study would be necessary, of course, but continuous experimentation could yield to this thesis.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 I agree with the hypothetical situations you infer from within this hypothetical situation.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker Looks like we're getting somewhere :) Glad we had this talk!
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 "Extensive study would be necessary, of course, but continuous experimentation could yield to this thesis."
this statement seems to be the cry of science! Yes science has proven beyond reasonable doubt many things, but for those things that it doesnt have a secure handle on it has this hope that one day with enough testing and the right technology all will be known. Or am i misinterpreting?
Servint7 1 year ago
@Servint7 "this hope that one day with enough testing and the right technology all will be known." - That is the general idea. We have come quite far, you must admit, and our rate of attaining knowledge is rapidly, one might say exponentially, increasing. As our ability to store and disseminate this knowledge grows, more and more people will be able to contribute meaningfully, and this will only speed up the process.
Will we ever know everything? Only when we become gods ourselves(as I said)
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@nacker GOD created us to gloryfy him. so he recognized by us by mankind.
worship him. obey him follow his commands. We pray we be on path.
jhelum111 1 year ago
@nacker Hi. I guess we all have a choice: to believe fallible people or an infallible God. If God says that He made the world in six days, what audicty to contradict Him based on "radiometric dating" and the "geologic column." I will trust God.
shilohrenovation 8 months ago
@shilohrenovation I agree to a point... I guess the question is, "Did God really say that He made the world in six days." We have to read the Bible for what it is. Different literary types require different interpretive methods. When Romeo said, "Juliet is the sun..." he didn't mean that she was the sun.
nacker 8 months ago
If in the entire universe, there were only one molecule. One singular molecule, where did it come from, since everything physical must have a beginning? Everything physical must have a beginning. Science does not have an answer for this.
My God and Savior Jesus Christ, created the universe. He does not depend on molecules for his existence, molecules depend on Him. You’ve heard it said that Jesus is the answer, and that is right, He Himself is the answer.
ladsut 1 year ago
@ladsut "My God and Savior Jesus Christ, created the universe." - OOOOORR the flying spaghetti monster, or the flying space turtles of hinduism, or the universe is eternal according to buddhism, or ...
speculation is fun, but it's not wise to build your life around such nonsense.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 The argument of the flying spaghetti monster is an embarrassment to thinking atheists. You cannot rename a concept with a funny name and think that makes a point. The concept of an unmoved mover has been a valid belief system among the most intilligent and sincere people throughout all of history. Each concept can be studied and discussed on its own merit. The spaghetti monster and space turtles and the infinite universe (or universes)... as well as the concept of God.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker Some discussions (like the spaghetti monster) make take less time to discuss. But the elaborate theories of infinite and multiple universes... and the concept of the unmoved mover and its (his?) attributes call for serious discussion. They do not allow for intellectually irresponsible and belittling sweeping statements or comparisons to gravity-defying itallian dish attrocities.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker "You cannot rename a concept with a funny name and think that makes a point." - That is not what I did, and is in fact precisely the point I was trying to make. You cannot take "mysterious" or "unexplained" or even "logically necessary" and then say this now justifies belief in things as nonsensical as the FSM, God, flying space turtles, etc.
Unmoved mover may be logically defensible, going from that to any of the other mythological fairy tales is speculation.
FSM FTW :)
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 I agree that ignorance does not prove the existence of anything. I do not agree that moving beyond the unmoved mover is speculation. There are some very good logical arguments from that point toward a volitional deity.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker now that we've pinpointed the discussion topic, lets hear the arguments. Deism to theism...go.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 Ok. But let's have a conversation resembling 2 rational human beings both desiring to know truth... not 2 school yard nerd-bullies arguing in front of people trying to prove who is the smartest. I am really tired of fighting on forums accomplishing crap-nothing when I could be learning from someone and hopefully them learning from me. And time will limit my ability to reply consistantly as I'm sure it will for you.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker For me, the argument begins with the concepts of "nothing," and "infinity." Of courst the argument "from nothing" is one of the chief arguments for the existence of an unmoved mover... but that explanation often begs the question, "where did the unmoved mover come from?!"
Now, since the argument from nothing is a valid argument, we can investigate (philisophically) what the unmoved mover would need to be in order to not necessitate creation, a natural beginning, or a combination.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker Time cannot be infinite. Infinity exists only as a concept, and even then it is mischevious. So this unmoved mover is also the mover of time. If it is outside time, then it is not the case that the unmoved mover, over a certain amount of time, reached the necessary moment for creation to occur. So how else could it reach the point of creation? One explanation is that the mover is in fact volitional. It has a will and a purpose.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker I believe I have done what I said could be done, - work intellectually and logically from an impersonal unmoved mover to a volitional god. (at least with a will and some sort of desire to exert that will though not necessarily with emotions).
But I have not done what you asked to be done - argue from deism to theism. I operate under the understanding that deism is an advanced form of agnostism (not really but kind of) that says, "Intellectually I believe in God, but can't know him."
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker It believes that the universe declares that a God exists, but that this being likely created the world (in some sort of fashion) and is now out of our reach for knowing etc. I love this point of view, and in fact, I agree with it entirely. Unless this God chooses to reveal to us more of his characteristics and personality, we are hopeless, with our limited and created minds, to fully discern the mind of the unmoved mover.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker What is interesting to me is that going from materialism to deism is easier for many than going from deism to theism, or even all the way to Christianity.
What I love about Christianity as a religion, is that it actually says - "Seek and find." The God of the Christian Bible (and actually of the Jewish Bible as well) says, "Come, let us reason together."
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker The Christian God did not reveal himself to a singe person in some hidden cave. Their holy writings were not written by a solitary elite. But a community of believers shared their experiences with God. And then a man walked the earth, within measurable history, and claimed to be God. He was killed. And history argues that he came back to life... proving his claims.
Check this stuff out. Seek out valid sources of history and see if the Jesus claim has any merit.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker I believe that the argument from Deism to Theism is found within the pages (and within the stories behind) the pages of Christian Scripture. And my life, walking in relationship with Jesus (often very poorly), has been an added testiment to what I have come to believe through philisophical, historical, social, and scientific pursuits.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker I would point you to both Victor Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis for a more detailed discussion of the volitional argument, and Thomas Paine's book The Age of Reason for a refutation of the bible as a document neither internally consistent nor valid by it's claimed authorship.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 Would you please summarize their arguments? PM's would be fine if you don't want to take the time posting multiple comments.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker "Would you please summarize their arguments?"
I did: Stenger laid out the problems with the volitional argument in his debate with WLC, namely that outside of time means all events are simultaneous (hint: no time), therefore eliminating the "choice" requirement, and making any discussion of a "moment of decision" nonsensical.
Paine just tears the bible apart chapter by chapter, I couldn't possibly summarize, nor would any of my thoughts do his justice.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@nacker And any studies done on confirmation bias for refutation of your "added testament"
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@nacker "Seek out valid sources of history and see if the Jesus claim has any merit."
Or Socrates, or Caesar, or Alexander the Great. Historians can speak about what may have happened, what probably happened, but they can very rarely speak about what DID happen. That just isn't the sort of thing historians can do. Does it have merit? sure, but so does the story I tell about a fun night drinking. That doesn't make either true, and I rarely use resurrection as an embellishment to my stories.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@nacker " The God of the Christian Bible (and actually of the Jewish Bible as well) says, "Come, let us reason together.""
The bible may say this, but you have not given me, or anyone else, reason to believe this was either written or inspired by a deity.
In addition, the bible also contains quite a few other, less....shall we say... conciliatory phrases, which seem to have been given far more credence over the years. This would seem to suggest evidence against a divine (or even good) author.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 The Bible is not a 21st Century AD (BCE) document. It isn't a 1st Century BCE document... or a 4th Cenutry CE document. It is the compilation of traditions spaning thousands of years and different (and changing) cultures. To expect it to reflect exactly what we would want out of a Holy Bible in our culture and present understanding represents cultural prejudice and leads to poor scholarship.
nacker 1 year ago
@nacker "To expect it to reflect exactly what we would want out of a Holy Bible in our culture and present understanding...is in line with assuming divine authorship or inspiration for said text"
FIX'D.
Look, I agree, it's a culturally contingent document from our distant, less civilized past. That is not an argument in it's favor.
This, also, is not a logical argument spanning the deism-theism gap.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@nacker "If it is outside time" - "over a certain amount of time, reached the necessary moment"
notice a problem here? If it is outside of time, it need not have any such will or purpose, because every action would occur outside of time, which would mean that both the choice, and the creation, would be simultaneous, thus eliminating the necessary "choice" stage, if the "creation" stage is even necessary (and stages altogether).
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 "If it is outside time" - "over a certain amount of time, reached the necessary moment"
""notice a problem here?""
That problem was the point. The case is not that some being operated inside of a temporal system, bound by that system, and when conditions were correct it produced space and time. So why would it produce? I think the most logical explanation is volition, since everything else would depend on sequence.
nacker 1 year ago