Atheists are known to make claims and not back them up. The same way how they yell, "No, God does not exist!" without providing evidence and quickly claim that the burden of proof is on Christians. They hear other God-haters who say that Josephus's mention of Jesus was forged without doing non-biased research, and once you ask for citations, they fail to provide that information. Typical internet atheists...they're not as bright as they used to be.
Lets shorten this up he is trying to that in acts some ancient person worshiped an "unknown God" and that makes his god right because he claims to know it. BUT!!!! if you ever ask a Theist to COHERENTLY define their God, they cannot! so he is wrong. as shit.
listen to him say god makes stuff and does some crap..bla bla bla..but never actually coherently defines their god so their god is also UNKNOWN!
@GodKillerAtheist 1. Fix your English. 2. We've said our God created the world in seven days and sent his Son to die for the sins of man. If you want any more information, look in the Bible. After all, the Bible is the Word of God; or if you want me to sound more "neutral", we claim that it is the Word of God.
@Shade0591 1. keyboard mishap, insert insert the word "say" after the first "to"
2. telling me what god thingy done isn't a coherent definition of what God thing a mo-bobber is. If you've read the bible then you would know that God is a contradiction. Alpha and omega / beginning and the end. both contradict each other so logically God by biblical standards is a lie. Now if we want to say God is the word of God then that is the dogmatic plainly immoral ten commandments found in the Jewish Torah
@GodKillerAtheist Not a keyboard mishap, your sentence had a general malfunction in flow of logic. The thing He means by Alpha and Omega is that he is absolute and all powerful with dominion over all things in the world till the end of the world. It doesn't contradict itself, it's the same as if you make a house and tear it down. I never said God is the Word of God, but that the Word of God is His word and if you want answers you can look in there. Did you even see the point I was making?
@Shade0591 If I call your god thingy a HE it's only because theists like yourself think their god can only exist if it has a penis.
Alpha and Omega doesn't mean that Penis God is all powerful. Alpha is the first letter in the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter. Tell me sir can anything be "A" and "Z" simultaneously without contradicting itself? Any child could see the answer is no.
The only point I see you making that you can't coherently define your god thing. It's obvious you cant
@GodKillerAtheist Actually, the English language always used "he" for the standard neuter pronoun usage until political correctness decided it was time for some awkward confusion. Yes, I am aware that those are the first letters of the Greek alphabet. I'm glad you're educated enough to know that, but do you know what comes after those lines? "The beginning and the end". That's what those lines mean, can you even read two sentences in a row?
@Shade0591 See I require some evidence and not fantasy you can say I'm rebelling but it's not wrong to rebel against something that is fundamentally wrong.
I'll tell you what I'll believe in your God thingy (what ever that may be) for one day, if for one day you can believe that you can drive your car better with your eyes closed. There is no difference in this analogy. You want me to drive life blindly with faith when all I've asked for is some truth.
@GodKillerAtheist I don't understand what you mean by living life blindly. We simply have different ways of viewing the world. In your analogy, I use my rear view mirrors, you use your side view mirrors. Neither is the entire idea off the table, it is infinitely easier to prove a universal positive than it is to prove a negative. You don't have the authority to rule out the possibility of a God.
@Shade0591 I think you are purposely acting like you're not getting my analogy because you know it's true. You can have faith to believe anything especially lies. Faith is quite a useful tool for liars. Why should I cow down to the yoke of faith when I have the truth of logic that disproves your claims?
Correct, I don't have authority to rule out a possibility of God, but it's because I don't need any authority to do so. All I need is touch of basic logic, a few brain cells and God disappears
@GodKillerAtheist So you're calling me a liar? Well, I guess that saves you from arguing, but I sort of win in that case. I really didn't understand your analogy because it didn't make sense. I can live life believing in God or not, I just chose to believe. I don't become more likely to die just because I believe in the Bible. Not to mention, you logic hasn't been disproving all of my claims in this argument as you might wish. And logic doesn't remove God if He gave you that in the first place.
@Shade0591 Yes I think you are a liar and very deceitful. If you didn't notice, you haven't proven your god to me so yes you've lost the argument because you have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence for your claims. Instead you've made even more foolish claims to back up the previous failed claims.
BTW you can't claim God gave us logic when you haven't proven God. Logically Truth is above God. You don't understand logic that's why you feel your personal opinion is above reality
@GodKillerAtheist That's not really fair, now is it? I answered your questions in which you incorrectly interpreted the Bible, provided an analogy which you did not elaborate on, defined my God by pointing you to the very book that defines Him, and also consistently called me a lying idiot without a brain or basic logic . Your disbelief is just your own desire to deny God, you haven't provided any evidence to disprove His existence, so who are you to say I'm wrong?
@Shade0591 You're very good at cat and mouse. I guess you have to save face somehow when you've done nothing but lie and act horrible. Bible says>God done it>bible is the word of god because>the bible says so... on and on it's an circular logic at it's best. The bible states very clearly that God is a contradiction and therefore a lie. If you like to lie so much you will worship a lie and that's where you're at not me. I only deny your dishonesty and thats not good in your distorted book
@GodKillerAtheist Josephus is a well known historian to provide historical backing for the New Testament, a number of manuscripts exist on papyrus for books of the NT as well. The Dead Sea scrolls give historical backing for the Old Testament, and if you want an answer to all of those fossils - world flood. To say that the entire book is dishonest and false is childish and proves you know nothing about the text. You can sit there and laugh at me all you want, but you haven't won at all.
@Shade0591 What 150 years after? Give me a break that horse has been beaten to DEATH! 100% of all religious artifacts= Forgeries,
Actually I know too much about the text and that's why. It has never done anything for humanity but cause wars, murder, incest, and pedophilia.
The religious Gangs hold their book higher than the others and they all fight each other to who's book is better. If It's childish to not respect your book of endless violence and endless hatred I would gladly accept that.
@GodKillerAtheist 100%? Do you even realize what your saying? Josephus is the very historian hired by the Romans to document Jewish history and one of the most widely accepted sources for the First Jewish War and the Destruction of Jerusalem, and you're saying his work is a forgery? Wow, your proof? Because I'm pretty sure the professionals have more than your extraneous statement. You can deny the accuracy of a historical text, but at that point your making up your own story too, aren't you?
@Shade0591 BTW the dead sea scrolls contained portions of the old testament. That doesn't prove their validity. I will keep laughing because the proof is what you lack. I want to see more than a dusty old fictional book or another poorly written dusty old fictional book to back up your dusty wrong silly book. I want you to show me some facts of jesus magic or proof of your afterlife claims. It would all be silly if you weren't killing so many people with your beliefs.
@GodKillerAtheist The fact is, we weren't there. These documents are all that we have. You want proof of miracles and afterlife claims. None. We simply provide an answer for you, if you don't take it, we have an answer to that. You give me no answers, you say there is no afterlife and that miracles can't happen even though you haven't and cannot prove that universal negative. You have no authority on the matter of God, because the whole point is that you are His ignorant creation.
@Shade0591 Again with your assumption of God thingy. You keep claiming I'm part of your delusion and yet you fail time and time again to provide any proof supporting anything but your psychosis. You claim that when I claim you don't have any proof is a universal negative, but how so? First off you have no evidence so I'm not the one twisting words up to make it sound like I've actually offered something secondly you've offered no proof besides dusty books that are far from reality.
@GodKillerAtheist By universal negative, I mean that you can't make such a statement about the entire world without being in all places in all times to know that what you say is absolutely true. I give you evidence and you immediately say it's false or forgery. I don't know what you expect if you can't rely on historical evidence. There's a part that comes into the whole religion thing, so I can't prove to you anything about miracles because no man has the authority to do so.
@Shade0591 I don't need to be in all places in the universe to see that you haven't offered me any real proof. Yes you said a scroll had parts of an old book in it. That's not proof of the myths in the book, that's proof that the myth has existed for a long time. And let me add the myth is slightly different so you cant claim accuracy. The only reason I immediately state its a forgery is because the fact it's been know a forgery has been well known for hundreds of years and you haven't caught up
@GodKillerAtheist Almost all scholars say that the Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic and Josephus is even today a widely accepted historian so unless you want to reject all other historical texts such as Plato, Herodotus, etc. you can't say they aren't authentic. However, what if they weren't? What difference does it make to you? I assume you are an atheist and evolutionist which says survival of the fittest. So what is wrong with the scrolls being faked if it improves my survival capabilities.
@bedajo28 Well forensic archaeologists have proven what historians and real scholars have said for hundreds of years about the forgery of the Jewish historian Josephus. BTW Josephus didn't write the Dead Sea Scrolls so you have been fed some misinformation.
I don't think forging your cults deity is survival of the fittest. it's more like manipulating the weak and in that case you would be the weak being bleed dry by the fittest. I always wanted to be a priest they make so much money. =)
@GodKillerAtheist I never heard that information about Josephus being forged and I am interested to hear where you got it. I read my comment and realized I was ambiguous. I didn't mean that Josephus wrote the Old Testament but that he was an outside historian who confirmed the Bible. You still never answered my question however. What difference does it make whether they are faked or not? There is not absolute truth or right or wrong according to your view so none of this should matter.
@GodKillerAtheist You are being quite faux regarding Josephus...all scholars agree this passage refers To Jesus in some regard however because you seem to have knowledge about this, what about the 2nd uncontested passage here? Antiquities of the Jews XX 9.1. Lastly... name a scholar that says the 1st passage does not refer to Jesus at all....I think you will be hard pressed to do so.
@Nytmare8u Sure they do, all the christian scholars in the world do. Now tell me how a JEW who died a JEW saw fictional Jesus do anything when this historian was born in 37CE, a few years after Jesus' supposed DEATH? DID HE SCRIBBLE IT ON HIS DIAPER? IT IS, AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO BE A FORGERY! "Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century"- Dr. Gordon Stein
@GodKillerAtheist Aside from all of your appeals to emotions you seem to not name 1 scholar that says that passage does not mention Jesus....why is that? Seems R.T. France and others who are Josephian scholars disagree........name one scholar because there are only three that disagree in the entire universe. You made pretty good invectives how about naming that scholar?
@Nytmare8u do you know how to read? the forgery does talk about your Jesus-lie BECAUSE ITS A FORGERY plain and simple. josephus was a born about 5 years after Jesus supposedly died. your just spreading this lie because you have no real evidence
I clearly said 3 in the entire world...who cares whether they are Christian or not?...What about where this atheist scholar says regarding Jesus? "That Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" Jesus a Revolutionary Biography P.145
I think secular scholars refute themselves all alone......Hard to be undisputably crucified yet non-existant... :)
@Nytmare8u WOW look who is getting emotional because they couldn't trick me into a off topic made up out of their ass argument. I NEVER said it didnt mention Jesus, YOU did! I CLEARLY stated that Josephus' record of Jesus was a KNOWN FORGERY. this is why Im not required to list any scholars who claim the account was true. Plus that would contridict my point. DUR!
@GodKillerAtheist But what does it matter to you? Assuming you are correct that there is no God then stuff happens and there is no rhyme or reason just DNA and we dance to its music. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the Bible is forged or not because there is no truth just survival of the fittest and I am winning right now because Christians outnumber atheists. If there is no God I can do whatever I want because its just in my DNA and it doesn't matter.
@bedajo28 I think its obvious to see all the fallacies of your comment. The lie of gods actually limit the purpose of life because you are nothing than a toy to a god. DNA is a simple chemical reaction that is self replacating. Ignorance always outnumbers smarts because being stupid is the easy way. It's harder to be smart. It matters to me because your cult retards truth because of its fear of failure, so it creates more and more lies that go against all human progress and life itself
@Shade0591 The whole point of the supernatural is that is beyond observation. If you can't accept it by faith, fine, the option was there. But for you to continue that and say that you can prove that the supernatural is impossible is laughable. Science only deals with variables that it has, you can't pull a variable out of nothing. All that we have is historical evidence from eye witnesses in that time. That's all. There is nothing else to examine. Sorry to disappoint you.
@Shade0591 "supernatural is that is beyond observation. If you can't accept it by faith, fine, the option was there"
What option? To not see? to be blinded by obvious lies that are easily refuted by common sense or by what I can plainly see? Supernatural can be restated as unnatural since it is obscene to reality. Enjoy your obscene world view.
@Shade0591 "Your disbelief is just your own desire to deny God, you haven't provided any evidence to disprove His existence, so who are you to say I'm wrong?"
The problem is I disbelieve because you REFUSE to provide even a speck of evidence. Let me let you in on a little fact. I don't need to provide any evidence against what has no evidence. I don't have to disprove a negative since your penis God disproves itself. I am the person whose intelligence you keep insulting and you are DEAD WRONG!
@GodKillerAtheist Okay, where does the Bible contradict itself? Many times people point these out but often times the problem lies in the reader's inability to interpret the text, which you have already proven in your reading of Revelations. You never asked for a point to provide evidence for, you always came in wanting to beat me and provided arguments on a logical basis. If you wanted me to provide something to support the Bible, it has plenty of historical records backing it.
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
A straw-man is an informal logical fallacy of irrelevancy. Thanks for telling me where I got it from, but I actually got it by reading a book. You're not the first Christian who's arbitrarily dismissed logic as if it's juvenile to demand it. Congrats on being in the club
Said the one who is ironically doing the same thing he baldly accused presuppositional apologetics of doing. Maybe next time you should support your statement before "PRESUPPOSING" IT.
In this case you didn't validate your conclusion you just assumed it and asserted it. You started wih it and ended with it. Thats all I picked up from your statement.
Yes we do, as well I you hold to the negative as your axiom.
I wish you had demonsrated this "dispution".
Thank you for begging the question. You presuposed what you didn't demonstrate...which was precisely my point. Your laughable indeed.
If you think I begged the question anywhere... you need to reread what that fallacy actually is.
Yes I understand TAG, and it's a terrible argument. My epistemology is justified very well, thank you. Naturalism's natural kinds explain induction quite clearly.
Here's some disputed history from the Bible:
Caesar's census of the whole world.
Of course the world makes more sense looking through the Bible if you presuppose it. That's like saying all bachelors are unmarried.
Begging the question(assuming what you are trying to prove). :-)
I really enjoyed you assertions, but it would had been beliveable if you elaborated more.
Next I have no idea what Bible you've been reading that said the "whole world" maybe you should take a lesson in Biblical hermanuetics. Since you didn't provide me with much thats all I could pick from your staement.
Next, postulating a false analogy doesn't prove anything. Learn to provide substance. :-)
@freshmuzic "The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle." Logic. Hurley 9th Edition. 2006 =)
I presuposed the Bible's History and so far everything makes more sense through it.
I am just going to assume you understand the T.A.G argument... being that you still can't justify knowledge in your worldview still. Onlewss you can give me a logical reason for uniformity, orderin theuniverse and why we should expect it to be so and why our minds should be trusted to conclude all of it.
As the bible specifically is one of the most argued and analyzed writings in all of history this is a unique object of critique. A simple comparison to other items in history will display a hugely lopsided amount of evidence found on this subject. There is a huge volume of writings from viable historic figures and cultures parallel to the judeo-christian that verify the events inside the bible.
@mandangalo18 This volume of corresponding texts is such that, if you presuppose the existence of Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, and Alexander the Great combined, you still would not meet the required volume of claims. Presupposing the truth of their existence is a weaker act than doing the same with the Bible.
I don't use commentarys on Livy, or The Bible to to verify the accuracy of the events described therein, and biblical archaeology is anything but verified.
@mandangalo18 I'm not talking about commentaries... I'm talking about referenced text from parallel cultures describing in unison events that take place within both the old and new testaments... Nothing at all like literary critique, its external historical and cultural documentation. Read some McDowell or others like them, there are surprisingly more of them than you would think.
@mandangalo18 Oh really? This is your axiom? Yet you're still making an assertion of the Bibles invalidity? What I see is that you're failing to understand the fact that if you were to totally use this axiom to its fullest in your epistemology then you would have to apply it equally to any kind of truth or value statement. If I say to you that Alexander does not exist, you must say "this may be true, but it may also be true that he does exist"
@mandangalo18 But yet you don't... You're having a problem of thought my friend. If you apply this standard axiomatically you MUST take all assertions of all kinds equally and never presuppose anything, including the existence of your own home, or family, or the body that you live in... But I'm sure that you do absolutely presuppose their existence. You are being selective in its application. As a result you're intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite.
thanks for putting words into my mouth, but you don't know anything about my epistemological axioms. Mine are self-evident, and presups are anything but. The existence of "first humans" is disputed, the Creation story, Caesars census of the whole world, etc... The Bible even contains known interpolation and yet it is presupposed without prior investigation.
When I read the Bible using the same critical thought as when I read Livy, the supernatural claims of both fail, and the history that is known to be wrong from both fails also. It's foolhardy to read Ancient Near East mythemes as historical records. Presups presuppose the primacy of metaphysical subjectivity, and that is an untenable, and laughable, position. Fuck you for calling me dishonest.
Fourthly, Greg says that Socrates was tried on account of bringing new gods, which is COMPLETELY false. I've never heard such a terrible distortion of historical fact. Socrates was tried on corruption of the youth, not on attempts to add to the divinity.
On top of this, saying that the intellectual mindset of the Greeks is the same as the intellectual mindset of "non-believers" in our current time is an unintelligent statement. The statement ignores the fact that the Greeks are only one world culture whereas what Christians refer to as non-believers in our current time are all groups and cultures that do not share the Christian belief system and/or values.
Thirdly, Greg says that this is the most extensive, clear, and explicit encounter between the word of god and the minds of the intellectual world.
This is false, because it cuts out any debate that might have happened as a result of Paul's statements. We do not hear the Greek side of the argument, only Paul's, and that Paul walked away with an unknown number of people believing him as some form of confirmation or inference that he "won" some kind of argument.
Paul knows his greek, that why he quotes Epimenides and Aratus.
The Gospel is spiritually discerned, you respond in faith or don't. There is no counter argument, only foolishness, though we Christians are happy to use logic and evidence to guide inquisitive minds and cast down false arguments.
can you justify believing today and what seems like yesterday that you are who you say and think you are?
where did an atheist like you learn a word like self-justification, and tell me what it means and how you justify believing in concepts like identity and justice (self-justifying) based on an atheist worldview where there would be no justice or concept so called. God is just, and He will have mercy on whom He wills
As the fundamentalist Gleason Archer wrote, "If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested."
He demonstrates some intellectual integrity in saying so; and since the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, ergo it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested, faith or no faith.
Secondly, we are not God's offspring. To be offspring of God, you would have to be directly conceived by him, which I can already say as a fact we are not. Each individual human is the offspring of another set of humans, and the same is so for the parents. If the first human beings were created by God, then the statement would be true for those humans only, not for their offspring, who are the product of human reproduction.
Ok, the first thing I notice about this reading is that he purposely changes the word "religious" with "superstitious." If you look up the definition for Superstitious, it is a very negative term, generally denoting that the individuals lack reason for their beliefs, whereas the word religious, to which Paul refers to the Greeks, is a positive one. So already Greg has set a premise that they are wrong without first saying why they are wrong, by changing the context of what is written.
I'm assuming you found the word deisidaimon in your greek lexicon,.. which Paul uses only in Acts 17 to intend exactly what the Doctor suggests,. very superstitious. In context, Paul is patronizing these men for being ignorant of God, since natural theology provides adequate evidence of God even as their own poets know.
Socrates, in fact, was not tried for pushing new gods. He was tried for "corrupting the youth." In particular, he went around proving to the wisest Athenians that they really had no wisdom at all, and frankly it pissed people off. Read Plato's "Apology" for more info.
"...for inquiring into matters under the earth and in the heavens, and for doubting the existence of the gods and teaching the young to do so as well."
This doesn't read as if "new gods" and "corrupting the youth" were mutually exclusive.
Though I might have a different opinion after reading Plato's "Apology"...Which I will do right after I put down Plato's "Republic";-)
im sure you will. i have read both works. both are great reads! (although the republic has nothing to do with socrates at all). but you may be interested in reading the phaedo, which is the sequal to the apology in which socrates dies. actually i am a philosophy major at UGA and have read numerous platonic dialogues. i was always tought that socrates was tried for "corrupting the youth." actually, socrates makes (positive) allusions to the gods many times in a number of platonic texts.
Paul: God has resurrected Jesus from the dead. Athenian: You're winding me up. Paul: I wind you up not. Athenian: Why isn't Jesus with you? Paul: He had to ascend to heaven to be with God. Athenian: You're winding me up. Paul: I wind you up not. Athenian: When is he coming back? Paul: I'm not sure. Athenian: Send him my way when he does. Paul: It'll be too late then. Athenian: What do you mean? Paul: He is coming back to punish those that don't believe. Athenian: You must be winding me up!
I listened to Dr. Bahsen's " History of Western Philosophy" and his exposition on Calvin's Institutes. I listened to him defend his theonomy against two coasts of Westminsters and heard his last sermon before his surgery and death. I look forward to meeting him in the new creation.
Wow...nice use of a pseudo categorical syllogism. Way to use LOGIC to prove absolutely NOTHING. Continue demonstrating your ignorance in the face of logic and reason.
So your argument is to say I believe the sun revolves around the earth, when I've never said such a thing? That's the worst straw man ever! When you say the sun rose in the morning, shall I call you a moron? Or assume you are using venacular to your point of refference on the earth to the sun. The bible does not advocate the sum revolves around the earth. If you read "Theologian" literature on the bible and science, you would know that. Do some honest research please.
Science is not the end-all and be-all of knowledge. It is not through empirical methods that we come to prove the supernatural. When one only allows empirical methods for investigation of reality, then he has already excluded the possibility of the supernatural from the get-go.
However, I would argue that science relies upon the God of the Bible. No other worldview can justify induction and the uniformity of nature, which are necessities for science.
Paul is misogynistic monster who took a perfectly idealistic view like "love everyone" and turned "defender of the faith" into a battle cry.
If jesus was a harmless fanatic caught in the cross-hairs of powerful men (and lets face it, no one benefits more from mass religious belief than powerful men), then Paul is the dangerous mutilator that is every motivated fanatic who seeks to bring the world crashing to his feat.
The bible has much teach, but you must use your brain to see through it all
If God does not exist then it makes no sense to call Paul a misogynistic monster. The moment you make a moral objection like this, you pull the rug out from underneath yourself.
After all, we're all just bipedal carbon units doing what the laws of physics and chemistry have caused us to do right? Misogynistic monster you say? It's all just matter-in-motion; neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false. It's nature doing what it can only do.
Nice try. The good old free will defense. Matter couldn't possibly act in any non-deterministic way. No sir. Without some god breaking the laws of physics there is no way for a self-aware creature to reflect on its choices. No way at all. Only one thing happens at a time...that's it, no other way.
As for Paul, my comments were intended for a non-literal-mined audience.
homer, If matter is all that exists, it not only destroys free will but all possibility of knowledge as well. There's no reason to think that we are thinking. If only matter exists then there's no reason to even think that only matter exists. It's reduced to absurdity. And to say that matter couldn't act in a non-deterministic way only refutes every argument or claim you make.
Regarding physical laws, I must ask: what is a physical law? Is it material? Where can I get one?
I see no reason to conclude that one cannot think with "only" matter. And I certainly don't see how believing that only matter exists negates the belief that only matter exists.
Regarding physical laws: "Law" is used very sparingly...but more importantly, "law" is used to refer to something that usually seems to be a good model for the way things work.
The "law" of gravity is now more refined beyond Newton, but on a human scale Newton's equations are good enough to make useful predictions.
You see, if only matter exists, then our thoughts (electrochemical processes) are controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry. Just as all ball has no choice but to fall when it is dropped, the brain has no choice but to fire the way it does. If there is no mind or soul in control of a brain then everything we think is is causally determined. There is no way to choice truth or objectively know anything. Your brain happens to be firing atheistically and mine theistically.
If a law is nothing more than the way things usually happen, then that's not a law at all. Why are things going to continue to happen this way? How do we know that they happen this way universally? If our knowledge is based on observation of particulars, as you seem to hold, then there are no laws for God to "break".
Right. And if there are no laws for a god to break, then there is no need for a god.
You suffer under what was known as the "corpuscular view". It postulates a completely deterministic world that is made of very small bits (smaller than atoms) that operate against a backdrop of absolute space.
You have a lot of catching up to do. "Space-time" is not separable from matter and matter and energy are differing exchangeable. And everything is probabilistic at core.
According to YOUR own worldview a law is nothing more than the way things usually happen. So given your presuppositions there is no law for God to break. You also never answered my questions. Why will things continue to happen a certain way and how do you know it's universal? What is your secular answer to the problem of induction?
You go on to name some materialistic philosophy that I don't hold to. I believe in immaterial entities.
Scientists don't claim to know anything until something has been falsified.
When a hypothesis fails to produces reliable predictions about the world, or when it makes untestable claims, then they are quite comfortable is saying science has nothing to say on the matter.
What is always hard to get across to believers is that they ought not to try either. If you believe in the supernatural, then by definition it is beyond the reach of physical investigation.
ever heard of heisenberg, de broglie, plank, bose or einstein? however, there is no need for "god". the world is not completely deterministic. quantum-physics is about propabilities and shows that the classic physics of newton is only usable as an approximation for "heavy" pieces of matter like a baseball for example. even an electron is small enough that it doesn´t behave deterministic, although it has a mass and definitely is matter. it`s also not true that only one thing can happen at a time
I`m sorry. i got didn´t get the sarcasm when you wrote:
"Nice try. The good old free will defense. Matter couldn't possibly act in any non-deterministic way. No sir. Without some god breaking the laws of physics there is no way for a self-aware creature to reflect on its choices. No way at all. Only one thing happens at a time...that's it, no other way.
As for Paul, my comments were intended for a non-literal-mined audience.
about your questions: in my oppinion nothing is "supernatural". some things might seem to be. just like eletricity or magnetism seemed to be 200 years ago. others could just be phantasy. i fully agree with you that a "supernatural realm" would per definition be beyond scientific investigation, because one can only investigate the reality that we live in. but then it would consequently not affect our world. if it would, it should be possible to research it, because of these effects. greetings
Greetings fellow here-now-person, I am sorry for the extended ironic or sarcastic tone, these "other-worlders" are constantly trying the same cases and they try my patience too, so I lash out in the hopes that someone will hear me.
How painfully ironic that a supporter would miss the tone. Knowledge and communication are their own kind of hell at times...(he said with genuine lamentation, no blame or sarcasm).
This struggle will never end until men are born with more brains or are wiped out
as it looks like to me, mankind won´t last long. but the earth survived bigger threats than this and live will go on. at least the insects will survive. perhaps another civilisation will rise out of the ashes and once again invent their gods. really weak personalities seem to need some kind of god to gain forgiveness for their stupid actions and horrible things they have done. the message: "be a slave to an imaginary entity and everything will be forgiven" i think this is why they need it.
listen to Dr Bahnsens vids He answers your objections and no atheist ever defeated Him in debate! (maybe he lost according to irrational atheists) Checkout His debate with Dr Gordon Stein and you will know why he is hailed as "THE MAN ATHEISTS FEAR THE MOST!" Oh, and by the way your argument is arbitrary. GOD BLESS!
to "live for" jesus, is to reject life. You have a life, live it. Believe it, it is the only one you get. To think otherwise is to deny the only chance you get.
Does this mean you have to then be some grasping fuckwad? No! And what is worse the "follower" of jesus is negating this life to the extent that he can do anything and justify it in the name of his cause. He can stand by and claim that "god's will" is at play and do nothing.
homerthompson I had the pleasure of meeting Bahnsen,and I say in all candor, I thank God it was he I met, and that meeting you seems thankfully unlikely
Anyone who fights to impress their atheistic ideals on another, is not a true atheist. Since true atheism ineviably leads to inescapable nihilism, a true atheist should feel no compellation to do or say anything, primarily because what he fights for, is NOTHING.
But that's my point. You're so narrow minded. Without God, without value, what can truth possibly be worth. Nothing changes. YOU have to delude yourself into thinking that that their is a reason to live in order to make it through the day, whether that be to acquire knowledge or to simply have as much pleasure as you can before you bite the dust.
Nihilism means nothing has value, not you nor I or even the term itself, has any meaning, I'm just so tired of arguing with people like you. You just don't get the point. You don't get anything.
Atheism doesn't mean nihilism, nor immorality. I'm an extremely moral person because I want the society I live in to be moral. Society grew long before any of the bibles were writen, how do you suppose we survived without some inate sense of morality.
BTW Religion doesn't equal morallity. Look at the behaviour of countless preachers (ted haggard et al), as well as the reprehesible writings in the bible, koran etc, urging us to stone to death kill and enslave.
Jesus didn't live in the 17th Century, he didn't live in England. The original autographs recording his Aramaic words were written in Greek, not English.
The KJV is based on a comparison of very few, very late MSS, and it is no more and no less the word of God than other good translations ("no less" because the mere handful of translatable differences among the MSS do not affect the outcome of any doctrine of the historic Christian faith). Use KJV or NAS or RSV or whatever and just chill.
Where did Jesus ever say to only use the KJV of the Bible? Obviously He did not.
1)We have many earlier and more accurate manuscripts since the KJV was translated therefore modern Formal Equivalent translations are more accurate to the original than the KJV.
2)There are over 300 words in the KJV that are either not used today or have changed their meaning.
3)Is a non-english speaking person to be deprived of the Bible since he can't read the KJV?
Which KJV? It has been revised many times. I am not referring to the NKJV, I am speaking of the actual KJV that you would buy at a Bible book store. It has undergone change since 1611. I own a copy of the original 1611 edition and it is different than the one you probably have on your shelf. Which one should I use, the 1611 or one of the revisions?
Bahnsen kick ass for the LORD! Atheism doesn't stand a chance! Which is more rational/reasonable? God created the world or nothing created the world? You choose you smart ass atheists! LOL
I don't eat eggs, so I could not really tell you, I have never attempted such a maneuver. In any case I fail to see what relevance that has to the subject at hand.
what subject is that? Your ability to turn children into devil worshipers? You were just trying to be silly, and so was I. So don't start putting your debater pants on now.
Seems you just pointed out a contradiction in the Bible.
Should you take an eye for an eye, or should you offer forgiveness? Should you kill the son of the murderer of your son, or should you offer your other son to him to kill? Which one is it? Why are these contradictory laws in one and the same book?
In the days of the old covenant a command was given by God that certain punishments were to be observed. But after Christ came He (Emanuel) commanded but two Laws. Love God with your entire being, and the second like unto it: Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't be fooled. Educate yourself.
Oh, the irony! It seems that, apart from pointing out a contradiction, you now also proved that God found it necessary to change His law as He saw fit. How is THAT not arbitrary? Why is his law not unchanging?
That said: would it be the right thing to do to love Osama bin Laden, pray for him, and even give him the chance to fly a plane into Sears Tower for good measure?
Why don't you just learn what these verses mean instead of mounting arguments so lame I'm not even tempted to answer? It would be real easy, since you seem to spend all your time on the internet, to do five minutes of research and see why there is no contradiction or inconsistency. If you really can't figure it out and are sincerely interested I'll talk about this, but I doubt your interested in anything but perverting Scripture so you can keep deceiving yourself.
You're creating a "contradiction" where there isn't one. The eye for an eye language is connected with the institution of a criminal code for society, and forgiveness is not societal but personal. The Christian can both forgive his enemy and live in a society whose government rightly punishes evildoers with a criminal code.
What's interesting is that you use the term 'contradiction.' What is 'logic,' in your worldview? Syllogisms can't be weighed or measured.
So...an apologetics expert opens with a verse from the bible? Ha. Hahaha. Are you serious? If you want to defend your faith, present some evidence that god exists. Show us a limb that regrew from faith. Show me some miracle that is absolutely impossible for science to explain. It's very simple.
"This is a class for Christians. Of course he is going to read from the Bible. I would be suspicious if he did not"
The title says "Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews", are you suggesting 'an unbelieving worldview" is a christian worldview?, that sounds contraditory.
I'd be interested to know how the bible can present a problem for people that don't believe the bible. So if you have any points, please present them, i have seen none to date.
Sort of gets rough there...aye?
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
@Nytmare8u
Atheists are known to make claims and not back them up. The same way how they yell, "No, God does not exist!" without providing evidence and quickly claim that the burden of proof is on Christians. They hear other God-haters who say that Josephus's mention of Jesus was forged without doing non-biased research, and once you ask for citations, they fail to provide that information. Typical internet atheists...they're not as bright as they used to be.
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your reaction?
Even if I grant This what about the uncontested 2nd passage by Josephus attested by Hegesippus?
Antiquities of the Jews XX 9.1 and
The History of the Church Concerning the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, from Book V
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
the forgery does talk about your Jesus-lie -GodkillerAtheist
I am being nebulous here?? If you agree it refers to Jesus why are we even disputing this?
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
LOL...2 hours no names...hard to find aye? (Maybe because there are only 3 that exist?)
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
Interpolation is not the same as forgery....
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
Lets shorten this up he is trying to that in acts some ancient person worshiped an "unknown God" and that makes his god right because he claims to know it. BUT!!!! if you ever ask a Theist to COHERENTLY define their God, they cannot! so he is wrong. as shit.
listen to him say god makes stuff and does some crap..bla bla bla..but never actually coherently defines their god so their god is also UNKNOWN!
GodKillerAtheist 10 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist 1. Fix your English. 2. We've said our God created the world in seven days and sent his Son to die for the sins of man. If you want any more information, look in the Bible. After all, the Bible is the Word of God; or if you want me to sound more "neutral", we claim that it is the Word of God.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 1. keyboard mishap, insert insert the word "say" after the first "to"
2. telling me what god thingy done isn't a coherent definition of what God thing a mo-bobber is. If you've read the bible then you would know that God is a contradiction. Alpha and omega / beginning and the end. both contradict each other so logically God by biblical standards is a lie. Now if we want to say God is the word of God then that is the dogmatic plainly immoral ten commandments found in the Jewish Torah
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Not a keyboard mishap, your sentence had a general malfunction in flow of logic. The thing He means by Alpha and Omega is that he is absolute and all powerful with dominion over all things in the world till the end of the world. It doesn't contradict itself, it's the same as if you make a house and tear it down. I never said God is the Word of God, but that the Word of God is His word and if you want answers you can look in there. Did you even see the point I was making?
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 If I call your god thingy a HE it's only because theists like yourself think their god can only exist if it has a penis.
Alpha and Omega doesn't mean that Penis God is all powerful. Alpha is the first letter in the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter. Tell me sir can anything be "A" and "Z" simultaneously without contradicting itself? Any child could see the answer is no.
The only point I see you making that you can't coherently define your god thing. It's obvious you cant
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Actually, the English language always used "he" for the standard neuter pronoun usage until political correctness decided it was time for some awkward confusion. Yes, I am aware that those are the first letters of the Greek alphabet. I'm glad you're educated enough to know that, but do you know what comes after those lines? "The beginning and the end". That's what those lines mean, can you even read two sentences in a row?
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 See I require some evidence and not fantasy you can say I'm rebelling but it's not wrong to rebel against something that is fundamentally wrong.
I'll tell you what I'll believe in your God thingy (what ever that may be) for one day, if for one day you can believe that you can drive your car better with your eyes closed. There is no difference in this analogy. You want me to drive life blindly with faith when all I've asked for is some truth.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist I don't understand what you mean by living life blindly. We simply have different ways of viewing the world. In your analogy, I use my rear view mirrors, you use your side view mirrors. Neither is the entire idea off the table, it is infinitely easier to prove a universal positive than it is to prove a negative. You don't have the authority to rule out the possibility of a God.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 I think you are purposely acting like you're not getting my analogy because you know it's true. You can have faith to believe anything especially lies. Faith is quite a useful tool for liars. Why should I cow down to the yoke of faith when I have the truth of logic that disproves your claims?
Correct, I don't have authority to rule out a possibility of God, but it's because I don't need any authority to do so. All I need is touch of basic logic, a few brain cells and God disappears
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist So you're calling me a liar? Well, I guess that saves you from arguing, but I sort of win in that case. I really didn't understand your analogy because it didn't make sense. I can live life believing in God or not, I just chose to believe. I don't become more likely to die just because I believe in the Bible. Not to mention, you logic hasn't been disproving all of my claims in this argument as you might wish. And logic doesn't remove God if He gave you that in the first place.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 Yes I think you are a liar and very deceitful. If you didn't notice, you haven't proven your god to me so yes you've lost the argument because you have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence for your claims. Instead you've made even more foolish claims to back up the previous failed claims.
BTW you can't claim God gave us logic when you haven't proven God. Logically Truth is above God. You don't understand logic that's why you feel your personal opinion is above reality
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist That's not really fair, now is it? I answered your questions in which you incorrectly interpreted the Bible, provided an analogy which you did not elaborate on, defined my God by pointing you to the very book that defines Him, and also consistently called me a lying idiot without a brain or basic logic . Your disbelief is just your own desire to deny God, you haven't provided any evidence to disprove His existence, so who are you to say I'm wrong?
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 You're very good at cat and mouse. I guess you have to save face somehow when you've done nothing but lie and act horrible. Bible says>God done it>bible is the word of god because>the bible says so... on and on it's an circular logic at it's best. The bible states very clearly that God is a contradiction and therefore a lie. If you like to lie so much you will worship a lie and that's where you're at not me. I only deny your dishonesty and thats not good in your distorted book
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Josephus is a well known historian to provide historical backing for the New Testament, a number of manuscripts exist on papyrus for books of the NT as well. The Dead Sea scrolls give historical backing for the Old Testament, and if you want an answer to all of those fossils - world flood. To say that the entire book is dishonest and false is childish and proves you know nothing about the text. You can sit there and laugh at me all you want, but you haven't won at all.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 What 150 years after? Give me a break that horse has been beaten to DEATH! 100% of all religious artifacts= Forgeries,
Actually I know too much about the text and that's why. It has never done anything for humanity but cause wars, murder, incest, and pedophilia.
The religious Gangs hold their book higher than the others and they all fight each other to who's book is better. If It's childish to not respect your book of endless violence and endless hatred I would gladly accept that.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist 100%? Do you even realize what your saying? Josephus is the very historian hired by the Romans to document Jewish history and one of the most widely accepted sources for the First Jewish War and the Destruction of Jerusalem, and you're saying his work is a forgery? Wow, your proof? Because I'm pretty sure the professionals have more than your extraneous statement. You can deny the accuracy of a historical text, but at that point your making up your own story too, aren't you?
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 BTW the dead sea scrolls contained portions of the old testament. That doesn't prove their validity. I will keep laughing because the proof is what you lack. I want to see more than a dusty old fictional book or another poorly written dusty old fictional book to back up your dusty wrong silly book. I want you to show me some facts of jesus magic or proof of your afterlife claims. It would all be silly if you weren't killing so many people with your beliefs.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist The fact is, we weren't there. These documents are all that we have. You want proof of miracles and afterlife claims. None. We simply provide an answer for you, if you don't take it, we have an answer to that. You give me no answers, you say there is no afterlife and that miracles can't happen even though you haven't and cannot prove that universal negative. You have no authority on the matter of God, because the whole point is that you are His ignorant creation.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 Again with your assumption of God thingy. You keep claiming I'm part of your delusion and yet you fail time and time again to provide any proof supporting anything but your psychosis. You claim that when I claim you don't have any proof is a universal negative, but how so? First off you have no evidence so I'm not the one twisting words up to make it sound like I've actually offered something secondly you've offered no proof besides dusty books that are far from reality.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist By universal negative, I mean that you can't make such a statement about the entire world without being in all places in all times to know that what you say is absolutely true. I give you evidence and you immediately say it's false or forgery. I don't know what you expect if you can't rely on historical evidence. There's a part that comes into the whole religion thing, so I can't prove to you anything about miracles because no man has the authority to do so.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 I don't need to be in all places in the universe to see that you haven't offered me any real proof. Yes you said a scroll had parts of an old book in it. That's not proof of the myths in the book, that's proof that the myth has existed for a long time. And let me add the myth is slightly different so you cant claim accuracy. The only reason I immediately state its a forgery is because the fact it's been know a forgery has been well known for hundreds of years and you haven't caught up
GodKillerAtheist 8 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Almost all scholars say that the Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic and Josephus is even today a widely accepted historian so unless you want to reject all other historical texts such as Plato, Herodotus, etc. you can't say they aren't authentic. However, what if they weren't? What difference does it make to you? I assume you are an atheist and evolutionist which says survival of the fittest. So what is wrong with the scrolls being faked if it improves my survival capabilities.
bedajo28 2 months ago
@bedajo28 Well forensic archaeologists have proven what historians and real scholars have said for hundreds of years about the forgery of the Jewish historian Josephus. BTW Josephus didn't write the Dead Sea Scrolls so you have been fed some misinformation.
I don't think forging your cults deity is survival of the fittest. it's more like manipulating the weak and in that case you would be the weak being bleed dry by the fittest. I always wanted to be a priest they make so much money. =)
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist I never heard that information about Josephus being forged and I am interested to hear where you got it. I read my comment and realized I was ambiguous. I didn't mean that Josephus wrote the Old Testament but that he was an outside historian who confirmed the Bible. You still never answered my question however. What difference does it make whether they are faked or not? There is not absolute truth or right or wrong according to your view so none of this should matter.
bedajo28 2 months ago
@bedajo28 it matters because forgeries don't confirm the bible
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist You are being quite faux regarding Josephus...all scholars agree this passage refers To Jesus in some regard however because you seem to have knowledge about this, what about the 2nd uncontested passage here? Antiquities of the Jews XX 9.1. Lastly... name a scholar that says the 1st passage does not refer to Jesus at all....I think you will be hard pressed to do so.
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
@Nytmare8u Sure they do, all the christian scholars in the world do. Now tell me how a JEW who died a JEW saw fictional Jesus do anything when this historian was born in 37CE, a few years after Jesus' supposed DEATH? DID HE SCRIBBLE IT ON HIS DIAPER? IT IS, AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO BE A FORGERY! "Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century"- Dr. Gordon Stein
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Aside from all of your appeals to emotions you seem to not name 1 scholar that says that passage does not mention Jesus....why is that? Seems R.T. France and others who are Josephian scholars disagree........name one scholar because there are only three that disagree in the entire universe. You made pretty good invectives how about naming that scholar?
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
@Nytmare8u do you know how to read? the forgery does talk about your Jesus-lie BECAUSE ITS A FORGERY plain and simple. josephus was a born about 5 years after Jesus supposedly died. your just spreading this lie because you have no real evidence
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheisT JUST NAME ONE OF THE THREE SCHOLARS....SIMPLE RIGHT?...WHY CAN'T YOU JUST NAME THEM?
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I clearly said 3 in the entire world...who cares whether they are Christian or not?...What about where this atheist scholar says regarding Jesus? "That Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" Jesus a Revolutionary Biography P.145
I think secular scholars refute themselves all alone......Hard to be undisputably crucified yet non-existant... :)
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
@Nytmare8u John Dominic Crossan......
Nytmare8u 2 months ago
@Nytmare8u WOW look who is getting emotional because they couldn't trick me into a off topic made up out of their ass argument. I NEVER said it didnt mention Jesus, YOU did! I CLEARLY stated that Josephus' record of Jesus was a KNOWN FORGERY. this is why Im not required to list any scholars who claim the account was true. Plus that would contridict my point. DUR!
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist But what does it matter to you? Assuming you are correct that there is no God then stuff happens and there is no rhyme or reason just DNA and we dance to its music. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the Bible is forged or not because there is no truth just survival of the fittest and I am winning right now because Christians outnumber atheists. If there is no God I can do whatever I want because its just in my DNA and it doesn't matter.
bedajo28 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bedajo28 I think its obvious to see all the fallacies of your comment. The lie of gods actually limit the purpose of life because you are nothing than a toy to a god. DNA is a simple chemical reaction that is self replacating. Ignorance always outnumbers smarts because being stupid is the easy way. It's harder to be smart. It matters to me because your cult retards truth because of its fear of failure, so it creates more and more lies that go against all human progress and life itself
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@Shade0591 The whole point of the supernatural is that is beyond observation. If you can't accept it by faith, fine, the option was there. But for you to continue that and say that you can prove that the supernatural is impossible is laughable. Science only deals with variables that it has, you can't pull a variable out of nothing. All that we have is historical evidence from eye witnesses in that time. That's all. There is nothing else to examine. Sorry to disappoint you.
Shade0591 9 months ago
@Shade0591 "supernatural is that is beyond observation. If you can't accept it by faith, fine, the option was there"
What option? To not see? to be blinded by obvious lies that are easily refuted by common sense or by what I can plainly see? Supernatural can be restated as unnatural since it is obscene to reality. Enjoy your obscene world view.
GodKillerAtheist 8 months ago 2
@Shade0591 "Your disbelief is just your own desire to deny God, you haven't provided any evidence to disprove His existence, so who are you to say I'm wrong?"
The problem is I disbelieve because you REFUSE to provide even a speck of evidence. Let me let you in on a little fact. I don't need to provide any evidence against what has no evidence. I don't have to disprove a negative since your penis God disproves itself. I am the person whose intelligence you keep insulting and you are DEAD WRONG!
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Okay, where does the Bible contradict itself? Many times people point these out but often times the problem lies in the reader's inability to interpret the text, which you have already proven in your reading of Revelations. You never asked for a point to provide evidence for, you always came in wanting to beat me and provided arguments on a logical basis. If you wanted me to provide something to support the Bible, it has plenty of historical records backing it.
Shade0591 9 months ago
I'd rather Be an unbeliever in bullshit then have this nut cases Apocalyptic world view.
GodKillerAtheist 10 months ago
Presuppositionalism is not low hanging fruit, detractors need to do their homework before embarrasing themselves publicly...
d4024 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
actionjackson864 1 year ago
Bahnsen is intelligent and very good at arguing. Unfortunately, he often overstates his case.
YaWhatIThoughtYa 1 year ago
Pure comedy
Ontologistics 1 year ago
you tell me an awful lot about me that I haven't mentioned. Do you have magical powers? You are very presumptuous.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
it's funny when Christians make fun of me for knowing stuff
mandangalo18 1 year ago
lol now there's the pot calling the kettle black.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@bibliognosthere
A straw-man is an informal logical fallacy of irrelevancy. Thanks for telling me where I got it from, but I actually got it by reading a book. You're not the first Christian who's arbitrarily dismissed logic as if it's juvenile to demand it. Congrats on being in the club
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@bibliognosthere yes I've read some.
telling me what I read is not setting up a caricature? k.
So far on our list we've got
1. straw-man the opposition
check
2. complain when straw-man is identified and disregarded.
check
3. continue to advance straw-man and demand response
check
that's a great way to argue
mandangalo18 1 year ago
how about I set up a caricature of you then blast you for not responding to said caricature? Van Till would be proud.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
I've concluded that presup is a system for evading the burden of proof therefore I've only read rabid evidentialists. That's a good story.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@bibliognosthere
lol thanks
mandangalo18 1 year ago
presuppasitional apologetics is a formalized system for straw manning, wishful thinking, evading the burden of proof, and begging the question
mandangalo18 2 years ago
Said the one who is ironically doing the same thing he baldly accused presuppositional apologetics of doing. Maybe next time you should support your statement before "PRESUPPOSING" IT.
freshmuzic 1 year ago
@freshmuzic
just read any book by Van Till
mandangalo18 1 year ago
Just curious but you didn't validate you didn'tprove your point.... are you "presupposing" it's true again?
freshmuzic 1 year ago
No; a conclusion is not a presupposition.
Presuppositionalists claim the bible as an axiomatic concept; the base of epistemology.
The historicity in The Bible is disputed.
Presupposing the truth of disputed history without prior investigation is a laughable epistemology.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@mandangalo18
In this case you didn't validate your conclusion you just assumed it and asserted it. You started wih it and ended with it. Thats all I picked up from your statement.
Yes we do, as well I you hold to the negative as your axiom.
I wish you had demonsrated this "dispution".
Thank you for begging the question. You presuposed what you didn't demonstrate...which was precisely my point. Your laughable indeed.
freshmuzic 1 year ago
If you think I begged the question anywhere... you need to reread what that fallacy actually is.
Yes I understand TAG, and it's a terrible argument. My epistemology is justified very well, thank you. Naturalism's natural kinds explain induction quite clearly.
Here's some disputed history from the Bible:
Caesar's census of the whole world.
Of course the world makes more sense looking through the Bible if you presuppose it. That's like saying all bachelors are unmarried.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
Begging the question(assuming what you are trying to prove). :-)
I really enjoyed you assertions, but it would had been beliveable if you elaborated more.
Next I have no idea what Bible you've been reading that said the "whole world" maybe you should take a lesson in Biblical hermanuetics. Since you didn't provide me with much thats all I could pick from your staement.
Next, postulating a false analogy doesn't prove anything. Learn to provide substance. :-)
freshmuzic 1 year ago
if I'm begging the question, what was my conclusion and which premise assumed its truth?
I don't need to go into interpretations, I only needed to show that its historicity is disputed. Which I did.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
well, since your making this personal, you win, presups have good epistemology there is a God.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@freshmuzic "The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle." Logic. Hurley 9th Edition. 2006 =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@freshmuzic
lolz nobody made an analogy and nobody begged the question. Did you just look these up in google and decide they sounded like they would work well?
manofthehour690 1 year ago
and thanks for making this personal, very rude of you.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@mandangalo18
I presuposed the Bible's History and so far everything makes more sense through it.
I am just going to assume you understand the T.A.G argument... being that you still can't justify knowledge in your worldview still. Onlewss you can give me a logical reason for uniformity, orderin theuniverse and why we should expect it to be so and why our minds should be trusted to conclude all of it.
freshmuzic 1 year ago
@mandangalo18 Just one note about historicity...
As the bible specifically is one of the most argued and analyzed writings in all of history this is a unique object of critique. A simple comparison to other items in history will display a hugely lopsided amount of evidence found on this subject. There is a huge volume of writings from viable historic figures and cultures parallel to the judeo-christian that verify the events inside the bible.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@mandangalo18 This volume of corresponding texts is such that, if you presuppose the existence of Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, and Alexander the Great combined, you still would not meet the required volume of claims. Presupposing the truth of their existence is a weaker act than doing the same with the Bible.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
I don't use commentarys on Livy, or The Bible to to verify the accuracy of the events described therein, and biblical archaeology is anything but verified.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@mandangalo18 I'm not talking about commentaries... I'm talking about referenced text from parallel cultures describing in unison events that take place within both the old and new testaments... Nothing at all like literary critique, its external historical and cultural documentation. Read some McDowell or others like them, there are surprisingly more of them than you would think.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
and I also don't presuppose the existence of Caesar or Alexander as an epistemological axiom.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@mandangalo18 Oh really? This is your axiom? Yet you're still making an assertion of the Bibles invalidity? What I see is that you're failing to understand the fact that if you were to totally use this axiom to its fullest in your epistemology then you would have to apply it equally to any kind of truth or value statement. If I say to you that Alexander does not exist, you must say "this may be true, but it may also be true that he does exist"
Do you make these observations about the Bible?
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@mandangalo18 But yet you don't... You're having a problem of thought my friend. If you apply this standard axiomatically you MUST take all assertions of all kinds equally and never presuppose anything, including the existence of your own home, or family, or the body that you live in... But I'm sure that you do absolutely presuppose their existence. You are being selective in its application. As a result you're intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
thanks for putting words into my mouth, but you don't know anything about my epistemological axioms. Mine are self-evident, and presups are anything but. The existence of "first humans" is disputed, the Creation story, Caesars census of the whole world, etc... The Bible even contains known interpolation and yet it is presupposed without prior investigation.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
When I read the Bible using the same critical thought as when I read Livy, the supernatural claims of both fail, and the history that is known to be wrong from both fails also. It's foolhardy to read Ancient Near East mythemes as historical records. Presups presuppose the primacy of metaphysical subjectivity, and that is an untenable, and laughable, position. Fuck you for calling me dishonest.
mandangalo18 1 year ago
Fourthly, Greg says that Socrates was tried on account of bringing new gods, which is COMPLETELY false. I've never heard such a terrible distortion of historical fact. Socrates was tried on corruption of the youth, not on attempts to add to the divinity.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
Meletus accuses Socrates of atheism, of not believing in any of the greek gods.
try reading the Apology, its only like 30 pages.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lobotaru 2 years ago
On top of this, saying that the intellectual mindset of the Greeks is the same as the intellectual mindset of "non-believers" in our current time is an unintelligent statement. The statement ignores the fact that the Greeks are only one world culture whereas what Christians refer to as non-believers in our current time are all groups and cultures that do not share the Christian belief system and/or values.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
Thirdly, Greg says that this is the most extensive, clear, and explicit encounter between the word of god and the minds of the intellectual world.
This is false, because it cuts out any debate that might have happened as a result of Paul's statements. We do not hear the Greek side of the argument, only Paul's, and that Paul walked away with an unknown number of people believing him as some form of confirmation or inference that he "won" some kind of argument.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
Paul knows his greek, that why he quotes Epimenides and Aratus.
The Gospel is spiritually discerned, you respond in faith or don't. There is no counter argument, only foolishness, though we Christians are happy to use logic and evidence to guide inquisitive minds and cast down false arguments.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
"Dianetics" is spiritually discerned, you respond in faith or don't. There is no counter argument, only foolishness, though we [Scientologists]...
The Qu'ran is spiritually discerned, you respond in faith or dont...
The Brahma Sutra is spiritually discerned...
The Avesta... you see the point, of course. How on Earth can you think of that as a valid point of view? Nothing is self-justifying.
DevoutAtheist42 2 years ago
" Nothing is self justifying"
can you attest to your own identity?
can you justify believing today and what seems like yesterday that you are who you say and think you are?
where did an atheist like you learn a word like self-justification, and tell me what it means and how you justify believing in concepts like identity and justice (self-justifying) based on an atheist worldview where there would be no justice or concept so called. God is just, and He will have mercy on whom He wills
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
@DevoutAtheist42 ...
Isn't logic self-justifying?
megenoita 2 years ago
As the fundamentalist Gleason Archer wrote, "If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested."
He demonstrates some intellectual integrity in saying so; and since the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, ergo it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested, faith or no faith.
DevoutAtheist42 2 years ago
Secondly, we are not God's offspring. To be offspring of God, you would have to be directly conceived by him, which I can already say as a fact we are not. Each individual human is the offspring of another set of humans, and the same is so for the parents. If the first human beings were created by God, then the statement would be true for those humans only, not for their offspring, who are the product of human reproduction.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
"we are not Gods offspring"
your argument is with Paul, who twice in Acts 17 uses 'genos' to describe our relationship to God. Your definition of offspring isnt in my lexicon.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Ok, the first thing I notice about this reading is that he purposely changes the word "religious" with "superstitious." If you look up the definition for Superstitious, it is a very negative term, generally denoting that the individuals lack reason for their beliefs, whereas the word religious, to which Paul refers to the Greeks, is a positive one. So already Greg has set a premise that they are wrong without first saying why they are wrong, by changing the context of what is written.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
I'm assuming you found the word deisidaimon in your greek lexicon,.. which Paul uses only in Acts 17 to intend exactly what the Doctor suggests,. very superstitious. In context, Paul is patronizing these men for being ignorant of God, since natural theology provides adequate evidence of God even as their own poets know.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Socrates, in fact, was not tried for pushing new gods. He was tried for "corrupting the youth." In particular, he went around proving to the wisest Athenians that they really had no wisdom at all, and frankly it pissed people off. Read Plato's "Apology" for more info.
jsredmon 2 years ago
Found this on Wikipedia:
"...for inquiring into matters under the earth and in the heavens, and for doubting the existence of the gods and teaching the young to do so as well."
This doesn't read as if "new gods" and "corrupting the youth" were mutually exclusive.
Though I might have a different opinion after reading Plato's "Apology"...Which I will do right after I put down Plato's "Republic";-)
congalocke 2 years ago
im sure you will. i have read both works. both are great reads! (although the republic has nothing to do with socrates at all). but you may be interested in reading the phaedo, which is the sequal to the apology in which socrates dies. actually i am a philosophy major at UGA and have read numerous platonic dialogues. i was always tought that socrates was tried for "corrupting the youth." actually, socrates makes (positive) allusions to the gods many times in a number of platonic texts.
jsredmon 2 years ago
AnnRKey 3 years ago
and?
8675965 2 years ago
What?
AnnRKey 2 years ago
I listened to Dr. Bahsen's " History of Western Philosophy" and his exposition on Calvin's Institutes. I listened to him defend his theonomy against two coasts of Westminsters and heard his last sermon before his surgery and death. I look forward to meeting him in the new creation.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Ive learned much from Dr. Bahnsen myself. The guy above (lobotaru)is rebutting him, with no one to defend. I think I might give it a go.
drewski1gba 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no self-esteem + no self-confidence + no idea of how things work = religion
Cromwell523 3 years ago
Wow...nice use of a pseudo categorical syllogism. Way to use LOGIC to prove absolutely NOTHING. Continue demonstrating your ignorance in the face of logic and reason.
violetember 3 years ago
so you believe that the sun revolves around the earth and call that logic and reason? funny ^^ btw: i didn´t try to prove anything
Cromwell523 3 years ago
So your argument is to say I believe the sun revolves around the earth, when I've never said such a thing? That's the worst straw man ever! When you say the sun rose in the morning, shall I call you a moron? Or assume you are using venacular to your point of refference on the earth to the sun. The bible does not advocate the sum revolves around the earth. If you read "Theologian" literature on the bible and science, you would know that. Do some honest research please.
violetember 3 years ago 2
Science is not the end-all and be-all of knowledge. It is not through empirical methods that we come to prove the supernatural. When one only allows empirical methods for investigation of reality, then he has already excluded the possibility of the supernatural from the get-go.
However, I would argue that science relies upon the God of the Bible. No other worldview can justify induction and the uniformity of nature, which are necessities for science.
Victoruto 3 years ago
Amen Victoruto
jeffpoet 3 years ago
Paul is misogynistic monster who took a perfectly idealistic view like "love everyone" and turned "defender of the faith" into a battle cry.
If jesus was a harmless fanatic caught in the cross-hairs of powerful men (and lets face it, no one benefits more from mass religious belief than powerful men), then Paul is the dangerous mutilator that is every motivated fanatic who seeks to bring the world crashing to his feat.
The bible has much teach, but you must use your brain to see through it all
homerthompsonman 3 years ago 2
If God does not exist then it makes no sense to call Paul a misogynistic monster. The moment you make a moral objection like this, you pull the rug out from underneath yourself.
After all, we're all just bipedal carbon units doing what the laws of physics and chemistry have caused us to do right? Misogynistic monster you say? It's all just matter-in-motion; neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false. It's nature doing what it can only do.
...Unless God exists of course.
Victoruto 3 years ago
Nice try. The good old free will defense. Matter couldn't possibly act in any non-deterministic way. No sir. Without some god breaking the laws of physics there is no way for a self-aware creature to reflect on its choices. No way at all. Only one thing happens at a time...that's it, no other way.
As for Paul, my comments were intended for a non-literal-mined audience.
You need to try to think a little deeper, Vic.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
homer, If matter is all that exists, it not only destroys free will but all possibility of knowledge as well. There's no reason to think that we are thinking. If only matter exists then there's no reason to even think that only matter exists. It's reduced to absurdity. And to say that matter couldn't act in a non-deterministic way only refutes every argument or claim you make.
Regarding physical laws, I must ask: what is a physical law? Is it material? Where can I get one?
Victoruto 3 years ago
I see no reason to conclude that one cannot think with "only" matter. And I certainly don't see how believing that only matter exists negates the belief that only matter exists.
Regarding physical laws: "Law" is used very sparingly...but more importantly, "law" is used to refer to something that usually seems to be a good model for the way things work.
The "law" of gravity is now more refined beyond Newton, but on a human scale Newton's equations are good enough to make useful predictions.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
You see, if only matter exists, then our thoughts (electrochemical processes) are controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry. Just as all ball has no choice but to fall when it is dropped, the brain has no choice but to fire the way it does. If there is no mind or soul in control of a brain then everything we think is is causally determined. There is no way to choice truth or objectively know anything. Your brain happens to be firing atheistically and mine theistically.
Victoruto 3 years ago
If a law is nothing more than the way things usually happen, then that's not a law at all. Why are things going to continue to happen this way? How do we know that they happen this way universally? If our knowledge is based on observation of particulars, as you seem to hold, then there are no laws for God to "break".
Victoruto 3 years ago
Right. And if there are no laws for a god to break, then there is no need for a god.
You suffer under what was known as the "corpuscular view". It postulates a completely deterministic world that is made of very small bits (smaller than atoms) that operate against a backdrop of absolute space.
You have a lot of catching up to do. "Space-time" is not separable from matter and matter and energy are differing exchangeable. And everything is probabilistic at core.
If you are curious, read...
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
According to YOUR own worldview a law is nothing more than the way things usually happen. So given your presuppositions there is no law for God to break. You also never answered my questions. Why will things continue to happen a certain way and how do you know it's universal? What is your secular answer to the problem of induction?
You go on to name some materialistic philosophy that I don't hold to. I believe in immaterial entities.
You name some
Victoruto 3 years ago
Scientists don't claim to know anything until something has been falsified.
When a hypothesis fails to produces reliable predictions about the world, or when it makes untestable claims, then they are quite comfortable is saying science has nothing to say on the matter.
What is always hard to get across to believers is that they ought not to try either. If you believe in the supernatural, then by definition it is beyond the reach of physical investigation.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
ever heard of heisenberg, de broglie, plank, bose or einstein? however, there is no need for "god". the world is not completely deterministic. quantum-physics is about propabilities and shows that the classic physics of newton is only usable as an approximation for "heavy" pieces of matter like a baseball for example. even an electron is small enough that it doesn´t behave deterministic, although it has a mass and definitely is matter. it`s also not true that only one thing can happen at a time
Cromwell523 3 years ago
So are you refuting something I said or agreeing with me?
Are you arguing "for" or "against" the scientific investigation of the supernatural?
I certainly never claimed only one thing can happen at once (Heisenberg etc).
Just in case you are confused:
I am an atheist.
I often argue the limits of science (Philosophy of Science).
I always argue that the supernatural realm (if there is such a thing) is beyond scientific investigation.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
I`m sorry. i got didn´t get the sarcasm when you wrote:
"Nice try. The good old free will defense. Matter couldn't possibly act in any non-deterministic way. No sir. Without some god breaking the laws of physics there is no way for a self-aware creature to reflect on its choices. No way at all. Only one thing happens at a time...that's it, no other way.
As for Paul, my comments were intended for a non-literal-mined audience.
You need to try to think a little deeper, Vic."
Cromwell523 3 years ago
about your questions: in my oppinion nothing is "supernatural". some things might seem to be. just like eletricity or magnetism seemed to be 200 years ago. others could just be phantasy. i fully agree with you that a "supernatural realm" would per definition be beyond scientific investigation, because one can only investigate the reality that we live in. but then it would consequently not affect our world. if it would, it should be possible to research it, because of these effects. greetings
Cromwell523 3 years ago
Greetings fellow here-now-person, I am sorry for the extended ironic or sarcastic tone, these "other-worlders" are constantly trying the same cases and they try my patience too, so I lash out in the hopes that someone will hear me.
How painfully ironic that a supporter would miss the tone. Knowledge and communication are their own kind of hell at times...(he said with genuine lamentation, no blame or sarcasm).
This struggle will never end until men are born with more brains or are wiped out
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
as it looks like to me, mankind won´t last long. but the earth survived bigger threats than this and live will go on. at least the insects will survive. perhaps another civilisation will rise out of the ashes and once again invent their gods. really weak personalities seem to need some kind of god to gain forgiveness for their stupid actions and horrible things they have done. the message: "be a slave to an imaginary entity and everything will be forgiven" i think this is why they need it.
Cromwell523 3 years ago
listen to Dr Bahnsens vids He answers your objections and no atheist ever defeated Him in debate! (maybe he lost according to irrational atheists) Checkout His debate with Dr Gordon Stein and you will know why he is hailed as "THE MAN ATHEISTS FEAR THE MOST!" Oh, and by the way your argument is arbitrary. GOD BLESS!
8675965 2 years ago
im not afraid of greg bahnsen.. yes and he never convinced any
sawsin69 2 years ago
to "live for" jesus, is to reject life. You have a life, live it. Believe it, it is the only one you get. To think otherwise is to deny the only chance you get.
Does this mean you have to then be some grasping fuckwad? No! And what is worse the "follower" of jesus is negating this life to the extent that he can do anything and justify it in the name of his cause. He can stand by and claim that "god's will" is at play and do nothing.
Shame on you fools. Jesus was a fanatic at best.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
homerthompson I had the pleasure of meeting Bahnsen,and I say in all candor, I thank God it was he I met, and that meeting you seems thankfully unlikely
thebibliognost 3 years ago
Ah what wonderful loving words from yet another believer! So fantastically articulate in their hatred of this life and those in it!
And if you will re-read your own comments, the implication is that if you had met me you would be following me instead.
Perhaps you need to lead your own life, instead of looking outward all the time.
No go, and sin no more.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Anyone who fights to impress their atheistic ideals on another, is not a true atheist. Since true atheism ineviably leads to inescapable nihilism, a true atheist should feel no compellation to do or say anything, primarily because what he fights for, is NOTHING.
Merkkyrr 3 years ago
mm i like that. they're fighting for nothing lol
andeee77 3 years ago
"primarily because what he fights for, is NOTHING. "
No Merkkyrr, your nihilism is quite wrong.
Atheists don't believe in god, but they have the exact human emotions you have.
Atheists don't 'fight against nothing' unless you call your religion nothing.
mindwis3 3 years ago
Actually I think you'll find that atheists are "fighting" for objective truth.
Theists fight for subjective dogma.
I am reminded of Andrew Lang, if you'll allow me to paraphrase.
Theists use evidence the way drunks use lampposts, for support rather than illumination.
tmcthree 3 years ago
But that's my point. You're so narrow minded. Without God, without value, what can truth possibly be worth. Nothing changes. YOU have to delude yourself into thinking that that their is a reason to live in order to make it through the day, whether that be to acquire knowledge or to simply have as much pleasure as you can before you bite the dust.
Merkkyrr 3 years ago
Nihilism means nothing has value, not you nor I or even the term itself, has any meaning, I'm just so tired of arguing with people like you. You just don't get the point. You don't get anything.
Merkkyrr 3 years ago
I understand what it means to truly believe in nothing. if you did, you would lose yourself too, because not even that would matter.
Merkkyrr 3 years ago
Atheism doesn't mean nihilism, nor immorality. I'm an extremely moral person because I want the society I live in to be moral. Society grew long before any of the bibles were writen, how do you suppose we survived without some inate sense of morality.
BTW Religion doesn't equal morallity. Look at the behaviour of countless preachers (ted haggard et al), as well as the reprehesible writings in the bible, koran etc, urging us to stone to death kill and enslave.
tmcthree 3 years ago
No, you are narrow minded. You're ideas of truth are constrained by a book written thousands of years ago when man was in his infancy, and it shows.
People like me are truly open minded, free from the shackles of the medieval barbarism advocated by your books.
Ours is the universe and all its wonder and truth. Yours is the burning bush and the talking snake. Grow up.
tmcthree 3 years ago
"makes me wonder why you discuss with me at all, no point to."
Cause I don't hold your worldview. I do believe that your debating makes sense, but only when my worldview is presupposed.
"am merely using my 'impossible' rational to choose the most likely explanation available."
Not possible with your worldview. You do not have the ability to choose at all.
There is no way for you to know the most likely explanation. You are no different than a weed growing.
Victoruto 3 years ago
He disputed not reasoned
ALL Modern Bible Versions are Corrupt!
Act 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
dunhova 3 years ago
Considering Bahnsen was well tought biblical greek. I'll take his word for it over yours.
MRKetter81 3 years ago
It's not my word it's Jesus' word.
Get a King James Bible please.
dunhova 3 years ago
Jesus didn't live in the 17th Century, he didn't live in England. The original autographs recording his Aramaic words were written in Greek, not English.
The KJV is based on a comparison of very few, very late MSS, and it is no more and no less the word of God than other good translations ("no less" because the mere handful of translatable differences among the MSS do not affect the outcome of any doctrine of the historic Christian faith). Use KJV or NAS or RSV or whatever and just chill.
Tancred2006 3 years ago
Where did Jesus ever say to only use the KJV of the Bible? Obviously He did not.
1)We have many earlier and more accurate manuscripts since the KJV was translated therefore modern Formal Equivalent translations are more accurate to the original than the KJV.
2)There are over 300 words in the KJV that are either not used today or have changed their meaning.
3)Is a non-english speaking person to be deprived of the Bible since he can't read the KJV?
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Which KJV? It has been revised many times. I am not referring to the NKJV, I am speaking of the actual KJV that you would buy at a Bible book store. It has undergone change since 1611. I own a copy of the original 1611 edition and it is different than the one you probably have on your shelf. Which one should I use, the 1611 or one of the revisions?
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Bahnsen kick ass for the LORD! Atheism doesn't stand a chance! Which is more rational/reasonable? God created the world or nothing created the world? You choose you smart ass atheists! LOL
Klaratu 3 years ago
I will turn all your children into Satan-worshiping Pagans.
Harpakhrad11 4 years ago
Judging from your comment, I doubt you can turn an omelet.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago 2
I don't eat eggs, so I could not really tell you, I have never attempted such a maneuver. In any case I fail to see what relevance that has to the subject at hand.
Harpakhrad11 4 years ago
what subject is that? Your ability to turn children into devil worshipers? You were just trying to be silly, and so was I. So don't start putting your debater pants on now.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
The subject was whether I can turn your children into Satan-worshiping Pagans. Not about eggs.
Sorry, I am starting to get annoying.
Harpakhrad11 4 years ago
Well, people are really quite ignorant of the Word of God.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
IRQ1Conflict 4 years ago
Seems you just pointed out a contradiction in the Bible.
Should you take an eye for an eye, or should you offer forgiveness? Should you kill the son of the murderer of your son, or should you offer your other son to him to kill? Which one is it? Why are these contradictory laws in one and the same book?
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago 2
In the days of the old covenant a command was given by God that certain punishments were to be observed. But after Christ came He (Emanuel) commanded but two Laws. Love God with your entire being, and the second like unto it: Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't be fooled. Educate yourself.
IRQ1Conflict 4 years ago
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Rom 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
IRQ1Conflict 4 years ago
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
IRQ1Conflict 4 years ago
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
IRQ1Conflict 4 years ago
Ugh, 500 word limit sucks. Read Luke Chapter 6. And don't forget the prophecy in the Bible as well.
fulfilledprophecy(.)com
IRQ1Conflict 4 years ago
Oh, the irony! It seems that, apart from pointing out a contradiction, you now also proved that God found it necessary to change His law as He saw fit. How is THAT not arbitrary? Why is his law not unchanging?
That said: would it be the right thing to do to love Osama bin Laden, pray for him, and even give him the chance to fly a plane into Sears Tower for good measure?
Also: is genocide morally right?
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago 2
Wow, a5dr3 just schooled you. I would leave after that kind of bitch slapping.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
Why don't you just learn what these verses mean instead of mounting arguments so lame I'm not even tempted to answer? It would be real easy, since you seem to spend all your time on the internet, to do five minutes of research and see why there is no contradiction or inconsistency. If you really can't figure it out and are sincerely interested I'll talk about this, but I doubt your interested in anything but perverting Scripture so you can keep deceiving yourself.
a5dr3 4 years ago
@ pioer'
You're creating a "contradiction" where there isn't one. The eye for an eye language is connected with the institution of a criminal code for society, and forgiveness is not societal but personal. The Christian can both forgive his enemy and live in a society whose government rightly punishes evildoers with a criminal code.
What's interesting is that you use the term 'contradiction.' What is 'logic,' in your worldview? Syllogisms can't be weighed or measured.
Tancred2006 3 years ago
So...an apologetics expert opens with a verse from the bible? Ha. Hahaha. Are you serious? If you want to defend your faith, present some evidence that god exists. Show us a limb that regrew from faith. Show me some miracle that is absolutely impossible for science to explain. It's very simple.
DeimosSaturn 4 years ago 2
This is a class for Christians. Of course he is going to read from the Bible. I would be suspicious if he did not.
Perhaps you better finish the video and do some research on presuppositionalism and transcendental argumentation before you make ignorant comments.
Victoruto 4 years ago
"This is a class for Christians. Of course he is going to read from the Bible. I would be suspicious if he did not"
The title says "Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews", are you suggesting 'an unbelieving worldview" is a christian worldview?, that sounds contraditory.
I'd be interested to know how the bible can present a problem for people that don't believe the bible. So if you have any points, please present them, i have seen none to date.
mindwis3 4 years ago