ATHEISTS LOGIC ACCORDING TO ME: MAGIC MONKEYS CLIMBED OUT OF THE TREES AND THEY WERE THERE TO EXPERIENCE THIS PROCESS AS HUMAN BEINGS. THEY ALSO EXPERIENCE THE BIG BANG. THEY ALSO BELIEVE IN GUESSES JUST AS MUCH AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON DOES, HMMMM! ACCORDING TO DARWIN'S THEORIES ( GUESSES ) UNICORNS COULD HAVE EXISTED ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION OF HORSES.
@yessua9ibnallah (science/self-correcting) "does it means that it can be wrong?"
Y'know what, fuck you, if that's the kind of tactic you want to play. It's cheap & pathetic. If there was a Creationist Apologetics handbook that would on the first page. If you want to undermine science be my guest, but you can throw all your medicine in the bin, trash your PC, your car, your radio & your TV, enjoy believing the world is flat, next time you break a limb you can just saw it off.
@MrLittletomdj Well, Science is by definition always correction itself. That is WHAT YOU SAID not me. Self-correction means that in the previous state of "science" it was WRONG. Plain and simple u cant' correct things that are correct!!! By moronic logic, IF YOU said that science is self-correcting then it has to be WRONG in the fist place. This line is supported by SECULAR sources, like major Universities (easily found in the web), history and secular academia. DO UR RESEARCH!
"Immaterial" the word you actually want is "conceptual." "Immaterial" is a nonsense term. The laws of logic are conceptual, which actually precludes them from being universal, just like math, language, information and God. These things only exist within minds.
It's a lot harder to achieve an unbiased realization when one is part of a collective based on dogmatic beliefs. Loyalty to any system of belief is not logical. Loyalty breeds contempt for those outside of that belief. This is why unfounded beliefs such as religious beliefs cause division, distrust and war among people as well as nations. The "believer" is at a loss to categorize the "non believer", this is why many theists desperately attack atheists, to provoke a response in order to label.
@daNDayati I thought some atheists would be mad at me for saying logic is not universal. I just think that absolutes are too close to dogma. As for arguing god: I think some people are too far gone to ever be convince but some may need the support of knowing others have similar views and they are not alone. Growing up in Utah, I really thought I was a mad man screaming into the wind sometimes. Not until college and the internet did I realize other people have similar ideas.
No bind at all. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, it has no other stance.
Doesn't matter if its about logic or maths, morality or ethics, sociology or politics, or any science from the big bang to evolution. None of these are anything to do with atheism, and individual atheists can have whatever position they want on any of those other subjects.
For atheism, there is only one pertinent question. "Do you have enough evidence to believe in any god". Answer :no.
Logic is immaterial, Universal & unchanging (perhaps not "omniversal"?). What you're clearly angling at is presupposing that logic requires faith comparible to faith in God. The difference is you can make testible predictions with 100% accuracy by applying logic to well researched data & scientific laws. The accuracy of the predictions are the evidence that laws are true! Faith produces conflicting, irratic predictions & isn't based on evidence. Remember that EVIDENCE!!!
@MrLittletomdj lol, you cannot prove the laws of logic. They are assumed through expereince. well, how do you know that your senses give you acurate data about the world? you can't, to do so would be circular. so, basically you take your belief in logic on faith. just because they are predictable does not make them true. they are merely reasonable assumptions or axioms, like my belief in God.
@lilrat489 You can't use logic if you don't trust your base senses. Can you touch it, can you hear it, can you feel it etc. Does 2+2=4? I don't have to "know" that my senses accurately represent my existence. If I had to question that, they'd be no point in investigating anything. You're response is nothing but an infuriating symantic ploy. Assertions based on logic are reasonable. Claims based on faith that contradicts logic aren't. There's no comparison between my "faith" & yours.
@MrLittletomdj "I don't have to "know" that my senses accurately represent my existence"
you are missing the point entirly. my point is that belief in God is like my belief that my senses give me accurate information about the world. this belief is not a scientific belief, but a metaphysical belief. logic by the way is not scientific, science is based upon logic or assumptions regarding how reality operates. assumptions based on experience, which is why they are assuptions.
@lilrat489 I'm not missing the point. I know about the philosophical concept of the synthesized universe & it's pointless to even consider it in any epistomelogical arguement. You're playing games with absolutes & I don't care for it. If you're going to stretch knowledge through these abstactions, there's no point in arguing. If you deny the validity of logic, what's the point in making a logical arguement? Reality is defined by the senses. You're talking out of your ass, stop it!
@MrLittletomdj "You're playing games with absolutes", how do you know that they're absolutes? or are you assuming that. logic is based upon what we experience, that is how we gain knowledge of logical truths. you can't get around that.what I am simply saying is that we cannot know if those experiences are true or not, we have to trust that they are true. unless we are given a reason to deny them. virtualy all philosphers hold this view. so I don't really get what you're talking about.
@lilrat489 "we have to trust that they are true. unless we are given a reason to deny them.". That's exactly right! We trust our base senses, logic 101. I have no reason to doubt what I can see & touch. These senses require no further investigation. There's no point in questioning if reality is real because that would negate the definition of reality. Are we clear yet? Yahwey, on the other hand, is in utter conflict with logic & evidence so it is unreasonable to assert that it exists.
@MrLittletomdj My belief in God does not conflict with logic. My belief in God is based in expreience or a immedient knowledge. it is a faith because I trust in this experience as true, unless given reason not to believe. this does not mean that God exists, just as my sense data regarding reality does not prove they are true. they are assumed to be true. I am not denying that they are true. I'm simply saying that there is uncertainty. which is were reasonable faith/axioms come in.
@lilrat489 (Please clarify) Is your God, the God of the Bible? If it is, then it's unreasonable to suggest that it exists. If you kept that belief to yourself I would have no issue, but you're proselytizing that belief without evidence. If you're suggesting that we live in some kind of matrix then, there's no point in discussion or investigation. The axiom for determining what you see is true is a million miles away from your belief in God. Again, what are God's attributes?
@MrLittletomdj "The axiom for determining what you see is true is a million miles away from your belief in God". really? given that both are based in experience, I think not. current theories in physics suggest that our reality might actually be a matrix or is based upon something immaterial: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww .considering work done by Lee smolen etc. it is very possible. and yes, I believe in the God of the bible. now, just curious, why is by belief in the biblical God unreasonable?
@MrLittletomdj Who is a bigger proselytizer, lilrat or atheist. Are atheist proselytizing in the name of science? If you definition of proselytizing is expressing ones belief without evidence, then who among atheist have all the evidence necessary to disregard the existence of God? no even the smartest of men can propose having all the evidence or knowledge necessary to propose God non-existence much less to proselytize in favor of science. At the end is it a choice, ur choice.
@yessua9ibnallah I never said the definition of proselytizing is expressing one's belief without evidence but, if you wan't a positive claim to be taken seriously you must provide evidence. I only have a problem with people proselytizing unsubstantiated, harmful beliefs.
I can show you many Biblical logical contradictions
Science has mountains of evidence to support it
There's tons of evidence showing religion is dangerous
Belief isn't a choice & you haven't defined God either
@MrLittletomdj, science has demonstrated to have even more contradictions than what you claim of the Bible. The contradictions of "science" are an historical fact and even occur in our time. The nature of science is discovery and is bound to have contradictions, even when "facts" support contradictory positions in science. then do you have a problem too with science? or you believe science has no contradictions? do you think science has not demonstrated to be dangerous too?
@yessua9ibnallah Science is a self correcting sytem. It's a method, not an answer. If hypothesies contradict it searches for new ideas, it doesn't allow for contradictions & that's the whole point. The Bible, on the other hand, is clearly 95% bullshit yet it's set in stone & will never progress. Stupid people, religions and politics are dangerous. Nobody ever burned a witch, stoned a homosexual, started a war or dropped a bomb because science told them to. Stop saying dumb shit.
@MrLittletomdj What is self-correcting any way according to you? does it means that it can be wrong? Also you tend to refer Science as a thing (meaning knowledge as a whole) and a system (scientific method) at the same time, try to keep it simple (chose one approach) to make it clear.
@yessua9ibnallah Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science IS the method. Hypothesies can be wrong & science weeds out flawed hypothesies. "Self-correcting" is the discription of an entitys ability to correct its own mistakes. Would it really have been that difficult for you to do 10 minutes worth of research to establish those defnitions? Sorry, but you're annoying me.
@MrLittletomdj Here is my 10 SECONDS of research, to find out how little u know. Berkeley University Museum site, explains in simply what is GOOD science. No need for fancy words or derogatory language, they seam somehow more humble than u in their approach. They say: The scientific method (i.e. hypotheses are formulated from observations...), sometimes cited as the one and only way that science is conducted, IS NOT the paradigm that scientific inquiry must always follow...
@MrLittletomdj About science being a method and systematic enterprise The University of Georgia, Geology Department site says: "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions."
@yessua9ibnallah Continuing with your definition about science being a method and systematic enterprise, is clear that you have a major confusion of terminology, confusing what science is with one of the methodologies that science uses to achieve it's goals, namely the scientific method. There are more than one definition of science, but yours is plain a confusion of terminology. Please follow your own advice before answering my questions.
@MrLittletomdj Additionally, Berkeley University Museum site is plain and straight with regards to the existence of God (in my words the realm of belief) and Science: "Opinions are neither fact nor theory; they are not officially the domain of science (but don't go thinking that scientists don't have opinions — they are only human, and opinions often help to guide their research). Thus, science cannot directly address such issues as whether God exists or whether people are good or bad."
@MrLittletomdj My friend, May be you find me annoying, for some reasons. U need to prove you have and idea of what you are saying before starting to imply you have a superiority of knowledge. Your attitude toward people can sometimes speak louder than your "fact and data". Keep it humble.
@MrLittletomdj About the self-correction of science, you are right!!! Science is WRONG by default, Berkeley University says: ["Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality...while "the Earth orbits the Sun," or "evolution occurs over time," or "gravity exists" are all today considered to be both facts and theories (and could possibly turn out to be WRONG).] Hence, science can never be an absolute truth, Science is the best HUMAN approximation to reality, and can be wrong.
@yessua9ibnallah You're a pain in the arse, you really are. Your description of science is just a long winded elaboration of what I said in the first place, but you're too fuckin' stupid to realize it. Don't talk to me about manners & humility when the entirety of your rhetoric has been a sly, disrespectful & arrogant piss in the face of the giants on who's shoulders you comfortably sit. Take your inane, poorly conceived, worthless, solopsistic approach to reality & fuck off.
@MrLittletomdj It looks like you have a problem with Berkeley and Georgia University definition, which are the ones in my answers. You really did not read my comments or just cant really understand. It is your knowledge and manners that are insignificant, sorry to tell you.
@MrLittletomdj you clarified the "if", but failed to answer the "then" of the question "who among atheist have all the evidence necessary to disregard the existence of God?" can you answer?
@MrLittletomdj, I also have a problem with proselytizing unsubstantiated, harmful beliefs. Do you think that what the guy in this vid is saying is "harmful and unsubstantiated", can you please clarify in what way it is harmful?
@yessua9ibnallah Belief is a compulsion. For example you don't "choose" to believe the sky is blue.
The guy in the vid is asking questions, not asserting truth & therefor has nothing to substantiate. Its obvious to me that he's playing diliberate semantic games to bolster the credibility of his religion. The doctrine of which is filled with everything from rape to baby killing & genocide. The propergation that book has ruined thousands of peoples lives & that's why it's harmful.
@MrLittletomdj Do u "choose" believe the sky is blue? Well you did "chose" to believe it, because "scientifically" speaking is has no color... in another 10 SECONDS of research here is what I found "much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky... Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue", I need to say it, u ar pathetic.
@MrLittletomdj In the free world you, you don't NEED evidence to ASK questions, neither in science. You just ask you questions. Unless you are a totalitarian, you should understand that questions are questions, and you don't need to answer them, however the people who answer must have support of their claims and so far your answers to my questions have no support but your own.
@MrLittletomdj Again u have a major confusion between what IS Religion and what PEOPLE DO with it. Does the fact that the atomic bomb, and the theory behind (developed by the use SECULAR science and technology) and the subsequent killing of more people in one day that all the previous modern wars (even religious wars) means Science most not be use because is evil? Certainly not, because it is clear to everyone what science is in essence opposed to what people do with it.
@MrLittletomdj Continuing, so for a fair and justly comparison, try to compare what Christianity IS with what science IS, and what people DO with Christianity (good and bad) with what people DO with science (good and bad).
Comparing what science is with what BAD people do with the knowledge in Christianity is a reflection of prejudice and ignorance.
Yes, but whether or not certain evidence convinces someone isn't a conscious choice..Certain evidence either convinces someone or it doesn't..I don't consciously decide when there's enough evidence. It just kinda clicks when there is enough.
Only simple minds claim it's as simple as making a choice. Belief isn't a choice, and it shouldn't be a choice. If belief was a choice, then our beliefs would basically be based on whatever we wanted to believe. Our beliefs wouldn't be based on evidence and reasons, only on what we wanted to believe. If someone tells you an amazing story, and you don't believe it, does that mean you're choosing not to believe it?
@itzahazylife If belief is not a choice then what is it? define belief to start with?
To answer, I haven't rule-out evidence & reason as part of the information that supports belief, but belief at the end is a conscious choice a person makes, the amount of evidence and reasoning involve in this choice is up to the person. The teller of the story in your question has evidence to support his claim, the hearer needs to decide whether he has evidence to claim he has the same belief.
@steveoho I don't think I made a statement to the contrary or made any value judgements on the nature of faith. However, I will say that the presupposition that our senses are trust worthy to some degree, is the only pragmatic approach for discerning the truths about our universe & investing further. I'm a critical rationalist & think that metaphysical solopsism is a useless position. My point was that faith in God is not on equal footing to faith in science.
@MrLittletomdj The uniformity of nature and the continuity of the laws must be assumed. I think its an overstatement that one can never be 100% accurate (or at least know that they're 100% accurate). Our science is more description and prediction. We'll never know why what we observe is the way it is...
I'd also add that believing in science's efficacy needn't deterrent one in believing in the existence of God. Many have become believers by seeing the hand of God in everything
@steveoho "Our science is more description and prediction." The validity of science is because of it's capacity to make predicitions. String theory is an extremely messy form of mathematics that is only taken seriously because of the predictions it's made. Scientists at the LHC are confident that they will be announcing the discovery of the Higgs Boson in a matter of months. This is a testament to the validity of science. As for science deterring the belief in God... (continued)
@steveoho (Part 2) I'd submit the lack of Theistic scientists as evidence to the contrary. Moreover you're not arguing for some Pantheistic or Deistic God but, you're talking specifically about the Christian God & it's a no small stretch from the apparency of telos & meaning to get to Jesus, Adam & Eve, The 10 Commandments etc. The uniformity of nature is not assumed, it's evident.
"We'll never know why what we observe is the way it is".
@MrLittletomdj >>I'd submit the lack of Theistic scientists as evidence to the contrary.
Correlation does not imply causation. There could be numerous reasons to explain this. I would say the adherence to evolution and bashing all who disagree and keeping them out of education is a factor.
>>The uniformity of nature is not assumed, it's evident.
It would take absolute knowledge to say that its not assumed. The early moments of the universe did not hold to the laws of physics.
@steveoho Correlation is evidence non the less. The people who get bashed are those who have the nerve to undercut the scientific method of peer review. This is not a conspiracy. They get bashed for thier disrespect of a discipline that massively benefits mankind.
All tests, thus far, have supported the unchanging nature of the universe. The only assumption we make is that our base senses are accurate to some degree. The claim is falsifiable. Just provide evidence to the contrary.
@MrLittletomdj Correlation is evidence... but for what is the question. The consumption of ice cream is correlated with shark attacks... it clearly doesn't cause it. In this case one mitigating factor is that family is more important to religious people and family life and career life/ extended education don't mix all that well.
>>disrespect of a discipline
only topic i know Christians question is evolution.... some throw out science incorrectly, but evolution is their only beef
@steveoho Evolution is a fundamental part of science. The study of biology would fall apart without it, as would medicine. We wouldn't understand paleontology, geology, anthropology, vaccines, genetics or biodiversity without it. Once you obliterate those, next goes chemistry & physics, because they all form in an intricate web. There's no good evidence that disputes evolution, just a political agenda that is being fought by scared, pious Creationists that aren't qualified to speak.
Do you disagree with my statement that the initial moments of the universe did not operate by the laws of physics as we know them? I mean it might be that there was something we don't understand about these laws which would explain it, but to all appearances they were in flux.
@steveoho (2nd response) Of course the origin of the universe is something we don't understand. That's the whole point of science... TO DISCOVER!
That's why "God did it" is not an answer.
You can either come with & support the people that are really looking for answers or you can hold everyone back with your presupposed deity. Why are you fervently clinging on to this ancient mythological God figure? It doesn't suit you.
@MrLittletomdj >>That's why "God did it" is not an answer.
You realize that whether God created the universe or not we'd still be discovering how it was done, right? Also, if wrong then you're digging in the wrong spot.
As for evolution... creationists always go against macro-evolution, something that has remarkably poor evidence. They're not aiming to kill science. If you'd prefer making up a fairy tale about how its created and call it science be my guest.
@steveoho As I said before. If when you say "god" you mean a force, prime mover, an intelligence or a consciousness of some sort that would be within the realms of plausibility. But that's not what you're talking about. So please don't play this game with me. Actually there's mountains of evidence for macro-evolution & it's qualitatively the same as micro but creationists either purposefully misuse or simply misunderstand the distinction.
@steveoho Too many to list. I'll spare the moral issues for now.
The universe is 12-14 billion yrs old & contains well over 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Do you really think that the creating force behind that impregnated a virgin woman, to give birth to himself incarnate so he could tell some illiterate, desert dwelling, goat herders vague parables about morality that aren't applicable to modern day society, yet forgot to mention DNA, germs or dinosaurs?
@steveoho Well I'm thick skinned, so I don't take much emotionally. I'm no believer in Christ so passaages like [2 Chrn15] wind me up. I've got several gay friends so the infamous [Lev18:22] angers me. I don't like baby killing or ripping open pregnant women [Isa13/Hos13/2 Kings15] or slavery [Lev25:44-46/Exo21/Eph6:5] or animal cruelty[all of Leviticus] or murder & genocide. watch?v=IABptlAhyJw
The fact that Christianity values faith over deeds & love of thier own family [Mat10:34-39]
@MrLittletomdj Not to disagree, but "love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom 13:10). And James says that a faith that has no deeds is dead (if you really believed it you'd act on it). In the epistles its said that whoever does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever. Jesus said that his family is whoever does the will of God. Not all want to be a part of that family because he exposes their heart. Surely when you look at Jesus you see that he was good, yes?
@MrLittletomdj Interesting clip... I might have one to share later on. Do you know why these deaths offend you so much? If you considered these people evil, guilty of terrible crimes, would you object as much?
@steveoho I'm not offended. These were tribal wars & the only guilt was of primitive thinking & adherence to brainwashing idealogies. It takes systems of control in adverse conditions to persuade people to do such things. No unafraid, content & sane person has ever considered war. I can't believe you picked Rom13 as your rebuttal as it's my gripe with theocracy in a nutshell. "Faith without deeds is dead", but deeds without faith are good as ever. (continued)
@MrLittletomdj >>No unafraid, content & sane person has ever considered war.
Not sure if any of those have ever existed for more than a few moments :)
>>deeds without faith are good as ever
Nope, leads to pride and discord. Just look at "religious" environmentalists... fail to do as much as them to erase your footprint on the planet and you're scum. Or those who impede science are castigated severely. Right religion comes from first acknowledging sin and the need for a savior
@MrLittletomdj >>No unafraid, content & sane person has ever considered war.
Not sure if any of those have ever existed for more than a few moments :)
>>deeds without faith are good as ever
Nope, leads to pride and discord. Just look at "religious" environmentalists... fail to do as much as them to erase your footprint on the planet and you're scum. Or those who impede science are castigated severely. Right religion comes from first acknowledging sin and the need for a savior
You also need to agree on what good is otherwise you get one of the most discombobulated systems of all time... which is what I'd say modern moral systems are. They have a sense that there is such a thing as good, but are very confused on saying anything definitively. And you're still judged despite your confusion... its a religious system that gives no explanation for itself... worse than any other religion in my opinion.
@steveoho Jesus condoned slavery (according to the Bible) & all the gospels were written after his death. No first hand testimonies!
Why would the creator of the universe care if we didn't pay taxes?
Some of your responses have irritated me but, the question of moral objectivity is really interesting. To attain an understanding of objective morality without God all you have to do is decipher what is mutually beneficial for social creatures living in a world that requires equilibrium.
@MrLittletomdj On slavery - I'd like to see where he approved of it. Jesus' mission was to save people from their slavery to sin. Jesus could have led a rebellion to change society... God could have even come down in power to demand it. God isn't looking for outward conformity... he wants your heart to be in line with your actions. Only when a person sees that they have nothing to boast of and yet see that they have incredible worth do they live rightly
@steveoho "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear" Eph6:5 & a similar quote in Col3:22. Aren't you supposed to be a slave to Christ? Isn't Christ the same as the God of the old testament who repeatedly talks about slavery in detail? The same god that murdered Aron's children for "offering strange fire & left Aron to die on a mountain for subversion?"God could have even come down - to demand it"?? Well what about Jesus casting out the moneychangers in Mat21 or Mark11?
@MrLittletomdj The term for slaves used for Christians is bond servant... sim to slaves set free in the OT who then chose to become part of the master's household. As to other slavery I've already said that God's priority is to set you free in your heart first... though first you'd have to realize that your heart is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked".
As to the Mat21/Mark11 they are in ref to fulfilled prophecy "den of thieves" "zealous for my house".
@MrLittletomdj >>all the gospels were written after his death
Yes, either by eye witnesses or in some cases (like Mark/Luke) the testimony of eye witnesses.
>>mutually beneficial
Some use to claim that they were doing their slaves a favor by being their masters. If that is true then that would be mutually beneficial. Some rulers stamp out dissidents to make it better for all in the long run. Do you distinguish good (beneficial) and good (moral)?
@steveoho Eye witnesses? Then why are they exclusively written from a third person perpective? Mathew & Luke where plagiarized from Mark (90% in Mathews case, who's Author was doing little more than correcting the countless geographical & historical errors). Mark (the oldest of the four) & was written no earlier than 70AD as it talks about the Jewish war with Rome. Luke rips off Josephus which places him at least 100AD. They contradict each other.& none claim to be 1st hand testimony.
@MrLittletomdj I'm not sure what you mean by rips off Josephus or the Roman war. If you're talking about the temple being destroyed then you're beginning with the assumption that miracles don't/can't happen rather than on evidence. The spread of the documents and the ability to compare differences among documents allows us to piece the originals and show timelines.
As to the synoptics I'll admit that its possible they compared notes, but that isn't proven. 90% overestimates it
@MrLittletomdj Luke claims to be second hand and is the most detailed and well backed on details. John's author claims first hand. And all external evidence points to the apostle Matthew writing Matthew and Peter, through Mark, writing Mark. You can also look at Paul's writing and see evidence of 1 Cor 15:3-8 shows early evidence of a tradition that places within just a short period of Jesus' death. Also, no contradictions.
An unelected authority is a dictatorship & NO it's not mutually beneficial to the slave ever. There's an objective truth that no sane man wants to suffer. And no sane man that is not suffering wants to die. Inflicting suffering & death=bad. It's that simple. Society is little more than a social contract between people who reap the benefits from it. dictatorship encourages dissent. I can't believe you wrote that.
If you want to carry the mutual beneficial argument you could say the master clothes/feeds/cares for them and they in turn do labor (sort of like we have no problem using work animals)... or you could simply ask what is deserved at which point everyone, but the theist must make something up. You know the truth (that all have intrinsic value), but you must arrive there some other way (and maybe fudge when you don't like all its entanglements)
@MrLittletomdj As to unelected authority... though he could say I made you and everything you have (including the intelligence you're using to argue with me) is from Him. He has a right to do with that which is his just as it is ours to cut down a tree that we don't want or could use. Yet He is good, patient not wanting any to perish. He offers eternal life (knowing and being in fellowship with God) to those who'd trust Him. He grants those who refuse their right to go to hell
@steveoho Well, I disagree on virtually every one of your most recent points. I'll entertain a discussion via PM as requested. This discussion has miandered in the comments section long enough. I'd like to flesh out some of the things I've written anyway. Be warned though, my PMs are long!
@steveoho (part 2) Gandalf was good & so was Jefferson, but Jefferson wasn't the son of of God & Gandalf wasn't real. I'm not going to start believing in a barbaric fairy tale based on the fact that the "character" of Jesus was a relatively good guy. I can't believe that the creator of the universe who fashioned the human genome, the rings of Saturn & Milky Way would talk about lawsuits, money & slave ownership.
@MrLittletomdj I'm not sure where you get that Jesus was something other than depicted by witnesses in the Bible or that there was anything bad about him... it honestly confuses me.
And why can't you believe that the God who created the grandiose of a universe in such incredible detail would not personal and care about mankind?
Yeah, you might as well ask if a dog is hyperbolic? Or is a drum representable? You are applying words that don't fit the situation. Is logic material? Too funny.
As for 2 and 3. Changing or unchanging: our interpretation of logic changes. My logic is different than Socrates logic, if that is change then yeah it changes. Universal or not universal: basically number 2 rehashed, my logic is different than someone else's so no, it is not universal.
I find it quite funny that many atheists, it seems, don't know the laws of logic. I'm sure there are videos about it guys, or try Wikipedia...a philosophy dictionary...
logic is an abstract concept and as such is immaterial (not a physical object made up of matter), since logic must be applied to a myriad of situations it must be unchanging and universal to retain relevance between instances.
While I would like to respond it would only be through text. In other news, on an artistic level, the music makes it very hard to concentrate on what you're saying and makes the whole thing feel distracted, at least at its current volume level.
The questions are logical fallacies considering the fact that he is assuming that we know at the moment or even can know the answers to these questions.
You atheist now lets think for a minute what if you are wrong and you come face to face with God what ever would you say to God? What about the writer of a Witch and the Wardrobe he was a atheist and he set out to prove God did not exist and you know what happened to him he is now a christian because he came to the conclusion that God does exist through the research him did.
I will answer your question with a question of my own. What if you discover that you are wrong, and come face to face with Allah, or Zeus, or Shiva, or Amaterasu after you die?
As for C.S. Lewis, I love the Chronicles of Narnia but I found his proofs for god to be woefully underwhelming.
@SquallAKALeon Lol your argument from pluralism is woefully underwhelming. Give me a reason to believe in Zeus and I will. I'm Greek by the way so good luck ;)
@M3PanoS Aaaaaaaand you don't see a contradiction here? You don't see how I can just as easily ask for a reason to believe in YHWH/Jesus? Or whatever it is that you specifically believe in if you do indeed hold specific theistic beliefs?
@SquallAKALeon No because there is NO contradiction here. Ask me, and I'll give you an answer. It's up to you whether it meets your expectations. It did for me, so if it doesn't for you, I think there's another underlying problem, not intellectual skepticism like atheists claim...
@M3PanoS I'm asking. What are the reasons that anyone should believe that the christian god exists AND all other gods do not? Demonstrating BOTH parts of the question are paramount here.
@adam3251 Among others, the main reason why someone should believe in the Christian God is because the Bible holds truth claims on reality. Because these truth claims are verifiable and testable, one can test the Bible against what is seen. If it passes, you can affirm it as true, if it doesn't, then throw it out.
You can do the same test with other religious texts if they make similar claims -if they don't, there's little reason to even look at them.
@M3PanoS Even if the Bible had truth claims, and I am not conceding the point, then it doesn't follow that it would be automaticly true when it makes claims for or about and gods. Each claim must be evaluated on its own merits so your reason is invalid. So what claims does it make for or about god that are based in evidence?
@adam3251 Actually, the natural truth claims would also affirm the supernatural ones because (1) in order to make natural claims of the future, you'd need a supernatural source; and (2) to disaffirm supernatural claims, you would essentially say they are lies, when everything else you've read is truth. You need a reason to do that...
The claims it makes about God are evidenced in the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
@M3PanoS 1. This is a logical deduction and it is flat out wrong. I can make naturalist claims about the future and it requires no supernatural powers. For example: You will die. That is a claim and it required no powers. 2. This is also flatly not true. You take each claim of fact on its own merit. If a book (which is all the bible really is) makes 26 claims (A to Z) then if one or more is false it has no bearing on the rest. Any combination of any number could be true/false.
@adam3251 1. Lol, you're trivializing my initial statement on purpose. Anyone can make future claims based on prior knowledge, which is all you did -you didn't make a claim about future baseless of natural knowledge. Many of the claims in the Bible are of this nature.
2. Ok, by your logic, if you're going to take every claim on its own merit, how will you judge if the supernatural claims are true when you can't test them in the natural sense? You'll just throw them away?
@M3PanoS 1. I am not sure what you mean by "natural knowledge", but I will concede that the bible makes claims about future events. 2. Yes, you are correct, fully and completely. You just them out. If you can not verify a claim then you have no business saying that it is a true claim.
@adam3251 1. By natural knowledge, I mean predicting that you will die in the future is not special, since everyone knows this -if you told me a specific date and by what method, this might be special, although you could have pre-meditated that. :P
2. But if the natural claims about the future come out to be true, you have to concede that they came from a supernatural source. And if that same source that made those claims makes other claims, you have good reason to believe them.
@M3PanoS No, I don't have to concede that. You have to: 1. Demonstrate that such claims exist. (a point I will concede is true off the bat) 2. Demonstrate that they are true and free from tampering (a feat which is not possible to do) AND that the claims are supernatural.
@adam3251 OK...easy enough. There are prophetic claims in the OT about future events and most importantly about the Messiah. Were these tampered with? If I can prove the claims were made before said events occurred, it doesn't matter if there were slight grammatical errors or the like because the claims were still made before the event...and I have proof that they were indeed made before a lot of prophecies were fulfilled...the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@adam3251 If you don't think these claims are supernatural, simply meaning beyond natural cognition, I would really love to know what your theory is on where they came from. Either way, it would be in your best interest to listen to them simply because of the reason that these prophets were able to do something you haven't...
@M3PanoS I agree that there are prophetic claims in the OT so that point is conceded off the bat. Can you demonstrate the the fulfillment of these prophecies were accurately reported in the New Testament? Matthew was certainly familiar with these prophecies. How do you intend to demonstrate that he, or the other writers, didn't fabricate the events? How do you intend to demonstrate that the subsequent editors didn't alter the texts? If you can't adequitly answer these questions then...continued
@adam3251 part 2 ...there is doubt. Even if I grant that the prophecies were fulfilled (I don't), AND that they were accurately represented (I don't). Then it is up to you to demonstrate that they were of supernatural origin. I don't have to prove that they weren't or provide alternate explanations (I could if you press the issue though). You are making the claims here prove your assertion on the supernatural origin. We already agree that these claims were written by PEOPLE.
@adam3251 [3/4] No, it is not up to me to prove to you if the prophecies were of supernatural origin. If you honestly look and discern that they came to be fulfilled, then, like I explained to you before, I would like for you to give me a reason as to why you SHOULDN'T trust the words contained within the Bible.
@adam3251 [4/4] Like I also previously stated, supernatural here only means that they were able to do something that couldn't have been done using purely naturalistic devices. I feel like I'm simply repeating myself. I've laid out the methodology for you; all that's left is to go analyze the prophecies and Scripture for yourself in as objective a manner as possible. Peace and God bless.
@M3PanoS How do you know that they couldn't have done it naturally? Astrologers do this. So do people who read tea leaves and goat entrails. I don't think any of these processes (including the biblical ones that you refuse to demonstrate) provide any useful information.
@adam3251 Astrologers do no such thing. They make vague claims that in turn can be interpreted in a plethora of ways. I'm sure you think the Bible's claims fit this same archetype, however, some of the claims in the Bible were so specific that they talked about events to happen where the geo-political structure at that time wasn't even remotely close to being set up as to allow them to pass.
@adam3251 [1/2] First off, even if Matthew was familiar with the prophecies that does nothing to question the reliability of the other writers, so don't even try to lump them into the same boat. However, I wouldn't even question Matthew since he died a martyr's death.
And also, Paul, who wrote a large bulk of the NT converted from being a Christian prosecutor -surely he did not know the prophecies at the time of conversion.
@adam3251 [2/3] I already inadvertently answered your questions about if the Biblical texts were edited or not by pointing you to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think the accuracy of current translations when compared with the Scrolls comes to about 99.5%...so there goes that objection.
@M3PanoS No sir. I never once questioned the accuracy of the Dead Sea scrolls nor did I ever mention their being edited so the 99.5 figure is rather pointless.. Paul gave no testimony on the life of Jesus so he is out. He did not witness any of it. Matthew's death has no bearing on the truthfulness of his writings. All of my objections still stand completely unanswered.
@adam3251 It is one thing for a man to die having wrongly believed that a lie is truth and wholly another for a man to fabricate a lie and die for it knowing full well that it is -in all its splendid glory- a lie.
What I'm getting at with the 99.5% accuracy figure is that it gives us sufficient reason to conclude that the texts have been passed on unaltered.
Take Paul out and you still have the Gospels and Peter. And Mark predates Matthew.
@adam3251 If you never questioned the accuracy of the OT, then I guess you're problem isn't even with prophecy then -according to the NT it was fulfilled. I'm guessing it's the fact that these prophecies couldn't have been fulfilled UNLESS the NT writers purposely forged the documents to fit them. Like I explained though, Matthew was the only one aware of these prophecies (I"m taking that fact on good faith btw), and the majority of them died gruesome martyrs' deaths.
@M3PanoS@M3PanoS The most parsimonious explanation is that the texts were either inaccurate reporting on the life of Christ, such non-canonical documents are legion, or that the Gospels were edited later to show the fulfilled prophecies. The matter if their deaths has no bearing on their truth claims, you assert this but it is fallacious.
@adam3251 Of course the simplest explanation would be that they were wrong in their reporting -maybe that's why there were so many so-called messiahs walking around at that time lol...
Yes, how you die has a huge deal to do with your truth claims. You try being slain for something you don't believe in. If you think it's true, you probably will be willing -now it's up to me to decide whether your faith was rightly placed or not since I can look back at the events that took place and judge.
@M3PanoS My conclusion is as close to being historically supported as is possible in the ancient world. You are placing a special burden on the Bible that you do not place on other ancient historical texts. By your logic, we wouldn't be able to prove the existence of anyone before the 17th century. I think this stubbornness has to do more with the implications of if these testimonies are true than actual intellectual objections...
@M3PanoS No, that is not true at all. I do not reject their statements. I provisionally believe ancient documents as being as close to accurate as we are going to get. When it comes to fantastic statements those are going to get a tough reading. I believe an ancient document about the lives of the Egyptians, but if that document stated that people could breath fire, I would find that dubious. I think your stubbornness has to do more with a desire to believe than actual intellectual conclusions.
@M3PanoS Are you also implying that Marshall Applewhite, the leader of the heaven's gate cult who also died for his believes is also vindicated and proven correct by the method of his death, this is the implication of your statement.
@adam3251 NO that is NOT the implication of my statement. Stop strawmanning my position and go re-read my statement with more acuity.
Marshall Applewhite had NO reason to believe his position was correct outside of his own lunacies. There were no miracles, no supernatural events, no nothing, to substantiate his beliefs.
Also, he, along with his loons, killed themselves. The NT writers were martyred -huge difference.
@M3PanoS "The NT writers were martyred -huge difference." The earliest hagiographies are from the 3rd century and the lives of the disciples were later than that, so your assertion here is at best not fully historically supported. It doesn't matter. Now it is I that is repeating himself. How one dies has nothing to do with the truthfulness of ones claims. None. Not in the least.
I have a question for you; You're that guy on On The Box, right? Well, how does any of this prove Jesus? No, I don't want to know how this proves that there might be a god. I'm already open to that possibility. I want to know specifically how this proves Jesus... at all?? Even if you succeed in convincing me of the possibility of a god you still have the up-hill battle of proving to me that Jesus is this god/son of this god/'the way, the truth and the etc.'
@mrpamayer What are you referring to as IT. If you are referring to GOD as IT....then you are very RIGHT. GOD CAN NOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED!. If you are referring to IT as being MATH.....My question to you again is....Who do you think created MATH....GOD IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS....as well as MATH. MATHAMATICS is the discovery of what God has created....in number and letter form. Its a language that many do not understand. God is responsible.
@gospelgirl1964 Maths, it isn't something you create. Nor is god, if a god existed it would be a) very simple, b) a product of evolution or c) not really a god......a and b fit in c as well, so I think you have to agree with me that, on the balance of probability, there isn't a god.
@mrpamayer First of all...it not MATHS....just math. So there ya go. Re: God. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. And in his Son Jesus Christ, Our Lord, by whom all things were made. And in the Holy Spirit, the giver of life!!!!
@gospelgirl1964 It's 'it is' or 'it's', not just 'it', as in "it is not maths" not "it not maths", but that isn't the point, maths or math (non-americans hate the term math) wasn't created, don't blame me, I wasn't the one who didn't create it, or you could say I was.
It's simple. Logic describes the mechanics of definitions. Statements that follow from the laws of logic are true by definition of the premises. The laws of logic are like the laws of addition, 1+1= 2. It's true because it's defined as true. The laws of logic change when we discover another property of the definitions that we hadn't previously noticed. Our perception of the mechanics changes, not the actual behaviors themselves.
Same old tired argument - Logical truths exist outside of man, therefore there must be a God. So how does that prove ONE god and not TWO gods or n gods. Silly, silly argument.
@AgApE010 Atheism is simply a disbelief in god, it requires no proof, Just as a disbelief in Zeus requires no proof. There isn't much to pay attention to. This argument was trying to prove there is a God (the old transcendental argument for god). Even if you accept it as valid, which i don't, it still doesn't prove a god of the bible, or a specific god or a single god.
ATHEISTS LOGIC ACCORDING TO ME: MAGIC MONKEYS CLIMBED OUT OF THE TREES AND THEY WERE THERE TO EXPERIENCE THIS PROCESS AS HUMAN BEINGS. THEY ALSO EXPERIENCE THE BIG BANG. THEY ALSO BELIEVE IN GUESSES JUST AS MUCH AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON DOES, HMMMM! ACCORDING TO DARWIN'S THEORIES ( GUESSES ) UNICORNS COULD HAVE EXISTED ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION OF HORSES.
MrMaDelirious 3 hours ago
Woah great music.
Daghead 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yessua9ibnallah (science/self-correcting) "does it means that it can be wrong?"
Y'know what, fuck you, if that's the kind of tactic you want to play. It's cheap & pathetic. If there was a Creationist Apologetics handbook that would on the first page. If you want to undermine science be my guest, but you can throw all your medicine in the bin, trash your PC, your car, your radio & your TV, enjoy believing the world is flat, next time you break a limb you can just saw it off.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Well, Science is by definition always correction itself. That is WHAT YOU SAID not me. Self-correction means that in the previous state of "science" it was WRONG. Plain and simple u cant' correct things that are correct!!! By moronic logic, IF YOU said that science is self-correcting then it has to be WRONG in the fist place. This line is supported by SECULAR sources, like major Universities (easily found in the web), history and secular academia. DO UR RESEARCH!
yessua9ibnallah 1 month ago
"Immaterial" the word you actually want is "conceptual." "Immaterial" is a nonsense term. The laws of logic are conceptual, which actually precludes them from being universal, just like math, language, information and God. These things only exist within minds.
cyxgun 2 months ago
Logic is the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Logic is NOT what we see on YouTube.
IF the damsel that came to Isaac was a bethula (A), THEN her name was Rebekah. (B) Gen 24:15-16.
IF the damsel's name was Rebekah (B), THEN she was an almah (C). Gen 24:43.
THEREFORE, IF the damsel that came to Isaac was a bethula (A), THEN she was an almah (C).
A -> B
B -> C
├ A -> C
Valid
Ridicule and prejudice are logic, but they reign as "logic".
PrinceWalter 3 months ago
* are NOT logic
PrinceWalter 3 months ago
It's a lot harder to achieve an unbiased realization when one is part of a collective based on dogmatic beliefs. Loyalty to any system of belief is not logical. Loyalty breeds contempt for those outside of that belief. This is why unfounded beliefs such as religious beliefs cause division, distrust and war among people as well as nations. The "believer" is at a loss to categorize the "non believer", this is why many theists desperately attack atheists, to provoke a response in order to label.
123backinyerface 3 months ago
1. Laws of logic? No. They are rules.
2. Personal convictions are not indicators of truth.
Conservative Christian Logic:
watch?v=UDBYGXWMAOw
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@daNDayati
Rightyho! stay cool then :-)
chthonios 4 months ago
@daNDayati I thought some atheists would be mad at me for saying logic is not universal. I just think that absolutes are too close to dogma. As for arguing god: I think some people are too far gone to ever be convince but some may need the support of knowing others have similar views and they are not alone. Growing up in Utah, I really thought I was a mad man screaming into the wind sometimes. Not until college and the internet did I realize other people have similar ideas.
NucularRobit 4 months ago
@daNDayati
No bind at all. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, it has no other stance.
Doesn't matter if its about logic or maths, morality or ethics, sociology or politics, or any science from the big bang to evolution. None of these are anything to do with atheism, and individual atheists can have whatever position they want on any of those other subjects.
For atheism, there is only one pertinent question. "Do you have enough evidence to believe in any god". Answer :no.
chthonios 4 months ago
Logic is immaterial, Universal & unchanging (perhaps not "omniversal"?). What you're clearly angling at is presupposing that logic requires faith comparible to faith in God. The difference is you can make testible predictions with 100% accuracy by applying logic to well researched data & scientific laws. The accuracy of the predictions are the evidence that laws are true! Faith produces conflicting, irratic predictions & isn't based on evidence. Remember that EVIDENCE!!!
MrLittletomdj 5 months ago 10
@MrLittletomdj
Couldn't have worded it better myself. You sir, are a pro.
I owe you a bagel or summat, cause cookies are bad for you.
YetAnotherInfidel 4 months ago
@MrLittletomdj lol, you cannot prove the laws of logic. They are assumed through expereince. well, how do you know that your senses give you acurate data about the world? you can't, to do so would be circular. so, basically you take your belief in logic on faith. just because they are predictable does not make them true. they are merely reasonable assumptions or axioms, like my belief in God.
lilrat489 3 months ago in playlist More videos from rationalresponder
@lilrat489 You can't use logic if you don't trust your base senses. Can you touch it, can you hear it, can you feel it etc. Does 2+2=4? I don't have to "know" that my senses accurately represent my existence. If I had to question that, they'd be no point in investigating anything. You're response is nothing but an infuriating symantic ploy. Assertions based on logic are reasonable. Claims based on faith that contradicts logic aren't. There's no comparison between my "faith" & yours.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj "I don't have to "know" that my senses accurately represent my existence"
you are missing the point entirly. my point is that belief in God is like my belief that my senses give me accurate information about the world. this belief is not a scientific belief, but a metaphysical belief. logic by the way is not scientific, science is based upon logic or assumptions regarding how reality operates. assumptions based on experience, which is why they are assuptions.
lilrat489 3 months ago
@lilrat489 I'm not missing the point. I know about the philosophical concept of the synthesized universe & it's pointless to even consider it in any epistomelogical arguement. You're playing games with absolutes & I don't care for it. If you're going to stretch knowledge through these abstactions, there's no point in arguing. If you deny the validity of logic, what's the point in making a logical arguement? Reality is defined by the senses. You're talking out of your ass, stop it!
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj "You're playing games with absolutes", how do you know that they're absolutes? or are you assuming that. logic is based upon what we experience, that is how we gain knowledge of logical truths. you can't get around that.what I am simply saying is that we cannot know if those experiences are true or not, we have to trust that they are true. unless we are given a reason to deny them. virtualy all philosphers hold this view. so I don't really get what you're talking about.
lilrat489 3 months ago
@lilrat489 "we have to trust that they are true. unless we are given a reason to deny them.". That's exactly right! We trust our base senses, logic 101. I have no reason to doubt what I can see & touch. These senses require no further investigation. There's no point in questioning if reality is real because that would negate the definition of reality. Are we clear yet? Yahwey, on the other hand, is in utter conflict with logic & evidence so it is unreasonable to assert that it exists.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj My belief in God does not conflict with logic. My belief in God is based in expreience or a immedient knowledge. it is a faith because I trust in this experience as true, unless given reason not to believe. this does not mean that God exists, just as my sense data regarding reality does not prove they are true. they are assumed to be true. I am not denying that they are true. I'm simply saying that there is uncertainty. which is were reasonable faith/axioms come in.
lilrat489 3 months ago
@lilrat489 (Please clarify) Is your God, the God of the Bible? If it is, then it's unreasonable to suggest that it exists. If you kept that belief to yourself I would have no issue, but you're proselytizing that belief without evidence. If you're suggesting that we live in some kind of matrix then, there's no point in discussion or investigation. The axiom for determining what you see is true is a million miles away from your belief in God. Again, what are God's attributes?
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLittletomdj "The axiom for determining what you see is true is a million miles away from your belief in God". really? given that both are based in experience, I think not. current theories in physics suggest that our reality might actually be a matrix or is based upon something immaterial: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww .considering work done by Lee smolen etc. it is very possible. and yes, I believe in the God of the bible. now, just curious, why is by belief in the biblical God unreasonable?
lilrat489 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Who is a bigger proselytizer, lilrat or atheist. Are atheist proselytizing in the name of science? If you definition of proselytizing is expressing ones belief without evidence, then who among atheist have all the evidence necessary to disregard the existence of God? no even the smartest of men can propose having all the evidence or knowledge necessary to propose God non-existence much less to proselytize in favor of science. At the end is it a choice, ur choice.
yessua9ibnallah 3 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah I never said the definition of proselytizing is expressing one's belief without evidence but, if you wan't a positive claim to be taken seriously you must provide evidence. I only have a problem with people proselytizing unsubstantiated, harmful beliefs.
I can show you many Biblical logical contradictions
Science has mountains of evidence to support it
There's tons of evidence showing religion is dangerous
Belief isn't a choice & you haven't defined God either
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj, science has demonstrated to have even more contradictions than what you claim of the Bible. The contradictions of "science" are an historical fact and even occur in our time. The nature of science is discovery and is bound to have contradictions, even when "facts" support contradictory positions in science. then do you have a problem too with science? or you believe science has no contradictions? do you think science has not demonstrated to be dangerous too?
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah Science is a self correcting sytem. It's a method, not an answer. If hypothesies contradict it searches for new ideas, it doesn't allow for contradictions & that's the whole point. The Bible, on the other hand, is clearly 95% bullshit yet it's set in stone & will never progress. Stupid people, religions and politics are dangerous. Nobody ever burned a witch, stoned a homosexual, started a war or dropped a bomb because science told them to. Stop saying dumb shit.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj What is self-correcting any way according to you? does it means that it can be wrong? Also you tend to refer Science as a thing (meaning knowledge as a whole) and a system (scientific method) at the same time, try to keep it simple (chose one approach) to make it clear.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science IS the method. Hypothesies can be wrong & science weeds out flawed hypothesies. "Self-correcting" is the discription of an entitys ability to correct its own mistakes. Would it really have been that difficult for you to do 10 minutes worth of research to establish those defnitions? Sorry, but you're annoying me.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Here is my 10 SECONDS of research, to find out how little u know. Berkeley University Museum site, explains in simply what is GOOD science. No need for fancy words or derogatory language, they seam somehow more humble than u in their approach. They say: The scientific method (i.e. hypotheses are formulated from observations...), sometimes cited as the one and only way that science is conducted, IS NOT the paradigm that scientific inquiry must always follow...
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj About science being a method and systematic enterprise The University of Georgia, Geology Department site says: "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions."
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah Continuing with your definition about science being a method and systematic enterprise, is clear that you have a major confusion of terminology, confusing what science is with one of the methodologies that science uses to achieve it's goals, namely the scientific method. There are more than one definition of science, but yours is plain a confusion of terminology. Please follow your own advice before answering my questions.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Additionally, Berkeley University Museum site is plain and straight with regards to the existence of God (in my words the realm of belief) and Science: "Opinions are neither fact nor theory; they are not officially the domain of science (but don't go thinking that scientists don't have opinions — they are only human, and opinions often help to guide their research). Thus, science cannot directly address such issues as whether God exists or whether people are good or bad."
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj My friend, May be you find me annoying, for some reasons. U need to prove you have and idea of what you are saying before starting to imply you have a superiority of knowledge. Your attitude toward people can sometimes speak louder than your "fact and data". Keep it humble.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj About the self-correction of science, you are right!!! Science is WRONG by default, Berkeley University says: ["Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality...while "the Earth orbits the Sun," or "evolution occurs over time," or "gravity exists" are all today considered to be both facts and theories (and could possibly turn out to be WRONG).] Hence, science can never be an absolute truth, Science is the best HUMAN approximation to reality, and can be wrong.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah I might bother t read your ... 4 comments? You could always just fuck off and die in the mean time.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj You should read them you might learn something, including manners.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah You're a pain in the arse, you really are. Your description of science is just a long winded elaboration of what I said in the first place, but you're too fuckin' stupid to realize it. Don't talk to me about manners & humility when the entirety of your rhetoric has been a sly, disrespectful & arrogant piss in the face of the giants on who's shoulders you comfortably sit. Take your inane, poorly conceived, worthless, solopsistic approach to reality & fuck off.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj It looks like you have a problem with Berkeley and Georgia University definition, which are the ones in my answers. You really did not read my comments or just cant really understand. It is your knowledge and manners that are insignificant, sorry to tell you.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLittletomdj you clarified the "if", but failed to answer the "then" of the question "who among atheist have all the evidence necessary to disregard the existence of God?" can you answer?
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj, I also have a problem with proselytizing unsubstantiated, harmful beliefs. Do you think that what the guy in this vid is saying is "harmful and unsubstantiated", can you please clarify in what way it is harmful?
Also, is belief isn't a choice, then what is it?
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah Belief is a compulsion. For example you don't "choose" to believe the sky is blue.
The guy in the vid is asking questions, not asserting truth & therefor has nothing to substantiate. Its obvious to me that he's playing diliberate semantic games to bolster the credibility of his religion. The doctrine of which is filled with everything from rape to baby killing & genocide. The propergation that book has ruined thousands of peoples lives & that's why it's harmful.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Do u "choose" believe the sky is blue? Well you did "chose" to believe it, because "scientifically" speaking is has no color... in another 10 SECONDS of research here is what I found "much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky... Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue", I need to say it, u ar pathetic.
yessua9ibnallah 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj In the free world you, you don't NEED evidence to ASK questions, neither in science. You just ask you questions. Unless you are a totalitarian, you should understand that questions are questions, and you don't need to answer them, however the people who answer must have support of their claims and so far your answers to my questions have no support but your own.
yessua9ibnallah 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Again u have a major confusion between what IS Religion and what PEOPLE DO with it. Does the fact that the atomic bomb, and the theory behind (developed by the use SECULAR science and technology) and the subsequent killing of more people in one day that all the previous modern wars (even religious wars) means Science most not be use because is evil? Certainly not, because it is clear to everyone what science is in essence opposed to what people do with it.
yessua9ibnallah 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Continuing, so for a fair and justly comparison, try to compare what Christianity IS with what science IS, and what people DO with Christianity (good and bad) with what people DO with science (good and bad).
Comparing what science is with what BAD people do with the knowledge in Christianity is a reflection of prejudice and ignorance.
yessua9ibnallah 1 month ago
@yessua9ibnallah
Yes, but whether or not certain evidence convinces someone isn't a conscious choice..Certain evidence either convinces someone or it doesn't..I don't consciously decide when there's enough evidence. It just kinda clicks when there is enough.
itzahazylife 2 months ago
@itzahazylife Well then, people "click" when there is enough, unconsiously but that does noot means you do not need more evidence.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@yessua9ibnallah
"At the end is it a choice, ur choice."
Only simple minds claim it's as simple as making a choice. Belief isn't a choice, and it shouldn't be a choice. If belief was a choice, then our beliefs would basically be based on whatever we wanted to believe. Our beliefs wouldn't be based on evidence and reasons, only on what we wanted to believe. If someone tells you an amazing story, and you don't believe it, does that mean you're choosing not to believe it?
itzahazylife 2 months ago
@itzahazylife If belief is not a choice then what is it? define belief to start with?
To answer, I haven't rule-out evidence & reason as part of the information that supports belief, but belief at the end is a conscious choice a person makes, the amount of evidence and reasoning involve in this choice is up to the person. The teller of the story in your question has evidence to support his claim, the hearer needs to decide whether he has evidence to claim he has the same belief.
yessua9ibnallah 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Faith: All tests are accurate because we presuppose that the future will always be like the past.
The question isn't is faith bad, but what is it in.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho I don't think I made a statement to the contrary or made any value judgements on the nature of faith. However, I will say that the presupposition that our senses are trust worthy to some degree, is the only pragmatic approach for discerning the truths about our universe & investing further. I'm a critical rationalist & think that metaphysical solopsism is a useless position. My point was that faith in God is not on equal footing to faith in science.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj The uniformity of nature and the continuity of the laws must be assumed. I think its an overstatement that one can never be 100% accurate (or at least know that they're 100% accurate). Our science is more description and prediction. We'll never know why what we observe is the way it is...
I'd also add that believing in science's efficacy needn't deterrent one in believing in the existence of God. Many have become believers by seeing the hand of God in everything
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho "Our science is more description and prediction." The validity of science is because of it's capacity to make predicitions. String theory is an extremely messy form of mathematics that is only taken seriously because of the predictions it's made. Scientists at the LHC are confident that they will be announcing the discovery of the Higgs Boson in a matter of months. This is a testament to the validity of science. As for science deterring the belief in God... (continued)
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@steveoho (Part 2) I'd submit the lack of Theistic scientists as evidence to the contrary. Moreover you're not arguing for some Pantheistic or Deistic God but, you're talking specifically about the Christian God & it's a no small stretch from the apparency of telos & meaning to get to Jesus, Adam & Eve, The 10 Commandments etc. The uniformity of nature is not assumed, it's evident.
"We'll never know why what we observe is the way it is".
Maybe true but, that's just an assumption.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj >>I'd submit the lack of Theistic scientists as evidence to the contrary.
Correlation does not imply causation. There could be numerous reasons to explain this. I would say the adherence to evolution and bashing all who disagree and keeping them out of education is a factor.
>>The uniformity of nature is not assumed, it's evident.
It would take absolute knowledge to say that its not assumed. The early moments of the universe did not hold to the laws of physics.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Correlation is evidence non the less. The people who get bashed are those who have the nerve to undercut the scientific method of peer review. This is not a conspiracy. They get bashed for thier disrespect of a discipline that massively benefits mankind.
All tests, thus far, have supported the unchanging nature of the universe. The only assumption we make is that our base senses are accurate to some degree. The claim is falsifiable. Just provide evidence to the contrary.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Correlation is evidence... but for what is the question. The consumption of ice cream is correlated with shark attacks... it clearly doesn't cause it. In this case one mitigating factor is that family is more important to religious people and family life and career life/ extended education don't mix all that well.
>>disrespect of a discipline
only topic i know Christians question is evolution.... some throw out science incorrectly, but evolution is their only beef
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Evolution is a fundamental part of science. The study of biology would fall apart without it, as would medicine. We wouldn't understand paleontology, geology, anthropology, vaccines, genetics or biodiversity without it. Once you obliterate those, next goes chemistry & physics, because they all form in an intricate web. There's no good evidence that disputes evolution, just a political agenda that is being fought by scared, pious Creationists that aren't qualified to speak.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj >>Just provide evidence to the contrary.
Do you disagree with my statement that the initial moments of the universe did not operate by the laws of physics as we know them? I mean it might be that there was something we don't understand about these laws which would explain it, but to all appearances they were in flux.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho (2nd response) Of course the origin of the universe is something we don't understand. That's the whole point of science... TO DISCOVER!
That's why "God did it" is not an answer.
You can either come with & support the people that are really looking for answers or you can hold everyone back with your presupposed deity. Why are you fervently clinging on to this ancient mythological God figure? It doesn't suit you.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj >>That's why "God did it" is not an answer.
You realize that whether God created the universe or not we'd still be discovering how it was done, right? Also, if wrong then you're digging in the wrong spot.
As for evolution... creationists always go against macro-evolution, something that has remarkably poor evidence. They're not aiming to kill science. If you'd prefer making up a fairy tale about how its created and call it science be my guest.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho As I said before. If when you say "god" you mean a force, prime mover, an intelligence or a consciousness of some sort that would be within the realms of plausibility. But that's not what you're talking about. So please don't play this game with me. Actually there's mountains of evidence for macro-evolution & it's qualitatively the same as micro but creationists either purposefully misuse or simply misunderstand the distinction.
Fairy stories? Really? Talking snakes remember?
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Well God is all those things you listed... I don't see why you have such a problem with the Christian God. Care to share?
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Too many to list. I'll spare the moral issues for now.
The universe is 12-14 billion yrs old & contains well over 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Do you really think that the creating force behind that impregnated a virgin woman, to give birth to himself incarnate so he could tell some illiterate, desert dwelling, goat herders vague parables about morality that aren't applicable to modern day society, yet forgot to mention DNA, germs or dinosaurs?
Tip of the iceberg!
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Can you elaborate a bit on the moral issues? Ones personal to you preferably.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Well I'm thick skinned, so I don't take much emotionally. I'm no believer in Christ so passaages like [2 Chrn15] wind me up. I've got several gay friends so the infamous [Lev18:22] angers me. I don't like baby killing or ripping open pregnant women [Isa13/Hos13/2 Kings15] or slavery [Lev25:44-46/Exo21/Eph6:5] or animal cruelty[all of Leviticus] or murder & genocide. watch?v=IABptlAhyJw
The fact that Christianity values faith over deeds & love of thier own family [Mat10:34-39]
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj "love of thier own family " = *"love of one's own family "
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Not to disagree, but "love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom 13:10). And James says that a faith that has no deeds is dead (if you really believed it you'd act on it). In the epistles its said that whoever does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever. Jesus said that his family is whoever does the will of God. Not all want to be a part of that family because he exposes their heart. Surely when you look at Jesus you see that he was good, yes?
steveoho 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Interesting clip... I might have one to share later on. Do you know why these deaths offend you so much? If you considered these people evil, guilty of terrible crimes, would you object as much?
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho I'm not offended. These were tribal wars & the only guilt was of primitive thinking & adherence to brainwashing idealogies. It takes systems of control in adverse conditions to persuade people to do such things. No unafraid, content & sane person has ever considered war. I can't believe you picked Rom13 as your rebuttal as it's my gripe with theocracy in a nutshell. "Faith without deeds is dead", but deeds without faith are good as ever. (continued)
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj >>No unafraid, content & sane person has ever considered war.
Not sure if any of those have ever existed for more than a few moments :)
>>deeds without faith are good as ever
Nope, leads to pride and discord. Just look at "religious" environmentalists... fail to do as much as them to erase your footprint on the planet and you're scum. Or those who impede science are castigated severely. Right religion comes from first acknowledging sin and the need for a savior
steveoho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLittletomdj >>No unafraid, content & sane person has ever considered war.
Not sure if any of those have ever existed for more than a few moments :)
>>deeds without faith are good as ever
Nope, leads to pride and discord. Just look at "religious" environmentalists... fail to do as much as them to erase your footprint on the planet and you're scum. Or those who impede science are castigated severely. Right religion comes from first acknowledging sin and the need for a savior
steveoho 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj p2 deeds without faith are good as ever
You also need to agree on what good is otherwise you get one of the most discombobulated systems of all time... which is what I'd say modern moral systems are. They have a sense that there is such a thing as good, but are very confused on saying anything definitively. And you're still judged despite your confusion... its a religious system that gives no explanation for itself... worse than any other religion in my opinion.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Jesus condoned slavery (according to the Bible) & all the gospels were written after his death. No first hand testimonies!
Why would the creator of the universe care if we didn't pay taxes?
Some of your responses have irritated me but, the question of moral objectivity is really interesting. To attain an understanding of objective morality without God all you have to do is decipher what is mutually beneficial for social creatures living in a world that requires equilibrium.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj On slavery - I'd like to see where he approved of it. Jesus' mission was to save people from their slavery to sin. Jesus could have led a rebellion to change society... God could have even come down in power to demand it. God isn't looking for outward conformity... he wants your heart to be in line with your actions. Only when a person sees that they have nothing to boast of and yet see that they have incredible worth do they live rightly
steveoho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steveoho "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear" Eph6:5 & a similar quote in Col3:22. Aren't you supposed to be a slave to Christ? Isn't Christ the same as the God of the old testament who repeatedly talks about slavery in detail? The same god that murdered Aron's children for "offering strange fire & left Aron to die on a mountain for subversion?"God could have even come down - to demand it"?? Well what about Jesus casting out the moneychangers in Mat21 or Mark11?
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj The term for slaves used for Christians is bond servant... sim to slaves set free in the OT who then chose to become part of the master's household. As to other slavery I've already said that God's priority is to set you free in your heart first... though first you'd have to realize that your heart is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked".
As to the Mat21/Mark11 they are in ref to fulfilled prophecy "den of thieves" "zealous for my house".
steveoho 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj >>all the gospels were written after his death
Yes, either by eye witnesses or in some cases (like Mark/Luke) the testimony of eye witnesses.
>>mutually beneficial
Some use to claim that they were doing their slaves a favor by being their masters. If that is true then that would be mutually beneficial. Some rulers stamp out dissidents to make it better for all in the long run. Do you distinguish good (beneficial) and good (moral)?
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Eye witnesses? Then why are they exclusively written from a third person perpective? Mathew & Luke where plagiarized from Mark (90% in Mathews case, who's Author was doing little more than correcting the countless geographical & historical errors). Mark (the oldest of the four) & was written no earlier than 70AD as it talks about the Jewish war with Rome. Luke rips off Josephus which places him at least 100AD. They contradict each other.& none claim to be 1st hand testimony.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj I'm not sure what you mean by rips off Josephus or the Roman war. If you're talking about the temple being destroyed then you're beginning with the assumption that miracles don't/can't happen rather than on evidence. The spread of the documents and the ability to compare differences among documents allows us to piece the originals and show timelines.
As to the synoptics I'll admit that its possible they compared notes, but that isn't proven. 90% overestimates it
steveoho 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj Luke claims to be second hand and is the most detailed and well backed on details. John's author claims first hand. And all external evidence points to the apostle Matthew writing Matthew and Peter, through Mark, writing Mark. You can also look at Paul's writing and see evidence of 1 Cor 15:3-8 shows early evidence of a tradition that places within just a short period of Jesus' death. Also, no contradictions.
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho (ouch 3 parts =/). Morality & slavery.
Are you being serious?
An unelected authority is a dictatorship & NO it's not mutually beneficial to the slave ever. There's an objective truth that no sane man wants to suffer. And no sane man that is not suffering wants to die. Inflicting suffering & death=bad. It's that simple. Society is little more than a social contract between people who reap the benefits from it. dictatorship encourages dissent. I can't believe you wrote that.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj On morality & slavery.
If you want to carry the mutual beneficial argument you could say the master clothes/feeds/cares for them and they in turn do labor (sort of like we have no problem using work animals)... or you could simply ask what is deserved at which point everyone, but the theist must make something up. You know the truth (that all have intrinsic value), but you must arrive there some other way (and maybe fudge when you don't like all its entanglements)
steveoho 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj As to unelected authority... though he could say I made you and everything you have (including the intelligence you're using to argue with me) is from Him. He has a right to do with that which is his just as it is ours to cut down a tree that we don't want or could use. Yet He is good, patient not wanting any to perish. He offers eternal life (knowing and being in fellowship with God) to those who'd trust Him. He grants those who refuse their right to go to hell
steveoho 1 month ago
@steveoho Well, I disagree on virtually every one of your most recent points. I'll entertain a discussion via PM as requested. This discussion has miandered in the comments section long enough. I'd like to flesh out some of the things I've written anyway. Be warned though, my PMs are long!
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@steveoho (part 2) Gandalf was good & so was Jefferson, but Jefferson wasn't the son of of God & Gandalf wasn't real. I'm not going to start believing in a barbaric fairy tale based on the fact that the "character" of Jesus was a relatively good guy. I can't believe that the creator of the universe who fashioned the human genome, the rings of Saturn & Milky Way would talk about lawsuits, money & slave ownership.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj I'm not sure where you get that Jesus was something other than depicted by witnesses in the Bible or that there was anything bad about him... it honestly confuses me.
And why can't you believe that the God who created the grandiose of a universe in such incredible detail would not personal and care about mankind?
steveoho 1 month ago
Cmon, atheists, step it up, the responses here are criminally weak
JWHurwitz 5 months ago
Yeah, you might as well ask if a dog is hyperbolic? Or is a drum representable? You are applying words that don't fit the situation. Is logic material? Too funny.
As for 2 and 3. Changing or unchanging: our interpretation of logic changes. My logic is different than Socrates logic, if that is change then yeah it changes. Universal or not universal: basically number 2 rehashed, my logic is different than someone else's so no, it is not universal.
Why am I bothering to post this? :)
NucularRobit 5 months ago
I find it quite funny that many atheists, it seems, don't know the laws of logic. I'm sure there are videos about it guys, or try Wikipedia...a philosophy dictionary...
godswordsheal 5 months ago
logic is an abstract concept and as such is immaterial (not a physical object made up of matter), since logic must be applied to a myriad of situations it must be unchanging and universal to retain relevance between instances.
raith2006 6 months ago
While I would like to respond it would only be through text. In other news, on an artistic level, the music makes it very hard to concentrate on what you're saying and makes the whole thing feel distracted, at least at its current volume level.
Zabetheconfused 6 months ago
I dont believe anything about the laws of logic.
Atheism has no position on this.
chthonios 6 months ago
Wow. At this pace, this guy is going to need to make about 300 more videos before he gets to his point...
plimbuff 7 months ago 4
The questions are logical fallacies considering the fact that he is assuming that we know at the moment or even can know the answers to these questions.
fail
fcdog555 7 months ago
god dammit. i woulda actually been interestied if that music wasnt so fuckking annoying
oloesnt 7 months ago
what are the laws of logic ???
bluedrag000n 7 months ago
You still haven't answered my objections to the clear evidence of editing and redaction in the New Testament.
adam3251 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adam3251 "You still haven't answered my objections to the clear evidence of editing and redaction in the New Testament."
You're right, I asked you for your sources...
M3PanoS 7 months ago
The gospels were clearly edited after the fact. There is no debate among scholars in this area.
adam3251 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adam3251 "The gospels were clearly edited after the fact. There is no debate among scholars in this area."
Ok, can you please point me to the sources?
M3PanoS 7 months ago
1. It is metaphysical. 2. They change because our perception of the known universe changes. 3. Laws of logic apply to everything,
iversonmatthew 8 months ago
Ha ha!! Given the intellectual dishonesty of your question, I'd be curious to know what YOU think the laws of logic are?
And I'd be curious to know why you think this is a more difficult question to an atheist than for a believer in the supernatural?
Do you think the laws of logic are supernatural??
Tobytrim 9 months ago
You atheist now lets think for a minute what if you are wrong and you come face to face with God what ever would you say to God? What about the writer of a Witch and the Wardrobe he was a atheist and he set out to prove God did not exist and you know what happened to him he is now a christian because he came to the conclusion that God does exist through the research him did.
jacval60 9 months ago
@jacval60
I will answer your question with a question of my own. What if you discover that you are wrong, and come face to face with Allah, or Zeus, or Shiva, or Amaterasu after you die?
As for C.S. Lewis, I love the Chronicles of Narnia but I found his proofs for god to be woefully underwhelming.
SquallAKALeon 9 months ago
@SquallAKALeon Lol your argument from pluralism is woefully underwhelming. Give me a reason to believe in Zeus and I will. I'm Greek by the way so good luck ;)
M3PanoS 9 months ago
@M3PanoS Aaaaaaaand you don't see a contradiction here? You don't see how I can just as easily ask for a reason to believe in YHWH/Jesus? Or whatever it is that you specifically believe in if you do indeed hold specific theistic beliefs?
SquallAKALeon 9 months ago
@SquallAKALeon No because there is NO contradiction here. Ask me, and I'll give you an answer. It's up to you whether it meets your expectations. It did for me, so if it doesn't for you, I think there's another underlying problem, not intellectual skepticism like atheists claim...
M3PanoS 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
Alright, I'll bite. What exactly convinced you? Let's see if there was anything even remotely intellectual about it.
SquallAKALeon 9 months ago
@M3PanoS I'm asking. What are the reasons that anyone should believe that the christian god exists AND all other gods do not? Demonstrating BOTH parts of the question are paramount here.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 Among others, the main reason why someone should believe in the Christian God is because the Bible holds truth claims on reality. Because these truth claims are verifiable and testable, one can test the Bible against what is seen. If it passes, you can affirm it as true, if it doesn't, then throw it out.
You can do the same test with other religious texts if they make similar claims -if they don't, there's little reason to even look at them.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS Even if the Bible had truth claims, and I am not conceding the point, then it doesn't follow that it would be automaticly true when it makes claims for or about and gods. Each claim must be evaluated on its own merits so your reason is invalid. So what claims does it make for or about god that are based in evidence?
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 Actually, the natural truth claims would also affirm the supernatural ones because (1) in order to make natural claims of the future, you'd need a supernatural source; and (2) to disaffirm supernatural claims, you would essentially say they are lies, when everything else you've read is truth. You need a reason to do that...
The claims it makes about God are evidenced in the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS 1. This is a logical deduction and it is flat out wrong. I can make naturalist claims about the future and it requires no supernatural powers. For example: You will die. That is a claim and it required no powers. 2. This is also flatly not true. You take each claim of fact on its own merit. If a book (which is all the bible really is) makes 26 claims (A to Z) then if one or more is false it has no bearing on the rest. Any combination of any number could be true/false.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 1. Lol, you're trivializing my initial statement on purpose. Anyone can make future claims based on prior knowledge, which is all you did -you didn't make a claim about future baseless of natural knowledge. Many of the claims in the Bible are of this nature.
2. Ok, by your logic, if you're going to take every claim on its own merit, how will you judge if the supernatural claims are true when you can't test them in the natural sense? You'll just throw them away?
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS 1. I am not sure what you mean by "natural knowledge", but I will concede that the bible makes claims about future events. 2. Yes, you are correct, fully and completely. You just them out. If you can not verify a claim then you have no business saying that it is a true claim.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 1. By natural knowledge, I mean predicting that you will die in the future is not special, since everyone knows this -if you told me a specific date and by what method, this might be special, although you could have pre-meditated that. :P
2. But if the natural claims about the future come out to be true, you have to concede that they came from a supernatural source. And if that same source that made those claims makes other claims, you have good reason to believe them.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS No, I don't have to concede that. You have to: 1. Demonstrate that such claims exist. (a point I will concede is true off the bat) 2. Demonstrate that they are true and free from tampering (a feat which is not possible to do) AND that the claims are supernatural.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 OK...easy enough. There are prophetic claims in the OT about future events and most importantly about the Messiah. Were these tampered with? If I can prove the claims were made before said events occurred, it doesn't matter if there were slight grammatical errors or the like because the claims were still made before the event...and I have proof that they were indeed made before a lot of prophecies were fulfilled...the Dead Sea Scrolls.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@adam3251 If you don't think these claims are supernatural, simply meaning beyond natural cognition, I would really love to know what your theory is on where they came from. Either way, it would be in your best interest to listen to them simply because of the reason that these prophets were able to do something you haven't...
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS I agree that there are prophetic claims in the OT so that point is conceded off the bat. Can you demonstrate the the fulfillment of these prophecies were accurately reported in the New Testament? Matthew was certainly familiar with these prophecies. How do you intend to demonstrate that he, or the other writers, didn't fabricate the events? How do you intend to demonstrate that the subsequent editors didn't alter the texts? If you can't adequitly answer these questions then...continued
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 part 2 ...there is doubt. Even if I grant that the prophecies were fulfilled (I don't), AND that they were accurately represented (I don't). Then it is up to you to demonstrate that they were of supernatural origin. I don't have to prove that they weren't or provide alternate explanations (I could if you press the issue though). You are making the claims here prove your assertion on the supernatural origin. We already agree that these claims were written by PEOPLE.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 [3/4] No, it is not up to me to prove to you if the prophecies were of supernatural origin. If you honestly look and discern that they came to be fulfilled, then, like I explained to you before, I would like for you to give me a reason as to why you SHOULDN'T trust the words contained within the Bible.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@adam3251 [4/4] Like I also previously stated, supernatural here only means that they were able to do something that couldn't have been done using purely naturalistic devices. I feel like I'm simply repeating myself. I've laid out the methodology for you; all that's left is to go analyze the prophecies and Scripture for yourself in as objective a manner as possible. Peace and God bless.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS How do you know that they couldn't have done it naturally? Astrologers do this. So do people who read tea leaves and goat entrails. I don't think any of these processes (including the biblical ones that you refuse to demonstrate) provide any useful information.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 Astrologers do no such thing. They make vague claims that in turn can be interpreted in a plethora of ways. I'm sure you think the Bible's claims fit this same archetype, however, some of the claims in the Bible were so specific that they talked about events to happen where the geo-political structure at that time wasn't even remotely close to being set up as to allow them to pass.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@adam3251 [1/2] First off, even if Matthew was familiar with the prophecies that does nothing to question the reliability of the other writers, so don't even try to lump them into the same boat. However, I wouldn't even question Matthew since he died a martyr's death.
And also, Paul, who wrote a large bulk of the NT converted from being a Christian prosecutor -surely he did not know the prophecies at the time of conversion.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@adam3251 [2/3] I already inadvertently answered your questions about if the Biblical texts were edited or not by pointing you to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think the accuracy of current translations when compared with the Scrolls comes to about 99.5%...so there goes that objection.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS No sir. I never once questioned the accuracy of the Dead Sea scrolls nor did I ever mention their being edited so the 99.5 figure is rather pointless.. Paul gave no testimony on the life of Jesus so he is out. He did not witness any of it. Matthew's death has no bearing on the truthfulness of his writings. All of my objections still stand completely unanswered.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 It is one thing for a man to die having wrongly believed that a lie is truth and wholly another for a man to fabricate a lie and die for it knowing full well that it is -in all its splendid glory- a lie.
What I'm getting at with the 99.5% accuracy figure is that it gives us sufficient reason to conclude that the texts have been passed on unaltered.
Take Paul out and you still have the Gospels and Peter. And Mark predates Matthew.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS Ok I never once questioned the accuracy of the Old Testament, so I have no idea why you even bring that up.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 If you never questioned the accuracy of the OT, then I guess you're problem isn't even with prophecy then -according to the NT it was fulfilled. I'm guessing it's the fact that these prophecies couldn't have been fulfilled UNLESS the NT writers purposely forged the documents to fit them. Like I explained though, Matthew was the only one aware of these prophecies (I"m taking that fact on good faith btw), and the majority of them died gruesome martyrs' deaths.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS @M3PanoS The most parsimonious explanation is that the texts were either inaccurate reporting on the life of Christ, such non-canonical documents are legion, or that the Gospels were edited later to show the fulfilled prophecies. The matter if their deaths has no bearing on their truth claims, you assert this but it is fallacious.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 Of course the simplest explanation would be that they were wrong in their reporting -maybe that's why there were so many so-called messiahs walking around at that time lol...
Yes, how you die has a huge deal to do with your truth claims. You try being slain for something you don't believe in. If you think it's true, you probably will be willing -now it's up to me to decide whether your faith was rightly placed or not since I can look back at the events that took place and judge.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS My conclusion is as close to being historically supported as is possible in the ancient world. You are placing a special burden on the Bible that you do not place on other ancient historical texts. By your logic, we wouldn't be able to prove the existence of anyone before the 17th century. I think this stubbornness has to do more with the implications of if these testimonies are true than actual intellectual objections...
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS No, that is not true at all. I do not reject their statements. I provisionally believe ancient documents as being as close to accurate as we are going to get. When it comes to fantastic statements those are going to get a tough reading. I believe an ancient document about the lives of the Egyptians, but if that document stated that people could breath fire, I would find that dubious. I think your stubbornness has to do more with a desire to believe than actual intellectual conclusions.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 We can take this up in a PM or over email. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my queries. I really to appreciate it.
adam3251 7 months ago
@M3PanoS Are you also implying that Marshall Applewhite, the leader of the heaven's gate cult who also died for his believes is also vindicated and proven correct by the method of his death, this is the implication of your statement.
adam3251 7 months ago
@adam3251 NO that is NOT the implication of my statement. Stop strawmanning my position and go re-read my statement with more acuity.
Marshall Applewhite had NO reason to believe his position was correct outside of his own lunacies. There were no miracles, no supernatural events, no nothing, to substantiate his beliefs.
Also, he, along with his loons, killed themselves. The NT writers were martyred -huge difference.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
@M3PanoS "The NT writers were martyred -huge difference." The earliest hagiographies are from the 3rd century and the lives of the disciples were later than that, so your assertion here is at best not fully historically supported. It doesn't matter. Now it is I that is repeating himself. How one dies has nothing to do with the truthfulness of ones claims. None. Not in the least.
adam3251 7 months ago
I have a question for you; You're that guy on On The Box, right? Well, how does any of this prove Jesus? No, I don't want to know how this proves that there might be a god. I'm already open to that possibility. I want to know specifically how this proves Jesus... at all?? Even if you succeed in convincing me of the possibility of a god you still have the up-hill battle of proving to me that Jesus is this god/son of this god/'the way, the truth and the etc.'
SquallAKALeon 9 months ago
I am no good at maths, but I know 1+1=2 because I have a calculator, not thanks to god, but thanks to Sir Clive Sinclair.
mrpamayer 10 months ago
@mrpamayer Who do you think created math?
gospelgirl1964 9 months ago
@gospelgirl1964 It cannot be created nor destroyed.
mrpamayer 9 months ago
@mrpamayer What are you referring to as IT. If you are referring to GOD as IT....then you are very RIGHT. GOD CAN NOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED!. If you are referring to IT as being MATH.....My question to you again is....Who do you think created MATH....GOD IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS....as well as MATH. MATHAMATICS is the discovery of what God has created....in number and letter form. Its a language that many do not understand. God is responsible.
gospelgirl1964 9 months ago
@gospelgirl1964 Maths, it isn't something you create. Nor is god, if a god existed it would be a) very simple, b) a product of evolution or c) not really a god......a and b fit in c as well, so I think you have to agree with me that, on the balance of probability, there isn't a god.
mrpamayer 9 months ago
@mrpamayer First of all...it not MATHS....just math. So there ya go. Re: God. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. And in his Son Jesus Christ, Our Lord, by whom all things were made. And in the Holy Spirit, the giver of life!!!!
gospelgirl1964 9 months ago
@gospelgirl1964 It's 'it is' or 'it's', not just 'it', as in "it is not maths" not "it not maths", but that isn't the point, maths or math (non-americans hate the term math) wasn't created, don't blame me, I wasn't the one who didn't create it, or you could say I was.
mrpamayer 9 months ago
@gospelgirl1964 Grammar Nazi...
stoicsquirrel 8 months ago
hey Brother, :O) JESUS OUR KING IS COMING SOON, JUST KEEP WORKING.
dewerbylhserf 10 months ago
@dewerbylhserf "JESUS OUR KING IS COMING SOON" next week apparnatly:-)
SOAS007 10 months ago
@dewerbylhserf lol, maybe. but I do think it is soon. 5, 10 , 15 ? . God Bless my Brother, you are doing a Great
work for the LORD JESUS. Amen, Ed
dewerbylhserf 10 months ago
It's simple. Logic describes the mechanics of definitions. Statements that follow from the laws of logic are true by definition of the premises. The laws of logic are like the laws of addition, 1+1= 2. It's true because it's defined as true. The laws of logic change when we discover another property of the definitions that we hadn't previously noticed. Our perception of the mechanics changes, not the actual behaviors themselves.
mrbluesky323 10 months ago
Same old tired argument - Logical truths exist outside of man, therefore there must be a God. So how does that prove ONE god and not TWO gods or n gods. Silly, silly argument.
bogusnachos 11 months ago
@bogusnachos
-
Your counter argument only takes the attention off of Atheism.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010 Atheism is simply a disbelief in god, it requires no proof, Just as a disbelief in Zeus requires no proof. There isn't much to pay attention to. This argument was trying to prove there is a God (the old transcendental argument for god). Even if you accept it as valid, which i don't, it still doesn't prove a god of the bible, or a specific god or a single god.
bogusnachos 10 months ago
@bogusnachos
-
First of all, why don't you accept it as valid?
AgApE010 10 months ago