I like how in the beginning of the debate, Stein says he will not accept supernatural means as evidence of God's existence, but here he says he will accept it as evidence. Stein goes back and forth frequently in this debate, quite amusing!
WOW! I never heard Bahnsen's response by anyone before on mericles not making an atheist a believer. Its true, when you think about it, in history many atheists saw what they could not explain and would have perceived as mericles and yet they still did not believe. I think mainly because they did not have modern scientific method to explain the contrary but regardless they still did not believe. I wish atheist would stop using that argument.
@JanJiska you seriously want an answer in less than 100 words on this? Come on... And why are you asking the same questions that were answered very well in this very debate? I'm starting to wonder if you even listened to this...
@cctman These questions were not answered in this debate. If you disagree please point me towards where these were conclusively answered.
On the subject of miracles. People used to see miracles all of the time, science has gradually improved our knowledge so that we can tell they are not miracles. Although, if they were, how do we know which super natural force is causing them?!
In this debate one may (again) see the failure of modern skepticism, specifically, those within the same group who commit themselves to an empirical theory of knowledge (no matter how such is nuanced). How could (or would) an empiricist ever move from not-knowing of to knowing of something like modus ponens? Any empiricist want to scratch the surface on this?
If not, trust me, I blame thee not. After all, it is impossible.
Every time I hear Bahnsen talk about the laws of logic--more specifically, dipping his fingers into the pudding of philosophy of logic--it is refreshing, indeed. Good stuff.
It is no coincidence Stein has no rebuttal to Bahnsen's little chat. This is the case with many modern skeptics the first time they're forced to reckon with an educated Christian, specifically, those trained in theology or philosophy or (ideally) both.
In the end, maybe her real lesson is to back off the rudeness to others and instead offer cited information that she thinks she knows, in the spirit of sharing knowledge. Youtube doesn't offer urls in comments, so this is not the forum at the moment. If she continues to want to be a troll, then maybe someone should recommend encyclopedia dramatica as a potential home-base for her trolling expeditions.
Here is the lesson I have in mind: do not assume that because something is systemic and widely known, and because you are amongst people who worship evidence and reason, they will know of the same.
At least she admits to learning that some colleges and universities, and departments therein, prefer to stock libraries with biased secondary and tertiary materials and allow students to write reports off of them, while others always require sourcing original works, particularly when it comes to science. The same standard should hold for other departments as well, unless the research is a survey of non-primary sources.
Who said anything about original sources being jettisoned? I can't believe it. Do you not understand how scholarship works (whatever discipline you mention)? There are a few basics that all disciplines share. Do you not know what these are?
See, I believe your problem is hubris. You step into arenas in which you do not belong--like you did you jumped into the Vienna Circle w/o knowing it. You need to take a step back and rethink how you're going about life.
Please state the institution for which you are grading papers, so that I may broadcast to others the lower standards of source citing. My college NEVER allowed encyclopedias or textbooks....period.
I'll do one better: go to a COMMON STANDARD for colleges and universities (I can't say all use this, but most surely do): The Bedford Handbook by Hacker. Now, turn to pages 592-593 and you can see for yourself.
@purereligion127 I must qualify that last claim. I said 'most' use it. Okay, just over half use it, but there is virtually no college or university that does not recognize its standards as legitimate.
The truth is, till now I've never looked into it. Having been around academics for the bulk of my life, I just know that such is taken for granted. But there is a lesson to glean from this, and I shall take it.
I'm going private with you because your statements are not relevant to this video, are inflammatory (troll-ish), and I cannot send you url citations for you to learn more about what I'm talking about. Read your inbox and please reply.
And by the way, your wiki argument needs updating. It's very old. NO college allows any encyclopedia, OR TEXTBOOK, to be used as a source or citation. Religious people love to bash wiki, because it allows quick referencing to source material for which you have no refutation. Refute the specific content if you can, but otherwise, you might learn something.....about science.
What a stunning ignorance. Poor fellow. You've jumped out of the frying pan into the fire!
No need to update anything. If I grade a paper, and depending upon what type of citation is used, if an established encyclopedia or textbook is used as a source, that is completely legitimate.
Now, don't get me wrong: there is no policy, as far as I know, that forbids the use of wiki. However, most professors at more quality institutions do not allow it.
Your psychological projection is truly astounding. You still have failed to substantiate any of your claims. I don't claim to be a philosophy buff, never did. My claim is that evidence renders most philosophy meaningless. So, congratulations, you learned a bunch of useless stuff that won't help you to get a job other than trolling or writing articles for other people who don't value evidence.
Now, let's think about something in light of your standards: you say most philosophy is meaningless. Yet, you admit that you know little to nothing about philosophy? Get the point? Yeah, you're a living contradiction.
On reading the Vienna Circle on wikipedia, I am not at odds with their statements, with the exception that my experience with math, logic and programming has lead me to believe that they also do not always reflect evidence on the ground, however sound they may appear to be. They are simply notations, like the English we are using today, to approximate what we experience. And you know how words fail. BTW, going private with you...
Going private w/me, really? Why? B/c you do not want you ignorance on full display for others to see? Allow me to be clear: if you're were more sincere and less contentious, I might consider. But given your record here, and now over there, forget it.
PS - I really would not turn to WIKI as an academic source. Bad news. You are aware that at more quality colleges and universities professors do not even allow WIKI to be used as a source?
Supplying those quotes no more makes me out to be a positivist than you using the Internet makes you out to be scientist or a software engineer. I simply posted those quotes because I like them, and to goad you into ridiculing me more. It worked! You're showing your true colors for everyone to see. Yet, you still have not substantiated anything to the contrary. What, can you propose, has philosophy actually done for mankind? Compare those contributions with science.
Before now, it may be true that you've never said, "I am a logical positivist." But as I have amply demonstrated, you've certainly aligned yourself (to some degree) with that school of thought.
Just so you know: I thought you did not intend to do so. Why? Because I was pretty sure you'd never even heard of the Vienna Circle and its philosophy. Notwithstanding, given the claims you made, not just the quote you provided, you jumped into the Vienna Circle.
@iTroglobite asks: "What...has philosophy actually done for mankind?" Is this a joke?
Anyway, do you value term, statement, predicate, and modal logic? If so, thank philosophers. Do you value the notion of tolerance and free expression? Ditto. Do you value geometry and calculus? Ditto. Do you value scientific methods (pl.)? Ditto. Do you value the vast expanse of great Western literature and thought? For much of it, thank philosophers.
One more bit on this matter of philosophy versus science: it was not till recent years that such a distinction could be made. Do you know why? I'll tell you: because there was no such distinction. Science was just one of several branches of philosophy. Why is this? Because many of the "great scientists" from the past--who were harbingers for modern science--were philosophers. Indeed, the first recorded scientific experiment in the West was by a philosopher: Thales.
The arg that you've read more of philosophy than me and therefore everyone should accept you as authority is completely meaningless, particularly when you fail to walk the walk, educate people, or show that you actually follow any of the ideas you have read in your....textbooks. This combined with your utter failure to demonstrate the slightest curiosity for any works that might soundly refute any of your cherished philosophy indicates that you want authority without merit.
What the hell are you saying? I've never presented myself as an authority. I just know BS--Harry Frankfurt style--when I smell it. You know nothing about philosophy and that's even more apparent now.
Regardless, do you wish to return to the topic at hand? If not, I'm moving on. You're becoming a waste of time. Let me know.
Any philosophy junkie should know Sun Tzu, or at least have read the little Art of War book. If you actually follow any philosophy at all, you should follow this one:
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
If you refuse to read the Four Horsemen, you are refusing to know your enemy, and you will therefore most certainly lose. They, and I, know you and your ilk. Do you know us?
A couple of points: first, I've read plenty DD (and his mentor--know who that is, right?) in the context of philosophy of mind and language. He's got some decent things to say. However, like the other three, on matters of religion he loses his abilities to think as critically. Plain and simple.
Second, I'm sorry I'm not infatuated with the Four Horsemen as you are. However, I do interact with the literature of skeptics routinely--but skeptics who are more sophisticated.
My claim is that you've "read very little" simply because of the manner in which you dust across topics and fail miserably to refute this simple claim. You might be good at buzz words, but so far you have failed to provide any substantive details. Your turn.
Across what topic have I dusted? Second, what claim have I failed to refute? I am prepared to discuss quite a number of the works from the men I cited. Of course, you'll be lost in a moment. Now, since I think you'll want to deny that, let's do it: you pick the author, and I'll pick a work I've read and we'll dance. Sound good?
Who said anything about logical positivism? Once again I advise you to not put words in my mouth. Any philosophy major should know better than to trip over fallacies like a child trips over toys.
Yeah, the ignorance is stunning. Let' see, you quote Carnap (logical positivist); you say metaphysical and religious claims are meaningless (logical positivism); you discount metaphysical claims on the basis of empirical non-verification (logical positivism). But hey, I don't know who said anything about logical positivism.
So by saying "any logic text" you must have some belief that all textbooks are somehow alike and all are inherently accurate representations of original works. In fact, textbooks are NOT original works of philosophy or science, and are regarded with as much authority as encyclopedias. Check the textbook references, if any. You may want to dig deeper.
@iTroglobite Excuse me, but I think you are misunderstanding. I mean textbooks written by original authors. For example, Patrick Hurley's Intro. to Logic will answer your question about informal fallacies not being laws of logic. They're not. Go read.
If you want more references, simply ask. Don't piss your pants, just ask.
You really want to join the Vienna circle? You really want to defend some version of logical positivism? If you want to do so, let me know. However, here is what I advise: do not try to become a philosopher by Googling.
This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense. — Rudolf Carnap, Philosophy and Logical Syntax
Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. ....
Haha! So I take it from your "Richard Dawkins" is a clown remark, that you have neither read his works, nor do you have anything substantive about which to criticize him. Read original works before you poo-poo, and then poo-poo substantively. You will soon find that your narrow reading of philosophy ignores indisputable facts on the ground. I mentioned specific books I have actually read, whereas you mentioned authors, of which I'm sure you've read very little. Cheers!
I don't need to read the books of someone to know that I do not want to read his books. Richard Dawkins is a sophomoric clown. I'm not judging the particulars of this or that book. Rather, I'm judging the man himself. No interest.
Now to you: why do you tend to believe that I've "read very little" from the men that I mentioned. Is this projection on your part? That is, you know that you spend most of your life pretending, therefore so must everyone else?
Why am I surprised you threw daggers at another Scorpio? Lucky for you, you're young and have some time to read. Please keep reading. If your faith is so strong, please read Sam Harris End of Faith, Richard Dawkins God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens Portable Atheist, and Daniel Dennet Breaking the Spell. 4 Books, compared to the 73 books in the Catholic Bible. Surely your faith will not be shaken. And don't lie and say you read them like my sister did.
I'm not spending either my money or my time to read such unsophisticated claptrap. Richard Dawkins? Are you serious? He's a clown. Of all that you mentioned, the only one of any value is DD. But, alas, he seems to leave his philosophical skills behind when he discusses God.
Rather, you should get your head out of such silly books and read some real philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Reid, Hegel, Sartre, Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, et al.
"It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "the plan of creation", "unity of design", etc, and to think that we give an explanation, when we only restate a fact. Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory." Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species
Here is a near perfect response to your questions. Check out League of Reason: 'Atheism can't...' posted by Thunderf00t. Note, interestingly, that urls are banned from these comments, or else I would provide citation after citation for readers to easily follow. Not all questions are valid, or yield utility. purereligion127 fails to provide any valid justification for my answering his absurd questions, and until he does so, I will rest my case.
"Not all questions are valid" (Trog). Good, good. I agree. People who ask questions like, "Is there a God? Is God good" are fools who need to give an account as to why they are asking such doltish questions. Good, Trog, good.
Just pick up any logic text that could be used to teach predicate logic and therein you will get your answer. Also, you might grab any work that treats informal fallacies in detail and you will probably find it there too.
However, I must say: the fact that you need a source speaks volumes, that is, of your ignorance of the topic before you. Now, I reason, if a person does not know a few basics about logic, is this person fit to discuss the metaphysics of logic? Please, stop.
If you are going to criticize my words, try being specific, as nothing you have said supports your criticism. You may find my words confusing or "not that clear" only if you have not read any science.
What matters is whether what I say is true or not, regardless of any class I have taken, because truth is only determined when there is sufficient evidence to support it. I suggest that you probably also differ in your definition of "truth" as well. Terminology first pls.
The term "scientific law" and "logic" are human conventions used to describe occurrences of striking uniformity, predictability and reliability. Let's make sure our definitions match before continuing. There are some logical exercises, or traps, that defy any observation. That is where religion tends to branch of in defiance of what is observable. Logic is useful in helping to predict things we have yet to observe, but its use cannot be used to deny what is observable.
Without attempting to commit similar fallacies, such as straw man, tempting you to defend some position you have not taken, I will attempt to explain to you the very fact that scientific laws are only laws because they satisfy our ability to predict outcomes and the reliability with which we can make those predictions. Prediction entails whether or not a phenomenon can be observed. Reliability of prediction entails precisely when the observation will occur. cont...
Account for - A reason given for a particular action or event
Rationality, a concept of reason;
"Atheist World view cannot account for the laws of logic or its use of them"
Of course it can. The reason for the laws of logic are the same as the reason for the laws of physics, etc. It's simply that they are called laws because they are useful in terms of prediction and reliability. If they produce non-reliable predictions and results, they are discarded. Utility.
This is standard when atheists--who usually have little to no understanding of philosophy or logic--try to speak to the tougher issues of philosophy.
To Mr. Of-course-it-can: take any law of logic--it matters not the type--and SHOW how, first, 'prediction' (lol) or 'reliability' (lol) provide a justification for the same law, and two, how 'prediction' and 'reliability' fit into an atheistic worldview.
Although, I do think Bahnsen's position would be better represented by a Catholic who is equivalently educated in philosophy. Simply put, the problems with Protestantism displayed here (i.e. a complete dependence upon the Bible for every theological principle) would be non-issues.
Complete dependence upon the Bible for every theological principle is an issue for Protestantism, but it's a strength, not a weakness. Having the Creator's very words as our complete authority is superior to man's opinions/perversions getting into the mix. We know Atheists appeal to arbitrary, subjective arguments ("It's immoral for God to allow suffering when He can prevent it" = Atheists have no foundation for any moral law, so by what standard do they condemn the Almighty?). Cath same thng
The problem is that you have no way of knowing, without the Catholic Church, what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't. Protestants rely on their own interpretation of the Bible... There is no objective standard for you, thus you are theological relativists. You really don't know as much about Catholicism as you think. I'd suggest checking out Scott Hahn or John Henry Newman to get an idea of what converts with open minds really find out about the Catholic Church.
It was the Catholic Church that was clearly perverting the explicit truth of the Bible, and Protestants "protested" against this corruption. For instance, the CC was selling indulgences in exchange for alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome-basically selling salvation. Without Protestants looking at the Bible and saying, "Hey, that's not in here", people would just follow whatever the corrupted church leaders said. The Bible is meant to be searched out by each person (Acts 17:11).
explicit? that's YOUR interpretation! are you going to show me that you're not a theological relativist or are you just going to keep proving it? (i.e. search the Bible himself)
WAIT! A Catholic did something wrong?! Of course Protestants don't ever do anything wrong... that's why we know they're right. Come on.
Are you going to continue to use a book to prove itself (begging the question, logical fallacy) or are you going to use soem other authority... OH WAIT.. you don't have one!
Explicit, i.e., in its presentation of salvation. Where can you show me a biblical allowance for salvation to be purchased? Gal. 1 Paul says if anyone teaches a different gospel than Paul brought, he is to be damned.
The true Church is led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, cf. words of Jesus, including interpretation. Therefore interpretation is objectively found in God's illumination. Catholics have purposely distorted interpretation for perverse reasons.
I wasn't arguing FOR the selling of indulgences! I'm saying specific people did wrong things. JUST LIKE Protestants! So, at best, it's a straw man.
Objectively found in God's illumination... okay... so that just gets beamed into your head? What if two people disagree? Oh yeah! they just create another denomination... glad we have 30000 of those! What unity! seriously?
A literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic ("normal" hermeneutic") is the approach of Protestants, demanding that the text speaks for itself. Catholics believe in re-interpreting the Bible through modern man's whim (Pope who speaks "ex cathedra", etc.).
You're jumping all over the place to arguments not having to do with the subject. I was never addressing the Bible proving itself, or anything proving the Bible; only why depending on the Bible alone is superior to adding man's opinions.
So... no matter how many times you re-state it, it's STILL circular reasoning.
Don't you see that you CANNOT avoid adding your own opinions? That's why we have all these fantastic Protestant denominations and NO unity outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I just finished listening to the entire debate, & regret not having been there, since I was near Irvine in 1985. I think both participants represented their positions extremely well. I'm not even going to say which one I side with; I'm just grateful that somebody recorded it, so that people on both sides could rethink their positions, & learn from it, one way or the other. I've heard many people talk about "great" debates, but this one really surpasses them all in terms of content.
You said I do not know exactly what is behind my head but I do know there is not a jumbo jet landing there. you are demonstrating that there are ways to know that something it's true even if we can not see it with our own eyes, and that is exactly what happen when some one see, and learn all the evidence about God, that we have in us, and around us. Some people choose not to acknowledge the evidence presented in front of them, but evidence we have.
"that there are ways to know that something it's true even if we can not see it with our own eyes"
Yes we can hear it etc.
"Some people choose not to acknowledge the evidence presented in front of them, but evidence we have"
Exactly. Many people refuse to see the obvious evidence in front of them for evolution etc and cling to the childish idea that they have an invisible friend. Normally this is because it was drummed into them when they were very young but not always.
When you say: Some people are very interested in the truth and hence base the beliefs on evidence. You make it sound like if you are one of them, and by trying to make fun of the statement I made before it does not affect me at all, but it make clear to me your intentions. And by you suggesting that The Bible does not have the truth, you must have it, or you don't have the basis to deny it.
Some people are not interested in the truth at all, and reject God for multiple reasons, like pride, or love to a sin that the Bible condemn etc. this question about how do you know which one it's the true religion, it's not difficult to find out, If some one sincerely ask God to show him the truth, The Bible promise God will do that, but this people have a different motive behind the question.
Some people are very interested in the truth and hence base the beliefs on evidence.
Plenty of people have prayed to plenty of gods and all been told that they are worshipping the correct god. Also remember that because something answers your prayer and claims to be the Christian God that does not mean it is - it could be Loki winding you up for example.
You must be a repentant baptized Christian to go to heaven. Matthew 28:18-20 The mission of Christians is to seek and save the lost, teaching them to repent and follow God. It is not selfish to want to stay on Earth for longer amounts of time so that we can save the souls of as many people as we can. We don't wish our children to die in their sleep because we would hope that they could also grow up to seek and save the lost.
Is that the only reason you would rather your children did not die ASAP?
If that is your only purpose on earth should you all just be travelling around trying to save as many people as possible rather than distracting yourself with jobs etc?
After all your God should be able to provide you with everything you need to do his work (although his work is only necessary because he decided it was).
right. Why did Jesus (which wasn't even his name, and names don't translate) just travel around Jerusalem? If his preachings were so important, why not go to Asia, or Africa, or Europe? Instead he stayed in this rather small space of the world. Why not talk about the people on the other side of the world. It's like the ?'s are so simple but they always have some bullshit response. Like, "He felt it was our duty" "God works in mysterious ways". What's the fuckin mystery? Why? WTF?
The only fairy tale here is the one about the invisible magic man in the sky who irrationally is trying to make everyone do his little God dance while providing no established form of evidence for doing so. Take your head out of your ass.
at least Nietsche and Hegel were intellectually honest in their hatred of the Living God.
Hey mike and Jan, ever read a book?
your statements betray such stupidity that I debated not even responding.
let me tell a story about the perverse creatures who are full of lust and pride, who refuse to be judged by a Living God.
They attempt to psychologize all of history and suppose themselves superior to all historical thinkers. They mock what they do not understand, and they burn for their folly.
If you can prove to me God exists. I'll believe he does. Until then, piss off; and I'll continue to not believe in God the same way I don't believe in other made up creatures and characters who exist only in books. I don't hate God, because I don't believe he exists. So hating that which doesn't exist would be silly.
However, were God to exist, and I were able to ask him questions, I would like to know just what he was thinking with all of the inherent contradictions and outright fallacies.
That whole statement is so riddle with logical fallacies...I don't know where to begin, but here it goes. 1) "mom loves you" is provable, in way she speaks and behaves, it manifests in a way that we, as humans perceive as loving actions and have ascribed as such. 2) Oxygen is provable. We have the technology and are perfectly aware of the oxygen atom. It's testable, has been tested, and we know it to exist. 3) reading scripture proves nothing and is simply an assertion of circular logic.
Religious assholes like you continue to assert that God is a tangible being, who interferes in our lives on a daily basis. You, as the people making such a claim, suffer the burden of proof. Atheism, is the default, as no person is born with the knowledge of God in them. Until the claim you make can be proven, I adhere to the default, as it the rational response to any extraordinary claim that can't be proven/demonstrated. Your comparisons are stupid at best and serve only to dodge the point.
You have no grasp of the state of the evolutionary debate, nor the intellectul depth to understand that without man, there is no one to ask any questions;
without God there is no universe, no tangible reality for us to wander around in making discoveries through our subjective empirical senses.
when you make thinking claims it requires clarity, precision, context..
You like using the word logic, what logic courses have you taken?
you can not prove to any angry child that their mom loves them, they'll just say No, your a jerk! like your last post said to me.
To say the Bible is logically circular is simply to point out the Rationalists quest for certainty. all truth claims require some standard silly, your standard is "science" which relies on natural uniformity and our sense perceptions and our reason.
I have less faith in man and more in God, so I take His word over it.
how she speaks and behaves is a subjective analysis contingent on a preconceived notion of love that may prove true or may not if she leaves you.
I realize oxygen exists, thats how theists mock atheists, I would have to breath while I argue there is no air,.
atheists use logic and reason to deny the existence of its source. the burden of proof is on the atheist, since you call into ? the existence of objective reality.
All of our universes are meaningless. Part of the point is that we are NOT special in this universe, and we don't have to create some supernatural sky daddy in order to scare us into being good people. Atheists will generally operate on the notion that if this is the one life we have to live, then you better make the most of it.
If mom dies, then she is not actively loving me anymore. That doesn't diminish the things she said/did in the past that showed me she loved me while she was still here.
There are plenty of people who can site examples that their mother in fact did not love them. Of course it's subjective, but these are the descriptions we as a society of ascribed to them. One person who is being beaten might still insist that the person beating them, loves them still...which is in a way the way Christians describe God coincidentally. You could argue that there is no air, but you would be wrong. Because, again, that's still something we can test.
Just because we can't see Oxygen molecules by normal means, i.e. with our eyes in their natural state, we can still definitively test and prove the existence of oxygen atoms. You would go to make the same claim that just cause we can't see God, doesn't mean he's not there, but there is absolutely no test that can be performed to go about determining the validity of the God claim, the way that you can prove that Oxygen/air is actually real. So try again.
you can say " I exist" as Descartes did, now you must account for the induction you used to establish self consciousness, remember Hume?
You can not even speak without acknowledging reasoning, conscience, intelligibility, logic and other conscious beings that share your objective reality.
First of all, fuck you...don't begin to placate me as if you have some higher knowledge of the universe and I need to be spoken to as some mongoloid with a keyboard. I may call you on your ignorance, but I've not been disrespectful.
Religion cannot acknowledge reasoning, conscience, etc. either. It asserts that it does under the claim "Magic man done it". All of those listed are present for sure but NOBODY knows "why"? If we did, there would be no point of philosophy in the first place.
requires the uniformity of nature and the reliability of memory otherwise theres no causation. It requires two separate and conscious beings sharing the same objective reality, it requires an intelligible language and a medium to communicate through, it requires sense organs to instantiate and interpret the statement.
It requires reason and logic, it requires context, physical bodies and universal laws.
atheism cant speak, and if it could would say " Im not thinking"
First, why is "lets take my car" in quotes? Did I say that?
Ultimately, I don't know exactly what point this is supposed to be making. You start with causality, which made me laugh because the first cause argument has been refuted time and time again. But then it goes someplace completely different, where even if all of these things about a car are true, so what? How does this translate into atheism "not thinking" which is more asserted posturing. I can easily say the same for you.
if your Universe is meaningless, why learn, live, love or argue? my Universe obeys the laws of Its Creator, and all its occupants will be judged by His Son upon death. My universe has right and wrong, good and evil, induction, logic, purpose, love.. it accounts for everything I encounter in reality.
your worldview has no teleology, no epistemology, no soteriology.. you cannot justify making value claims, like good or bad, you cannot account for war or crime or selfishness or deceit.
Bullshit. I'm assuming your making a morality claim against atheism. If not, let me know, but this is how I'm interpreting your post. If so, tell me one way that you are more moral than I. Give me one moral precept that you have as a believer, that I do not have as an atheist.
The point being, one does not need religion to be moral. People, good moral people even, were around a long, long time before your God ever decided to "show up" in the first place.
I am a sinner, I am not suggesting Im morally superior to anyone. What basis do you have for believing in a concept like morality? the fact that you believe in good or bad is bc you were raised in a Christian culture.
an atheist culture cant say that anything is good or anything is bad, the words would have no meaning, just like your whole atheist universe that came from nowhere and goes nowhere and means nothing. Your universe is simply the denial of mine, it is a denial of being.
Teleology is unfounded, self-righteous drivel, and nothing more. All it is is an assertion to somehow make human beings special in the universe. We're not.
"no epistemology" - Bullshit! Epistemology is exactly what creates atheists in the first place. We don't presuppose anything, and we investigate the unfounded claims that the theists make, in order to prove their validity, as well as their origins. i.e. what makes you tick?
"no soteriology" - hahahaha, yah, that's kind of the point.
I have spent the last hour showing you that atheists presuppose all kinds of things to make simple statements like " lets take my car".
your own title of a-theism requires a knowledge of theism and its consequent denial to make the word.
The 7 day week and year 2009 both are Christian concepts. You cant set your alarm without conforming to Christian doctrines. If we took Christian presuppositions out of your last comment it would be blank
How about this, you don't seem to have any idea what you're saying. See how we can go round and round like that all day long. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me. You're generalizing all atheists to make simplistic statements that simply aren't true. You assert your belief in a God you have no evidence for, while citing the history of the culture of the people who also happened to believe those things as if they have anything to do with the validity of religion. You have no proof.
I'll say it again. You making the claim, suffer the burden of proof. I don't have to prove a damn thing. Learn the scientific method, or shut the fuck up. All you're doing is citing pointless rhetoric that has no place in debate. IT PROVES NOTHING! I don't care if Christians founded a Utopian society filled with peace and harmony, let alone your 7 day week. It still says NOTHING of the validity of God's existence, and it's infuriating to deal with someone as intellectually dishonest as you.
way to dodge the point tool. If praying for a miracle is witchcraft then the parents of every child with cancer are on their way to hell. Why don't you think before you let this crap out of your mouth?
This is merely another excuse as to why your god cannot do anything real. It is very similar (it a little ... more personal) than the excuses all of the other religions give because they do not want to accept that they have been brainwashed into a believing a fairy story.
I have faith and refuse to place it in God because there is no more reason to do that than to place it in any other supernatural and unproven power.
Nope, the truth is that Christianity is no more plausible than any other religion. It just depends on which one of them gets their claws into you first. Once they have you the brainwashing can be very heavy and difficult to break. Normally when it is broken people can use threats (hell etc) and social isolation (you cannot come to our party it is Christians only etc) to reclaim you.
However, I have seen through the charade and am happy to come back, if anyone can show my the physical proof
I am unwilling to accept anything as evidence when it clearly is a co-incidence. As I said previously, if you took 50 people from that time and asked them to make 10 random comments on how the world worked some would eventually get proved by science at some point (assuming they are correctly interpreted). This proves nothing other than playing the numbers works sometimes.
If you want me to repent then the solution is easy, provide me with evidence I can accept - such as making my keys float
They felt they were, they read the bible and prayed to God and received answers.
Why would they be wrong and you right? Perhaps they had the bible correctly interpreted and you have misunderstood it? Perhaps the answers which you are telepathically receiving are not from God but actually the devil?
Brilliant, does not make the bible anymore plausible for the reasons I stated earlier though. Like I said, if they had named the elements in the bible I woudl have been impressed.
I have decided Christianity is not true in the same way I have decided faeries are not true. There is not enough evidence to support the fact that they are true - nothing more.
I am being honest (another accusation of dishonesty?!) - I am applying the same rules to Christianity that I do to anything else, a claim is false unless there is enough evidence to show it as true.
Jesus died on the cross to pay for all our sins, by grace, for free to us, and free does not mean that it was free. God pay an extremely hi price for us, how ever not every one will be safe, in fact, the Bible teach us that more people will be condemed than saved. Some seners love their sins so much that they will do anithing to pretend that there is not God, They ask something, then they get the answer, then they ask an other question, then and other and on and on, not realy looking for God
Let me ask this....What is this magic power in the spilling of blood that God requires in order to perform his magic tricks? Why must blood be shed, let alone that of his "only son", who is actually just God incognito. Why is blood required? Why were sacrifices needed before the crucifixion? Why can't God simply do what he wants to do, without the blood shed? Seriously!
God is Holy, when man sinned in the garden his entire nature became corrupt.
God gave the Law to the Jews ( Sinai) .
man lost his ability to commune with God, covenants are established by the shedding of blood.
God ordained two priesthoods, one eternal and one temporal. One through Jesus, one through Aaron.
under the OT the priests performed sacrifices for their sins and teh sins of the people. when Christ came and shed His blood, since He obeyed the Law without sin
he has established an eternal priesthood and abolished the ceremonial laws.
without bloodshed, there is no remission of sins.
God cannot deny His own character.
He cannot allow sin to go unpunished, He has condemned all of mankind to eternal damnation for what Adam and Eve have done. No man can keep the Law, we are full of sin. We will all die.
Jesus is the only hope mankind has, that God might have mercy on us, and forgive our sins for the sake of His Son.
So if you decide its true you will find reasons to justify your belief whereas if you are impartial you will simply find reasons not too. This matches my finding quite closely
I am a Christian, and I love God. Greg Bahnsen is no longer with us, and I am learning so much from him. I thank God for him. Before I was saved, I did not understand, but after some one explain the plan of salvation clearly, then I andertood. Now, reading the Bible, I am learning so much stuff that I did not know before, now the more I learn, the more I whant.Thank God for forgive in my ignorance, and sins. I was lost and I did not know it before. Wow.
I wasn't looking for religion, only for the truth, and I learn a litle about Catholics, Mormons, Jehova Witness, Joga, A litle of Budism, and now a lot about Muslims, and I don't know everithing about them, But, after Praying to God for direcction regardless of where the truth about him was, I understod that God is talking to me with the Bible. I have being part of diferent kinds of Christian churches, including none denominational, because my main interest it's only the truth, and the Bible is
It is absolutely possible, only a fool would say otherwise. I cannot know that there is no super natural big boss any more than you can know there is. For all either of us know we are merely figments of someone else's imagination.
You believe there is for whatever reason. Normally the reason is that people are told it is true when they are too young to know anything else.
I have seen no evidence to believe that the Christianity is correct, the same for any other religion.
Ah, my apologies I thought you were serious (too much internet debating gives one an itchy trigger finger).
I am male, my wife has tried to 'lead me to Christ' and at her request I attended an Alpha course where I asked several questions which they could not answer. The reason that we are together is that she has observed that apart from my lack of belief in any kind of god I have attitudes and morals very in-keeping with Christianity.
I do not think that they are foolish, merely mistaken
If you took a dozen people from back then and asked them to make 50 predictions of how the earth was made up, I am sure that you would get many answers which would later be confirmed by science. If we did not mention the others then we would have an amazing book of super natural knowledge ... of course we would not.
It does not prove anything other than playing the numbers works sometimes.
Of course they are found in the earth! This is obvious. Although, please provide scientific journal references otherwise you are making an empty statement.
If the bible had named the elements I might have been impressed.
Although I feel confident that a Muslim could cherry pick quotes from their holy book which match modern science as well as you can with yours. Just as you could find as many nonsensical statements in their books as they could in yours.
Christianity is not a special case. It is simply another religion which happened to get a good foothold in Europe due to the Romans spreading it and was then strengthened by the powerful role it took through the middle ages.
Not the case, this is merely religious arrogance again.
I want what is best for my family, my trainees, most people I know. I go to considerable inconvenience to ensure that this happens to the best of my ability.
"If someone you say you love began to constantly hurt you, you would eventually begin to hate them. "
Hmmm - you have me there. I was told this by a Muslim co-worker but I no longer work with her. It was something to do with everything being drawn together eventually. She was telling me how scientists had recently discovered that the orbits of the planets were gradually being drawn towards the sun which shows tha her religion was correct. I have to be honest in that I only paid courtest attention as I find all religions equally implausible.
How do you know it is the Holy Spirit? It might be your imagination? If might be Loki winding you up? If the holy spirit guides people why do they misunderstand the bible and sin?
By your definition I love a lot of people but I already knew that!
"The best interests, for nonbelievers, is that they repent and accept Jesus, so they can have eternal life. " but we do not believe that will happen, hence the non believer part.
Actually the Quran does have a couple of scientific predictions which have turned out to be 'true'. I am sure that lots of other religions would too if you wanted them too.
The bible science contains far more nonsense than the occaisonal interpreted hit it gives, I am sorry but you will need to do better than that. I am sure your God will help if you ask him (or do you have an excuse ready for why he will not?).
*Sigh* - it is nothing to do with 'loving sin'. You said that my sin was not believing in God. I do not sit here loving my non belief in God. I rarely think about it unless something reminds me.
I do not believe in your God because there is no reason to. There is no proof he exists. The arguments given for him are no better than the ones for plenty of other religions, aliens, fairies, the Bermuda triangle etc.
I have had many people tell me that in various ways, they were not all Christian. Probably even fewer of them going by the definition you mentioned previously.
I would be lying if I said I had read the bible from cover to cover but I do have a knowledge of it which is superior to many Christians I know.
All of these are perfectly explainable without any supernatural interferacnce. Even if there was a supernatural creator, there is no evidence that it was the Christian God as opposed to any other god.
Interesting. What happens if it is a genuine mistake? What would happen to you if you go through all of this only to find out that you had misunderstood something?
I always though that Christianity was meant to be kind and loving religion. It seems like it is going to send 90% people (including those who died before Christ's message could reach them) are going to burn in the agonies of hell for eternity.
Ah, okay. I was not aware that not believing God by itself was a sin.
It is, however, not my fault that god has not provided me with what I need to believe. What about people from other religions, are they wicked too even though they might well be living devout lives as far as they are aware?
Am I correctly understanding that Jesus would like to drown me? I hope that this is not an instruction to Christians as I cannot swim!
Why don't we stick to me telling you what I am interested in rather than you telling me. That way it has a chance of being right.
Why is my life wicked? What knowledge of my life do you think you have to make that lofty judgment? Did you receive divine knowledge through prayer? (If so please tell me what it is).
Why is your life not wicked? There are plenty of religions which you do not follow. Many religions have you down to burn in their version of hell.
But who is right? All parties field valid arguments and pray to God and presumbly receive his feedback. Why is there not agreement beween them? What happens to these fair weather Christians who only support the parts of the bible they like? Will they spend eternity in the lake of fire too?
Comment removed
OctoberBret 1 month ago
bahnsen has a great mind. i wish we had some van til debates.
semajgnik 1 year ago 4
I like how in the beginning of the debate, Stein says he will not accept supernatural means as evidence of God's existence, but here he says he will accept it as evidence. Stein goes back and forth frequently in this debate, quite amusing!
brodudemanguy 1 year ago 7
Confidence based on experience = faith.
1noen1 1 year ago
WOW! I never heard Bahnsen's response by anyone before on mericles not making an atheist a believer. Its true, when you think about it, in history many atheists saw what they could not explain and would have perceived as mericles and yet they still did not believe. I think mainly because they did not have modern scientific method to explain the contrary but regardless they still did not believe. I wish atheist would stop using that argument.
cctman 1 year ago
purereligion,
You seem familiar with this so perhaps you could help me?
Why do the laws of logic prove there is a creator? Aren't they just learned by observation and deduction?
If the lol prove a creator why is it the the Christian God and not some other creator?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska you seriously want an answer in less than 100 words on this? Come on... And why are you asking the same questions that were answered very well in this very debate? I'm starting to wonder if you even listened to this...
cctman 1 year ago
@cctman These questions were not answered in this debate. If you disagree please point me towards where these were conclusively answered.
On the subject of miracles. People used to see miracles all of the time, science has gradually improved our knowledge so that we can tell they are not miracles. Although, if they were, how do we know which super natural force is causing them?!
I wish theists would stop using that argument.
JanJiska 1 year ago
In this debate one may (again) see the failure of modern skepticism, specifically, those within the same group who commit themselves to an empirical theory of knowledge (no matter how such is nuanced). How could (or would) an empiricist ever move from not-knowing of to knowing of something like modus ponens? Any empiricist want to scratch the surface on this?
If not, trust me, I blame thee not. After all, it is impossible.
purereligion127 1 year ago
Every time I hear Bahnsen talk about the laws of logic--more specifically, dipping his fingers into the pudding of philosophy of logic--it is refreshing, indeed. Good stuff.
It is no coincidence Stein has no rebuttal to Bahnsen's little chat. This is the case with many modern skeptics the first time they're forced to reckon with an educated Christian, specifically, those trained in theology or philosophy or (ideally) both.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127 Four hours and nothing, yet you continue to bleat and leave comments...
Where is the evidence for your claims?
Stop fleeing like a kicked dog.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
In the end, maybe her real lesson is to back off the rudeness to others and instead offer cited information that she thinks she knows, in the spirit of sharing knowledge. Youtube doesn't offer urls in comments, so this is not the forum at the moment. If she continues to want to be a troll, then maybe someone should recommend encyclopedia dramatica as a potential home-base for her trolling expeditions.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Here is the lesson I have in mind: do not assume that because something is systemic and widely known, and because you are amongst people who worship evidence and reason, they will know of the same.
purereligion127 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iTroglobite
Sir, are you calling me a troll?
purereligion127 1 year ago
At least she admits to learning that some colleges and universities, and departments therein, prefer to stock libraries with biased secondary and tertiary materials and allow students to write reports off of them, while others always require sourcing original works, particularly when it comes to science. The same standard should hold for other departments as well, unless the research is a survey of non-primary sources.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Who said anything about original sources being jettisoned? I can't believe it. Do you not understand how scholarship works (whatever discipline you mention)? There are a few basics that all disciplines share. Do you not know what these are?
See, I believe your problem is hubris. You step into arenas in which you do not belong--like you did you jumped into the Vienna Circle w/o knowing it. You need to take a step back and rethink how you're going about life.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Please state the institution for which you are grading papers, so that I may broadcast to others the lower standards of source citing. My college NEVER allowed encyclopedias or textbooks....period.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
I'll do one better: go to a COMMON STANDARD for colleges and universities (I can't say all use this, but most surely do): The Bedford Handbook by Hacker. Now, turn to pages 592-593 and you can see for yourself.
This is really becoming sillier by the moment.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127 I must qualify that last claim. I said 'most' use it. Okay, just over half use it, but there is virtually no college or university that does not recognize its standards as legitimate.
The truth is, till now I've never looked into it. Having been around academics for the bulk of my life, I just know that such is taken for granted. But there is a lesson to glean from this, and I shall take it.
Good job...
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
I'm going private with you because your statements are not relevant to this video, are inflammatory (troll-ish), and I cannot send you url citations for you to learn more about what I'm talking about. Read your inbox and please reply.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
I've already replied. I think I hit delete. LOL
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
And by the way, your wiki argument needs updating. It's very old. NO college allows any encyclopedia, OR TEXTBOOK, to be used as a source or citation. Religious people love to bash wiki, because it allows quick referencing to source material for which you have no refutation. Refute the specific content if you can, but otherwise, you might learn something.....about science.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
What a stunning ignorance. Poor fellow. You've jumped out of the frying pan into the fire!
No need to update anything. If I grade a paper, and depending upon what type of citation is used, if an established encyclopedia or textbook is used as a source, that is completely legitimate.
Now, don't get me wrong: there is no policy, as far as I know, that forbids the use of wiki. However, most professors at more quality institutions do not allow it.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Your psychological projection is truly astounding. You still have failed to substantiate any of your claims. I don't claim to be a philosophy buff, never did. My claim is that evidence renders most philosophy meaningless. So, congratulations, you learned a bunch of useless stuff that won't help you to get a job other than trolling or writing articles for other people who don't value evidence.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Now, let's think about something in light of your standards: you say most philosophy is meaningless. Yet, you admit that you know little to nothing about philosophy? Get the point? Yeah, you're a living contradiction.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
By the way, what claims have I made that need support for which I've not given the same? Please, just name the claim.
purereligion127 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@purereligion127 "Please just name the claim"
I'll quote three of them.
"To compare God to purple fairies begs the question"
-support needed
"If God is who He says He is"
-support DEFINITELY needed!
"You are condemned"
-support not only needed, I'll pay you a million dollars if you can produce some!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@purereligion127
On reading the Vienna Circle on wikipedia, I am not at odds with their statements, with the exception that my experience with math, logic and programming has lead me to believe that they also do not always reflect evidence on the ground, however sound they may appear to be. They are simply notations, like the English we are using today, to approximate what we experience. And you know how words fail. BTW, going private with you...
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Going private w/me, really? Why? B/c you do not want you ignorance on full display for others to see? Allow me to be clear: if you're were more sincere and less contentious, I might consider. But given your record here, and now over there, forget it.
PS - I really would not turn to WIKI as an academic source. Bad news. You are aware that at more quality colleges and universities professors do not even allow WIKI to be used as a source?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Supplying those quotes no more makes me out to be a positivist than you using the Internet makes you out to be scientist or a software engineer. I simply posted those quotes because I like them, and to goad you into ridiculing me more. It worked! You're showing your true colors for everyone to see. Yet, you still have not substantiated anything to the contrary. What, can you propose, has philosophy actually done for mankind? Compare those contributions with science.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Before now, it may be true that you've never said, "I am a logical positivist." But as I have amply demonstrated, you've certainly aligned yourself (to some degree) with that school of thought.
Just so you know: I thought you did not intend to do so. Why? Because I was pretty sure you'd never even heard of the Vienna Circle and its philosophy. Notwithstanding, given the claims you made, not just the quote you provided, you jumped into the Vienna Circle.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@iTroglobite asks: "What...has philosophy actually done for mankind?" Is this a joke?
Anyway, do you value term, statement, predicate, and modal logic? If so, thank philosophers. Do you value the notion of tolerance and free expression? Ditto. Do you value geometry and calculus? Ditto. Do you value scientific methods (pl.)? Ditto. Do you value the vast expanse of great Western literature and thought? For much of it, thank philosophers.
Need I say anymore?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
One more bit on this matter of philosophy versus science: it was not till recent years that such a distinction could be made. Do you know why? I'll tell you: because there was no such distinction. Science was just one of several branches of philosophy. Why is this? Because many of the "great scientists" from the past--who were harbingers for modern science--were philosophers. Indeed, the first recorded scientific experiment in the West was by a philosopher: Thales.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
The arg that you've read more of philosophy than me and therefore everyone should accept you as authority is completely meaningless, particularly when you fail to walk the walk, educate people, or show that you actually follow any of the ideas you have read in your....textbooks. This combined with your utter failure to demonstrate the slightest curiosity for any works that might soundly refute any of your cherished philosophy indicates that you want authority without merit.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
What the hell are you saying? I've never presented myself as an authority. I just know BS--Harry Frankfurt style--when I smell it. You know nothing about philosophy and that's even more apparent now.
Regardless, do you wish to return to the topic at hand? If not, I'm moving on. You're becoming a waste of time. Let me know.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Any philosophy junkie should know Sun Tzu, or at least have read the little Art of War book. If you actually follow any philosophy at all, you should follow this one:
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
If you refuse to read the Four Horsemen, you are refusing to know your enemy, and you will therefore most certainly lose. They, and I, know you and your ilk. Do you know us?
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
A couple of points: first, I've read plenty DD (and his mentor--know who that is, right?) in the context of philosophy of mind and language. He's got some decent things to say. However, like the other three, on matters of religion he loses his abilities to think as critically. Plain and simple.
Second, I'm sorry I'm not infatuated with the Four Horsemen as you are. However, I do interact with the literature of skeptics routinely--but skeptics who are more sophisticated.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
My claim is that you've "read very little" simply because of the manner in which you dust across topics and fail miserably to refute this simple claim. You might be good at buzz words, but so far you have failed to provide any substantive details. Your turn.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Across what topic have I dusted? Second, what claim have I failed to refute? I am prepared to discuss quite a number of the works from the men I cited. Of course, you'll be lost in a moment. Now, since I think you'll want to deny that, let's do it: you pick the author, and I'll pick a work I've read and we'll dance. Sound good?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Who said anything about logical positivism? Once again I advise you to not put words in my mouth. Any philosophy major should know better than to trip over fallacies like a child trips over toys.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Yeah, the ignorance is stunning. Let' see, you quote Carnap (logical positivist); you say metaphysical and religious claims are meaningless (logical positivism); you discount metaphysical claims on the basis of empirical non-verification (logical positivism). But hey, I don't know who said anything about logical positivism.
LOL
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
So by saying "any logic text" you must have some belief that all textbooks are somehow alike and all are inherently accurate representations of original works. In fact, textbooks are NOT original works of philosophy or science, and are regarded with as much authority as encyclopedias. Check the textbook references, if any. You may want to dig deeper.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite Excuse me, but I think you are misunderstanding. I mean textbooks written by original authors. For example, Patrick Hurley's Intro. to Logic will answer your question about informal fallacies not being laws of logic. They're not. Go read.
If you want more references, simply ask. Don't piss your pants, just ask.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Metaphysical propositions are neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as are religious views.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
You really want to join the Vienna circle? You really want to defend some version of logical positivism? If you want to do so, let me know. However, here is what I advise: do not try to become a philosopher by Googling.
purereligion127 1 year ago
This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense. — Rudolf Carnap, Philosophy and Logical Syntax
iTroglobite 1 year ago
Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. ....
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Haha! So I take it from your "Richard Dawkins" is a clown remark, that you have neither read his works, nor do you have anything substantive about which to criticize him. Read original works before you poo-poo, and then poo-poo substantively. You will soon find that your narrow reading of philosophy ignores indisputable facts on the ground. I mentioned specific books I have actually read, whereas you mentioned authors, of which I'm sure you've read very little. Cheers!
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
I don't need to read the books of someone to know that I do not want to read his books. Richard Dawkins is a sophomoric clown. I'm not judging the particulars of this or that book. Rather, I'm judging the man himself. No interest.
Now to you: why do you tend to believe that I've "read very little" from the men that I mentioned. Is this projection on your part? That is, you know that you spend most of your life pretending, therefore so must everyone else?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Why am I surprised you threw daggers at another Scorpio? Lucky for you, you're young and have some time to read. Please keep reading. If your faith is so strong, please read Sam Harris End of Faith, Richard Dawkins God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens Portable Atheist, and Daniel Dennet Breaking the Spell. 4 Books, compared to the 73 books in the Catholic Bible. Surely your faith will not be shaken. And don't lie and say you read them like my sister did.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
I'm not spending either my money or my time to read such unsophisticated claptrap. Richard Dawkins? Are you serious? He's a clown. Of all that you mentioned, the only one of any value is DD. But, alas, he seems to leave his philosophical skills behind when he discusses God.
Rather, you should get your head out of such silly books and read some real philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Reid, Hegel, Sartre, Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, et al.
purereligion127 1 year ago
"It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "the plan of creation", "unity of design", etc, and to think that we give an explanation, when we only restate a fact. Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory." Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species
iTroglobite 1 year ago
Here is a near perfect response to your questions. Check out League of Reason: 'Atheism can't...' posted by Thunderf00t. Note, interestingly, that urls are banned from these comments, or else I would provide citation after citation for readers to easily follow. Not all questions are valid, or yield utility. purereligion127 fails to provide any valid justification for my answering his absurd questions, and until he does so, I will rest my case.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
"Not all questions are valid" (Trog). Good, good. I agree. People who ask questions like, "Is there a God? Is God good" are fools who need to give an account as to why they are asking such doltish questions. Good, Trog, good.
purereligion127 1 year ago
Please cite the source of your belief that informal fallacies are not laws of logic.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Just pick up any logic text that could be used to teach predicate logic and therein you will get your answer. Also, you might grab any work that treats informal fallacies in detail and you will probably find it there too.
However, I must say: the fact that you need a source speaks volumes, that is, of your ignorance of the topic before you. Now, I reason, if a person does not know a few basics about logic, is this person fit to discuss the metaphysics of logic? Please, stop.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
If you are going to criticize my words, try being specific, as nothing you have said supports your criticism. You may find my words confusing or "not that clear" only if you have not read any science.
What matters is whether what I say is true or not, regardless of any class I have taken, because truth is only determined when there is sufficient evidence to support it. I suggest that you probably also differ in your definition of "truth" as well. Terminology first pls.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
Check out "You Must First Create the Universe" posted by FFreeThinker. It's a good follow-on to this discussion.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@purereligion127
The term "scientific law" and "logic" are human conventions used to describe occurrences of striking uniformity, predictability and reliability. Let's make sure our definitions match before continuing. There are some logical exercises, or traps, that defy any observation. That is where religion tends to branch of in defiance of what is observable. Logic is useful in helping to predict things we have yet to observe, but its use cannot be used to deny what is observable.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
First, you're writing is not that clear. I can tell you've not interacted with these issues on any significant level.
Second, and so as to get to it, SHOW HOW some law of logic--please take your pick--can be proven by appealing to predictability and reliability.
Third, are you (like the failure Stein) saying that laws of logic are human conventions?
Fourth, so as to the clear the air, and please tell the truth, have you ever taken a higher level philosophy class?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127
Without attempting to commit similar fallacies, such as straw man, tempting you to defend some position you have not taken, I will attempt to explain to you the very fact that scientific laws are only laws because they satisfy our ability to predict outcomes and the reliability with which we can make those predictions. Prediction entails whether or not a phenomenon can be observed. Reliability of prediction entails precisely when the observation will occur. cont...
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
Not that this matters, but FYI, informal fallacies are not laws of logic.
purereligion127 1 year ago
Account for - A reason given for a particular action or event
Rationality, a concept of reason;
"Atheist World view cannot account for the laws of logic or its use of them"
Of course it can. The reason for the laws of logic are the same as the reason for the laws of physics, etc. It's simply that they are called laws because they are useful in terms of prediction and reliability. If they produce non-reliable predictions and results, they are discarded. Utility.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
@iTroglobite
This is standard when atheists--who usually have little to no understanding of philosophy or logic--try to speak to the tougher issues of philosophy.
To Mr. Of-course-it-can: take any law of logic--it matters not the type--and SHOW how, first, 'prediction' (lol) or 'reliability' (lol) provide a justification for the same law, and two, how 'prediction' and 'reliability' fit into an atheistic worldview.
Good luck...
purereligion127 1 year ago
Does no one fancy a pray off?
Shame, I was looking forward to that :-(
JanJiska 1 year ago
Guys,
There is only one way to find which of your Gods is better:
A PRAYER OFF!!!
I am thinking of a number, which ever one of you prays to you God and gets closest is the one worshipping the real God.
Points will be awarded for creative excuses as to why your God has not answered, would not answer or answered incorrectly.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Fantastic debate!
Although, I do think Bahnsen's position would be better represented by a Catholic who is equivalently educated in philosophy. Simply put, the problems with Protestantism displayed here (i.e. a complete dependence upon the Bible for every theological principle) would be non-issues.
leviksu 2 years ago
Complete dependence upon the Bible for every theological principle is an issue for Protestantism, but it's a strength, not a weakness. Having the Creator's very words as our complete authority is superior to man's opinions/perversions getting into the mix. We know Atheists appeal to arbitrary, subjective arguments ("It's immoral for God to allow suffering when He can prevent it" = Atheists have no foundation for any moral law, so by what standard do they condemn the Almighty?). Cath same thng
megenoita 2 years ago
The problem is that you have no way of knowing, without the Catholic Church, what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't. Protestants rely on their own interpretation of the Bible... There is no objective standard for you, thus you are theological relativists. You really don't know as much about Catholicism as you think. I'd suggest checking out Scott Hahn or John Henry Newman to get an idea of what converts with open minds really find out about the Catholic Church.
leviksu 2 years ago
It was the Catholic Church that was clearly perverting the explicit truth of the Bible, and Protestants "protested" against this corruption. For instance, the CC was selling indulgences in exchange for alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome-basically selling salvation. Without Protestants looking at the Bible and saying, "Hey, that's not in here", people would just follow whatever the corrupted church leaders said. The Bible is meant to be searched out by each person (Acts 17:11).
megenoita 2 years ago
explicit? that's YOUR interpretation! are you going to show me that you're not a theological relativist or are you just going to keep proving it? (i.e. search the Bible himself)
WAIT! A Catholic did something wrong?! Of course Protestants don't ever do anything wrong... that's why we know they're right. Come on.
Are you going to continue to use a book to prove itself (begging the question, logical fallacy) or are you going to use soem other authority... OH WAIT.. you don't have one!
leviksu 2 years ago
Explicit, i.e., in its presentation of salvation. Where can you show me a biblical allowance for salvation to be purchased? Gal. 1 Paul says if anyone teaches a different gospel than Paul brought, he is to be damned.
The true Church is led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, cf. words of Jesus, including interpretation. Therefore interpretation is objectively found in God's illumination. Catholics have purposely distorted interpretation for perverse reasons.
megenoita 2 years ago
I wasn't arguing FOR the selling of indulgences! I'm saying specific people did wrong things. JUST LIKE Protestants! So, at best, it's a straw man.
Objectively found in God's illumination... okay... so that just gets beamed into your head? What if two people disagree? Oh yeah! they just create another denomination... glad we have 30000 of those! What unity! seriously?
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu 30000? still throwing that straw number around? You do realize that number includes your own catholic districts right?
Not to mention the massive amount of catholics who put Obama in to office. Yea you guys are really unified too. =P
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 and leviksu ,
Guys, why are you bothering to argue? A simple prayer off would settle who was right. I offered to umpire one a few posts ago.
JanJiska 1 year ago
A literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic ("normal" hermeneutic") is the approach of Protestants, demanding that the text speaks for itself. Catholics believe in re-interpreting the Bible through modern man's whim (Pope who speaks "ex cathedra", etc.).
You're jumping all over the place to arguments not having to do with the subject. I was never addressing the Bible proving itself, or anything proving the Bible; only why depending on the Bible alone is superior to adding man's opinions.
megenoita 2 years ago
"text speaks for itself"
So... no matter how many times you re-state it, it's STILL circular reasoning.
Don't you see that you CANNOT avoid adding your own opinions? That's why we have all these fantastic Protestant denominations and NO unity outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu "Don't you see that you CANNOT avoid adding your own opinions?" Now who's beating up strawmen?
You have the nerve to bring this up in the secular arena of all places amidst hostile mindsets too. Hell I've known jews with better sense than that.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
Maybe you should read "The Roman Catholic Controversy" By James White.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
I just finished listening to the entire debate, & regret not having been there, since I was near Irvine in 1985. I think both participants represented their positions extremely well. I'm not even going to say which one I side with; I'm just grateful that somebody recorded it, so that people on both sides could rethink their positions, & learn from it, one way or the other. I've heard many people talk about "great" debates, but this one really surpasses them all in terms of content.
funhistory 2 years ago
Great debate! Dr. Bahnsen destroyed him!
RbnHd123456 2 years ago
i AGREE ^. For God lives within us and evil could never overcome us because of that! God is more powerful!
LexieRexie91 2 years ago
There is no definitive absolute evidence for a super natural creator.
Even if there was there is no evidence that it is the one you worship.
Even if the bible is an exact historical record (lol) then Jesus may have been lying. It is not possible to know.
Your belief is no different to any other religion's. The other religions which you insist are wrong.
JanJiska 2 years ago
You said I do not know exactly what is behind my head but I do know there is not a jumbo jet landing there. you are demonstrating that there are ways to know that something it's true even if we can not see it with our own eyes, and that is exactly what happen when some one see, and learn all the evidence about God, that we have in us, and around us. Some people choose not to acknowledge the evidence presented in front of them, but evidence we have.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
"that there are ways to know that something it's true even if we can not see it with our own eyes"
Yes we can hear it etc.
"Some people choose not to acknowledge the evidence presented in front of them, but evidence we have"
Exactly. Many people refuse to see the obvious evidence in front of them for evolution etc and cling to the childish idea that they have an invisible friend. Normally this is because it was drummed into them when they were very young but not always.
JanJiska 2 years ago
When you say: Some people are very interested in the truth and hence base the beliefs on evidence. You make it sound like if you are one of them, and by trying to make fun of the statement I made before it does not affect me at all, but it make clear to me your intentions. And by you suggesting that The Bible does not have the truth, you must have it, or you don't have the basis to deny it.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
"When you say: Some people are very interested in the truth and hence base the beliefs on evidence. You make it sound like if you are one of them"
I would like to think so.
" trying to make fun of the statement I made"
Nope, merely providing a parallel statement.
"suggesting that The Bible does not have the truth, you must have it, or you don't have the basis to deny it"
Rubbish. I do not know exactly what is behind my head but I do know there is not a jumbo jet landing there.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Some people are not interested in the truth at all, and reject God for multiple reasons, like pride, or love to a sin that the Bible condemn etc. this question about how do you know which one it's the true religion, it's not difficult to find out, If some one sincerely ask God to show him the truth, The Bible promise God will do that, but this people have a different motive behind the question.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
Some people are very interested in the truth and hence base the beliefs on evidence.
Plenty of people have prayed to plenty of gods and all been told that they are worshipping the correct god. Also remember that because something answers your prayer and claims to be the Christian God that does not mean it is - it could be Loki winding you up for example.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Do Christians put their children to bed and tell them "I hope you die in your sleep".
If not, why? Surely if they die in their sleep they will go to heaven and live in paradise etc. Why would you not want this?
Is it purely selfish in that you want them around in which case surely you are not a good Christian. Are you?
Do Christians cheer when large amounts of people die as they are all now in heaven etc?
Surely not wanting people to die is an atheist point of view?
JanJiska 2 years ago
JanJiska,
You must be a repentant baptized Christian to go to heaven. Matthew 28:18-20 The mission of Christians is to seek and save the lost, teaching them to repent and follow God. It is not selfish to want to stay on Earth for longer amounts of time so that we can save the souls of as many people as we can. We don't wish our children to die in their sleep because we would hope that they could also grow up to seek and save the lost.
Margulis88 2 years ago
Is that the only reason you would rather your children did not die ASAP?
If that is your only purpose on earth should you all just be travelling around trying to save as many people as possible rather than distracting yourself with jobs etc?
After all your God should be able to provide you with everything you need to do his work (although his work is only necessary because he decided it was).
JanJiska 2 years ago
right. Why did Jesus (which wasn't even his name, and names don't translate) just travel around Jerusalem? If his preachings were so important, why not go to Asia, or Africa, or Europe? Instead he stayed in this rather small space of the world. Why not talk about the people on the other side of the world. It's like the ?'s are so simple but they always have some bullshit response. Like, "He felt it was our duty" "God works in mysterious ways". What's the fuckin mystery? Why? WTF?
kikrlbs 2 years ago
The only fairy tale here is the one about the invisible magic man in the sky who irrationally is trying to make everyone do his little God dance while providing no established form of evidence for doing so. Take your head out of your ass.
mikech78 2 years ago
at least Nietsche and Hegel were intellectually honest in their hatred of the Living God.
Hey mike and Jan, ever read a book?
your statements betray such stupidity that I debated not even responding.
let me tell a story about the perverse creatures who are full of lust and pride, who refuse to be judged by a Living God.
They attempt to psychologize all of history and suppose themselves superior to all historical thinkers. They mock what they do not understand, and they burn for their folly.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
If you can prove to me God exists. I'll believe he does. Until then, piss off; and I'll continue to not believe in God the same way I don't believe in other made up creatures and characters who exist only in books. I don't hate God, because I don't believe he exists. So hating that which doesn't exist would be silly.
However, were God to exist, and I were able to ask him questions, I would like to know just what he was thinking with all of the inherent contradictions and outright fallacies.
mikech78 2 years ago
thats like asking your Mom to prove she loves you,
even to ask it is to show your ingratitude and immaturity.
prove to me there is oxygen, until then I'll just go on breathing but denying that there is oxygen. you want real answers?
read Romans, then Hebrews, then James.
Those 3 books alone acn teach you more than I ever could.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
That whole statement is so riddle with logical fallacies...I don't know where to begin, but here it goes. 1) "mom loves you" is provable, in way she speaks and behaves, it manifests in a way that we, as humans perceive as loving actions and have ascribed as such. 2) Oxygen is provable. We have the technology and are perfectly aware of the oxygen atom. It's testable, has been tested, and we know it to exist. 3) reading scripture proves nothing and is simply an assertion of circular logic.
mikech78 2 years ago
Religious assholes like you continue to assert that God is a tangible being, who interferes in our lives on a daily basis. You, as the people making such a claim, suffer the burden of proof. Atheism, is the default, as no person is born with the knowledge of God in them. Until the claim you make can be proven, I adhere to the default, as it the rational response to any extraordinary claim that can't be proven/demonstrated. Your comparisons are stupid at best and serve only to dodge the point.
mikech78 2 years ago
"I'm an asshole and my examples are stupid"
Ha Ha Ha.
You have no grasp of the state of the evolutionary debate, nor the intellectul depth to understand that without man, there is no one to ask any questions;
without God there is no universe, no tangible reality for us to wander around in making discoveries through our subjective empirical senses.
when you make thinking claims it requires clarity, precision, context..
You like using the word logic, what logic courses have you taken?
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
you can not prove to me that my mom loves me.
you can not prove to any angry child that their mom loves them, they'll just say No, your a jerk! like your last post said to me.
To say the Bible is logically circular is simply to point out the Rationalists quest for certainty. all truth claims require some standard silly, your standard is "science" which relies on natural uniformity and our sense perceptions and our reason.
I have less faith in man and more in God, so I take His word over it.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
what if mom dies? now there is no proof?
how she speaks and behaves is a subjective analysis contingent on a preconceived notion of love that may prove true or may not if she leaves you.
I realize oxygen exists, thats how theists mock atheists, I would have to breath while I argue there is no air,.
atheists use logic and reason to deny the existence of its source. the burden of proof is on the atheist, since you call into ? the existence of objective reality.
your universe is meaningless.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
All of our universes are meaningless. Part of the point is that we are NOT special in this universe, and we don't have to create some supernatural sky daddy in order to scare us into being good people. Atheists will generally operate on the notion that if this is the one life we have to live, then you better make the most of it.
If mom dies, then she is not actively loving me anymore. That doesn't diminish the things she said/did in the past that showed me she loved me while she was still here.
mikech78 2 years ago
There are plenty of people who can site examples that their mother in fact did not love them. Of course it's subjective, but these are the descriptions we as a society of ascribed to them. One person who is being beaten might still insist that the person beating them, loves them still...which is in a way the way Christians describe God coincidentally. You could argue that there is no air, but you would be wrong. Because, again, that's still something we can test.
mikech78 2 years ago
Just because we can't see Oxygen molecules by normal means, i.e. with our eyes in their natural state, we can still definitively test and prove the existence of oxygen atoms. You would go to make the same claim that just cause we can't see God, doesn't mean he's not there, but there is absolutely no test that can be performed to go about determining the validity of the God claim, the way that you can prove that Oxygen/air is actually real. So try again.
mikech78 2 years ago
let me explain this slowly...
without God, you can not justify existence.
you can say " I exist" as Descartes did, now you must account for the induction you used to establish self consciousness, remember Hume?
You can not even speak without acknowledging reasoning, conscience, intelligibility, logic and other conscious beings that share your objective reality.
A non christian must account for these things.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
First of all, fuck you...don't begin to placate me as if you have some higher knowledge of the universe and I need to be spoken to as some mongoloid with a keyboard. I may call you on your ignorance, but I've not been disrespectful.
Religion cannot acknowledge reasoning, conscience, etc. either. It asserts that it does under the claim "Magic man done it". All of those listed are present for sure but NOBODY knows "why"? If we did, there would be no point of philosophy in the first place.
mikech78 2 years ago
" lets take my car"...
requires the uniformity of nature and the reliability of memory otherwise theres no causation. It requires two separate and conscious beings sharing the same objective reality, it requires an intelligible language and a medium to communicate through, it requires sense organs to instantiate and interpret the statement.
It requires reason and logic, it requires context, physical bodies and universal laws.
atheism cant speak, and if it could would say " Im not thinking"
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
First, why is "lets take my car" in quotes? Did I say that?
Ultimately, I don't know exactly what point this is supposed to be making. You start with causality, which made me laugh because the first cause argument has been refuted time and time again. But then it goes someplace completely different, where even if all of these things about a car are true, so what? How does this translate into atheism "not thinking" which is more asserted posturing. I can easily say the same for you.
mikech78 2 years ago
"[ lets take my car...]
requires the uniformity of nature and the reliability of memory otherwise theres no causation. "
Which cannot be relied upon if there is a god as the god might change anything at anytime.
"It requires reason and logic, it requires context, physical bodies and universal laws."
None of which could be relied upon if there was a god who could change them.
You god cannot speak and when it does it says whatever you want to hear.
JanJiska 2 years ago
if your Universe is meaningless, why learn, live, love or argue? my Universe obeys the laws of Its Creator, and all its occupants will be judged by His Son upon death. My universe has right and wrong, good and evil, induction, logic, purpose, love.. it accounts for everything I encounter in reality.
your worldview has no teleology, no epistemology, no soteriology.. you cannot justify making value claims, like good or bad, you cannot account for war or crime or selfishness or deceit.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Bullshit. I'm assuming your making a morality claim against atheism. If not, let me know, but this is how I'm interpreting your post. If so, tell me one way that you are more moral than I. Give me one moral precept that you have as a believer, that I do not have as an atheist.
The point being, one does not need religion to be moral. People, good moral people even, were around a long, long time before your God ever decided to "show up" in the first place.
mikech78 2 years ago
I am a sinner, I am not suggesting Im morally superior to anyone. What basis do you have for believing in a concept like morality? the fact that you believe in good or bad is bc you were raised in a Christian culture.
an atheist culture cant say that anything is good or anything is bad, the words would have no meaning, just like your whole atheist universe that came from nowhere and goes nowhere and means nothing. Your universe is simply the denial of mine, it is a denial of being.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Teleology is unfounded, self-righteous drivel, and nothing more. All it is is an assertion to somehow make human beings special in the universe. We're not.
"no epistemology" - Bullshit! Epistemology is exactly what creates atheists in the first place. We don't presuppose anything, and we investigate the unfounded claims that the theists make, in order to prove their validity, as well as their origins. i.e. what makes you tick?
"no soteriology" - hahahaha, yah, that's kind of the point.
mikech78 2 years ago
You don't seem to have any idea what your saying.
I have spent the last hour showing you that atheists presuppose all kinds of things to make simple statements like " lets take my car".
your own title of a-theism requires a knowledge of theism and its consequent denial to make the word.
The 7 day week and year 2009 both are Christian concepts. You cant set your alarm without conforming to Christian doctrines. If we took Christian presuppositions out of your last comment it would be blank
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
How about this, you don't seem to have any idea what you're saying. See how we can go round and round like that all day long. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me. You're generalizing all atheists to make simplistic statements that simply aren't true. You assert your belief in a God you have no evidence for, while citing the history of the culture of the people who also happened to believe those things as if they have anything to do with the validity of religion. You have no proof.
mikech78 2 years ago
I'll say it again. You making the claim, suffer the burden of proof. I don't have to prove a damn thing. Learn the scientific method, or shut the fuck up. All you're doing is citing pointless rhetoric that has no place in debate. IT PROVES NOTHING! I don't care if Christians founded a Utopian society filled with peace and harmony, let alone your 7 day week. It still says NOTHING of the validity of God's existence, and it's infuriating to deal with someone as intellectually dishonest as you.
mikech78 2 years ago
way to dodge the point tool. If praying for a miracle is witchcraft then the parents of every child with cancer are on their way to hell. Why don't you think before you let this crap out of your mouth?
mikech78 2 years ago
Actually, why is believing in fairies more foolish than believing in any other super natural power?
JanJiska 2 years ago
I do not just equate Christianity with fairies, I consider it equal to the following:
Islam, Bábism, Bahá'í Faith, Hussites, Cathars, Bogomils, Paulicianism, Tondrakians, Mandaeanism, goblins, ghosts, aliens, ESP, mediums, Conservative Judaism, Alternative Judaism, Essenes, Rastafari movement, Ayyavazhi, Manichaeism, Caodaism, , Invisible Pink Unicorn, Pow-wow, Luciferianism, Thor, Apollo, indian spirit guides and the boogeyman.
etc.
They all have their proofs and their believers.
JanJiska 2 years ago
This is merely another excuse as to why your god cannot do anything real. It is very similar (it a little ... more personal) than the excuses all of the other religions give because they do not want to accept that they have been brainwashed into a believing a fairy story.
I have faith and refuse to place it in God because there is no more reason to do that than to place it in any other supernatural and unproven power.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Nope, the truth is that Christianity is no more plausible than any other religion. It just depends on which one of them gets their claws into you first. Once they have you the brainwashing can be very heavy and difficult to break. Normally when it is broken people can use threats (hell etc) and social isolation (you cannot come to our party it is Christians only etc) to reclaim you.
However, I have seen through the charade and am happy to come back, if anyone can show my the physical proof
JanJiska 2 years ago
I am unwilling to accept anything as evidence when it clearly is a co-incidence. As I said previously, if you took 50 people from that time and asked them to make 10 random comments on how the world worked some would eventually get proved by science at some point (assuming they are correctly interpreted). This proves nothing other than playing the numbers works sometimes.
If you want me to repent then the solution is easy, provide me with evidence I can accept - such as making my keys float
JanJiska 2 years ago
They felt they were, they read the bible and prayed to God and received answers.
Why would they be wrong and you right? Perhaps they had the bible correctly interpreted and you have misunderstood it? Perhaps the answers which you are telepathically receiving are not from God but actually the devil?
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
They felt they were the same as you do. Who is to say they are wrong and you are right?
they thought they were following the bible and they prayed to God and got their prayers answered.
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
That is one of thousands of belef systems. It does not seem anymore harsh than the other ones to be honest.
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
Brilliant, does not make the bible anymore plausible for the reasons I stated earlier though. Like I said, if they had named the elements in the bible I woudl have been impressed.
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
More religious arrogance and offensive comments *sigh*.
How do you know if was Jesus you have come to know and not a different super natural power - perhaps Loki is winding you up?
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
I have decided Christianity is not true in the same way I have decided faeries are not true. There is not enough evidence to support the fact that they are true - nothing more.
I am being honest (another accusation of dishonesty?!) - I am applying the same rules to Christianity that I do to anything else, a claim is false unless there is enough evidence to show it as true.
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
Jesus died on the cross to pay for all our sins, by grace, for free to us, and free does not mean that it was free. God pay an extremely hi price for us, how ever not every one will be safe, in fact, the Bible teach us that more people will be condemed than saved. Some seners love their sins so much that they will do anithing to pretend that there is not God, They ask something, then they get the answer, then they ask an other question, then and other and on and on, not realy looking for God
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
If God paid any price is one the one he arbitrarily decided that he needed to pay.
However, being as I do not believe this happened I am unmoved by it.
Unless, you can pray to your God and make my keys float?
Of course you cannot, the same as any other theirs cannot.
JanJiska 2 years ago 2
Let me ask this....What is this magic power in the spilling of blood that God requires in order to perform his magic tricks? Why must blood be shed, let alone that of his "only son", who is actually just God incognito. Why is blood required? Why were sacrifices needed before the crucifixion? Why can't God simply do what he wants to do, without the blood shed? Seriously!
mikech78 2 years ago
good question Mike.
God is Holy, when man sinned in the garden his entire nature became corrupt.
God gave the Law to the Jews ( Sinai) .
man lost his ability to commune with God, covenants are established by the shedding of blood.
God ordained two priesthoods, one eternal and one temporal. One through Jesus, one through Aaron.
under the OT the priests performed sacrifices for their sins and teh sins of the people. when Christ came and shed His blood, since He obeyed the Law without sin
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
he has established an eternal priesthood and abolished the ceremonial laws.
without bloodshed, there is no remission of sins.
God cannot deny His own character.
He cannot allow sin to go unpunished, He has condemned all of mankind to eternal damnation for what Adam and Eve have done. No man can keep the Law, we are full of sin. We will all die.
Jesus is the only hope mankind has, that God might have mercy on us, and forgive our sins for the sake of His Son.
God does do what He wants.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
So if you decide its true you will find reasons to justify your belief whereas if you are impartial you will simply find reasons not too. This matches my finding quite closely
JanJiska 2 years ago
I am a Christian, and I love God. Greg Bahnsen is no longer with us, and I am learning so much from him. I thank God for him. Before I was saved, I did not understand, but after some one explain the plan of salvation clearly, then I andertood. Now, reading the Bible, I am learning so much stuff that I did not know before, now the more I learn, the more I whant.Thank God for forgive in my ignorance, and sins. I was lost and I did not know it before. Wow.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
Congrats. Was anyone able to give you any proof that their religion was the right one?
JanJiska 2 years ago
I wasn't looking for religion, only for the truth, and I learn a litle about Catholics, Mormons, Jehova Witness, Joga, A litle of Budism, and now a lot about Muslims, and I don't know everithing about them, But, after Praying to God for direcction regardless of where the truth about him was, I understod that God is talking to me with the Bible. I have being part of diferent kinds of Christian churches, including none denominational, because my main interest it's only the truth, and the Bible is
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
How do you know it was the Christian God that answered you and not some other super natural power?
JanJiska 2 years ago
Jesus said, "My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." - John 10:27
JeffG111 2 years ago
Obi Wan said "Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine".
JanJiska 2 years ago 3
lmao
mikech78 2 years ago
It is absolutely possible, only a fool would say otherwise. I cannot know that there is no super natural big boss any more than you can know there is. For all either of us know we are merely figments of someone else's imagination.
You believe there is for whatever reason. Normally the reason is that people are told it is true when they are too young to know anything else.
I have seen no evidence to believe that the Christianity is correct, the same for any other religion.
JanJiska 2 years ago
"unless you are a Christian, then you can't really know what love is."
Here's one in the same vein;
"If you're a "true Christian" then you can't really know what reality is."
Do you see how pretentious it sounds? This is not a good example of humility.
Question; Would it threaten you if it turned out that people who were not Christian could indeed know what love is?
And if they could, why would that be bad?
Or, equally, why wouldn't it be good?
MikkalaTube 2 years ago
Ah, my apologies I thought you were serious (too much internet debating gives one an itchy trigger finger).
I am male, my wife has tried to 'lead me to Christ' and at her request I attended an Alpha course where I asked several questions which they could not answer. The reason that we are together is that she has observed that apart from my lack of belief in any kind of god I have attitudes and morals very in-keeping with Christianity.
I do not think that they are foolish, merely mistaken
JanJiska 2 years ago
"unless you are a Christian, then you can't really know what love is."
Arrogance and extreme nonsense.
I do not warm them about hell for the same reason that I do not warn them about the tooth fairy - they are fictional.
"You say some of them are Christians, do they love you?"
Seemed to we have been married for a few years. Her family certainly give the impression that they do too.
Threats of hell are as scary as the threat of orcs as far as I am concerned.
JanJiska 2 years ago
If you took a dozen people from back then and asked them to make 50 predictions of how the earth was made up, I am sure that you would get many answers which would later be confirmed by science. If we did not mention the others then we would have an amazing book of super natural knowledge ... of course we would not.
It does not prove anything other than playing the numbers works sometimes.
You are very kind, I am happy to be patient.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Of course they are found in the earth! This is obvious. Although, please provide scientific journal references otherwise you are making an empty statement.
If the bible had named the elements I might have been impressed.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Touche.
Although I feel confident that a Muslim could cherry pick quotes from their holy book which match modern science as well as you can with yours. Just as you could find as many nonsensical statements in their books as they could in yours.
Christianity is not a special case. It is simply another religion which happened to get a good foothold in Europe due to the Romans spreading it and was then strengthened by the powerful role it took through the middle ages.
JanJiska 2 years ago
" For centuries medicine was washing diseased people in standing water. "
Please specify a historical source for being the standard practice, otherwise you are just making an empty statement.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Not the case, this is merely religious arrogance again.
I want what is best for my family, my trainees, most people I know. I go to considerable inconvenience to ensure that this happens to the best of my ability.
"If someone you say you love began to constantly hurt you, you would eventually begin to hate them. "
Good job I do not do that then.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Hmmm - you have me there. I was told this by a Muslim co-worker but I no longer work with her. It was something to do with everything being drawn together eventually. She was telling me how scientists had recently discovered that the orbits of the planets were gradually being drawn towards the sun which shows tha her religion was correct. I have to be honest in that I only paid courtest attention as I find all religions equally implausible.
JanJiska 2 years ago
If medicine in the bible were studied and followed loads of people would have died as people would have just prayed to be healed.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Hmmm - that is not a proper stated claim. More of an off hand reference that happens to fit.
JanJiska 2 years ago
How do you know it is the Holy Spirit? It might be your imagination? If might be Loki winding you up? If the holy spirit guides people why do they misunderstand the bible and sin?
By your definition I love a lot of people but I already knew that!
"The best interests, for nonbelievers, is that they repent and accept Jesus, so they can have eternal life. " but we do not believe that will happen, hence the non believer part.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Actually the Quran does have a couple of scientific predictions which have turned out to be 'true'. I am sure that lots of other religions would too if you wanted them too.
The bible science contains far more nonsense than the occaisonal interpreted hit it gives, I am sorry but you will need to do better than that. I am sure your God will help if you ask him (or do you have an excuse ready for why he will not?).
JanJiska 2 years ago
I am interested in why a kind and loving God intends torturing the vast majority of people for all eternity.
I am accountable for my own actions, not any super natural rule book or phantom voice in my ear.
JanJiska 2 years ago
I do not need an excuse not to believe. I need evidence to believe.
JanJiska 2 years ago
*Sigh* - it is nothing to do with 'loving sin'. You said that my sin was not believing in God. I do not sit here loving my non belief in God. I rarely think about it unless something reminds me.
I do not believe in your God because there is no reason to. There is no proof he exists. The arguments given for him are no better than the ones for plenty of other religions, aliens, fairies, the Bermuda triangle etc.
JanJiska 2 years ago
I have had many people tell me that in various ways, they were not all Christian. Probably even fewer of them going by the definition you mentioned previously.
I would be lying if I said I had read the bible from cover to cover but I do have a knowledge of it which is superior to many Christians I know.
JanJiska 2 years ago
All of these are perfectly explainable without any supernatural interferacnce. Even if there was a supernatural creator, there is no evidence that it was the Christian God as opposed to any other god.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Interesting. What happens if it is a genuine mistake? What would happen to you if you go through all of this only to find out that you had misunderstood something?
I always though that Christianity was meant to be kind and loving religion. It seems like it is going to send 90% people (including those who died before Christ's message could reach them) are going to burn in the agonies of hell for eternity.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Also, why is your life not wicked?
There are plenty of religions you do not follow.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Ah, okay. I was not aware that not believing God by itself was a sin.
It is, however, not my fault that god has not provided me with what I need to believe. What about people from other religions, are they wicked too even though they might well be living devout lives as far as they are aware?
Am I correctly understanding that Jesus would like to drown me? I hope that this is not an instruction to Christians as I cannot swim!
JanJiska 2 years ago
Why don't we stick to me telling you what I am interested in rather than you telling me. That way it has a chance of being right.
Why is my life wicked? What knowledge of my life do you think you have to make that lofty judgment? Did you receive divine knowledge through prayer? (If so please tell me what it is).
Why is your life not wicked? There are plenty of religions which you do not follow. Many religions have you down to burn in their version of hell.
JanJiska 2 years ago
But who is right? All parties field valid arguments and pray to God and presumbly receive his feedback. Why is there not agreement beween them? What happens to these fair weather Christians who only support the parts of the bible they like? Will they spend eternity in the lake of fire too?
JanJiska 2 years ago