A "believer" can never profess to know a non-natural being, that is ridiculous. "Believers", please stop trying to justify your beliefs with empirical evidence. When you chose your side, the side of Faith you then decided to do without proofs and facts. If you feel uneasy that anything you say cannot be proven then maybe you need to reassess your position. You cannot be on both sides.
It's not self-defeating. You just pick the explanation which is not obviously wrong/disproved by some evidence while supporting other evidence. If it's disproved by some evidence, it's not true.
"You're demanding 100% absolute knowledge."
No, only honesty with what we do and don't know.
"As limited human beings, we don't possess the type of knowledge"
Then people need to stop saying they know a god exists, and also stop pretending faith = knowledge.
@TheTexanCanadian I agree there are more bad reasons to believe something than good ones. I call this irrational faith. This goes for theism, deism, atheism, and ANY worldview that asserts conclusions which are not based on reasonable evidence or sound logic w/ true premises. Truth is my ultimate pursuit. So, I'm VERY interested in evidence you have for life starting from non-living matter without no primary intervention. I seek the worldview that best fits the evidence, reasoning and logic
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (the theistic worldview), or no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic worldview). Which worldview is more reasonable, logical, and scientific? ...nothing made everything or something intelligent made everything? I find it rather odd that some atheists will go way out of their way to assert that theists are delusional.
"or no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic worldview)."
That's not the atheistic worldview. Atheists just don't buy the explanation that theists give about specific god claims. We do not deny that a higher power COULD exist, it's just not Yahweh/Allah/Jesus.
"Which worldview is more reasonable, logical, and scientific?"
Atheistic worldview. Making up an explanation is the exact opposite of "scientific."
@TheTexanCanadian If you for a minute assert the higher power or intelligence exists that is in some way the cause of the universe, you step outside of the standard definition of atheism. By your definition, you fall into the worldview of pantheism, panentheism, or deism. You are definitely not an atheist.
No, atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim/belief system. Atheism does not assert anything at all. It ALLOWS the possibility that a god exists but there is no faith involved. Atheism is not a positive claim or belief about anything involving a deity.
@TheTexanCanadian OK - Our pop culture has screwed up the definition of atheism making it just as confusing as God. By your definition, you are what many would call a "weak atheist". However, many atheists today are "strong atheists". They go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. These atheists tend to make the assertions I was referring to in my previous comments. You're better off to simply call yourself a skeptic.
No, pop culture has not done that. Atheists just have enough of a voice now, enough of a network, that the negative definition given to atheism by theists (i.e. that we're making a claim) don't fly for us anymore.
The assertions that individual atheists might make have nothing to do with what atheism itself means. The fact is, for weak and strong atheists, they have one thing in common, they don't have faith in a deity.
@TheTexanCanadian Forget about definition for a moment. Do you think it is/was highly probable that the universe was caused by an intelligent agent/force?
Ok fair enough. Probable that some force, whether intelligent or not, caused the universe? That's the real question... and I'd have to say it is very likely. That does not, however, mean we have any way of knowing who/what that force was.
@TheTexanCanadian I agree that we don't have direct knowledge on this point. However, this does not mean we can't build rational and reasonable theories/belief/faith. This leaves us with probability, plausibility, and forensics. Assuming no intelligent design was involved in the universe, how probable do you think it is for complex organisms to come about from non-living matter by means of spontaneous generation? High or low?
"this does not mean we can't build rational and reasonable theories/belief/faith."
That's not how religions work though, theistic gods are instilled in people as children because that's what was done to them, and the rational arguments just cause the theist to modify their existing belief system. I know of no theists who believe solely for rational reasons.
"how probable do you think it is"
It's a low probability, however that low probability is not proof.
@TheTexanCanadian C.S Lewis had several rational reasons why he left atheism for theism. So, is it correct to say that you 1) believe the universe came into existence out of nothing with no outside cause/force and 2) it was a random fluke that life came about via spontaneous generation? If you don't believe these then I'd like to know what you do believe. Since we don't know for sure, is something worth believing if it's rational, if it's supported by evidence, and it best explains all the data?
I'm sure that last part will sound like I'm dodging your question, so let me be clear. A theistic god would have to be one of the gods of modern religions, and then I can say categorically "no," none of them best explain all of the data.
What I have learned is that it is physically impossible for us to in any way learn what happened at or before the big bang, and as such it's also impossible to generate an explanation which best explains all the data.
And since none of the theistic gods represent adequate explanations for the data, and belief in a deistic god is pointless, then we would have to generate a new hypothesis which is untestable, unverifiable and thus unscientific to determine what led to the Big Bang. All that would be left in terms of explanation would be merely for the satisfaction of our curiosity and would have no intrinsic truth value.
@TheTexanCanadian (cont.) You say "it's impossible to generate an explanation which best explains all the data." In a way, that's self-defeating. You're demanding 100% absolute knowledge. As limited human beings, we don't possess the type of knowledge that will provide us with absolute proof of God's existence or nonexistence. Outside of the knowledge of our own existence and tautologies, we deal in the realm of probability. This is true for scientists, physicists, historians, etc...
"What view is most logical and consistent with today's evidence? "
7. The universe exploded into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago for an unknown reason and potentially as an effect for an unknown cause, and life began naturally due to the evolution of single celled and multi celled organisms.
That is what is supported by evidence. Nothing is assumed, everything is supportable. To interject a supernatural aspect is to invalidate the argument.
@TheTexanCanadian Why should you get to make assumptions and speculative statements when the theist isn't allowed? You say "..life BEGAN NATURALLY due to evolution of celled organisms." I've not seen a shred of evidence for this statement and I work with top DNA scientists. Going by your demands, atheists should stop pretending naturalism = science. Claims made from both atheists and theists require serious vetting, scrutiny, and investigation.
The jews don't go around just killing people. Give me a break. That is what Hamas and the rest of the sick muslim world enjoy doing. Israel fights for their right to live. If it is such a small piece of land, why would the muslims want to fight over it? Last time I checked they owned 99% of the middle east. They desire to wipe out the jews just like the nazis. They are no different than the nazis. Israel has every right to protect themselves. Your views on the matter are trash.
The truth is that you can argue until you are blue in the face. Nobody can change your view but God himself. A christians job is to spread the gospel. God does the rest. You have to be drawn by God before you can believe. I would think the movie Expelled had some of the best arguments around. There will always be biased thoughts on religion.
"I would think the movie Expelled had some of the best arguments around. "
... Expelled is full of incredibly stupid arguments.
"Nobody can change your view but God himself."
Actually, you have to demonstrate that a god exists, in any way, before you can argue that he can do anything at all.
Theists just don't get it. Theistic arguments are just that bad. It's not that atheists just like to argue, there just really are no good reasons to be a theist.
Also a loving God gave us the power to reduce the suffering of others. Assuming that we are made in his image we we can not be imposent and must have free will to decide to do so or not. Perhaps that free will is what makes people think God is not loving. Then we should ask ourself why people decide not to follow the example and show love themselves,even for their enemies,or would it be too obvious to see that those who don't are without God/love as a reminder to us. He just hates his exreligion
looks like he lost his faculty, embarrassing for this being a lecturer of philosophy at cambridge. He mistakes the benevolence of God with preventing suffering. The ultimate suffering you experience is your death, so how much it hurts is irrelevant on that scale. To be killed by a suicide bomber in a burning tower might be more pleasent compared to living with Alzheimers for 3 years shouting and being aggressive to your loved ones. Death is pain and God's love helps you to bear it.
@shumble32 You demand God to erradicate all evil in order for him to be loving. If this is the case, he would have to erradicate all of us because we all do evil. You state a doctor is "truely evil" if he refuses to save a life. Do you really believe a doctor is truely evil when he performs an abortion on a child? So what is your objective standard or do you not really have an objective standard?
@okorewq Fair enough, I agree with your point about fairy tales, let's look at Greek Mythology. It makes equally confounding claims, yet we all accept them as "myths" what makes any other religion different? Because a "holy" book says so? Or because the majority of people accept scripture as fact? Or perhaps you just know in your heart that god is real. There are an estimated 500 billion galaxies, to claim that the answers aren't somewhere out there is irrational, saying you have them is stupid.
I am an atheist, to disprove god is the same as disproving the existence of a fairy or an elf, yet all faithful religious people will tell you that fairy tails aren't real. I don't fully contend the idea that a god could be responsible for creating the universe, however it is the most improbable explanation and even if this was found to be true it would in no way prove the divinity of jesus or the validity of any religion.
@Greenmailerr The big difference is that 1)fairy tales do not claim so much and 2) their origins can be traced thus can easily be proven one way or another. The monotheistic religions insist that God is supreme over the universe. If you've examined all things with all the means available and found out there is no God; fair enough to you. Otherwise, if you are an atheist that affirms "there is no God" and not as "I do not know there is a god", we all want to hear your evidence for your stand.
You're a part of a fringe group in the USA, less than 1% are atheists. Demographis of atheism, sub section North America, ASRI poll. I never even knew an atheist until I was 50.
I suspect the poll you're going by is Christian Funded....and if not it's still wrong....there are way more Atheists than that, and the numbers are growing and will continue to do so as long as there is freedom of speech and EDUCATION going on.
@Urfullobull - I'm from the Uk - here we have polls that tell us 75% of the population believe in God - but I simply don't believe them. The churches are empty and being turned into supermarkets. Christians are as rare as hen's teeth
I can see by ALL your responses you are either New at this or as usual you are stuck in Retard Mode as the rest usually are, and Logic,Reasoning & Critical Thinking are not used on your behalf as they are very discouraged of members of your ilk.
When confronted by the Big 3 L,R & CT it is expected that you all will resort to magical explainations to circumnavigate them and just fall back on the "Godidit" Defense, & yet still provide NO Evidence to back it up.
"Can you name all the different types of evidence that you DO accept?"
Look here, I'm going to try and make this as simple as possible for you. When you have a Book (ie.,the Bible) that makes claims and states the claims are true....but when you cross reference those claims with the Historical Records of other Cultures living in the SAME AREA & Same Time Periods and NONE of it lines up with anyone else's History...then the Book is BULLSHIT...simple as that.
Pffft... Explicit identification of atheism is around 2%, but over 15% cliam to have no religion... which means a lot of different things; these rates have nearly doubled over the last decade. As for you not knowing any atheists... did you ever bother asking?
@shumble32 Atheism like naturalism is ex hypothesi. @cindyisa10 has the right idea about atheist being a faith/world view. Here in the USA it's achieved NPO status and is protected under the 1st Amend
@shumble32 Atheism is protected here in the USA by the 1st amendments establishment clause. It was argued in from Kaufman v. McCaughtry 2005 and upheld Torcaso v. Watkins 1961. There are a lot of religious laws and cases. Michael Newdow founded the First Atheist Church of True Science (FACTS) back in 1997! Without language we can't communicate, that's why we have words with definitions (labels). Collecting stamps is a hobby. Whether you do it or not is a separate issue.
Who honestly believes they have this many answers? Are you really so proud of your own existence to think that there aren't people who have studied more and learned more, experienced more and have a higher IQ than you?
How can you be right 100% of the time about everything you write? All scientists know they can't be right 100% of the time, our brains and minds have limitatons, that alone should prove that there is at LEAST a 50% probability that you're not right on any given issue.
"Who honestly believes they have this many answers? Are you really so proud of your own existence to think that there aren't people who have studied more and learned more, experienced more and have a higher IQ than you?"
Not only do I KNOW to have MANY answers...I also KNOW the MAJORITY of Christians (Theists) are UNEDUCATED and can't hold a candle to my intellect.
They're the most often made objections. When something has to be repeated ad nauseum it usually is representative of the worst.
"The universe is eternal", "there's an invisible green dragon living in my garage", "not playing hockey isn't a sport", "Yes, god may exist, but WHICH ONE is true?", "The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you", "people are afraid to die so when they do they hallucinate heaven". That last one doesn't account for general anesthesia. Most people die in the O.R.
Sorry to bust your bubble there Slick, but William Lame Craig is full of shit and his arguments are EASILY dismantled by all except Morons who choose to throw Logic out the window in favor of Believing Abrahamic Bibical Myths stolen from MANY Cultures...just because it makes them feel good about their Life and gives them comfort in their imminent Death and their desire for Justice in an unfair world.
@Urfullobull I try to keep an open mind. Thanks for answering. I'll be glad to help you with what theists actually understand. drcraigvideos has a 10 part series Worst objections to Kalam Cosmological Argument. Please put my name above any comments you make on them, additionally I'll send you 2 proofs from a Ph.d in theoretical physics who'll explain our position from a unique perspectice. I had to go to the library to find some valid objections of creation & design. People dying isn't one.
@Urfullobull The 2 proofs are from God, Science, and The Mind; The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis Polis, Ph.d in Theoretical Physics and a current philosopher. He's clergy in the Catholic Church, and I'm a protestant so I do disagree on some religious doctrine, but our history of law and science is in agreement. I've taken a lot of objections on both proofs. None valid, but knock yourself out. What they ALL miss is that they're abstractions from his book. He SAYS: Mind is covered NEXT
"The 2 proofs are from God, Science, and The Mind; The Irrationality of Naturalism by bla bla bla..."
Really dude, Pick up some HISTORY BOOKS instead, primarily Ancient History and the history of Religion and the History of the writing of the Bible and where it's legends & STOLEN Myths come from.
"The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you"
That's a FACT...you all make Extraordinary Clams of a God but yet haven't a lick of proof, but yet expect others to Believe.
@Urfullobull The proofs are of God. blah, blah, blah HISTORY BOOKS. We won a war in 6 days against 4 armies on 3 open battlefields in 1967. We lead the world in science too. It's OUR HISTORY!
@Urfullobull The burden is on the one who lays charges, but the court's position on God is judicially noticed. Witnesses are asked to swear to God. Atheists are constantly trying to get the government to change their position on God. Have prayer taken out of the schools, Christmas tree lighting ceremonies & nativity scenes taken from public property etc. The Pledge of Allegiance: one nation under God < to have it removed. If God wasn't noticed, then the atheists wouldn't be suing.
"Have prayer taken out of the schools, Christmas tree lighting ceremonies & nativity scenes taken from public property etc."
Public Property is FUNDED by the GOVERNMENT...therefor by Separation of Church & State it IS Fundamentally ILLEGAL to promote ANY God on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
"Atheists are constantly trying to get the government to change their position on God.'
There is NO Position to change since the GOVERNMENT is NOT here to Promote ANY God or religion.
"You don't make a distinction between God and religion, we the people do."
And herein lies one of the MAIN Reasons why there is supposed to be Separation of Church & State. "We the People" have many views on how their particular RELIGION is to be PRACTICED, therefor the GOVERNMENT has NO BUSINESS interfering in that process NOR DICTATING which Religion is the correct one.
The other MAIN Reason is our Forefathers saw what Religion in Government caused over the Centuries in Europe.
@Urfullobull Sorry for the interrupting, I kind of ran out of people to talk to.
Corroborate: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain
Collaborate: to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor
I think you're confusing these two terms in regard to what qualifies as evidence. Corroboration does, collaboration doesn't. Have you seen any WLC debates? He provides support to his arguments, his opponents collaborate. Peace.
sounds more like a monologue than a debate as you only hear one side of the argument and even that sounds pretty poor. Interesting that people always want to see the other side "demolished....."
"sounds like wishful thinking of primitive people"
Nice deffinition of believing in a Sky Daddy, Dirt Man, Rib Woman, Magical Fruit that contains the Knowledge of Morals, Talking Donkeys & Snakes, 700 yr old men, WW Floods, Witches, Unicorns, Dragons, Wizards, Demons, Angels, Rocks that spew water when struck hard enough, Sticks that turn into Snakes, and a Host of other Supernatural Superstitious Garbage.
@Urfullobull Making up stuff. Isn't that all you're doing? Because the Bible contains miracles you say the Bible isn't true and miracles don't happen, but what's the Miracle on the Hudson? Oh, I know it was Sullenbergers 'fancy flying' & crash landing on water that was so fantastic, right? But, nobody suffered hypothermia either, and if this one pilot could do what no other pilot in history could do it causes all your arguments to people's falibility in their testimony to be falsified as well.
watch?v=f7rrEFJ8Da4 and check your worldview for coherence. By the way don't you like the idea of being made from the elements of the earth or do you claim to consist of things better than the dust of the earth. Otherwise I think the explanations people tried were reasonably well in accordance with their knowledge and their perception of reality.
I take it you doubt there ever existed an Aristotle or Socrates since you don't have any writings written in their lifetime.
Not only is there writings from their life time time not including their own works, we KNOW when they were born & when they died there are also Sculptures of them DONE in their Lifetimes from them sitting for the Sculptors & Artists.
...and the bible is just the personal opinion of a bunch of ignorant, raping, pillaging, primitive, misogynists.
If by "address" you mean "provide enough cryptic and ambiguous material to draw from so as to allow anything to be rationalized away", then yes, the bible has sufficiently addressed the issues to the satisfaction of cretins the world over.
@HurderpusMaximus Listen, at least I read atheistic, secular and evolutionary literature. I kinda want to know what these guys are arguing for however the opposite does not seem to be: atheist actually reading the bible and not just taking a sentence out of it.
Before you criticize something you better read up on the subject.
Are kidding me? Just because someone doesn't agree with your presuppositions and bias about your religion doesn't mean they are ignorant of it, in fact the opposite is often the case.
Most atheists are so, because they studied religion.Atheists have demonstrated a better knowledge of religion than theists in research studies thus demonstrating your claim as an unfounded bald assertion.
@HurderpusMaximus Really, do you think any atheists understand the Bible more than Paul or Augustine or John Owen or Jonathan Edwards?
I'm used to atheists being arrogant, but it is stupid when they claim to understand better what is nonsense to them but dear to Christians. I would want to hear what an atheist has to say about atonement or the Sovereign justice of God. Or do you claim to know the Bible because U can quote a few verses in Leviticus (Christians are the emotional ones, of course!)
"Really, do you think any atheists understand the Bible more than Paul or Augustine or John Owen or Jonathan Edwards?"
If by "more" you mean- in a more intellectually honest and objective manner- then yes, and you've offered nothing but an unfounded hypocritical appeal to emotion as defense. A personal attachment to the bible doesn't amount to a better understanding of it, it amounts to an understanding more subject to preconceptions and cognitive bias.
@HurderpusMaximus "You have offered nothing but an appeal to emotion as defense". So there's the other common atheist strategy of referring to Christians as emotional and cowardly. Atheism is so annoyingly predictable.
Well I would want to hear from you about some atheists that have "intellectually" interpreted the Scriptures better than these Christian scholars. It's absurd that you are adamant that some puny atheist could understand the Scriptures better than Paul who wrote many of them.
@HurderpusMaximus Is it not likely that when you read the Bible you laugh at what you don't understand than actually learn from it? Is it not the case that you are more likely to quote me more from Leviticus (as you should) than from Romans (doubt you ever read it). I don't expect that any atheist could expound the biblical doctrines of justification or election or propitiation as Paul, or even, say, Dr. John Piper, but, of course atheists are the more intellectually honest ones to the text!
It's been statistically proven that Atheists demonstrate more knowledge of the Bible - in its entirety, not just the parts the "church wants you to read" - than supposed religious people do.
So, I wouldn't put too much "faith" in your assertion if I were you.
Alexander Burke (LordSardonic) passed at age 20 living his whole life sick knowing he was going to die young (forever young). Dennis Polis ph.d Theoretical Physics Notre Dame, 70 year old philosopher.
Both are truly spiritually enlightened. Epiphenomenalism =/= metaphysics. Either we're immaterial at heart or not. It's been proved which is true. I'm surfing with Alex & Dennis!
@plightweisgoff All the answers are in the book my weblink takes you to. It's even a free downloadable book: God, Science, and the Mind; The Irrationality of Naturalism. I prefer the Dr.'s 45 videos (dfpolis) but whatever blows your hair back.
I experienced my soul outside of my body, I know EXACTLY what it is. I talk to people every day about supernatural experiences. I just finished a long letter to my friend Paul. LordSardonicvids. Alex Burke was born w/out kidneys. Passed 3 years ago
Neo-Thomist word salads aren't particularly interesting. Experiencing does NOT provide you with an unvarnished, unalloyed, self-justified picture of Reality (and subject-object relations), but rather a perceptive frame that may be internally modeled, but cannot provide you with an critique of it's external (absolute, outside) nature. You DO NOT 'know exactly what it is' until you can JUSTIFY your claims.. rather than just hand-wave them into being as you do here (and in that book)
@plightweisgoff Not experiecing and saying those who experience and understand what they experience is hand waved away by you.
It's in that little word 'justify' that separates us. I have a Doctorate of Jurisprudence. I prove, you don't. All you've done is give me word salad, you're still giving it to me. You think the law stumbles over simple definitions of words like you do? We're not having hearings over the meaning of 'hallucination' & 'justify' nor 'unvarnished'. Get a life.
Justifying the external validity of your experiences is your burden to bear... it's just sitting on the ground at the moment, waiting for you to pick it up. Your doctorate in jurisprudence isn't relevant to these matters... nor is your parroting of my comments; have fun with your navel.
@plightweisgoff Everyone justifies their experience by their competency or lack thereof. That's a 'rule' of law. Competency, materiality, and relevancy. Is what you're saying competent, material, and relevant?
Talking about navels isn't a prerequisite for the admissal of evidence. You're like a rogue cop playing by his own rules, "I'm going to put the SYSTEM on trial", "The rules ain't the rules".
Your 'rules' also need to be adequately justified, yes. Did you actually think you could grandfather them in or something? Sheesh. Though your 'rules' would seem fit to assess the consistency of a particular perceptive frame, or make relativistic comparison between perceptive frames, these internally-derived rules do not speak to external (ontological) justifications.
@plightweisgoff The law 'speaks' to eveything. The rules have been worked out over ions of time, they're still being worked out. Perceptive frame: In American law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify. The English equivalent is fitness to plead.
An unwarranted universal absolutism and an argument from tradition... not a good start. Again, this is not a matter concerning legal proceedings, but epistemological claims and ontological grounds.
@plightweisgoff Legal case history, case law (stare decisis) is not "tradition". It's what establishes valid legal argumentation in court also known as Points and Authorities.
Intellectual property is a part of law. It's the law that governs. You just think you're in charge, a rogue cop who plays by their own rules, but you're only in charge of what goes in your pie hole, and what comes out. Hey, thanks friend, but I'm all stocked up here!
Where does our will come from < I just googled that, here's the first return: What is will? Where does will come from? Is it part of our Personality? (No religious crap!)? Best answer: Reductive materialism (Reductionism) which has been proven false. Intentionality is immaterial. Maybe you can find what you're looking for in dfpolis #23 The Mind Complex Physics?
How has reductive materialism been proven false? A materialist metaphysic certainly has verificational problems, but modelling Will and Intentionality via empirical phenomena and scientific conventions have proven quite useful... and clues us into how fluid our 'selves' are in that frame, as well as how wacky it could work on a metaphysical level.
@plightweisgoff 'In God We Trust'. Our government's position is acknowlegement of God, the burden is all yours friend. You've misidentified everything including your duty to be a decent human being. We all live under law, all the time, the law is relevant.
Asinine. The US constitutionally functions as a secular republic, as per the 1st amendment, the prohibition against religious oaths for office, and numerous SCOTUS cases. As for my duty to be a decent human being, my skeptical resistance to theistic nonsense is a key part of how I fulfill my social responsibility, in addition to my other Left-wing values. Btw... that we all live under legal statutes does not mean they are relevant to all matters; check your math.
@plightweisgoff I didn't make the rules, I just play by 'em. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God. How many more times do you want to explain your position to me until you think I'll understand it?
Do you think scientists will be able to take non-living matter and organize it to create a spaghetti monster that has self-awareness, sentience, and qualia? If they fail, it does not matter because, one will eventually appear mysteriously in our universe by spontaneous generation not requiring an intelligent designer. If life came to exist by means of spontaneous generation, then why can't an invisible God come to exist by the same means? The religion of atheism requires just as much faith.
"The religion of atheism requires just as much faith."
And yet ANOTHER Moron who doesn't own a DICTIONARY and knows the deffinition of Religion.
Last time I checked Atheists don't Worship Deities, Pray to Deities, Believe in Deities or have any Hieriarchal & Social structures & Moral Codes (laws) based on Deities.
Do any of you, and I mean ANY of you knuckleheads own a DICTIONARY?
@Urfullobull Faith is required to believe ANY worldview including atheism, theism, and pantheism. You DON'T KNOW if God does not exist. You BELIEVE he doesn't exist and, like any worldview, your atheistic claim requires FAITH. I do own a dictionary and lived the definition of atheist. I used to be an atheist until I realized the atheistic worldview has very little or no evidence to back up its claims and it contends against many of the scientific evidences discovered in the last century.
Every time I'm close to death, my brain is straved for oxygen that's when I like to pick up a pen and paper and do some differential calculus. "the brain does crazy shit when it's dying".
Jesus has nothing to do with change in perspective < That's all Jesus and his teachings do, they make a person wise and kind. "If anyone has anything against you, leave your gift go and reconcile yourself with that person THEN come and offer your gift". Your gifts aren't sanctifying my altar.
@shizzleman8 Who ever mentioned calculus? The brain, when damaged or starved of oxygen, is given to hallucinations, many of which can "feel real." I've had many OBEs and NDEs. I, however, won't grant them authority of reality, nor should anyone else.
I have no "gifts" for you. You have no "gifts" for anyone else, either. Delusions aren't gifts; they're cruel, self-perpetuating punishment. Shake off your chains and cull the living flower. That's my message, not a "gift."
Arif is making an ad hominem argument right from the beginning in calling Craig's debating tactics an academic word game. Craig is not playing a game, he is demonstrating weak arguments. I've witnessed Craig debate anti-theists who pose sound arguments to which cannot "game" his way out of. To call Craig's scholarly methods that provoke high level thinking by opposing viewpoints a game is a discredit to any great debater, theist or anti-theist.
"How do I know I'm not hallucinating?" "been attested to by those on psychedelics" < Let THINK about this for a minute. If I sit down and munch a bunch of shrooms, I'm going to hallucinate, I know I'm hallucinating because I just ate the SHROOMS! < That's HOW I KNOW! That would be my frame of reference, I'd be PERCEIVING data as a dude HIGH on mushrooms.
You're not acting like a criminal profiler trying to solve a case, you're assailing every person who has an experience as being 'high'.
What justifies your 'sober' perceptive frame as being the primary, privileged one for knowledge? That takes an external meta-perspective for verification.
@plightweisgoff You can't answer a simple question. Apparently you can't tell the difference between an experience and a hallucination.
Sober, yep, I'm competent, relevant and material, I meet all the qualifications for testifying in court under oath. You need something other than these 3 prerequisites to be convinced. I have my frame of reference, my Identity, my Will, my Awareness. That's HOW I UNDERSTAND REALITY! Why would I need a meta-perspective? Ghosts don't get to testify. MATERIAL!
You haven't SHOWN how one would tell the difference merely from an experience of one state or another; at best, you MIGHT be able to discern which perceptive frame you are inside...
@plightweisgoff I've been as clear as I know how to be. I used to get high, halluciante, fantasize, and I experince reality and can tell the difference by the means i've presented.
... but, hallucinations are tricky that way: they could fool you into thinking you're in the OTHER frame. And still, neither of these choices is presented as the 'Real' world...
@plightweisgoff An experience involving the perception of something not present. I'm beginning to detect a pattern. Maybe I'm 1 of the most perceptive people to ever live and U R the polar opposite?
'Not present'... in the other perceptive frame, or in some 'reality' that is being presumed as accessible here? Wouldn't the existence of things in the 'normal' perceptive frame that don't exist in the hallucinatory one indicate that the 'normal' PF is flawed in the same manner?
... you identity, your will, your awareness... ALL constructed/reconstructed by experience AND whatever conditions lie outside your perview AS WELL AS in the ontological groundwork.
@plightweisgoff My will is not constructed by my experience. I construct it like a builder building a house, two projections of the same event. Essential causality, identity of cause and effect.
And here your presumptions truly bite you: How do you know your will (and your knowledge-seeking in general) is not being (re)constructed? If it isn't, where does this unchanging 'will' come from, and what relationship would it have with the phenomenal world at all? What and how 'you' are is an open question here... as is your application of frameworks of cause and effect, subject and object, etc; where is the external frame of reference to check your unwarranted assumptions?
@plightweisgoff You're less inclined at establishing a rigid foundation for your thoughts than I am at being naive. You've been bandying about the word 'ontology' like an appeal by prestigious jargon.
What grounds would I or anyone else have for "establishing a rigid foundation
" for our thoughts? What's the necessity for doing so? And my use of the word 'ontology' is quite specific: matters pertaining to Being/existence in the metaphysical sense... nothing pretentious there, it's simply a useful term.
@plightweisgoff You have will, but you don't know what it is? Will & Intentionality is the foundation for thought. Again, I think I've been very clear. I'm just trying to understand what you're asking or trying to teach. You're not presenting a proof, or legal argument, you're just raising concerns about a bunch of 'realities' that have already been established.
"And here your presumptions truly bite you:" < That's extraneous. Just use fewer words. I told you how I know, THRICE!
What indicates that Will & Intentionality (capitalized?) are the foundations for thought, when the nature of those matters has not been adequately determined? What W&I are could be constantly fluctuating, or be dependent upon empirical phenomena as well as metaphysically veiled grounding for such things. These realities have NOT been established by your naive realism... thrice, you have FAILED.
I juggle to make myself more aware. I've been juggling the 5 ball cascade for the last couple years, it's an amazing hobby that makes me wicked fast, spatially aware and is sure to delight children and adults of all ages. Recently I just purchased the best set I've ever owned from the Dollar Tree. $5 for 5 balls. The Juggling Store wants $15 a piece for the exact same ball.
You gotta be a Jew if you want to find the good deals. Buy low, sell high.
So God should intervene on behalf of corrupt humans waging war on each other for no good reason? God should have stopped those men from being killed by other men? This guy is a fucking joke who plays on heart strings throwing around words like "suffering" and "young men". Emotional arguments are invalid yet you immediately throw in your own? Give me a break.
Ok then. Just out of curiosity, why do you think your god absolves himself of responsibility for a universe he brought into being with full foreknowledge of the consequences, and all the power to change things for the better at any time?
@shumble32 I don't understand how your last comment is based on rational pure logic. What you are saying is: Because God does not always intervene, He is therefore 1) not omnipotent 2) not omnipresent, 3) not moral, and 4) not loving. This does not even equate to a rational argument. It's the same as saying policemen could only exist if there were no crime in the world.
@cindyisa10 - no, don't tell me what I'm saying - read what I've actually said and then get back to me.
But basically it's not an argument about his nature - it's an argument about his existence - understandably hard to grasp for those who can't entertain the possibility that god does not exist
@shumble32 cindyisa10 said it best. That is no logic. That is pure assumption. It also attempts to put behavioral boundaries on a being. These types of assumptions do not work with humans and they will not work with God.
@shumble32 That's a presupposition. You assume a loving God would intervene if he existed. What unemotional evidence do you have to base your logical assumption?
@quanahblaine - before I answer your question - swear to me you are not just playing stupid - because it really seems that way and answer my question (already posed and really very simple)
Is a loyal dog a loyal dog if he never shows any loyalty?
@shumble32 God lays out in His word how He intervenes. He is sovereign and is not answerable to you, or anyone for that matter how He ought to do whatever He does.
This has been flagged as spam show
A "believer" can never profess to know a non-natural being, that is ridiculous. "Believers", please stop trying to justify your beliefs with empirical evidence. When you chose your side, the side of Faith you then decided to do without proofs and facts. If you feel uneasy that anything you say cannot be proven then maybe you need to reassess your position. You cannot be on both sides.
benaberry 7 hours ago
Comment removed
benaberry 7 hours ago
This is only one side to the argument! How can the listeners subjectively judge who's been demolished by hearing only one side of the argument?
macklr21 16 hours ago
"In a way, that's self-defeating. "
It's not self-defeating. You just pick the explanation which is not obviously wrong/disproved by some evidence while supporting other evidence. If it's disproved by some evidence, it's not true.
"You're demanding 100% absolute knowledge."
No, only honesty with what we do and don't know.
"As limited human beings, we don't possess the type of knowledge"
Then people need to stop saying they know a god exists, and also stop pretending faith = knowledge.
TheTexanCanadian 3 days ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTexanCanadian I agree there are more bad reasons to believe something than good ones. I call this irrational faith. This goes for theism, deism, atheism, and ANY worldview that asserts conclusions which are not based on reasonable evidence or sound logic w/ true premises. Truth is my ultimate pursuit. So, I'm VERY interested in evidence you have for life starting from non-living matter without no primary intervention. I seek the worldview that best fits the evidence, reasoning and logic
cindyisa10 3 days ago
Comment removed
cindyisa10 3 days ago
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (the theistic worldview), or no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic worldview). Which worldview is more reasonable, logical, and scientific? ...nothing made everything or something intelligent made everything? I find it rather odd that some atheists will go way out of their way to assert that theists are delusional.
cindyisa10 6 days ago
@cindyisa10
"or no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic worldview)."
That's not the atheistic worldview. Atheists just don't buy the explanation that theists give about specific god claims. We do not deny that a higher power COULD exist, it's just not Yahweh/Allah/Jesus.
"Which worldview is more reasonable, logical, and scientific?"
Atheistic worldview. Making up an explanation is the exact opposite of "scientific."
"theists are delusional"
Because they are?
TheTexanCanadian 5 days ago
@TheTexanCanadian If you for a minute assert the higher power or intelligence exists that is in some way the cause of the universe, you step outside of the standard definition of atheism. By your definition, you fall into the worldview of pantheism, panentheism, or deism. You are definitely not an atheist.
cindyisa10 4 days ago
@cindyisa10
No, atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim/belief system. Atheism does not assert anything at all. It ALLOWS the possibility that a god exists but there is no faith involved. Atheism is not a positive claim or belief about anything involving a deity.
TheTexanCanadian 4 days ago
@TheTexanCanadian OK - Our pop culture has screwed up the definition of atheism making it just as confusing as God. By your definition, you are what many would call a "weak atheist". However, many atheists today are "strong atheists". They go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. These atheists tend to make the assertions I was referring to in my previous comments. You're better off to simply call yourself a skeptic.
cindyisa10 4 days ago
@cindyisa10
"Our pop culture has screwed up the definition"
No, pop culture has not done that. Atheists just have enough of a voice now, enough of a network, that the negative definition given to atheism by theists (i.e. that we're making a claim) don't fly for us anymore.
The assertions that individual atheists might make have nothing to do with what atheism itself means. The fact is, for weak and strong atheists, they have one thing in common, they don't have faith in a deity.
TheTexanCanadian 4 days ago
@TheTexanCanadian Forget about definition for a moment. Do you think it is/was highly probable that the universe was caused by an intelligent agent/force?
cindyisa10 4 days ago
@cindyisa10
Ok fair enough. Probable that some force, whether intelligent or not, caused the universe? That's the real question... and I'd have to say it is very likely. That does not, however, mean we have any way of knowing who/what that force was.
TheTexanCanadian 4 days ago
@cindyisa10
Cont'd.
Further to that, the way I answer it is the only rational, logical answer. Anyone who gives an opposing answer doesn't have an argument.
TheTexanCanadian 4 days ago
@TheTexanCanadian I agree that we don't have direct knowledge on this point. However, this does not mean we can't build rational and reasonable theories/belief/faith. This leaves us with probability, plausibility, and forensics. Assuming no intelligent design was involved in the universe, how probable do you think it is for complex organisms to come about from non-living matter by means of spontaneous generation? High or low?
cindyisa10 4 days ago
@cindyisa10
"this does not mean we can't build rational and reasonable theories/belief/faith."
That's not how religions work though, theistic gods are instilled in people as children because that's what was done to them, and the rational arguments just cause the theist to modify their existing belief system. I know of no theists who believe solely for rational reasons.
"how probable do you think it is"
It's a low probability, however that low probability is not proof.
TheTexanCanadian 4 days ago
@TheTexanCanadian C.S Lewis had several rational reasons why he left atheism for theism. So, is it correct to say that you 1) believe the universe came into existence out of nothing with no outside cause/force and 2) it was a random fluke that life came about via spontaneous generation? If you don't believe these then I'd like to know what you do believe. Since we don't know for sure, is something worth believing if it's rational, if it's supported by evidence, and it best explains all the data?
cindyisa10 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cindyisa10
1) No, I do not believe the universe began without an outside cause/force, I have no belief on it at all.
2) I don't believe it was a random "fluke" any more than the fact that molecules rearrange themselves is a random fluke.
"is something worth believing if it's rational, if it's supported by evidence, and it best explains all the data?"
That depends on what the "something" is, and the only argument for a god would be for a deistic one, and even then there's no evidence.
TheTexanCanadian 3 days ago
@cindyisa10
Cont'd.
I'm sure that last part will sound like I'm dodging your question, so let me be clear. A theistic god would have to be one of the gods of modern religions, and then I can say categorically "no," none of them best explain all of the data.
What I have learned is that it is physically impossible for us to in any way learn what happened at or before the big bang, and as such it's also impossible to generate an explanation which best explains all the data.
TheTexanCanadian 3 days ago
@cindyisa10
Cont'd. 2
And since none of the theistic gods represent adequate explanations for the data, and belief in a deistic god is pointless, then we would have to generate a new hypothesis which is untestable, unverifiable and thus unscientific to determine what led to the Big Bang. All that would be left in terms of explanation would be merely for the satisfaction of our curiosity and would have no intrinsic truth value.
TheTexanCanadian 3 days ago
Comment removed
cindyisa10 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTexanCanadian What view is most logical/consistent with known evidence?
1 Universe eternally exists with no beginning. Life is random chance
2 Universe eternally exists with no beginning. Life is product of a designer
3 Universe began and was caused by nothing. Life is random chance
4 Universe began and was caused by a designer. Life is product of a designer
5 Universe began and was caused by a designer. Life is random chance
6 The universe does not exist. Only minds exist
cindyisa10 3 days ago
@TheTexanCanadian (cont.) You say "it's impossible to generate an explanation which best explains all the data." In a way, that's self-defeating. You're demanding 100% absolute knowledge. As limited human beings, we don't possess the type of knowledge that will provide us with absolute proof of God's existence or nonexistence. Outside of the knowledge of our own existence and tautologies, we deal in the realm of probability. This is true for scientists, physicists, historians, etc...
cindyisa10 3 days ago
@cindyisa10
"What view is most logical and consistent with today's evidence? "
7. The universe exploded into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago for an unknown reason and potentially as an effect for an unknown cause, and life began naturally due to the evolution of single celled and multi celled organisms.
That is what is supported by evidence. Nothing is assumed, everything is supportable. To interject a supernatural aspect is to invalidate the argument.
TheTexanCanadian 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTexanCanadian Why should you get to make assumptions and speculative statements when the theist isn't allowed? You say "..life BEGAN NATURALLY due to evolution of celled organisms." I've not seen a shred of evidence for this statement and I work with top DNA scientists. Going by your demands, atheists should stop pretending naturalism = science. Claims made from both atheists and theists require serious vetting, scrutiny, and investigation.
cindyisa10 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cindyisa10
Cont'd.
"They go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist."
And this is commonly called anti-theism.
TheTexanCanadian 4 days ago
The jews don't go around just killing people. Give me a break. That is what Hamas and the rest of the sick muslim world enjoy doing. Israel fights for their right to live. If it is such a small piece of land, why would the muslims want to fight over it? Last time I checked they owned 99% of the middle east. They desire to wipe out the jews just like the nazis. They are no different than the nazis. Israel has every right to protect themselves. Your views on the matter are trash.
marssnw 6 days ago
The truth is that you can argue until you are blue in the face. Nobody can change your view but God himself. A christians job is to spread the gospel. God does the rest. You have to be drawn by God before you can believe. I would think the movie Expelled had some of the best arguments around. There will always be biased thoughts on religion.
marssnw 6 days ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@marssnw
"I would think the movie Expelled had some of the best arguments around. "
... Expelled is full of incredibly stupid arguments.
"Nobody can change your view but God himself."
Actually, you have to demonstrate that a god exists, in any way, before you can argue that he can do anything at all.
Theists just don't get it. Theistic arguments are just that bad. It's not that atheists just like to argue, there just really are no good reasons to be a theist.
TheTexanCanadian 5 days ago
Also a loving God gave us the power to reduce the suffering of others. Assuming that we are made in his image we we can not be imposent and must have free will to decide to do so or not. Perhaps that free will is what makes people think God is not loving. Then we should ask ourself why people decide not to follow the example and show love themselves,even for their enemies,or would it be too obvious to see that those who don't are without God/love as a reminder to us. He just hates his exreligion
fourteatwo 1 week ago
looks like he lost his faculty, embarrassing for this being a lecturer of philosophy at cambridge. He mistakes the benevolence of God with preventing suffering. The ultimate suffering you experience is your death, so how much it hurts is irrelevant on that scale. To be killed by a suicide bomber in a burning tower might be more pleasent compared to living with Alzheimers for 3 years shouting and being aggressive to your loved ones. Death is pain and God's love helps you to bear it.
fourteatwo 1 week ago
@shumble32 You demand God to erradicate all evil in order for him to be loving. If this is the case, he would have to erradicate all of us because we all do evil. You state a doctor is "truely evil" if he refuses to save a life. Do you really believe a doctor is truely evil when he performs an abortion on a child? So what is your objective standard or do you not really have an objective standard?
cindyisa10 1 week ago
@cindyisa10
Now i guess parents must hate their children as they bring them into this world for purely selfish reasons knowing they will eventually die.
fourteatwo 1 week ago
Religious faith is entirely a manifestation of human ignorance.
Education is the key to eradication.
judoyodan 1 week ago 2
@judoyodan please educate have you written any papers on the subject id love to read
tonyteb 1 week ago
@tonyteb, there are dozens of studies done on the relationship between religiosity and intelligence available on the net.
judoyodan 1 week ago
@judoyodan Don't forget about level of education and religiosity.
AQGOAT24 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@judoyodan
"there are dozens of studies done on the relationship between religiosity and intelligence available on the net."
But there are no intelligent studies between worldviews and level of education :-)
fourteatwo 1 week ago
My angel's smiling on you!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@okorewq Fair enough, I agree with your point about fairy tales, let's look at Greek Mythology. It makes equally confounding claims, yet we all accept them as "myths" what makes any other religion different? Because a "holy" book says so? Or because the majority of people accept scripture as fact? Or perhaps you just know in your heart that god is real. There are an estimated 500 billion galaxies, to claim that the answers aren't somewhere out there is irrational, saying you have them is stupid.
Greenmailerr 1 week ago
I am an atheist, to disprove god is the same as disproving the existence of a fairy or an elf, yet all faithful religious people will tell you that fairy tails aren't real. I don't fully contend the idea that a god could be responsible for creating the universe, however it is the most improbable explanation and even if this was found to be true it would in no way prove the divinity of jesus or the validity of any religion.
Greenmailerr 1 week ago
@Greenmailerr The big difference is that 1)fairy tales do not claim so much and 2) their origins can be traced thus can easily be proven one way or another. The monotheistic religions insist that God is supreme over the universe. If you've examined all things with all the means available and found out there is no God; fair enough to you. Otherwise, if you are an atheist that affirms "there is no God" and not as "I do not know there is a god", we all want to hear your evidence for your stand.
okorewq 1 week ago
@MrNeotheist im shocked that he didnt post craigs rebuttal. if you find the audio or a transcript of it then send it to me okay?
DoctorTopper 1 week ago
I was at this debate. Craig owned him.
MrNeotheist 1 week ago
@MrNeotheist ...and he owned him again at the Cambridge union debate.
empreme 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8
"but what's the Miracle on the Hudson?'
So because the Pilot was fortunate enough to land on the Hudson River and no one suffered hypothermia that = God.
Oh,ok I see.
"it causes all your arguments to people's falibility in their testimony to be falsified as well"
No what it causes is for IDIOTIC people that don't know what EVIDENCE is, to claim that Miracles & God exists.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
You're a part of a fringe group in the USA, less than 1% are atheists. Demographis of atheism, sub section North America, ASRI poll. I never even knew an atheist until I was 50.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
I suspect the poll you're going by is Christian Funded....and if not it's still wrong....there are way more Atheists than that, and the numbers are growing and will continue to do so as long as there is freedom of speech and EDUCATION going on.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull - I'm from the Uk - here we have polls that tell us 75% of the population believe in God - but I simply don't believe them. The churches are empty and being turned into supermarkets. Christians are as rare as hen's teeth
shumble32 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
I can see by ALL your responses you are either New at this or as usual you are stuck in Retard Mode as the rest usually are, and Logic,Reasoning & Critical Thinking are not used on your behalf as they are very discouraged of members of your ilk.
When confronted by the Big 3 L,R & CT it is expected that you all will resort to magical explainations to circumnavigate them and just fall back on the "Godidit" Defense, & yet still provide NO Evidence to back it up.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull Can you name all the different types of evidence that you DO accept?
shizzleman8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8
"Can you name all the different types of evidence that you DO accept?"
Look here, I'm going to try and make this as simple as possible for you. When you have a Book (ie.,the Bible) that makes claims and states the claims are true....but when you cross reference those claims with the Historical Records of other Cultures living in the SAME AREA & Same Time Periods and NONE of it lines up with anyone else's History...then the Book is BULLSHIT...simple as that.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Pffft... Explicit identification of atheism is around 2%, but over 15% cliam to have no religion... which means a lot of different things; these rates have nearly doubled over the last decade. As for you not knowing any atheists... did you ever bother asking?
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@shizzleman8 - did the atheist have two horns and a tail like they told you in church?
shumble32 1 week ago
@shumble32 Atheism like naturalism is ex hypothesi. @cindyisa10 has the right idea about atheist being a faith/world view. Here in the USA it's achieved NPO status and is protected under the 1st Amend
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8 - It's often been said that if not believing in god is a faith then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Calling atheism a faith raises two issues:
1. If it is a faith - is every position we can hold is a faith? If that's true then the word 'faith' itself becomes redundant
2. What is our true motivation for calling it a faith when we know that the label we put on things doesn't alter their underlying nature
shumble32 1 week ago
@shumble32 Atheism is protected here in the USA by the 1st amendments establishment clause. It was argued in from Kaufman v. McCaughtry 2005 and upheld Torcaso v. Watkins 1961. There are a lot of religious laws and cases. Michael Newdow founded the First Atheist Church of True Science (FACTS) back in 1997! Without language we can't communicate, that's why we have words with definitions (labels). Collecting stamps is a hobby. Whether you do it or not is a separate issue.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
Who honestly believes they have this many answers? Are you really so proud of your own existence to think that there aren't people who have studied more and learned more, experienced more and have a higher IQ than you?
How can you be right 100% of the time about everything you write? All scientists know they can't be right 100% of the time, our brains and minds have limitatons, that alone should prove that there is at LEAST a 50% probability that you're not right on any given issue.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
"Who honestly believes they have this many answers? Are you really so proud of your own existence to think that there aren't people who have studied more and learned more, experienced more and have a higher IQ than you?"
Not only do I KNOW to have MANY answers...I also KNOW the MAJORITY of Christians (Theists) are UNEDUCATED and can't hold a candle to my intellect.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
"that alone should prove that there is at LEAST a 50% probability that you're not right on any given issue. "
Incorrect and you have just further displayed your inability at applying Logic.
It would depend on the LIMIT of MY Knowledge of what ever the ISSUE may be at hand as to what % I would be right or wrong on any given subject.
The world is NOT Black & White or a 50-50 percentile proposition.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
You can't have it 'all ways'.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
They're the most often made objections. When something has to be repeated ad nauseum it usually is representative of the worst.
"The universe is eternal", "there's an invisible green dragon living in my garage", "not playing hockey isn't a sport", "Yes, god may exist, but WHICH ONE is true?", "The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you", "people are afraid to die so when they do they hallucinate heaven". That last one doesn't account for general anesthesia. Most people die in the O.R.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
shizzleman8
Sorry to bust your bubble there Slick, but William Lame Craig is full of shit and his arguments are EASILY dismantled by all except Morons who choose to throw Logic out the window in favor of Believing Abrahamic Bibical Myths stolen from MANY Cultures...just because it makes them feel good about their Life and gives them comfort in their imminent Death and their desire for Justice in an unfair world.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull I try to keep an open mind. Thanks for answering. I'll be glad to help you with what theists actually understand. drcraigvideos has a 10 part series Worst objections to Kalam Cosmological Argument. Please put my name above any comments you make on them, additionally I'll send you 2 proofs from a Ph.d in theoretical physics who'll explain our position from a unique perspectice. I had to go to the library to find some valid objections of creation & design. People dying isn't one.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
"drcraigvideos has a 10 part series Worst objections to Kalam Cosmological Argument."
Odd. Why isn't it the Best objections?
"additionally I'll send you 2 proofs from a Ph.d in theoretical physics who'll explain our position from a unique perspectice.'
And yet the Garbage you sent, you're incapable of seeing the flaws in it.
Otherwise you wouldn't stand by it, and send it.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull The 2 proofs are from God, Science, and The Mind; The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis Polis, Ph.d in Theoretical Physics and a current philosopher. He's clergy in the Catholic Church, and I'm a protestant so I do disagree on some religious doctrine, but our history of law and science is in agreement. I've taken a lot of objections on both proofs. None valid, but knock yourself out. What they ALL miss is that they're abstractions from his book. He SAYS: Mind is covered NEXT
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
"The 2 proofs are from God, Science, and The Mind; The Irrationality of Naturalism by bla bla bla..."
Really dude, Pick up some HISTORY BOOKS instead, primarily Ancient History and the history of Religion and the History of the writing of the Bible and where it's legends & STOLEN Myths come from.
"The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you"
That's a FACT...you all make Extraordinary Clams of a God but yet haven't a lick of proof, but yet expect others to Believe.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull The proofs are of God. blah, blah, blah HISTORY BOOKS. We won a war in 6 days against 4 armies on 3 open battlefields in 1967. We lead the world in science too. It's OUR HISTORY!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8
"We won a war in 6 days against 4 armies on 3 open battlefields in 1967."
The land of Israel is Promised to NO ONE by ANY God.
It's ONLY promised to those who can hold it and fight for it or conquer it.
"It's OUR HISTORY!"
A History of GENOCIDE (if the Bible were to be Believed) over Land and Religious Beliefs...what a wonderful Legacy.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
"The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you"
ie.)When you go to small claims court with a CLAIM....who is the Burden of Proof on?
Whenever ANYONE makes a CLAIM and insists it's TRUE....who IS the Burden of Proof laid on?
It would seem NONE of ya know the rules of EVIDENCE & PROOF.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull The burden is on the one who lays charges, but the court's position on God is judicially noticed. Witnesses are asked to swear to God. Atheists are constantly trying to get the government to change their position on God. Have prayer taken out of the schools, Christmas tree lighting ceremonies & nativity scenes taken from public property etc. The Pledge of Allegiance: one nation under God < to have it removed. If God wasn't noticed, then the atheists wouldn't be suing.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
"Have prayer taken out of the schools, Christmas tree lighting ceremonies & nativity scenes taken from public property etc."
Public Property is FUNDED by the GOVERNMENT...therefor by Separation of Church & State it IS Fundamentally ILLEGAL to promote ANY God on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
"Atheists are constantly trying to get the government to change their position on God.'
There is NO Position to change since the GOVERNMENT is NOT here to Promote ANY God or religion.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull You don't make a distinction between God and religion, we the people do.
Our position is God, and establishing freedom and most specifically religious freedom around the globe.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8
"You don't make a distinction between God and religion, we the people do."
And herein lies one of the MAIN Reasons why there is supposed to be Separation of Church & State. "We the People" have many views on how their particular RELIGION is to be PRACTICED, therefor the GOVERNMENT has NO BUSINESS interfering in that process NOR DICTATING which Religion is the correct one.
The other MAIN Reason is our Forefathers saw what Religion in Government caused over the Centuries in Europe.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull
I have to agree with you about William Lame Craig - he can be intimidating in debate simply because the bullshit comes so fast it's overwhelming.
shumble32 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Urfullobull Sorry for the interrupting, I kind of ran out of people to talk to.
Corroborate: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain
Collaborate: to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor
I think you're confusing these two terms in regard to what qualifies as evidence. Corroboration does, collaboration doesn't. Have you seen any WLC debates? He provides support to his arguments, his opponents collaborate. Peace.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 1 week ago
sounds more like a monologue than a debate as you only hear one side of the argument and even that sounds pretty poor. Interesting that people always want to see the other side "demolished....."
sounds like wishful thinking of primitive people
fourteatwo 1 week ago
@fourteatwo
"sounds like wishful thinking of primitive people"
Nice deffinition of believing in a Sky Daddy, Dirt Man, Rib Woman, Magical Fruit that contains the Knowledge of Morals, Talking Donkeys & Snakes, 700 yr old men, WW Floods, Witches, Unicorns, Dragons, Wizards, Demons, Angels, Rocks that spew water when struck hard enough, Sticks that turn into Snakes, and a Host of other Supernatural Superstitious Garbage.
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull Making up stuff. Isn't that all you're doing? Because the Bible contains miracles you say the Bible isn't true and miracles don't happen, but what's the Miracle on the Hudson? Oh, I know it was Sullenbergers 'fancy flying' & crash landing on water that was so fantastic, right? But, nobody suffered hypothermia either, and if this one pilot could do what no other pilot in history could do it causes all your arguments to people's falibility in their testimony to be falsified as well.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@Urfullobull
watch?v=f7rrEFJ8Da4 and check your worldview for coherence. By the way don't you like the idea of being made from the elements of the earth or do you claim to consist of things better than the dust of the earth. Otherwise I think the explanations people tried were reasonably well in accordance with their knowledge and their perception of reality.
fourteatwo 1 week ago
@okorewq
I take it you doubt there ever existed an Aristotle or Socrates since you don't have any writings written in their lifetime.
Not only is there writings from their life time time not including their own works, we KNOW when they were born & when they died there are also Sculptures of them DONE in their Lifetimes from them sitting for the Sculptors & Artists.
Or did you not know that?
Urfullobull 1 week ago
This guy needs to read the bible. No valid arguments here which the bible does not address. This is just his personal opinions.
dannywizz 1 week ago
@dannywizz
...and the bible is just the personal opinion of a bunch of ignorant, raping, pillaging, primitive, misogynists.
If by "address" you mean "provide enough cryptic and ambiguous material to draw from so as to allow anything to be rationalized away", then yes, the bible has sufficiently addressed the issues to the satisfaction of cretins the world over.
HurderpusMaximus 1 week ago
@HurderpusMaximus Listen, at least I read atheistic, secular and evolutionary literature. I kinda want to know what these guys are arguing for however the opposite does not seem to be: atheist actually reading the bible and not just taking a sentence out of it.
Before you criticize something you better read up on the subject.
dannywizz 1 week ago
@dannywizz
Are kidding me? Just because someone doesn't agree with your presuppositions and bias about your religion doesn't mean they are ignorant of it, in fact the opposite is often the case.
Most atheists are so, because they studied religion.Atheists have demonstrated a better knowledge of religion than theists in research studies thus demonstrating your claim as an unfounded bald assertion.
/watch?v=b2Vxuaga_pA
HurderpusMaximus 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HurderpusMaximus "...and the bible is just the personal opinion of a bunch of ignorant, raping, pillaging, primitive, misogynists."
This is enough proof that you have not read the bible but just some sentences out of context.
dannywizz 1 week ago
@HurderpusMaximus Really, do you think any atheists understand the Bible more than Paul or Augustine or John Owen or Jonathan Edwards?
I'm used to atheists being arrogant, but it is stupid when they claim to understand better what is nonsense to them but dear to Christians. I would want to hear what an atheist has to say about atonement or the Sovereign justice of God. Or do you claim to know the Bible because U can quote a few verses in Leviticus (Christians are the emotional ones, of course!)
okorewq 1 week ago
@okorewq
"Really, do you think any atheists understand the Bible more than Paul or Augustine or John Owen or Jonathan Edwards?"
If by "more" you mean- in a more intellectually honest and objective manner- then yes, and you've offered nothing but an unfounded hypocritical appeal to emotion as defense. A personal attachment to the bible doesn't amount to a better understanding of it, it amounts to an understanding more subject to preconceptions and cognitive bias.
HurderpusMaximus 5 days ago
@HurderpusMaximus "You have offered nothing but an appeal to emotion as defense". So there's the other common atheist strategy of referring to Christians as emotional and cowardly. Atheism is so annoyingly predictable.
Well I would want to hear from you about some atheists that have "intellectually" interpreted the Scriptures better than these Christian scholars. It's absurd that you are adamant that some puny atheist could understand the Scriptures better than Paul who wrote many of them.
okorewq 5 days ago
@HurderpusMaximus Is it not likely that when you read the Bible you laugh at what you don't understand than actually learn from it? Is it not the case that you are more likely to quote me more from Leviticus (as you should) than from Romans (doubt you ever read it). I don't expect that any atheist could expound the biblical doctrines of justification or election or propitiation as Paul, or even, say, Dr. John Piper, but, of course atheists are the more intellectually honest ones to the text!
okorewq 5 days ago
@okorewq
It's been statistically proven that Atheists demonstrate more knowledge of the Bible - in its entirety, not just the parts the "church wants you to read" - than supposed religious people do.
So, I wouldn't put too much "faith" in your assertion if I were you.
lupine73 4 days ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WLC's strategy is "baffle with bullshit" . Uses lots of $20 college words hoping to intimidate. Used car salesmen with a big vocabulary
psburningman 1 week ago
All of Dennis' 45 videos prove reductionism false. How is the sum of parts = to the whole? That's fucking ridiculous.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
Alexander Burke (LordSardonic) passed at age 20 living his whole life sick knowing he was going to die young (forever young). Dennis Polis ph.d Theoretical Physics Notre Dame, 70 year old philosopher.
Both are truly spiritually enlightened. Epiphenomenalism =/= metaphysics. Either we're immaterial at heart or not. It's been proved which is true. I'm surfing with Alex & Dennis!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
I have volition. I also own a Fender Stratocaster. When was it made? Who gives a shit, it's a BOSS ASS guitar!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
That you make choices in a phenomenal sense does not mean you have choices in a metaphysical one.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff All the answers are in the book my weblink takes you to. It's even a free downloadable book: God, Science, and the Mind; The Irrationality of Naturalism. I prefer the Dr.'s 45 videos (dfpolis) but whatever blows your hair back.
I experienced my soul outside of my body, I know EXACTLY what it is. I talk to people every day about supernatural experiences. I just finished a long letter to my friend Paul. LordSardonicvids. Alex Burke was born w/out kidneys. Passed 3 years ago
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Neo-Thomist word salads aren't particularly interesting. Experiencing does NOT provide you with an unvarnished, unalloyed, self-justified picture of Reality (and subject-object relations), but rather a perceptive frame that may be internally modeled, but cannot provide you with an critique of it's external (absolute, outside) nature. You DO NOT 'know exactly what it is' until you can JUSTIFY your claims.. rather than just hand-wave them into being as you do here (and in that book)
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff Not experiecing and saying those who experience and understand what they experience is hand waved away by you.
It's in that little word 'justify' that separates us. I have a Doctorate of Jurisprudence. I prove, you don't. All you've done is give me word salad, you're still giving it to me. You think the law stumbles over simple definitions of words like you do? We're not having hearings over the meaning of 'hallucination' & 'justify' nor 'unvarnished'. Get a life.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Justifying the external validity of your experiences is your burden to bear... it's just sitting on the ground at the moment, waiting for you to pick it up. Your doctorate in jurisprudence isn't relevant to these matters... nor is your parroting of my comments; have fun with your navel.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff Everyone justifies their experience by their competency or lack thereof. That's a 'rule' of law. Competency, materiality, and relevancy. Is what you're saying competent, material, and relevant?
Talking about navels isn't a prerequisite for the admissal of evidence. You're like a rogue cop playing by his own rules, "I'm going to put the SYSTEM on trial", "The rules ain't the rules".
Warm Regards,
;¬)
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Your 'rules' also need to be adequately justified, yes. Did you actually think you could grandfather them in or something? Sheesh. Though your 'rules' would seem fit to assess the consistency of a particular perceptive frame, or make relativistic comparison between perceptive frames, these internally-derived rules do not speak to external (ontological) justifications.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff The law 'speaks' to eveything. The rules have been worked out over ions of time, they're still being worked out. Perceptive frame: In American law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify. The English equivalent is fitness to plead.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
An unwarranted universal absolutism and an argument from tradition... not a good start. Again, this is not a matter concerning legal proceedings, but epistemological claims and ontological grounds.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff Legal case history, case law (stare decisis) is not "tradition". It's what establishes valid legal argumentation in court also known as Points and Authorities.
Intellectual property is a part of law. It's the law that governs. You just think you're in charge, a rogue cop who plays by their own rules, but you're only in charge of what goes in your pie hole, and what comes out. Hey, thanks friend, but I'm all stocked up here!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
Where does our will come from < I just googled that, here's the first return: What is will? Where does will come from? Is it part of our Personality? (No religious crap!)? Best answer: Reductive materialism (Reductionism) which has been proven false. Intentionality is immaterial. Maybe you can find what you're looking for in dfpolis #23 The Mind Complex Physics?
Happy Trails!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
How has reductive materialism been proven false? A materialist metaphysic certainly has verificational problems, but modelling Will and Intentionality via empirical phenomena and scientific conventions have proven quite useful... and clues us into how fluid our 'selves' are in that frame, as well as how wacky it could work on a metaphysical level.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Your 'trail' leads merely to your own navel, of which I have no interest in gazing into.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff Extraneous.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Your navel certainly is... and note, your god isn't in there either.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff 'In God We Trust'. Our government's position is acknowlegement of God, the burden is all yours friend. You've misidentified everything including your duty to be a decent human being. We all live under law, all the time, the law is relevant.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Asinine. The US constitutionally functions as a secular republic, as per the 1st amendment, the prohibition against religious oaths for office, and numerous SCOTUS cases. As for my duty to be a decent human being, my skeptical resistance to theistic nonsense is a key part of how I fulfill my social responsibility, in addition to my other Left-wing values. Btw... that we all live under legal statutes does not mean they are relevant to all matters; check your math.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff I didn't make the rules, I just play by 'em. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God. How many more times do you want to explain your position to me until you think I'll understand it?
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
Those 'rules' you speak of ain't the rules... but no, I don't think you'll get it.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think scientists will be able to take non-living matter and organize it to create a spaghetti monster that has self-awareness, sentience, and qualia? If they fail, it does not matter because, one will eventually appear mysteriously in our universe by spontaneous generation not requiring an intelligent designer. If life came to exist by means of spontaneous generation, then why can't an invisible God come to exist by the same means? The religion of atheism requires just as much faith.
cindyisa10 1 week ago
@cindyisa10
"The religion of atheism requires just as much faith."
And yet ANOTHER Moron who doesn't own a DICTIONARY and knows the deffinition of Religion.
Last time I checked Atheists don't Worship Deities, Pray to Deities, Believe in Deities or have any Hieriarchal & Social structures & Moral Codes (laws) based on Deities.
Do any of you, and I mean ANY of you knuckleheads own a DICTIONARY?
Urfullobull 1 week ago
@Urfullobull Faith is required to believe ANY worldview including atheism, theism, and pantheism. You DON'T KNOW if God does not exist. You BELIEVE he doesn't exist and, like any worldview, your atheistic claim requires FAITH. I do own a dictionary and lived the definition of atheist. I used to be an atheist until I realized the atheistic worldview has very little or no evidence to back up its claims and it contends against many of the scientific evidences discovered in the last century.
cindyisa10 1 week ago
So this is his intro to the debate, what was Craig's response? Where can I hear the whole thing?
fegu 2 weeks ago in playlist Nonbelief.
Every time I'm close to death, my brain is straved for oxygen that's when I like to pick up a pen and paper and do some differential calculus. "the brain does crazy shit when it's dying".
Jesus has nothing to do with change in perspective < That's all Jesus and his teachings do, they make a person wise and kind. "If anyone has anything against you, leave your gift go and reconcile yourself with that person THEN come and offer your gift". Your gifts aren't sanctifying my altar.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8 Who ever mentioned calculus? The brain, when damaged or starved of oxygen, is given to hallucinations, many of which can "feel real." I've had many OBEs and NDEs. I, however, won't grant them authority of reality, nor should anyone else.
I have no "gifts" for you. You have no "gifts" for anyone else, either. Delusions aren't gifts; they're cruel, self-perpetuating punishment. Shake off your chains and cull the living flower. That's my message, not a "gift."
Ematched 1 week ago
Arif is making an ad hominem argument right from the beginning in calling Craig's debating tactics an academic word game. Craig is not playing a game, he is demonstrating weak arguments. I've witnessed Craig debate anti-theists who pose sound arguments to which cannot "game" his way out of. To call Craig's scholarly methods that provoke high level thinking by opposing viewpoints a game is a discredit to any great debater, theist or anti-theist.
quanahblaine 2 weeks ago
"How do I know I'm not hallucinating?" "been attested to by those on psychedelics" < Let THINK about this for a minute. If I sit down and munch a bunch of shrooms, I'm going to hallucinate, I know I'm hallucinating because I just ate the SHROOMS! < That's HOW I KNOW! That would be my frame of reference, I'd be PERCEIVING data as a dude HIGH on mushrooms.
You're not acting like a criminal profiler trying to solve a case, you're assailing every person who has an experience as being 'high'.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8
What justifies your 'sober' perceptive frame as being the primary, privileged one for knowledge? That takes an external meta-perspective for verification.
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@plightweisgoff You can't answer a simple question. Apparently you can't tell the difference between an experience and a hallucination.
Sober, yep, I'm competent, relevant and material, I meet all the qualifications for testifying in court under oath. You need something other than these 3 prerequisites to be convinced. I have my frame of reference, my Identity, my Will, my Awareness. That's HOW I UNDERSTAND REALITY! Why would I need a meta-perspective? Ghosts don't get to testify. MATERIAL!
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8
You haven't SHOWN how one would tell the difference merely from an experience of one state or another; at best, you MIGHT be able to discern which perceptive frame you are inside...
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@plightweisgoff I've been as clear as I know how to be. I used to get high, halluciante, fantasize, and I experince reality and can tell the difference by the means i've presented.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8
And those means are patently insufficient, as I have patiently explained.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
... but, hallucinations are tricky that way: they could fool you into thinking you're in the OTHER frame. And still, neither of these choices is presented as the 'Real' world...
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@plightweisgoff An experience involving the perception of something not present. I'm beginning to detect a pattern. Maybe I'm 1 of the most perceptive people to ever live and U R the polar opposite?
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8
'Not present'... in the other perceptive frame, or in some 'reality' that is being presumed as accessible here? Wouldn't the existence of things in the 'normal' perceptive frame that don't exist in the hallucinatory one indicate that the 'normal' PF is flawed in the same manner?
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
... you identity, your will, your awareness... ALL constructed/reconstructed by experience AND whatever conditions lie outside your perview AS WELL AS in the ontological groundwork.
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@plightweisgoff My will is not constructed by my experience. I construct it like a builder building a house, two projections of the same event. Essential causality, identity of cause and effect.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8
And here your presumptions truly bite you: How do you know your will (and your knowledge-seeking in general) is not being (re)constructed? If it isn't, where does this unchanging 'will' come from, and what relationship would it have with the phenomenal world at all? What and how 'you' are is an open question here... as is your application of frameworks of cause and effect, subject and object, etc; where is the external frame of reference to check your unwarranted assumptions?
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@shizzleman8
... your naive realism is simply that: naive, not justified.
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@plightweisgoff You're less inclined at establishing a rigid foundation for your thoughts than I am at being naive. You've been bandying about the word 'ontology' like an appeal by prestigious jargon.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8
What grounds would I or anyone else have for "establishing a rigid foundation
" for our thoughts? What's the necessity for doing so? And my use of the word 'ontology' is quite specific: matters pertaining to Being/existence in the metaphysical sense... nothing pretentious there, it's simply a useful term.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
@plightweisgoff You have will, but you don't know what it is? Will & Intentionality is the foundation for thought. Again, I think I've been very clear. I'm just trying to understand what you're asking or trying to teach. You're not presenting a proof, or legal argument, you're just raising concerns about a bunch of 'realities' that have already been established.
"And here your presumptions truly bite you:" < That's extraneous. Just use fewer words. I told you how I know, THRICE!
shizzleman8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8
What indicates that Will & Intentionality (capitalized?) are the foundations for thought, when the nature of those matters has not been adequately determined? What W&I are could be constantly fluctuating, or be dependent upon empirical phenomena as well as metaphysically veiled grounding for such things. These realities have NOT been established by your naive realism... thrice, you have FAILED.
plightweisgoff 1 week ago
I juggle to make myself more aware. I've been juggling the 5 ball cascade for the last couple years, it's an amazing hobby that makes me wicked fast, spatially aware and is sure to delight children and adults of all ages. Recently I just purchased the best set I've ever owned from the Dollar Tree. $5 for 5 balls. The Juggling Store wants $15 a piece for the exact same ball.
You gotta be a Jew if you want to find the good deals. Buy low, sell high.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
So God should intervene on behalf of corrupt humans waging war on each other for no good reason? God should have stopped those men from being killed by other men? This guy is a fucking joke who plays on heart strings throwing around words like "suffering" and "young men". Emotional arguments are invalid yet you immediately throw in your own? Give me a break.
bubbyj 2 weeks ago
@bubbyj
If you wish to claim your posited god is an omnibenevolent being, then he needs to act like it.
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@plightweisgoff I've never stated he was omnibenevolent and neither is that a Biblical claim.
bubbyj 2 weeks ago
@bubbyj
Ok then. Just out of curiosity, why do you think your god absolves himself of responsibility for a universe he brought into being with full foreknowledge of the consequences, and all the power to change things for the better at any time?
plightweisgoff 2 weeks ago
@bubbyj - you're missing the point - but I'll give you a break as requested and explain
It's not that god should intervene - it's that a omnipresent, all-powerful, moral, loving god would intervene if he existed
No emotional argument, just pure logic
shumble32 2 weeks ago
@shumble32 I don't understand how your last comment is based on rational pure logic. What you are saying is: Because God does not always intervene, He is therefore 1) not omnipotent 2) not omnipresent, 3) not moral, and 4) not loving. This does not even equate to a rational argument. It's the same as saying policemen could only exist if there were no crime in the world.
cindyisa10 2 weeks ago
@cindyisa10 - no, don't tell me what I'm saying - read what I've actually said and then get back to me.
But basically it's not an argument about his nature - it's an argument about his existence - understandably hard to grasp for those who can't entertain the possibility that god does not exist
shumble32 2 weeks ago
@shumble32 cindyisa10 said it best. That is no logic. That is pure assumption. It also attempts to put behavioral boundaries on a being. These types of assumptions do not work with humans and they will not work with God.
bubbyj 2 weeks ago
@bubbyj
Is a loving god a loving god if he doesn't ever act like a loving god?
No - he's either a hateful god or doesn't exist.
It's not really about putting behavioral boundaries on a being - it's really just asking that the adjective 'loving' is not misused
shumble32 2 weeks ago
@shumble32 That's a presupposition. You assume a loving God would intervene if he existed. What unemotional evidence do you have to base your logical assumption?
quanahblaine 2 weeks ago
@quanahblaine
Is a loyal dog a loyal dog if he never shows any loyalty?
Is a loving god a loving god if he doesn't act like a loving god?
shumble32 1 week ago
@shumble32 I don't understand your analogy. How is a dog like an omnipotent creator of everything? Please give a better example.
quanahblaine 1 week ago
@quanahblaine - I'll be charitable and assume that you are just playing stupid
shumble32 1 week ago
@shumble32 That's smug. I'm asking a question. Answer it.
quanahblaine 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quanahblaine - before I answer your question - swear to me you are not just playing stupid - because it really seems that way and answer my question (already posed and really very simple)
Is a loyal dog a loyal dog if he never shows any loyalty?
shumble32 1 week ago
@shumble32 - so you ignore other people's questions but then get upset when people don't answer yours? mm?
shumble32 1 week ago
@shumble32 God lays out in His word how He intervenes. He is sovereign and is not answerable to you, or anyone for that matter how He ought to do whatever He does.
okorewq 1 week ago