@unprofessionalvids Um, yeah, got about one page into that book when I realized it was fiction - sorry, but I happen to possess knowledge regarding REALITY which contradicts the claims in that book, and I'm not going to accept it as true just because someone told me I should.
@unprofessionalvids You're missing my point - it isn't about "belief" (unless of course you're referring to believing the Buybull). Seriously, do you mean to tell me that after reading Genesis, you can still claim it's not fiction?!?
This is a STORY - made up by people so fundamentally ignorant of the kinds of knowledge even a modern child possesses, that they would have considered a wheelbarrow to be a breathtaking example of emerging technology - and it is painfully obvious as such.
@steveb0503 you cant even account for creation.' How did it start, the big bang? Who started it and where did the particles come from to even make it possible? And heres a big philosophical question, WHY did it start?
@JPBuysjr I don't have to account for how it all began - it's OK to say: "We don't know, but we're working on it" (besides, there are some plausible explanations already offered by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lee Smolin, and Victor Stenger - to name but a few), you "believers" are the ones making the baseless claims - unless you can somehow prove it is impossible to explain existence without invoking a "Creator" (BTW - what is your basis for this claim - other than: "It says so in a book"?)
@steveb0503 And the who created God argument is the most asked question and easily answered question. I dont have room to explain it here but ill just send you a link to one of the top Christian apologetics of today, Will Craig who makes it pretty understandable, well maybe not you because your eyes are blind. "will craig who created God"
@JPBuysjr You call the pseudo-philosophical prattle that he offers "easily explained"?
No wonder you believe as you do - I'm also limited in trying to explain the reasons I have for finding his answer unsatisfying, but suffice it to say he is merely defining God as "that which is un-caused", thereby avoiding any necessity to answer the original question.
It's still begging the question despite his claims to the contrary.
It's easy to call someone blind who does not see what you THINK you do.
@steveb0503 you say yeah we are working on it. Thats the thing there is no answer, you hope to maybe find an answer in the future or you believe you will, what do you think faith is? You dont realize what you are risking though by placing your life, and your eternity on the words of a scientist who themselves dont know the answers. There is no account for lifes big questions in a natural worldview. By having no answer without proof and believing is faith.EitherGod or no god,how do you account
@JPBuysjr But, what you don't realize is that by choosing to believe in the god that you do, you risk the same thing if Allah is the real god. Plus, it is not as though believing is really an act of will - personally, I find that I am only able to believe in things that I feel I have good reasons to.
When you truly come to understand WHY it is that you reject the idea of Thor, Apollo, Wotan, Amen-Ra, Mithras, Ba'al, and all other dead gods - you will understand why I reject yours as well.
@steveb0503 Yes a very good Richard Dawkins argument, Thor, Wotan... there all the same. This question is not new, Dawkins thinks hes found some amazing question that stumps religious people. Of course we would have to go through every single religion individually as compared to Christ. But who ever told you Christianity was a religion. Where did you get that idea? The bible never says that, actually Jesus was killed by religion, God in fact hates religion. Jesus came to abolish religion.
@JPBuysjr Actually, the quote: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." is from Stephen F Roberts - not Dawkins.
It refers to belief in god(s) - NOT religion (organized or not), and it is also to what I am referring - the differences between organized religion and "belief in a higher power" are irrelevant to the points I am attempting to make.
I would highly recommend reading Smith's book: "Atheism - The Case Against God", where he systematically (and succinctly) deconstructs most of the arguments put forth as reasons why it is reasonable to believe that god exists - he manages to show how they are not only unreasonable, but unreasonable to the point of absurdity.
@steveb0503 There was never a bigger straw man fallacy than calling Christianity a religion. The bible is set apart, unique. This might help. In every religion in the world, man works and practices to reach up to God and save themselves(including Catholicism.) In Christianity God comes down, does all the work and saves us. This is very basic theology but if your gonna bash the bible and Christ dont misquote him to try to make your argument easier.
And one more point: I could also state that the question of WHY it started is nonsensical due to the fact that if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here discussing it - it is a brute fact, and no more unwarranted than making the claim that before there was anything, there was an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being, and he proceeded to create everything else. The question to you is: If everything else needs an explanation, then why doesn't this "Creator"?
@steveb0503 You obviously admit that we are discussing our opinions, but I wanna ask you why do you even care? According to your idea our minds are nothing more than random chemicals firing off at random times. My chemicals in my head says there is a God, your chemicals say there is no god. How can u even claim to be right or claim that Im wrong if its all just chemicals. Is it possible your mind is not run by chemicals and your mind might actually be your own?
@JPBuysjr Why do believers claim that we who do not share your faith seem to think that because we don't think there's a god then everything must be entirely random ('cause it goes without saying that the only reason anything happens is due to god's will)?
Think outside your own box for once - will you?
If it were entirely random, then there would be no order - without order, there would be no ability to link one thought to another --- we are NOT claiming it's random.
@steveb0503 First, I noticed how you never responded to my point of why do you care about my opinion or your own if its all brain chemicals anyways, and second, you say its not random that would make no sense, but it cant be God either, then how do you account for the uniformity of the uni, or the begining of the big bang from literally nothing. It cant be God, or it cant be random according to you, so whats the explanation?
@JPBuysjr I'm not even sure I understand your question.
Why does it matter whether or not it's all just "brain chemicals" - it is what is, whether what it is IS brain chemistry or a dualistic "soul" the RESULT is the same.
WHY I care is because what anyone believes is important as beliefs inform actions, and if someone's beliefs are not based on reality, then how could they ever hope to act in way consistent with reality?
Can you not see the danger inherent in this approach?
@steveb0503 Yes I agree, I do see the danger of action that it not based on reality. One of the arguments that is brought forth by Bahnsen and Christians is the very fact that Atheists have no grounds for reality. They have no objective standard of morality, or reality. If everything is material and can be explained by natural means, how can a materialist account for things like the laws of logic, or even there grounds to be reasonable. Where and why did this come from?
Also, I did not say it COULDN'T be god - just that I didn't see a reason to think it WAS, based solely on the notion that you (or your fellow believers) couldn't think of an alternate explanation.
The "order" of the universe is explicable through the interactions of known laws, e.g.; gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism etc. - and contrary to popular belief, the resultant order DOES NOT contradict the second law of thermodynamics - it allows for local order.
@steveb0503 cont. materialism cannot account for. They steal from the Christian worldview to answer and try to account for these laws. And getting back, you said you see no reason to think God is the reason for the beginning or the uniformity of the universe, then what is the reason?It just happened because it is? thats called begging the question my friend, or it happened by itself?What empirical evidence do you have to support that, there is none. Science doesn't allow anything to come from 0
First of all we're not talking about moralistic standards, but I would point out that even God's moral standards can be viewed in a relativistic light, e.g.; is it ALWAYS wrong to lie? Consider: what if your neighbor - who was being beaten by her husband - sought immediate refuge at your home, only to be sought out by said husband, asked that that you lie and tell him she wasn't there? Wouldn't your moral obligation be to proceed to lie to her husband?
@assasinof6 Wow, you kinda missed the point of my comment. Perhaps that was not the most fool-proof example that I could have given, but I would ask you: Can you think of NO example where lying would be the moral thing to do?
My point was more about the dangers of absolute thinking - where regardless of the circumstances involved, the is only a one-size-fits-all answer. There is a legal term: extenuating circumstances, which is apropos here.
Lying is lying, sure; however, the argument that lying is never the moral/most good thing to do has always, and will always fall flat on its face in a pitiful cloud of humiliation with even the slightest scratch at its surface.
Secondly, I realize you have been reassured (and subsequently accepted) that we cannot assume anything about reality without first presupposing God, but that assertion is even more baseless than you would claim ours is - you are STILL trying to explain something by the invocation of something which is even more inexplicable - STILL trying to define into existence the ULTIMATE un-caused cause.
If we don't get a free pass, then neither does your "GOD".
Furthermore, the point you are continuing to miss here is that I don't HAVE to come up with an answer - yours was, is, and ever will be an argument from ignorance: You, me, nor anyone else can come up with an answer - therefore there must be a "God", and he did it - there, now it IS explained.
Really?
Do you truly consider that adequate justification upon which to hang your hat - I mean, considering the importance you attach to this concept?
Christianity does not have an answer for the primacy of existence. presuppositionalism is a fallacy. go to wikipedia and type "begging the question" you will then see the definition of the presup fallacy. also, go to bahnsenburner.blogspot.com for a massive incineration of every presupp arguement.
these debates are old...ok bahnsen won b/c stein had never heard that arguement...please watch dan barker chew up and spit out any apologist in 2010...get with the times. bahnsen was confused.
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
@Raskolnikhov LOL you just cant comprehend his argument I guess. Take some Philosophy classes. And if you have, then you have no excuse for not seeing how much Bahnsen proposes arguments that Smith has no answer for.
@snaredstix Agreed. You need to be REALLY critical and open-minded in order to understand the arguments that Christianity is the only world view that makes sense.
@Raskolnikhov No, he didn't waste it. Your life on earth doesn't really matter because you cease to exist after death. The purpose of life is subjective and Bahnsen chose to spend his one and only life as a professor. He doesnt exist anymore, and he will spend eternity non existent. Thats the Atheist worldview. No sense of purpose, its all subjective. Who are you to say he wasted his life, maybe I think your wasting your life? Why am i wrong in saying that?
05:01 LOL Look at the text that is hidden here, How will you escape the wrath that is to come'' Ill answer that, there is no wrath cause that would require some sort of being with feelings, but if you mean humans i dont need to escape..
@powerinstars6 - As Bahnsen would say, no PARTICULAR atheist view of the world can justify the laws of induction. If you've studied philosophy you would know this. Both Hume and Russel noted this in their writings. As a matter of fact, this is the exact subject of my current graduate course on the Philosophy of Science. Atheism (be it materialism or what have you) fails to account for all of the things in human experience (including induction). EPIC FAIL
@transcendentalsunify What is the importance to both Hume and Russel as if they are the pinnacle to Atheism? We're no longer living in their century. We have moved further on from them, refurnishing our understanding through Scientific Methodology. I can see that Induction has some drawbacks, but that's not to say that we should completely throw them away. What applies to one might apply to another, but we do not say it is *absolutely* the case. And what does Induction to do with Atheism?
LOL...you are talking to upper division graduate students here. Please do your homework and come back. Just exactly what "Scientific Methodology" are you speaking of? Popper? Thagard? Hempel? Klemke? Kitcher? Lambert? Britten? Kuhn? I'm sorry to burst your Wiki bubble but it doesn't seem you know what your talking about. Induction is the process of reasoning from past/particular cases to future cases/generalities. Science cannot justify doing this. Go to the Stanford site & read
@transcendentalsunify I will admit then that I have no claim of knowledge to Philosophy. You might have knowledge in this field more than I do. And my "Scientific Methodology" is perhaps based on Popper, as we learned in our Introductory Science courses - but I speak in ignorance in this. And also, I did not look things up through Wiki but through places such as Stanford site and my textbook. But, sure - I'll take your advise, thanks. =)
@powerinstars6 This statement is cut from the same cloth of some of the best statements ever made by a human being. Humility and honesty in the pursuit of truth in ALL forms must ALWAYS be applied by EVERYONE. Including transcendetalsunify...
@transcendentalsunify And actually, my Scientific Methodology isn't so much that it's whomever's methodology but that it's a method of how one can attain knowledge learned in school. So, in some sense, yes, I would use induction through past/particular to future generalities. However, much of our Scientific understanding isn't that we apply generally to all cases. This is where we have our doubts about specific to general; past to future. And it's healthy and active we hold this skepticism.
You have not understood the argument. There is NO rational foundation for ANY inductive reasoning under an atheist/empiricist view of nature (as both Hume and Russell noted). Science rests upon the foundation of pure psychological habit. At best, all you can say is that you use induction because you have a bad habit of doing it. The point is, you shouldn't be doing it!
@transcendentalsunify Is that so? Really? What then can we use, assuming you are right, in collectively attaining the knowledge of the world around us without empiricism? And, like I said earlier, I don't understand how and why you continue to cite Hume and Russell as an "atheist/empiricist view of nature" when, everybody holds to different view, even you have said so below "...don't assume that I ascribe to your view on it." I have a bad habit of doing what?
I do not have time to educate you in philosophy. Buy a textbook on the history of western philosophy, read it, and then come back when you know what empiricism is. If you want to espouse a challenge to Bahnsen, then please do so and we'll discuss it. No atheist worldview (as Bahnsen here notes) can provide for the preconditions of intelligibility (including induction). Therefore, atheism (i.e. - materialism) fails.
@transcendentalsunify You claim a lot of things without giving sufficient basis for your conclusion, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt that 500 character limit hinders you in doing so. In which case, I'm not here to debate any philosopher. The discussion of these things is interesting at face value, but sure - I'll take your advise and study Philosophy. Have a good day. =)
The arrogance and condescending attitude is absolutely abhorrent and uneeded... It is not our duty as thoughtful individuals to stifle the pursuit of knowledge for anyone else. In the course of human interaction, it is our duty to try and foster truth in others, your statement prevents this.
FYI, I am a 21 year old self educated/employed woodcraftsman of 8 years and undergrad student of accounting for 2... any knowledge is my own
@transcendentalsunify Your statement was an assertion of authority without a demonstration of such, your simply being arrogant, if you truly wanted to convince someone of what you deem to be truth you would have demonstrated a degree of authority. Truth and ideas have consequences. You must act upon them or else you aren't being honest to you interpretations, there is no reason for them. They can't be justified. "our" duty as humans is to abide by the things we believe. Simple.
Hey, have you guys ever read George's book? It sounds to me like he did a really good job of "dumbing it down" to allot for the time constraints, and to make his philosophical, logical atheism understandable, to the layman that is.
"Without a belief in God, you can't prove anything" and he "would make that the foundation for reason," Bahnsen said. Wait a minute. ATheist scientists prove lots of things, so the first thought is just silly. The second thought requires a belief in God to begin with, but this is a debate about whether god even exists. Reason requires no belief in god, and if you are going to make god a foundation for your reasoning, you better FIRST show God exists.
I think you're misunderstanding the presuppositional nature of the apologetics used by Bahnsen. As Gordon H. Clark believed, the truth of the Bible is the axiom of the apologetics system. Instead of using empirical data to prove or disprove the axiom, rather, the worldview that stems from the axiom should be tested for logical consistency.
If you start with a belief, you can TRY to make an argument for that belief, but the "evidence" becomes awkward, convoluted and circular. I think this describes religion. Look, if you have a religious worldview, you see god in everything and have set up a philosophical house of cards based on God. Could it be right. From outside the religion, it seems implausible, just as all those other religions seem implausible to you. Apply the same skepticism you have of other religions to your own belief.
Here is the problem with religion. You are trying to establish the evidence for the existence of god. Now to do this, you introduce a whole bunch of other ideas that also have no evidence...things like virgin birth, resurrection, angels, demons, souls, heaven, hell, sin, power of prayer, transubstantiation, creationism, etc. This is what I mean when I say the explaination is awkward.
You are misunderstanding the argument here. Bahnsen is arguing that the atheist view of the world cannot JUSTIFY (make an accounting for) the laws of logic, induction, universals, or moral prescription. He maintains that the atheist artificially borrows the theistic outlook and then goes about using those laws that he can make no accounting for. His argument is based upon transcendentals, which cannot exist in a purely physicalist universe.
Well that's partly true. We don't know how the laws of physics came to be, but orderliness is not the same as design or creation and god is not the default when something is not understood. The real problem is that theists like Bahnsen cannot tell the difference between religion and science. There is no atheist world view unless that would be skepticism. Theists however are skeptical too...with all other religions and atheism, so that hardly separates atheists from theists. -Continued.
The law of identity states that all matter has characteristics that make it unique. What would you suppose a world without god would be? Disorderly? Without god would a chicken give birth to a platypus? Order in the universe requires no Orderer. Everything that exists, exists as something, so the choice between existence and design is a false choice. Morality and logic are abstractions. My dog understands morality. Did god imbue her with morality. She understands "do not steal" the cat's food.
The question of order is one of the three basic arguments;
teleological, ontological, cosmological.
Morality and logic are not abstractions but universal laws that our reason accepts as the foundation of argument, communication and cooperation. You contend your dog knows morality, and I doubt he'll disagree, but what your describing is pavlovian conditioning. Science and history belong to the Christian, and I would like them returned.
why are you teaching your dog christian principles?:)
Morality and logic are universal laws? No. Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I use rational morality and you use religious morality for example. If logic is a universal law, why do we use logic and come to different conclusions? I think Christians are more Pavlovian than they admit especially if they were raised in a Christian home where religious conformity replaces thought. Science and history of course exist and have existed independent of Christianity.
"What would you suppose a world without god would be?"
One where conversation would not take place. Such things as logic, universals, prescription, qualia, freedom, induction, and the uniformity of nature (just to name a few) could not exist or make sense in such a universe. Bahnsen's argument is not between "existence and design". It is that atheism cannot provide for the preconditions of intelligibility in which laws are even possible. We have no reason to even trust our senses in such a view
The laws of physics were birthed with the universe along side time and space, ever heard of Einstein? even atheists dont believe in a static eternal universe, the laws of thermodynamics are quite real. science is a tool we use to make predictions about the external world. Its how we design cars and planes and telephones. Skepticism ends by saying " we cant know anything for sure" try Hume, Russell, .. thats not a world I want to live in, its contrary to every experience I have.
Your conclusion doesn't support your observation. Skepticism does not end. It is a process and perspective, not a conclusion. Russell said theists lack a good sense of reality. Science is a tool, but it is more. It is the only reality we can logically support. Kant said there could be things beyond our 5 senses, but if they exist, we cannot know about them. Religion falls into that category...at least so far. Science uses a normal pair of eyes, but you need special eyes to see god at work.
"Skepticism does not end. It is a process and perspective"
LOL...So you admit that skepticism is a worldview. Your claim that "science is the only reality we can logically support" is not ITSELF based in science. You are begging the question, which is exactly what Bahnsen is pointing out. If empiricism is your position than I will refer you to Hume. Do you know what empiricism is?
"theists like Bahnsen cannot tell the difference between religion and science"
I would part ways here. According to Bahnsen, all interpretations of nature begin with a worldview (a presumption about the nature of reality and knowledge). How might the atheist worldview account for the existence of universal laws, such as logic (or more specifically induction)? Hume dealt with this very problem and ended in skeptical empiricism. Bahnsen argues that no accounting can be made under atheism.
An accounting can easily be made, but it is uncomfortable to theists who prefer to their familiar illusions. Science and religion are different processes. Kepler had a theory of the rotation of planets that was not correct. When he was proven wrong, he regrouped and formulated another theory which was correct and science advanced. A religious figure like Jesus is never questioned. His theories are never tested, but passed on by disciples without testing. Accept them or find another religion.
Then instead of saying you can make an account. Do it! Account for the existence of universals, such as the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, induction, and so on, in an atheist universe. Ever read Hume?
Jesus did not have "theories." He spoke, and it was. He wouldn't be much to Christians if all He offered was another batch of "take it or leave it" ideas.
Treating God like an empirical science won't make Him so.
Treating Jesus as anything other than a man does not make that so either. Most of us are pretty sure the biblcal Jesus never existed. In the 21st century, not many people buy into the Jesus Story. None of the atheists, Muslims and I dare say a large portion of the Christians do not believe the myth as well. You know even Thomas Jefferson found the bible so unbelievable, he wrote his own bible minus the miracles, called the Jefferson Bible. I'm just saying it is very farfetched stuff.
That is quite an incredible statement. There are millions who believe in Christ's Messiahship.
Thomas Jefferson was never a Christian, he was a deist. On his authority I'm supposed to undermine the whole of the Bible? Sorry, not going to cut it.
There are quite a few,but fewer and fewer all the time. Traditional Christian countries are turning into nonbelievers. The 2007-8 Gallup poll asked in several countries "whether religion occupied an important place in your life?" This % answered "no" : Estonia-84%, Sweden-83%, France 73%, United Kingdom 71%. I think you see where I am going with this. Many Christians are Christian in name only. They are not believers as you appear to be.
Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamoazov pointed out there are two types of minds: Skeptics (me) and Mystics (you). St. Thomas was a mystic all along. Seeing holes in Jesus hand would not convince a true skeptic who would think some hoax or undiscovered phenomenon of science had occurred. Of course atheists aren't likely to believe this so much as they are that the story was a creation.
Take Jesus' miracle of healing the demon-possessed woman where demons calling themselves Legion spoke. Jesus sent them to a herd of pigs that jumped in the sea. What would a skeptic see? I might see a schizophrenic woman who Jesus was kind to. She might stop her erratic behavior as Jesus held her hand. I would not hear any demons speaking. An hour later, the woman would be ranting again and there would be this story of some pigs that drowned. Atheists don't believe in miracles. There is no need.
How you say an atheist would see this event belies the fact that atheistic scientists assume that there is only one way that things can be known, and that is through empirical evidence. It's a presupposition.
I said "I might see" . It's just a guess, a possibility. But what YOU wrote is that "He spoke and it was." To me this is an opinion as well, not a fact or truth as you are prone to call your dogma. In fact, I don't believe you can know such things since you weren't there and can't say with certainty the event even occurred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as someone said.
Bahnsen really does give an incredible account of the necessity of God's existence in order to use logic. It's a shame that no one seems to be listening to what he says.
Instead, you just wait to hear when he mentions "evidence" of the kind you are looking for. Which is actually pretty dogmatic.
Necessity of God's existence, Yes. The proof of God's existence, No. The other way to say it , as Paul did is: "If there is no resurrection, we have no basis for faith." Bingo, Paul. Bahnsen in is over his head.
"god is not the default when something is not understood"
And neither is naturalism or empiricism, of which you have yet to justify. Which brings us back to exactly what Bahnsen is noting. The atheist worldview cannot be cogently justified.
Secondly, "Theists" are not one in the same. Neither do all theists ascribe to particular theological structures. There is an atheist worldview, as you have demonstrated in other posts. How you interpret reality and the nature of knowledge is a worldview.
@medianfire 1) What is Atheist Worldview? 2) How do you know Atheist, you propose, is what they believe? 3) How can you cogently justify that which you wish to prove they believe is exactly what they believe? 4) By what method could you come to a conclusion that they "cannot be .. justfied?" 5) Using Logic, show me how they cannot justify their worldview (whatever this is). Bahnsen asserts many things: things which are not in itself justified as well.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Atheism doesn't. I never knew Atheism had a discipline in Cosmology or had a collective ideology. While Atheist may cater to Naturalistic World view, Atheism in itself is not an ideology or a World view. "What caused the Big Bang" has number of theories: one being Inflationary Theory. Please study them. =)
@powerinstars6 Lol... i said "an atheist world view" this allows for plurality. I did not say " the atheist world view being defined as a collective ideology and always specifically related to cosmology"
While I will be the first to admit I'm no authority on Inflationary Theory, the problem is still the same
Where in Inflationary Theory, or any of them for that matter, is there a description of a causer or origin to a series?
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Let's then open our Physics textbook, it states under Conservation of Energy: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it may be transformed from one form to another, but the total amount of energy never changes." (Physics 10th Edition Paul G. Hewitt). When you state that Inflationary Theory had a "causer or origin" you're saying energy must have been "created or caused;" however, the Conservation of Energy opposes this: good example is Atomic Bomb dropped in Japan during WW2
@powerinstars6 Let me then elaborate on the above question. The spoon "dropped" because the nature of the spoon on Earth, because the gravity pulls the object to the core of the Earth, is to the Earth. It's the very nature to be "attracted" to Earth. Thus, are you going to say that Earth is the "causer" of spoon being dropped? Earth, being the inanimate object, does what it naturally does. It would then be absurd to assert that it must have had a causer.
@powerinstars6 And yes, lets elaborate. Sciences are methodologies that are specifically designed to define the workings of different systems on the hierarchy of order. Earth as an inanimate object does absolutely what it naturally does. The "causer" of these attributes would be the cosmological situation required to bring about its existence as a system. (good example is one gear moving another) Lets take a moment at this point to use scientific methodology in another realm.
@powerinstars6 The spoon illustration is a very good one. But let me offer one to you. You have never seen a watch in your life. One day you come across a wristwatch sitting on the ground. You see a system with an observable effect (that of tracking time) so you open it up to find out HOW it works. Using methods of cause effect you see how the gears and springs interrelate and effect one another (the world, the spoon, and yourself) and then define the parameters of the system.
@powerinstars6 You then make the determination that it would be totally absurd to assert that there must have been some kind of first cause for the wristwatch. In summation, when looking at the hugely ornate and irreducibly complex system such as natural experience, science does a great job of explaining it. But it offers no definition for first cause or an originating Causer. You, when you happen upon the watch, easily make the assertion that there is a "watchmaker" a move on.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 I disagree. While, I would love to continue this discussion, 500 character limit isn't sufficient. Using induction, you assume watch had a "watchmaker." However, can you assert the same claim that Universe also had a "causer?" If energy is eternal and if particles are always in motion, I can understand things are "caused" by one another, but not that they have the "1st" cause. Things in essence are all caused by one another.
@powerinstars6 You must understand in order to be intellectually honest, that scientific method working in the confines of nature only explains how nature works. It cannot by virtue of these confines define a first cause or originating Causer as they are not restricted to the same confines. In A+B=C you explain the C very well. With the watch you naturally explain A+B (watchmaker), its only natural to do so elsewhere. For lack of a better term, this is called "God" by many.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Yes, and I am honest when I claim that my Scientific Methodologies are limited in scope of natural world. However, if you assert that Universe *must* had an "originating Causer" (as you presuppose), I'd love to see HOW that's the case, again. Using the watchmaker/watch analogy fails to provide sufficient evidence for the Universe being that way. You can only provide how watch had a watchmaker. This also has no correlation between the Universe; Universe is not a watchmaker.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Quite frankly, I see how Religious assertion encourages you to not be challenged. Perhaps rightly so, seeing that Religion is not often challenged. If you're going to presuppose, from the outset, that there must have been an "originating Causer," you must show your presupposition how that's the case first, or else your presupposition is nullified. If you assume A, then B must be the case. However, this is called fallacy of begging the question. How do you know A is the case?
@powerinstars6 To be honest, for me personally, this is not a religious conviction nor does it stem from any institution that I could participate in. I'm not one to participate in institutions. For a long time I was mentored in naturalist philosophy of a methodological brand. I do not beg the question. This logical frame work is something I came upon through trying to explain away the idea of a first Cause or Originator myself.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 I see. What's the importance of finding the first cause or Originator in the Universe, out of curiosity? Although, I personally am not against the idea, I don't see how it really is the case in the Universe from what I stated below. But - then again, it's my opinion.
@powerinstars6 My presupposition comes from the fact that at one time, I realized that no matter how far out I extended the chain of order and time I could not explain away what I saw. How many C's I came across (whether its a watch or the various forms of cosmology) there was always an A+B that corresponded with it. I can't get away from the absolute coherence to our experiences in the natural world. How so many times ideas have claimed chaos only to be proven wrong as though progressed.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 While causation is valuable and I respect you for holding on to it, I don't think there really is the "first cause" in the universe. Because our Universe is quite multi-focal to many degree, even in singularity, Gravity, diet, walking and so on. If you look at the nature, like animals, cells, stars you'll see that, while there's a cause for the event, each of those doesn't assume the "first" cause. It is just that it was caused by something and another thing and so on.
@powerinstars6 There are only two possibilities for the creation of the universe,either an entity outside our universe Created it or it created itself,common sense and science both point to an outside entity creating it,to believe that the universe created itself is really the fairy tale people choose to believe.
@CBALLEN I disagree. The biggest problem with that is it's a fallacy of false dichotomy. They're not mutually exclusive. How can you show "creation" is the only positive "alternative" while respectively answering the question? The beginning of time is at its heart, expansion of the Universe via Big Bang. There, we will state that it's "the beginning" but only of "time." Matter neither has to be created nor destroyed; Energy is eternal.
@powerinstars6 Matter neither has to be created or destroyed? Matter is just compressed energy true,but energy is not eternal,it had to come from somewhere and that somewhere was the eternal Christian God who is the uncaused first cause ,but He's not from around these parts,our universe is His creation therefore He is not bound by it and He exists in a whole different plan than we can imagine.
@CBALLEN No, matter is not created. First according to conservation of energy, "energy cannot be created or destroyed; it may be transformed from one form into another, but the total amount of energy never changes." (Conceptual Physics 10th Paul G. Hewitt) And Einstein's E=mc^2 changes energy into matter, thus matter is neither created nor destroyed - as well. It transforms back into Energy as is the case in that equation above.
@powerinstars6 What does an equation have to do with what God has created? God is eternal Energy,He is the source of all that exists,to be more specific,Jesus Christ is the word of God ,who holds all things together and all things exist in Him.He hung the Earth on nothing and put all things in motion.Think about this,since when would we ever see an explosion create spherical objects that behave like our universe does?Explode a hand granade in space and observe what's created from that explosion
@CBALLEN I never said equation has anything to do with God's creation, nor have I even said God created anything. If you admit God is eternal Energy, you contradict your own scripture. Assuming you believe in Sola Scriptura, your Bible states, "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." Energy is material and physical. If you're going to talk about "His creation" first establish how it is "His'" and how "He" exists.
@powerinstars6 It's not about"suiting myself" what matters is the truth,man's opinions mean nothing.Read Job the oldest book in the Bible and you'll see things that could not have been known by ancient man unless God revealed them.The things I'm referring to have only recently been discovered by science.
@CBALLEN Sounds like you have recently delve into Theology and Textual Criticism. Perhaps Bahnsen and other known public speakers such as John Piper and others has fueled your desire to speak ill of "man's opinions." Perhaps it's the Calvinistic Theology that man are a wretched human being and in need of Christ, as has been exemplified by Covenant Theology. Reading the Book of Job does not reveal ancient man could not have known anything without God's intervention.
@CBALLEN "Discovered by science" is rather an ambiguous phrase. Science is a methodology, where we may attain physical knowledge of the Universe. It states nothing of the sort that could be "discovered" by science. If by methodology, one could discover them, that's quite a feat and I'd love to read about it; however, I understand this is not what you're talking about.
@CBALLEN Quite honestly, to say "man's opinions means nothing" is degrading yourself and other Christians as well, for much of what they speak is opinion. And it's certainly "man's" opinion as well. In the end, you are using the fallacy called Appeal to Authority (the Bible). And the rest are your opinions from you or other Christian's exegetical interpretations.
@powerinstars6 Well everything you believe is an appeal to authority unless you've lived through out all history and have seen everything happen with your own eyes,done every experiment and have read ever book in existence,because if you taken ANYONES word for anything,then you are appealing to authority.
@CBALLEN Right. And therefore I don't believe in everything so readily when people gives me informations and opinions. I don't exactly have as much "belief" as you probably want to attack, understanding how I could also be wrong. I enjoy a heartfelt discussion but not when you're going to talk down on me. It's disrespectful.
@powerinstars6 The Bible has had many try to prove that it was in error in it's history,prophecies and many other areas,and in every case it has been PROVEN TO BE ACCURATE,in fact many used to believe that it was written after the fact because prophecies were so accurate,then the dead sea scrolls were uncovered stopping the mouths of many of it's critics.
@CBALLEN If I asked you what prophesies "has been proven to be accurate," can you show me with scholarly journal, show-casing the origin, historical data, and without a doubt that prophesy "has taken place?" Another is while I understand you see them as prophesy one can write "prophesy" and fit them to however they wish to, thus with the ability, one could easily question if said prophesy has accurately occurred.
@powerinstars6 There is really no need for me to show you the prophecies that have been fulfilled,you can find them all on the net,with all due respect,no one has ever come to Christ by looking at the prophecies,God uses scripture to bring His elect to Himself,but I will tell you to repent and believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,this is the only way that one will be saved.
@CBALLEN This is ultimately the problem: with my offending voice, I don't find you as someone who cares about truth and academic. If such statement as "there is really no need for me to show you..." "...you can find them all on the net..." is the answer, why even make a claim that "it has been proven to be accurate," if you cannot support your conclusion? Proselytizing do nothing to support your position. I am equally and honestly interested in truth, not the aggrandizement of claims made.
@powerinstars6 So if you are really interested in truth ,have you then checked out these fulfilled prophecies? Maybe I'm cynical,but my experience is atheists usually just like to ask questions,they really don't care about the answers,that's just been my experience.
@CBALLEN Yes, I have. But like I said earlier, prophesies can be used as a means for individuals with strong adherence to fit them in their cultural context as Christ could have done. It doesn't show that prophesies are truth in any way. I may be labeled an Atheist but I was a strong Christian, even holding the 3 forms of Confession of Faith dear as I found them Doctrinally sound. But as I studied Textual Criticism, I began to find Scribes errors and alterations. My faith was challenged.
@CBALLEN I'm sure you're aware that, back during Christ, Christianity wasn't the only religion around. With the supposed death of Christ on the cross, Catholic church was erected. Christ was in art form (for some few Christians it was called an idol worship). However, important thing to note is Christ was modeled after the sun god, Apollo in Greek Mythology.
@powerinstars6 Actually the word CATHOLIC just means universal and the first church was known by this name,however,once the ruling power(Rome) got hold of the word and added it's paganism into a perverted version of Christianity ,it added Popes to command power and obedience to the Roman "church" the word Catholic took on a new meaning.Roman Catholics began killing true Christians for not bowing to or believing in their paganism.
@CBALLEN I never talked about what the Catholic church means and how the "Roman Catholics began killing true Christians." I find them all Christians, as Christianity is a general word for those who believe in Jesus Christ, and not the doctrinal differences or adherence to strict interpretation: "1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ (Webster)." My point was, "Christ was modeled after the sun god, Apollo in Greek Mythology."
@CBALLEN Artwork, yeah. And if you study their artwork, it's not very far from the time Christ was alive. Thus, anyone who saw him could draw as they saw him. It's interesting they make it similar to Apollo, though.
@powerinstars6 Paul said there are many Jesus',meaning,just because someone says they believe in Jesus doesn't mean they believe in the one the scriptures portray.
@powerinstars6 Jesus said Himself,"In that day many will say Lord,Lord,haven't we prophesied,cast out demons and done many good works in your name,and I will reply ,I never knew you,depart from me you workers of iniquity in to the fire",notice, Jesus never said they never did these things,He just said I NEVER KNEW YOU.This also removes to notion as many believe that they used to be Christians but they are no more.Jesus never said I used to know you,but I don't anymore.He chooses His own.
@CBALLEN And have I prophesied "in his name?" or have I did many "good works" in his name? Neither can you or any other Christians know my true heart. It's easy for anyone to quote scriptures and act in behalf of their so-called God as was the case during the Crusades.
@powerinstars6 I've seen pictures of Christ and they all look different,all they really have in common is long hair and a beard.I'm not saying you weren't a Christian Jesus says that,if someone leaves and claim that they are a unbeliever,then they never were His.Many who followed Jesus also left Him and He told the disciples that they left to prove they were not of us,because if they were of us they'd still be with us,so it seems you're just deceived the same way those that will say LORD,LORD.
@CBALLEN I will concede from here. I realize you're not ready for oppositional thoughts and objections. You're so adamant on your beliefs and how you must speak from your authority. Although I should not be surprised considering where I am making the comment. Have a great day to you. =)
@CBALLEN For the record, I'm not hurt. I'm actually surprised how you are continually using the Bible as your Authority when I have repeated said using the Bible is Appeal to Authority. And perhaps you're quite aware that Scribes, when copying, made plenty of alterations. However, I am personally tired trying to get you back on course when you are trying to "offend" me through Bible again when you have not established the authority of your Bible and why it should be authoritative.
@powerinstars6 You SAYING JESUS WORDS NOT BEING AUTHORITATIVE is like saying BILL GATES IS NOT THE AUTHORITY ON WINDOWS !!!! Please don't remove that comment,other Christians need a laugh too!hehe
@CBALLEN Would you simply trust the doctor because of their profession or by their experiences, their research, their work, and how they are involved, not only in the community, but even their prior schools they've attended? If in the similar vein, Christ held these air of authority as you wish to proclaim, why does it fall short? The proclivity to the trust to his authority without proper authorship ought to be reprehensible. However, this is the basis for Christian "truth."
@powerinstars6 Opps, wrote the above word improperly though fatigue from day's work does that. But I suppose you'll use this as a means for your immature laughs as I've met plenty of people such as Robert Morey, who do nothing but insult the character of the person than to discuss the issue. Ah, but having said all of that, I'll retire. Your irrational conclusions and inability to understand what I'm speaking has pushed my patience level. Good day to you, buddy. =)
When you say 'Appeal to Authority', are you trying to say that if a Christian appeals to the Bible as an authority that this constitutes an informal fallacy?
Second, why do you assume that the Bible does not contain its own authority? That is, that it is self-authorizing?
@purereligion127 When a Christian appeals to the Bible, it is an informal fallacy. Upon brief look at Textual Criticism, one can conclude several alterations in the Bible. Thus the credibility is lost in myriads of Scribes alterations, additions, and omissions. If you feel I'm using this fallacy erroneously, please correct me. =)
2) I meant to state that Bible's authority is lost upon transcription by the Scribes, not that it is not a self-authorizing book which I also do not think is the case.
First, the findings of textual criticism are not exactly uncontroversial, given that the same is often controlled (if not driven) by anti-theist assumptions--e.g. the Jesus Seminar.
Second, as for your use of this informal fallacy, it depends: if you are saying any appeal to authority is fallacious, then yes; if you are saying appealing to that authority is fallacious, I'd say you've got your work cut out for you.
@powerinstars6 As for 'TC', some is controversial, some is not. The example of it that I cited is not merely controversial, it is beyond the acceptance of serious scholarship--say what one might find in Wright or Yamauchi. I did so to counter your claim that 'TC' has shown the Bible to be incredible.
As for THAT authority: The authority of Scripture, which is beyond authentic challenge. The many failed attempts only further evidence this. It is high time to let it go.
@purereligion127 1) I understand how they have some controversy and some not. However, I merely stated TC gives linguistic and contextual problem with the alterations made by those Scribes. TC holds discipline in combining those differences.
2) By authority of scripture, I was trying to state authorship and not the control or voice of scripture. I apologize for my improper use of word.
Side-note, I'm reading Wright's paper on authority of scripture.
@CBALLEN Ex-Christians exists all over the place. I don't find Christ words authoritative, neither have I read the scholars I have read finding them Authoritative either. Perhaps I am wrong though but beliefs in one who holds little to no credibility, I am doubtful and skeptical. If your trust is that open without prior authorship in question, I am aghast. But this is your personal beliefs and I am not here to question your beliefs.
@powerinstars6 So Christ is not authoritative?LOL,hehehehe,are you serious?Excuse me for laughing so much I almost wet myself,but that was one of the funniest things that I have ever heard an atheist say.Who would you say is authoritative?The Pope?lol.
@powerinstars6 And you just assume a Big Bang,yes there was a beginning,that's all we know,the rest is pure speculation,and it certainly did not create itself, real science refutes that,to believe other wise means you have left empirical science for SCIENTISM.
@CBALLEN Hm, assuming a Big Bang? Big Bang only states that galaxies are expanding from each other and it continues to expand today. It neither states it's the "beginning of" or "creation of" matter/energy as you appear to be assuming.
@powerinstars6 Long before we were born the Bible had already stated that God stretches out the universe like a curtain,it was amazingly correct once more,just like it always is.
@powerinstars6 Whatever this Cause is, whatever you may call it, I just can't honestly deny that there is intelligence and method of design associated with it. Whatever the system, there's always another external to it. I've spent the last 6 years trying in my mind to get around it unsuccessfully.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 My point is, I don't think there is a sufficient reason to assume there ought to be a first cause. I personally don't see a method of design in the Universe.
What a bizarre epistemological assumption Bahnsen entertains. Is his argument a variant of the transcendental argument? What silliness!
RandolphLevin 1 year ago
If any theist has a pressing need to feel stupid they should try reading Smith's book ;-)
steveb0503 1 year ago
Comment removed
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@unprofessionalvids Not for me - I always prefer non-fiction to fiction (I figure I'm more likely to learn something).
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 you like non-fiction? read the bible :)
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@unprofessionalvids Um, yeah, got about one page into that book when I realized it was fiction - sorry, but I happen to possess knowledge regarding REALITY which contradicts the claims in that book, and I'm not going to accept it as true just because someone told me I should.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 ok believe what you want my friend :)
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@unprofessionalvids You're missing my point - it isn't about "belief" (unless of course you're referring to believing the Buybull). Seriously, do you mean to tell me that after reading Genesis, you can still claim it's not fiction?!?
This is a STORY - made up by people so fundamentally ignorant of the kinds of knowledge even a modern child possesses, that they would have considered a wheelbarrow to be a breathtaking example of emerging technology - and it is painfully obvious as such.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 you cant even account for creation.' How did it start, the big bang? Who started it and where did the particles come from to even make it possible? And heres a big philosophical question, WHY did it start?
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr I don't have to account for how it all began - it's OK to say: "We don't know, but we're working on it" (besides, there are some plausible explanations already offered by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lee Smolin, and Victor Stenger - to name but a few), you "believers" are the ones making the baseless claims - unless you can somehow prove it is impossible to explain existence without invoking a "Creator" (BTW - what is your basis for this claim - other than: "It says so in a book"?)
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 And the who created God argument is the most asked question and easily answered question. I dont have room to explain it here but ill just send you a link to one of the top Christian apologetics of today, Will Craig who makes it pretty understandable, well maybe not you because your eyes are blind. "will craig who created God"
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr You call the pseudo-philosophical prattle that he offers "easily explained"?
No wonder you believe as you do - I'm also limited in trying to explain the reasons I have for finding his answer unsatisfying, but suffice it to say he is merely defining God as "that which is un-caused", thereby avoiding any necessity to answer the original question.
It's still begging the question despite his claims to the contrary.
It's easy to call someone blind who does not see what you THINK you do.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 you say yeah we are working on it. Thats the thing there is no answer, you hope to maybe find an answer in the future or you believe you will, what do you think faith is? You dont realize what you are risking though by placing your life, and your eternity on the words of a scientist who themselves dont know the answers. There is no account for lifes big questions in a natural worldview. By having no answer without proof and believing is faith.EitherGod or no god,how do you account
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr But, what you don't realize is that by choosing to believe in the god that you do, you risk the same thing if Allah is the real god. Plus, it is not as though believing is really an act of will - personally, I find that I am only able to believe in things that I feel I have good reasons to.
When you truly come to understand WHY it is that you reject the idea of Thor, Apollo, Wotan, Amen-Ra, Mithras, Ba'al, and all other dead gods - you will understand why I reject yours as well.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 Yes a very good Richard Dawkins argument, Thor, Wotan... there all the same. This question is not new, Dawkins thinks hes found some amazing question that stumps religious people. Of course we would have to go through every single religion individually as compared to Christ. But who ever told you Christianity was a religion. Where did you get that idea? The bible never says that, actually Jesus was killed by religion, God in fact hates religion. Jesus came to abolish religion.
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Actually, the quote: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." is from Stephen F Roberts - not Dawkins.
It refers to belief in god(s) - NOT religion (organized or not), and it is also to what I am referring - the differences between organized religion and "belief in a higher power" are irrelevant to the points I am attempting to make.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Cont.
I would highly recommend reading Smith's book: "Atheism - The Case Against God", where he systematically (and succinctly) deconstructs most of the arguments put forth as reasons why it is reasonable to believe that god exists - he manages to show how they are not only unreasonable, but unreasonable to the point of absurdity.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 There was never a bigger straw man fallacy than calling Christianity a religion. The bible is set apart, unique. This might help. In every religion in the world, man works and practices to reach up to God and save themselves(including Catholicism.) In Christianity God comes down, does all the work and saves us. This is very basic theology but if your gonna bash the bible and Christ dont misquote him to try to make your argument easier.
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Cont.
And one more point: I could also state that the question of WHY it started is nonsensical due to the fact that if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here discussing it - it is a brute fact, and no more unwarranted than making the claim that before there was anything, there was an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being, and he proceeded to create everything else. The question to you is: If everything else needs an explanation, then why doesn't this "Creator"?
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 You obviously admit that we are discussing our opinions, but I wanna ask you why do you even care? According to your idea our minds are nothing more than random chemicals firing off at random times. My chemicals in my head says there is a God, your chemicals say there is no god. How can u even claim to be right or claim that Im wrong if its all just chemicals. Is it possible your mind is not run by chemicals and your mind might actually be your own?
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Why do believers claim that we who do not share your faith seem to think that because we don't think there's a god then everything must be entirely random ('cause it goes without saying that the only reason anything happens is due to god's will)?
Think outside your own box for once - will you?
If it were entirely random, then there would be no order - without order, there would be no ability to link one thought to another --- we are NOT claiming it's random.
That would make no sense.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 First, I noticed how you never responded to my point of why do you care about my opinion or your own if its all brain chemicals anyways, and second, you say its not random that would make no sense, but it cant be God either, then how do you account for the uniformity of the uni, or the begining of the big bang from literally nothing. It cant be God, or it cant be random according to you, so whats the explanation?
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr I'm not even sure I understand your question.
Why does it matter whether or not it's all just "brain chemicals" - it is what is, whether what it is IS brain chemistry or a dualistic "soul" the RESULT is the same.
WHY I care is because what anyone believes is important as beliefs inform actions, and if someone's beliefs are not based on reality, then how could they ever hope to act in way consistent with reality?
Can you not see the danger inherent in this approach?
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 Yes I agree, I do see the danger of action that it not based on reality. One of the arguments that is brought forth by Bahnsen and Christians is the very fact that Atheists have no grounds for reality. They have no objective standard of morality, or reality. If everything is material and can be explained by natural means, how can a materialist account for things like the laws of logic, or even there grounds to be reasonable. Where and why did this come from?
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Cont.
Also, I did not say it COULDN'T be god - just that I didn't see a reason to think it WAS, based solely on the notion that you (or your fellow believers) couldn't think of an alternate explanation.
The "order" of the universe is explicable through the interactions of known laws, e.g.; gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism etc. - and contrary to popular belief, the resultant order DOES NOT contradict the second law of thermodynamics - it allows for local order.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 cont. materialism cannot account for. They steal from the Christian worldview to answer and try to account for these laws. And getting back, you said you see no reason to think God is the reason for the beginning or the uniformity of the universe, then what is the reason?It just happened because it is? thats called begging the question my friend, or it happened by itself?What empirical evidence do you have to support that, there is none. Science doesn't allow anything to come from 0
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Gawd... not this piffle again.
First of all we're not talking about moralistic standards, but I would point out that even God's moral standards can be viewed in a relativistic light, e.g.; is it ALWAYS wrong to lie? Consider: what if your neighbor - who was being beaten by her husband - sought immediate refuge at your home, only to be sought out by said husband, asked that that you lie and tell him she wasn't there? Wouldn't your moral obligation be to proceed to lie to her husband?
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503
Lying is lying; I would tell him she was indeed there, tell him he has no right to be on my premises, shut and lock the door, and phone the police.
assasinof6 1 year ago
@assasinof6 Wow, you kinda missed the point of my comment. Perhaps that was not the most fool-proof example that I could have given, but I would ask you: Can you think of NO example where lying would be the moral thing to do?
My point was more about the dangers of absolute thinking - where regardless of the circumstances involved, the is only a one-size-fits-all answer. There is a legal term: extenuating circumstances, which is apropos here.
steveb0503 1 year ago
Comment removed
CaptainSmallFoot 4 months ago in playlist George H. Smith vs. Greg Bahsen -- Debate on Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
@assasinof6
Lying is lying, sure; however, the argument that lying is never the moral/most good thing to do has always, and will always fall flat on its face in a pitiful cloud of humiliation with even the slightest scratch at its surface.
CaptainSmallFoot 4 months ago in playlist George H. Smith vs. Greg Bahsen -- Debate on Atheism
@JPBuysjr Cont.
Secondly, I realize you have been reassured (and subsequently accepted) that we cannot assume anything about reality without first presupposing God, but that assertion is even more baseless than you would claim ours is - you are STILL trying to explain something by the invocation of something which is even more inexplicable - STILL trying to define into existence the ULTIMATE un-caused cause.
If we don't get a free pass, then neither does your "GOD".
steveb0503 1 year ago
@JPBuysjr Cont.
Furthermore, the point you are continuing to miss here is that I don't HAVE to come up with an answer - yours was, is, and ever will be an argument from ignorance: You, me, nor anyone else can come up with an answer - therefore there must be a "God", and he did it - there, now it IS explained.
Really?
Do you truly consider that adequate justification upon which to hang your hat - I mean, considering the importance you attach to this concept?
steveb0503 1 year ago
if any atheist has a pressing need to feel stupid they should talk to Dr Bahnsen about why they don't believe in God
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@unprofessionalvids FYI Bahnsen is no longer with us. Most of the atheists I know don't talk to the dead.
OctoberBret 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
a massive case against presuppositionalism
actionjackson864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity does not have an answer for the primacy of existence. presuppositionalism is a fallacy. go to wikipedia and type "begging the question" you will then see the definition of the presup fallacy. also, go to bahnsenburner.blogspot.com for a massive incineration of every presupp arguement.
actionjackson864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
these debates are old...ok bahnsen won b/c stein had never heard that arguement...please watch dan barker chew up and spit out any apologist in 2010...get with the times. bahnsen was confused.
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
actionjackson864 1 year ago
I think Greg Bahnsen is mad because he wasted his life on such a stupid hypothesis.
Raskolnikhov 1 year ago
@Raskolnikhov LOL you just cant comprehend his argument I guess. Take some Philosophy classes. And if you have, then you have no excuse for not seeing how much Bahnsen proposes arguments that Smith has no answer for.
snaredstix 1 year ago
@snaredstix Agreed. You need to be REALLY critical and open-minded in order to understand the arguments that Christianity is the only world view that makes sense.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Raskolnikhov No, he didn't waste it. Your life on earth doesn't really matter because you cease to exist after death. The purpose of life is subjective and Bahnsen chose to spend his one and only life as a professor. He doesnt exist anymore, and he will spend eternity non existent. Thats the Atheist worldview. No sense of purpose, its all subjective. Who are you to say he wasted his life, maybe I think your wasting your life? Why am i wrong in saying that?
JPBuysjr 1 year ago
05:01 LOL Look at the text that is hidden here, How will you escape the wrath that is to come'' Ill answer that, there is no wrath cause that would require some sort of being with feelings, but if you mean humans i dont need to escape..
JollSSteR 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 - As Bahnsen would say, no PARTICULAR atheist view of the world can justify the laws of induction. If you've studied philosophy you would know this. Both Hume and Russel noted this in their writings. As a matter of fact, this is the exact subject of my current graduate course on the Philosophy of Science. Atheism (be it materialism or what have you) fails to account for all of the things in human experience (including induction). EPIC FAIL
transcendentalsunify 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify What is the importance to both Hume and Russel as if they are the pinnacle to Atheism? We're no longer living in their century. We have moved further on from them, refurnishing our understanding through Scientific Methodology. I can see that Induction has some drawbacks, but that's not to say that we should completely throw them away. What applies to one might apply to another, but we do not say it is *absolutely* the case. And what does Induction to do with Atheism?
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6
LOL...you are talking to upper division graduate students here. Please do your homework and come back. Just exactly what "Scientific Methodology" are you speaking of? Popper? Thagard? Hempel? Klemke? Kitcher? Lambert? Britten? Kuhn? I'm sorry to burst your Wiki bubble but it doesn't seem you know what your talking about. Induction is the process of reasoning from past/particular cases to future cases/generalities. Science cannot justify doing this. Go to the Stanford site & read
transcendentalsunify 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify I will admit then that I have no claim of knowledge to Philosophy. You might have knowledge in this field more than I do. And my "Scientific Methodology" is perhaps based on Popper, as we learned in our Introductory Science courses - but I speak in ignorance in this. And also, I did not look things up through Wiki but through places such as Stanford site and my textbook. But, sure - I'll take your advise, thanks. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 This statement is cut from the same cloth of some of the best statements ever made by a human being. Humility and honesty in the pursuit of truth in ALL forms must ALWAYS be applied by EVERYONE. Including transcendetalsunify...
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify And actually, my Scientific Methodology isn't so much that it's whomever's methodology but that it's a method of how one can attain knowledge learned in school. So, in some sense, yes, I would use induction through past/particular to future generalities. However, much of our Scientific understanding isn't that we apply generally to all cases. This is where we have our doubts about specific to general; past to future. And it's healthy and active we hold this skepticism.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6
You have not understood the argument. There is NO rational foundation for ANY inductive reasoning under an atheist/empiricist view of nature (as both Hume and Russell noted). Science rests upon the foundation of pure psychological habit. At best, all you can say is that you use induction because you have a bad habit of doing it. The point is, you shouldn't be doing it!
transcendentalsunify 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify Is that so? Really? What then can we use, assuming you are right, in collectively attaining the knowledge of the world around us without empiricism? And, like I said earlier, I don't understand how and why you continue to cite Hume and Russell as an "atheist/empiricist view of nature" when, everybody holds to different view, even you have said so below "...don't assume that I ascribe to your view on it." I have a bad habit of doing what?
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6
I do not have time to educate you in philosophy. Buy a textbook on the history of western philosophy, read it, and then come back when you know what empiricism is. If you want to espouse a challenge to Bahnsen, then please do so and we'll discuss it. No atheist worldview (as Bahnsen here notes) can provide for the preconditions of intelligibility (including induction). Therefore, atheism (i.e. - materialism) fails.
transcendentalsunify 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify You claim a lot of things without giving sufficient basis for your conclusion, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt that 500 character limit hinders you in doing so. In which case, I'm not here to debate any philosopher. The discussion of these things is interesting at face value, but sure - I'll take your advise and study Philosophy. Have a good day. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify I must be completely honest with you...
The arrogance and condescending attitude is absolutely abhorrent and uneeded... It is not our duty as thoughtful individuals to stifle the pursuit of knowledge for anyone else. In the course of human interaction, it is our duty to try and foster truth in others, your statement prevents this.
FYI, I am a 21 year old self educated/employed woodcraftsman of 8 years and undergrad student of accounting for 2... any knowledge is my own
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
"Our duty?" Whose duty? You certainly have the right to your opinion on morality but please don't assume that I ascribe to your view on it.
transcendentalsunify 1 year ago
@transcendentalsunify Your statement was an assertion of authority without a demonstration of such, your simply being arrogant, if you truly wanted to convince someone of what you deem to be truth you would have demonstrated a degree of authority. Truth and ideas have consequences. You must act upon them or else you aren't being honest to you interpretations, there is no reason for them. They can't be justified. "our" duty as humans is to abide by the things we believe. Simple.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
Hey, have you guys ever read George's book? It sounds to me like he did a really good job of "dumbing it down" to allot for the time constraints, and to make his philosophical, logical atheism understandable, to the layman that is.
PageofLegend 2 years ago
Host sounds like John Stewart "The John Stewart Show" from old KKLA days.
robotnik77 2 years ago
"Without a belief in God, you can't prove anything" and he "would make that the foundation for reason," Bahnsen said. Wait a minute. ATheist scientists prove lots of things, so the first thought is just silly. The second thought requires a belief in God to begin with, but this is a debate about whether god even exists. Reason requires no belief in god, and if you are going to make god a foundation for your reasoning, you better FIRST show God exists.
dkw12002 2 years ago
I think you're misunderstanding the presuppositional nature of the apologetics used by Bahnsen. As Gordon H. Clark believed, the truth of the Bible is the axiom of the apologetics system. Instead of using empirical data to prove or disprove the axiom, rather, the worldview that stems from the axiom should be tested for logical consistency.
kamaujackson811 2 years ago
If you start with a belief, you can TRY to make an argument for that belief, but the "evidence" becomes awkward, convoluted and circular. I think this describes religion. Look, if you have a religious worldview, you see god in everything and have set up a philosophical house of cards based on God. Could it be right. From outside the religion, it seems implausible, just as all those other religions seem implausible to you. Apply the same skepticism you have of other religions to your own belief.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Here is the problem with religion. You are trying to establish the evidence for the existence of god. Now to do this, you introduce a whole bunch of other ideas that also have no evidence...things like virgin birth, resurrection, angels, demons, souls, heaven, hell, sin, power of prayer, transubstantiation, creationism, etc. This is what I mean when I say the explaination is awkward.
dkw12002 2 years ago
I don't mean to imply that Bahnsen is a Clarkian....sorry if there was confusion with my statement.
kamaujackson811 2 years ago
"ATheist scientists prove lots of things"
You are misunderstanding the argument here. Bahnsen is arguing that the atheist view of the world cannot JUSTIFY (make an accounting for) the laws of logic, induction, universals, or moral prescription. He maintains that the atheist artificially borrows the theistic outlook and then goes about using those laws that he can make no accounting for. His argument is based upon transcendentals, which cannot exist in a purely physicalist universe.
medianfire 2 years ago
Well that's partly true. We don't know how the laws of physics came to be, but orderliness is not the same as design or creation and god is not the default when something is not understood. The real problem is that theists like Bahnsen cannot tell the difference between religion and science. There is no atheist world view unless that would be skepticism. Theists however are skeptical too...with all other religions and atheism, so that hardly separates atheists from theists. -Continued.
dkw12002 2 years ago
The law of identity states that all matter has characteristics that make it unique. What would you suppose a world without god would be? Disorderly? Without god would a chicken give birth to a platypus? Order in the universe requires no Orderer. Everything that exists, exists as something, so the choice between existence and design is a false choice. Morality and logic are abstractions. My dog understands morality. Did god imbue her with morality. She understands "do not steal" the cat's food.
dkw12002 2 years ago
The question of order is one of the three basic arguments;
teleological, ontological, cosmological.
Morality and logic are not abstractions but universal laws that our reason accepts as the foundation of argument, communication and cooperation. You contend your dog knows morality, and I doubt he'll disagree, but what your describing is pavlovian conditioning. Science and history belong to the Christian, and I would like them returned.
why are you teaching your dog christian principles?:)
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Morality and logic are universal laws? No. Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I use rational morality and you use religious morality for example. If logic is a universal law, why do we use logic and come to different conclusions? I think Christians are more Pavlovian than they admit especially if they were raised in a Christian home where religious conformity replaces thought. Science and history of course exist and have existed independent of Christianity.
dkw12002 2 years ago
"What would you suppose a world without god would be?"
One where conversation would not take place. Such things as logic, universals, prescription, qualia, freedom, induction, and the uniformity of nature (just to name a few) could not exist or make sense in such a universe. Bahnsen's argument is not between "existence and design". It is that atheism cannot provide for the preconditions of intelligibility in which laws are even possible. We have no reason to even trust our senses in such a view
medianfire 2 years ago 3
The laws of physics were birthed with the universe along side time and space, ever heard of Einstein? even atheists dont believe in a static eternal universe, the laws of thermodynamics are quite real. science is a tool we use to make predictions about the external world. Its how we design cars and planes and telephones. Skepticism ends by saying " we cant know anything for sure" try Hume, Russell, .. thats not a world I want to live in, its contrary to every experience I have.
MrEpictetus 2 years ago
Your conclusion doesn't support your observation. Skepticism does not end. It is a process and perspective, not a conclusion. Russell said theists lack a good sense of reality. Science is a tool, but it is more. It is the only reality we can logically support. Kant said there could be things beyond our 5 senses, but if they exist, we cannot know about them. Religion falls into that category...at least so far. Science uses a normal pair of eyes, but you need special eyes to see god at work.
dkw12002 2 years ago
"Skepticism does not end. It is a process and perspective"
LOL...So you admit that skepticism is a worldview. Your claim that "science is the only reality we can logically support" is not ITSELF based in science. You are begging the question, which is exactly what Bahnsen is pointing out. If empiricism is your position than I will refer you to Hume. Do you know what empiricism is?
medianfire 2 years ago 3
"theists like Bahnsen cannot tell the difference between religion and science"
I would part ways here. According to Bahnsen, all interpretations of nature begin with a worldview (a presumption about the nature of reality and knowledge). How might the atheist worldview account for the existence of universal laws, such as logic (or more specifically induction)? Hume dealt with this very problem and ended in skeptical empiricism. Bahnsen argues that no accounting can be made under atheism.
medianfire 2 years ago
An accounting can easily be made, but it is uncomfortable to theists who prefer to their familiar illusions. Science and religion are different processes. Kepler had a theory of the rotation of planets that was not correct. When he was proven wrong, he regrouped and formulated another theory which was correct and science advanced. A religious figure like Jesus is never questioned. His theories are never tested, but passed on by disciples without testing. Accept them or find another religion.
dkw12002 2 years ago
"An accounting can easily be made"
Then instead of saying you can make an account. Do it! Account for the existence of universals, such as the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, induction, and so on, in an atheist universe. Ever read Hume?
medianfire 2 years ago 3
Jesus did not have "theories." He spoke, and it was. He wouldn't be much to Christians if all He offered was another batch of "take it or leave it" ideas.
Treating God like an empirical science won't make Him so.
chinchilla8 2 years ago 3
Treating Jesus as anything other than a man does not make that so either. Most of us are pretty sure the biblcal Jesus never existed. In the 21st century, not many people buy into the Jesus Story. None of the atheists, Muslims and I dare say a large portion of the Christians do not believe the myth as well. You know even Thomas Jefferson found the bible so unbelievable, he wrote his own bible minus the miracles, called the Jefferson Bible. I'm just saying it is very farfetched stuff.
dkw12002 2 years ago
That is quite an incredible statement. There are millions who believe in Christ's Messiahship.
Thomas Jefferson was never a Christian, he was a deist. On his authority I'm supposed to undermine the whole of the Bible? Sorry, not going to cut it.
chinchilla8 2 years ago
There are quite a few,but fewer and fewer all the time. Traditional Christian countries are turning into nonbelievers. The 2007-8 Gallup poll asked in several countries "whether religion occupied an important place in your life?" This % answered "no" : Estonia-84%, Sweden-83%, France 73%, United Kingdom 71%. I think you see where I am going with this. Many Christians are Christian in name only. They are not believers as you appear to be.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamoazov pointed out there are two types of minds: Skeptics (me) and Mystics (you). St. Thomas was a mystic all along. Seeing holes in Jesus hand would not convince a true skeptic who would think some hoax or undiscovered phenomenon of science had occurred. Of course atheists aren't likely to believe this so much as they are that the story was a creation.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Take Jesus' miracle of healing the demon-possessed woman where demons calling themselves Legion spoke. Jesus sent them to a herd of pigs that jumped in the sea. What would a skeptic see? I might see a schizophrenic woman who Jesus was kind to. She might stop her erratic behavior as Jesus held her hand. I would not hear any demons speaking. An hour later, the woman would be ranting again and there would be this story of some pigs that drowned. Atheists don't believe in miracles. There is no need.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Piss off with religion.
The question is if we're intentional or accidental.
That's all.
Choose one and support it with speculation.
Either way, atheism is a belief.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
How you say an atheist would see this event belies the fact that atheistic scientists assume that there is only one way that things can be known, and that is through empirical evidence. It's a presupposition.
chinchilla8 2 years ago
I said "I might see" . It's just a guess, a possibility. But what YOU wrote is that "He spoke and it was." To me this is an opinion as well, not a fact or truth as you are prone to call your dogma. In fact, I don't believe you can know such things since you weren't there and can't say with certainty the event even occurred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as someone said.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Bahnsen really does give an incredible account of the necessity of God's existence in order to use logic. It's a shame that no one seems to be listening to what he says.
Instead, you just wait to hear when he mentions "evidence" of the kind you are looking for. Which is actually pretty dogmatic.
chinchilla8 2 years ago
Necessity of God's existence, Yes. The proof of God's existence, No. The other way to say it , as Paul did is: "If there is no resurrection, we have no basis for faith." Bingo, Paul. Bahnsen in is over his head.
dkw12002 2 years ago
"god is not the default when something is not understood"
And neither is naturalism or empiricism, of which you have yet to justify. Which brings us back to exactly what Bahnsen is noting. The atheist worldview cannot be cogently justified.
Secondly, "Theists" are not one in the same. Neither do all theists ascribe to particular theological structures. There is an atheist worldview, as you have demonstrated in other posts. How you interpret reality and the nature of knowledge is a worldview.
medianfire 2 years ago 7
@medianfire 1) What is Atheist Worldview? 2) How do you know Atheist, you propose, is what they believe? 3) How can you cogently justify that which you wish to prove they believe is exactly what they believe? 4) By what method could you come to a conclusion that they "cannot be .. justfied?" 5) Using Logic, show me how they cannot justify their worldview (whatever this is). Bahnsen asserts many things: things which are not in itself justified as well.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Like so:
time/location in a series = observable experience
observable experience = organization of variables.
organization of variables = existence of order.
a requirement of order is cause and effect (why and how are these variables organized).
cause and effect require an origin (First Cause in a series of events).
By virtue of the fact that it is atheist, an atheist world view cannot define a Causer.
"What caused the big bang?"
Atheism offers no definitive answer.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Atheism doesn't. I never knew Atheism had a discipline in Cosmology or had a collective ideology. While Atheist may cater to Naturalistic World view, Atheism in itself is not an ideology or a World view. "What caused the Big Bang" has number of theories: one being Inflationary Theory. Please study them. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Lol... i said "an atheist world view" this allows for plurality. I did not say " the atheist world view being defined as a collective ideology and always specifically related to cosmology"
While I will be the first to admit I'm no authority on Inflationary Theory, the problem is still the same
Where in Inflationary Theory, or any of them for that matter, is there a description of a causer or origin to a series?
Its not +b=c, there must be an "a"
where is it?
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Let's then open our Physics textbook, it states under Conservation of Energy: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it may be transformed from one form to another, but the total amount of energy never changes." (Physics 10th Edition Paul G. Hewitt). When you state that Inflationary Theory had a "causer or origin" you're saying energy must have been "created or caused;" however, the Conservation of Energy opposes this: good example is Atomic Bomb dropped in Japan during WW2
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Let me then elaborate on the above question. The spoon "dropped" because the nature of the spoon on Earth, because the gravity pulls the object to the core of the Earth, is to the Earth. It's the very nature to be "attracted" to Earth. Thus, are you going to say that Earth is the "causer" of spoon being dropped? Earth, being the inanimate object, does what it naturally does. It would then be absurd to assert that it must have had a causer.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 And yes, lets elaborate. Sciences are methodologies that are specifically designed to define the workings of different systems on the hierarchy of order. Earth as an inanimate object does absolutely what it naturally does. The "causer" of these attributes would be the cosmological situation required to bring about its existence as a system. (good example is one gear moving another) Lets take a moment at this point to use scientific methodology in another realm.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 The spoon illustration is a very good one. But let me offer one to you. You have never seen a watch in your life. One day you come across a wristwatch sitting on the ground. You see a system with an observable effect (that of tracking time) so you open it up to find out HOW it works. Using methods of cause effect you see how the gears and springs interrelate and effect one another (the world, the spoon, and yourself) and then define the parameters of the system.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 You then make the determination that it would be totally absurd to assert that there must have been some kind of first cause for the wristwatch. In summation, when looking at the hugely ornate and irreducibly complex system such as natural experience, science does a great job of explaining it. But it offers no definition for first cause or an originating Causer. You, when you happen upon the watch, easily make the assertion that there is a "watchmaker" a move on.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 I disagree. While, I would love to continue this discussion, 500 character limit isn't sufficient. Using induction, you assume watch had a "watchmaker." However, can you assert the same claim that Universe also had a "causer?" If energy is eternal and if particles are always in motion, I can understand things are "caused" by one another, but not that they have the "1st" cause. Things in essence are all caused by one another.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 You must understand in order to be intellectually honest, that scientific method working in the confines of nature only explains how nature works. It cannot by virtue of these confines define a first cause or originating Causer as they are not restricted to the same confines. In A+B=C you explain the C very well. With the watch you naturally explain A+B (watchmaker), its only natural to do so elsewhere. For lack of a better term, this is called "God" by many.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Yes, and I am honest when I claim that my Scientific Methodologies are limited in scope of natural world. However, if you assert that Universe *must* had an "originating Causer" (as you presuppose), I'd love to see HOW that's the case, again. Using the watchmaker/watch analogy fails to provide sufficient evidence for the Universe being that way. You can only provide how watch had a watchmaker. This also has no correlation between the Universe; Universe is not a watchmaker.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Quite frankly, I see how Religious assertion encourages you to not be challenged. Perhaps rightly so, seeing that Religion is not often challenged. If you're going to presuppose, from the outset, that there must have been an "originating Causer," you must show your presupposition how that's the case first, or else your presupposition is nullified. If you assume A, then B must be the case. However, this is called fallacy of begging the question. How do you know A is the case?
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 To be honest, for me personally, this is not a religious conviction nor does it stem from any institution that I could participate in. I'm not one to participate in institutions. For a long time I was mentored in naturalist philosophy of a methodological brand. I do not beg the question. This logical frame work is something I came upon through trying to explain away the idea of a first Cause or Originator myself.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 I see. What's the importance of finding the first cause or Originator in the Universe, out of curiosity? Although, I personally am not against the idea, I don't see how it really is the case in the Universe from what I stated below. But - then again, it's my opinion.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 My presupposition comes from the fact that at one time, I realized that no matter how far out I extended the chain of order and time I could not explain away what I saw. How many C's I came across (whether its a watch or the various forms of cosmology) there was always an A+B that corresponded with it. I can't get away from the absolute coherence to our experiences in the natural world. How so many times ideas have claimed chaos only to be proven wrong as though progressed.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 While causation is valuable and I respect you for holding on to it, I don't think there really is the "first cause" in the universe. Because our Universe is quite multi-focal to many degree, even in singularity, Gravity, diet, walking and so on. If you look at the nature, like animals, cells, stars you'll see that, while there's a cause for the event, each of those doesn't assume the "first" cause. It is just that it was caused by something and another thing and so on.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 There are only two possibilities for the creation of the universe,either an entity outside our universe Created it or it created itself,common sense and science both point to an outside entity creating it,to believe that the universe created itself is really the fairy tale people choose to believe.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I disagree. The biggest problem with that is it's a fallacy of false dichotomy. They're not mutually exclusive. How can you show "creation" is the only positive "alternative" while respectively answering the question? The beginning of time is at its heart, expansion of the Universe via Big Bang. There, we will state that it's "the beginning" but only of "time." Matter neither has to be created nor destroyed; Energy is eternal.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Matter neither has to be created or destroyed? Matter is just compressed energy true,but energy is not eternal,it had to come from somewhere and that somewhere was the eternal Christian God who is the uncaused first cause ,but He's not from around these parts,our universe is His creation therefore He is not bound by it and He exists in a whole different plan than we can imagine.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN No, matter is not created. First according to conservation of energy, "energy cannot be created or destroyed; it may be transformed from one form into another, but the total amount of energy never changes." (Conceptual Physics 10th Paul G. Hewitt) And Einstein's E=mc^2 changes energy into matter, thus matter is neither created nor destroyed - as well. It transforms back into Energy as is the case in that equation above.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 What does an equation have to do with what God has created? God is eternal Energy,He is the source of all that exists,to be more specific,Jesus Christ is the word of God ,who holds all things together and all things exist in Him.He hung the Earth on nothing and put all things in motion.Think about this,since when would we ever see an explosion create spherical objects that behave like our universe does?Explode a hand granade in space and observe what's created from that explosion
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I never said equation has anything to do with God's creation, nor have I even said God created anything. If you admit God is eternal Energy, you contradict your own scripture. Assuming you believe in Sola Scriptura, your Bible states, "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." Energy is material and physical. If you're going to talk about "His creation" first establish how it is "His'" and how "He" exists.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 OK , I DIDN'T SAY ETERNAL SPIRITUAL ENERGY,BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE IS,HAPPY NOW?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Sure. Suit yourself. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 No,it's not about suiting myself,that has nothing to do with it.What matters is what is true,not opinions of men.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 It's not about"suiting myself" what matters is the truth,man's opinions mean nothing.Read Job the oldest book in the Bible and you'll see things that could not have been known by ancient man unless God revealed them.The things I'm referring to have only recently been discovered by science.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Sounds like you have recently delve into Theology and Textual Criticism. Perhaps Bahnsen and other known public speakers such as John Piper and others has fueled your desire to speak ill of "man's opinions." Perhaps it's the Calvinistic Theology that man are a wretched human being and in need of Christ, as has been exemplified by Covenant Theology. Reading the Book of Job does not reveal ancient man could not have known anything without God's intervention.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@CBALLEN "Discovered by science" is rather an ambiguous phrase. Science is a methodology, where we may attain physical knowledge of the Universe. It states nothing of the sort that could be "discovered" by science. If by methodology, one could discover them, that's quite a feat and I'd love to read about it; however, I understand this is not what you're talking about.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Quite honestly, to say "man's opinions means nothing" is degrading yourself and other Christians as well, for much of what they speak is opinion. And it's certainly "man's" opinion as well. In the end, you are using the fallacy called Appeal to Authority (the Bible). And the rest are your opinions from you or other Christian's exegetical interpretations.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Well everything you believe is an appeal to authority unless you've lived through out all history and have seen everything happen with your own eyes,done every experiment and have read ever book in existence,because if you taken ANYONES word for anything,then you are appealing to authority.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Right. And therefore I don't believe in everything so readily when people gives me informations and opinions. I don't exactly have as much "belief" as you probably want to attack, understanding how I could also be wrong. I enjoy a heartfelt discussion but not when you're going to talk down on me. It's disrespectful.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Sorry,I didn't realize that I was talking down to you,I didn't mean for it to sound that way.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 The Bible has had many try to prove that it was in error in it's history,prophecies and many other areas,and in every case it has been PROVEN TO BE ACCURATE,in fact many used to believe that it was written after the fact because prophecies were so accurate,then the dead sea scrolls were uncovered stopping the mouths of many of it's critics.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN If I asked you what prophesies "has been proven to be accurate," can you show me with scholarly journal, show-casing the origin, historical data, and without a doubt that prophesy "has taken place?" Another is while I understand you see them as prophesy one can write "prophesy" and fit them to however they wish to, thus with the ability, one could easily question if said prophesy has accurately occurred.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 There is really no need for me to show you the prophecies that have been fulfilled,you can find them all on the net,with all due respect,no one has ever come to Christ by looking at the prophecies,God uses scripture to bring His elect to Himself,but I will tell you to repent and believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,this is the only way that one will be saved.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN This is ultimately the problem: with my offending voice, I don't find you as someone who cares about truth and academic. If such statement as "there is really no need for me to show you..." "...you can find them all on the net..." is the answer, why even make a claim that "it has been proven to be accurate," if you cannot support your conclusion? Proselytizing do nothing to support your position. I am equally and honestly interested in truth, not the aggrandizement of claims made.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 So if you are really interested in truth ,have you then checked out these fulfilled prophecies? Maybe I'm cynical,but my experience is atheists usually just like to ask questions,they really don't care about the answers,that's just been my experience.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Yes, I have. But like I said earlier, prophesies can be used as a means for individuals with strong adherence to fit them in their cultural context as Christ could have done. It doesn't show that prophesies are truth in any way. I may be labeled an Atheist but I was a strong Christian, even holding the 3 forms of Confession of Faith dear as I found them Doctrinally sound. But as I studied Textual Criticism, I began to find Scribes errors and alterations. My faith was challenged.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I'm sure you're aware that, back during Christ, Christianity wasn't the only religion around. With the supposed death of Christ on the cross, Catholic church was erected. Christ was in art form (for some few Christians it was called an idol worship). However, important thing to note is Christ was modeled after the sun god, Apollo in Greek Mythology.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Actually the word CATHOLIC just means universal and the first church was known by this name,however,once the ruling power(Rome) got hold of the word and added it's paganism into a perverted version of Christianity ,it added Popes to command power and obedience to the Roman "church" the word Catholic took on a new meaning.Roman Catholics began killing true Christians for not bowing to or believing in their paganism.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I never talked about what the Catholic church means and how the "Roman Catholics began killing true Christians." I find them all Christians, as Christianity is a general word for those who believe in Jesus Christ, and not the doctrinal differences or adherence to strict interpretation: "1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ (Webster)." My point was, "Christ was modeled after the sun god, Apollo in Greek Mythology."
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Are you talking about Pictures or Christ Himself?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Artwork, yeah. And if you study their artwork, it's not very far from the time Christ was alive. Thus, anyone who saw him could draw as they saw him. It's interesting they make it similar to Apollo, though.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Paul said there are many Jesus',meaning,just because someone says they believe in Jesus doesn't mean they believe in the one the scriptures portray.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Jesus said Himself,"In that day many will say Lord,Lord,haven't we prophesied,cast out demons and done many good works in your name,and I will reply ,I never knew you,depart from me you workers of iniquity in to the fire",notice, Jesus never said they never did these things,He just said I NEVER KNEW YOU.This also removes to notion as many believe that they used to be Christians but they are no more.Jesus never said I used to know you,but I don't anymore.He chooses His own.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN And have I prophesied "in his name?" or have I did many "good works" in his name? Neither can you or any other Christians know my true heart. It's easy for anyone to quote scriptures and act in behalf of their so-called God as was the case during the Crusades.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 I've seen pictures of Christ and they all look different,all they really have in common is long hair and a beard.I'm not saying you weren't a Christian Jesus says that,if someone leaves and claim that they are a unbeliever,then they never were His.Many who followed Jesus also left Him and He told the disciples that they left to prove they were not of us,because if they were of us they'd still be with us,so it seems you're just deceived the same way those that will say LORD,LORD.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I will concede from here. I realize you're not ready for oppositional thoughts and objections. You're so adamant on your beliefs and how you must speak from your authority. Although I should not be surprised considering where I am making the comment. Have a great day to you. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 No problem,sorry to hurt your feelings,but ex-Christians don't exist according to Jesus and He ought to know if anyone does.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN For the record, I'm not hurt. I'm actually surprised how you are continually using the Bible as your Authority when I have repeated said using the Bible is Appeal to Authority. And perhaps you're quite aware that Scribes, when copying, made plenty of alterations. However, I am personally tired trying to get you back on course when you are trying to "offend" me through Bible again when you have not established the authority of your Bible and why it should be authoritative.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 You SAYING JESUS WORDS NOT BEING AUTHORITATIVE is like saying BILL GATES IS NOT THE AUTHORITY ON WINDOWS !!!! Please don't remove that comment,other Christians need a laugh too!hehe
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Would you simply trust the doctor because of their profession or by their experiences, their research, their work, and how they are involved, not only in the community, but even their prior schools they've attended? If in the similar vein, Christ held these air of authority as you wish to proclaim, why does it fall short? The proclivity to the trust to his authority without proper authorship ought to be reprehensible. However, this is the basis for Christian "truth."
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Opps, wrote the above word improperly though fatigue from day's work does that. But I suppose you'll use this as a means for your immature laughs as I've met plenty of people such as Robert Morey, who do nothing but insult the character of the person than to discuss the issue. Ah, but having said all of that, I'll retire. Your irrational conclusions and inability to understand what I'm speaking has pushed my patience level. Good day to you, buddy. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6
When you say 'Appeal to Authority', are you trying to say that if a Christian appeals to the Bible as an authority that this constitutes an informal fallacy?
Second, why do you assume that the Bible does not contain its own authority? That is, that it is self-authorizing?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127 When a Christian appeals to the Bible, it is an informal fallacy. Upon brief look at Textual Criticism, one can conclude several alterations in the Bible. Thus the credibility is lost in myriads of Scribes alterations, additions, and omissions. If you feel I'm using this fallacy erroneously, please correct me. =)
2) I meant to state that Bible's authority is lost upon transcription by the Scribes, not that it is not a self-authorizing book which I also do not think is the case.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6
First, the findings of textual criticism are not exactly uncontroversial, given that the same is often controlled (if not driven) by anti-theist assumptions--e.g. the Jesus Seminar.
Second, as for your use of this informal fallacy, it depends: if you are saying any appeal to authority is fallacious, then yes; if you are saying appealing to that authority is fallacious, I'd say you've got your work cut out for you.
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127 1) Are you stating that findings of textual criticisms are controversial? Although I never stated they were or were not.
2) What is "*that* authority is fallacious...?"
powerinstars6 1 year ago
Comment removed
purereligion127 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 As for 'TC', some is controversial, some is not. The example of it that I cited is not merely controversial, it is beyond the acceptance of serious scholarship--say what one might find in Wright or Yamauchi. I did so to counter your claim that 'TC' has shown the Bible to be incredible.
As for THAT authority: The authority of Scripture, which is beyond authentic challenge. The many failed attempts only further evidence this. It is high time to let it go.
Hope this helps...
purereligion127 1 year ago
@purereligion127 1) I understand how they have some controversy and some not. However, I merely stated TC gives linguistic and contextual problem with the alterations made by those Scribes. TC holds discipline in combining those differences.
2) By authority of scripture, I was trying to state authorship and not the control or voice of scripture. I apologize for my improper use of word.
Side-note, I'm reading Wright's paper on authority of scripture.
Thanks for clearing things up for me. =)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6
To number 1: Sorry, I misunderstood.
To number 2: I'm not sure what you intend w/the first independent clause. But I don't think it matters.
Take care...
purereligion127 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Oh, I forgot to ask: what specifically are you reading by Wright?
purereligion127 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Ex-Christians exists all over the place. I don't find Christ words authoritative, neither have I read the scholars I have read finding them Authoritative either. Perhaps I am wrong though but beliefs in one who holds little to no credibility, I am doubtful and skeptical. If your trust is that open without prior authorship in question, I am aghast. But this is your personal beliefs and I am not here to question your beliefs.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 So Christ is not authoritative?LOL,hehehehe,are you serious?Excuse me for laughing so much I almost wet myself,but that was one of the funniest things that I have ever heard an atheist say.Who would you say is authoritative?The Pope?lol.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 And you just assume a Big Bang,yes there was a beginning,that's all we know,the rest is pure speculation,and it certainly did not create itself, real science refutes that,to believe other wise means you have left empirical science for SCIENTISM.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Hm, assuming a Big Bang? Big Bang only states that galaxies are expanding from each other and it continues to expand today. It neither states it's the "beginning of" or "creation of" matter/energy as you appear to be assuming.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Long before we were born the Bible had already stated that God stretches out the universe like a curtain,it was amazingly correct once more,just like it always is.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN There is such thing as confirmation bias. :)
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 Whatever this Cause is, whatever you may call it, I just can't honestly deny that there is intelligence and method of design associated with it. Whatever the system, there's always another external to it. I've spent the last 6 years trying in my mind to get around it unsuccessfully.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 My point is, I don't think there is a sufficient reason to assume there ought to be a first cause. I personally don't see a method of design in the Universe.
powerinstars6 1 year ago