Never herard of this guy before. Great teaching while at the same time entertaining. Loved the bit about what he would have written if he were making it up. Thanks for posting.
commonly those crucified were buried in mass burials, why do they think jesus got special treatment? Does anyone else think this Jesus case sounds like he had a god complex and was simply trying to change jewish law because he thought it was immoral? Jesus sounds less like a son of god and more like a revolutionary heretic going against the system.
Frank Turek is the best and brightest among Christians. This is only a small fragment of his collection of arguments for God. Good job, Turek! Keep it up!
I was abducted by aliens but was kicked off of the mothership because i stepped in dogshit and got it all over the spaceship floor. That's too embarrassing to be false!!!!
@RomansPwnedJesus Earlier stories of gods, like those in the Roman and Greek pantheons, were replete with embarrassing details. I guess this means they were real as well.
@RomansPwnedJesus~ You said - "I was abducted by aliens but was kicked off of the mothership because i stepped in dogshit and got it all over the spaceship floor. That's too embarrassing to be false!!!!" ~~ Now you may convince millions this is true is you claim this abduction & messing the floor up is the good news of salvation to save a soul from judgement & then millions have their lives changed and radical transformation in their lives and a joy unexplained even 2,000 years after this fact.
@RomansPwnedJesus the only problem is that in the bible it wasn't Jesus who wrote these things about himself...it was his disciples who were eye witnesses. And the things the disciples wrote had a purpose... that is to claim that Jesus was the son of God.
Is god really going to punish non-christians simply because they don't believe testimony by Paul and others who lived in a very boring and superstitious time. (2000 YEARS AGO! FUCK)
I always love hearing this argument...one of the most idiotic things ever constructed by apologists.
Funny how the "criterion of embarrassment", which these Christians like to peddle as a legitimate historical criterion accepted by scholars has never once been applied to anything outside of the Bible.
dude thats wrong....every historian wen looking at authenticity of an event.....they evaluate things like embaressment, bias, time written, purpose...
Why do you think it's "Too Embarrassing"? It's exactly embarrassing as is ought to be. Do huge, frequent potholes in a road prove the road is well built and safe or do they prove that the road can't stand up to traffic? Imagine a structural engineer claiming that a bridge collapsing under its own weight proves the bridge is structurally sound. Really. Imagine. This is ridiculous.
@Freethinksman "Do huge, frequent potholes in a road prove the road is well built and safe or do they prove that the road can't stand up to traffic? Imagine a structural engineer claiming that a bridge collapsing under its own weight proves the bridge is structurally sound. Really. Imagine."
That is an awful analogy. The way history is studied is not the same way a bridge/road is studied.
You should also consider that the people who wrote this thought about this very point and intentionally put in embarrassing details to make it appear true
Mark 16:17-18, just wanna know.. who believe that god will save you from poison? are you 110% faithful to god? why don't you do what god says in the bible since everything in it is true and that he will save you.
@1878EFC2008 Um... yes, they were. The gospel of Mark is actually Peter's testimony, written down by John Mark. Matthew was one of the original 12, as was John. Luke's gospel is the only one that's not directly from one of the original 12, and it's based on their testimony.
Besides, even if they were not speaking directly of themselves, they would not have recorded the difficult sayings or truly shameful events, like Jesus saying they had to eat his flesh or having his feet washed by a whore.
Adam didn't write his sotry though. Neither did Noah. Or Moses. Or Abraha. Or Methuzela.
Also you kind of missed the point anyway. Thepoint was the writers were including embarrassing material about themselves so using that as 'proof' the bible is real is, quite frankly, idiotic.
@1878EFC2008 His topic was the New Testament; Noah, Moses, etc. are Old Testament characters. And since the point was that the authors were including embarrassing materials about themselves, you should have noticed (a) that Matthew, Peter, and John, who wrote the gospels, are all active characters in the story, and (b) that the impression created of those particular authors actually carries over to all the others who were carrying the story.
@1878EFC2008 (A) Mark it PETER'S gospel. Peter is among those portrayed as dim-witted. (B) You've lost. Stop repeating yourself. (C) I see no justification for your smugness (although, to be candid, one seldom does.)
This is my last reply to you. You get the last word, if you want it, but I'm done wasting my time on people who can't read and can't think. Have a great life.
Praise b 2 God!!! Fantastic insight God has given this man! Very relevant points. Ppl who deride God's Inspired Word, the Bible, often fail 2 c these valid points. The Old + New Testament shows many negative things such as King David killing a man so he could take his wife; The shocking behaviour of King Saul; Judas, who was a Disciple of Jesus who betrayed Him. The Bible is littered with human tragedies, betrayals etc. But the truth is: God uses all kinds of ppl in all kinds of situations.
@The3in1trinity It's worth mentioning that many of the stories you might describe as "shocking", such as God ordering the slaughter and rape of the Midianites in Numbers 31, can also be read as glorious triumphs of the followers of Yahweh slaughtering His enemies. I think you'll find that the barbarians OT was written for would interpret these stories rather differently than you do.
@The3in1trinity You're also missing the main point of the bible, which is this: If you bow down to Yahweh and do as he commands - all kinds of good things will happen to you. From getting to slaughter you enemies and take their stuff as happens repeatedly in OT, to getting healed of sickness in NT. If you fail to obey on the other hand - all kinds of misery will rain down on you.
So basically, it teaches "Obey your priests!". A dead simple control mechanism put in place by the priesthood.
@Gnomefro It's u that can't grasp Scripture. The Bible is a record of God's interaction with mankind, from the Creation, Fall of Mankind, God calling the chosen ppl, God's Everlasting Covenant with the Israelites, God promising 2 send the Saviour, the eventual rejection of the Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God, Christ;s death-burial-resurrection+His command 2 the Disciples 2 preach throughout the whole world+warning of coming Judgement + new Heaven+Earth where only Righteousness will b found
Ugghhh, I almost face palmed myself. But I stopped myself in order to face palm Turek.
Authors don't like to put embarrassing things about themselves? Truly interesting. So if the things are embarrassing they must've happened. Now, lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
What you're saying is only a faulty rationalization. And honestly I can't finish your vid because of this faulty rationalization. Please do not force my hand in pointing out the embarrassing CONTRADICTIONS. In the book.
Turek misses that the writers of the Gospels didn't write them until decades after Jesus's passing.
To often these commentaries assume conditions and events as truth, when we have no such corroborating evidence, which is a greater indication that the events are historically true that "they make the authors look bad."
So it's true because they wouldn't make it up? Besides a few notable figures, most of the new testament was written anonymously. I don't even see why this assertion that they wouldn't make up embarrassing stuff is necessarily true. Muhammad recorded some embarrassing stuff too. Doesn't mean the Quran is validated through embarrassment.
The disciples didn't write the New Testament. It was written at least 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus and it was written in Greek instead of Aramaic--the language Jesus and his disciples would have spoken. The writers of the Bible had no stake in protecting the reputations of the disciples. They did, however, have stake in spreading a new religion.
@BrooklynRagtag Jesus and the apostles lived in a Greek speaking world. The Old Testament that is quoted in the New is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew bible. They were conversant in both languages; one with the homeys, another in the market place. The world they wanted to reach spoke Greek.
The only stake the apostles had in spreading this religion was the stake rammed through their intestines after being dipped in tar and lit on fire.
The Bible was changed so many times, you have to take into account that scribes misinterpreted and intentionally changed passages many times even before the earliest manuscripts we have available, which are copies from hundreds of years after the originals were written.
I generally liked Giesler and Turek's book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". One thing found a little annoying was the insertion of conservative political innuendos in a book which is suppose to be theology.
LOL.@The sleep thing. If I'm guarding something and its there before I fall asleep, and when I wake up its gone, I can safely assume that the body was stolen??? What a dumb argument Dr.
I don't think that would hold up as evidence in a debate with real scholars.
The NT writers do not depict them self as dimwitted, as the NT writers was not even there when Jesus supposedly lived. The NT writers was probably a bunch of Greek scribes, NOT the desiples.
A Roman soldier who would fall a sleep on duty would be flogged.
A question you can also ask you, is why the Romans should place guards outside the tomb of someone that was not even a Roman citizen, or why the Roman tribune would ever care to hold trail over a Jew (Jesus) that was not a citizen, if you of course don't buy in to the story that Jesus father was in fact a Roman legionnaire (and not God), and as a result in fact was a Roman citizen, giving the Roman Tribune jurisdiction over him.
They saw angels. Angels are mythical beings. Therefore the New Testament is either a myth or a mythical account of something historical. Who knows what that something could have been.
Question:
Why doesn't Frank mention angels? They are in all of the accounts of the resurrection.
Answer:
Angels can not be rationally defended. They are exclusive to religious literature. So the stories are not "factually true."
Hm? First few minutes of the video and I can't understand why he wasn't embarrassed for assuming the writers of the gospel were four of the very apostles of Jesus. And why is it embarrassing to tell a story like the gospel writers did? If I had a great guru and I wanted to write about him, I'd just tell the very truth that I saw and experienced. I wouldn't feel embarrassed if my writings were true. I would be if they weren't and I wouldn't want it. Solution: I would add some divinity to my guru.
The point of noting the embarrassing testimony is to demonstrate that the events are real events. If one were embellishing, one would not embellish by creating events where the author made an ass of himself, or was shown to be a coward, or was shown up by a woman.
Furthermore, while there are instances in history of embellishments being added to the life of a leader, they usually appear long after the leader and his immediate circle have died. The gospel accounts are contemporary.
You're arguing with criteria used by professional historians, not with me. You know that, right?
I'll accept a small correction to MY statement here. Embarrassing testimony can safely be taken not to have been KNOWLEDGEABLY manufactured. Alien abduction testimony is not knowledgeably manufactured.
If your claim is that the apostles were delusional, the fact that their testimony is embarrassing cannot be used to prove they are not delusional. Are you claiming that? You'd be the first.
When did I say they were delusional? They believed what they were writing. Does not make it correct though as is evidenced by witness testimonies quite often being fallacious.
The gospel accounts are arguably not contemporary.
From Wikipedia:
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the first century by a Jewish Christian.Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel.However most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q
oops one last post - I woud like to reference Chad Docterman for the posts I had made - although many logical non theists and philosphers have personally come up with these ideas themselves (they are after a logical conclusion when someone ponders the possibility of god) - Chad certainly sums up theses ideas very eloquently.
Dude... do you really expect anybody to go to the trouble to debate you in a forum where no comment can exceed 500 characters? The fact that you went to this trouble in this forum suggests you don't have a life. Why not go get one?
Item 2 contains a contradiction, and fails. Your description (3) of the Abrahamic God is inaccurate. Your assertion that perfection won't create is absurd. Your understanding of Christianity is shallow. And so forth. This is all lame, son.
Wanker - you do not know me so who are you to say whether I need to get a life or not. If you would like to debate without the ad hominems sure but otherwise keep your opinions to yourself.
Perfection has no desire - to desire and create change would suggest that the original position is not perfect.
What I know about you is that you posted a dozen times in a row, and didn't consider it a waste.
Your "argument" is a word game using equivocation on the meaning of the word "perfect." This is a game for fools, not an argument. You actually have not the slightest basis for claiming what the characteristics of a "perfect" God would be.
Here's help to get you thinking correctly: are the characteristics of a perfect tennis racquet the same as those of a perfect automobile, or different?
@asgardian001 Let me get this straight. A perfect God cannot create; if he did, he would not perfect. Following your logic, questions arise. Does nearing perfection only limit oneself? That is, the closer to you get to perfection, the less you can do, and conversely, the less perfect you are, the more creative potential you have? Obviously, your logic fails. To argue perfections begets nothing is self-stultifying. The perfect box you are creating for God can't even hold your own argument.
@myskosh2 - You misunderstand - u r not following my logic - u r going off on a tangent. I never said that the closer u get 2 perfection the less you can do - and I do not beleive there is a close to perfection - you are either perfect or you are not - it is not a spectrum. My argument on this point was that Perfection begets nothing - why would perfection want or want to change anything when by doing so it would result in imperfection. eg, a perfect circle cannot be changed and remain perfect
@asgardian001 At least we can agree on the point that one is either perfect or not. The Bible affirms that God is both perfect and good. It affirms that He created the heavens and the Earth (+ everything in it). Only volitional beings can choose to do something. These (to name a few) are Biblical attributes of God. Eternal. All powerful. Personal. Again the Bible does not say that He needed to create, merely that he chose to.
@asgardian001 God did not create evil. His creation was good. He created man good. He created man free and volitional. (Any love relationship requires freedom, does it not?) Man chose to rebel and to disobey. It may be said that God made this disobedience/sin possible (i.e.,evil), but man made it actual. Man did not have to disobey, but he did. You're blaming God for man's actions.
@asgardian001 Your last two statements summarize your intellectual dishonesty. When confronted with a cogent answer you resort to this farce of reasoning. When you can't win, you change the rules. Sad indeed. I'm convinced you have no idea what you are actually saying. Would that you could recognize that so many believing Christians pray that you could comprehend the gift God is offering you. They will continue to even as you mock them.
@myskosh2 myskosh2 - intellectual dishonesty??? how so. Farce of reasoning???? Please explain. IMHO it is you who are sad in believing in a mythology that has only been around for a few thousand years (and less than a few hundred years in its current form -assuming you are part of one of the dozens of protestant sects). When you consider that modern humans have existed for over 150,000 years do you seriously believe that a perfect, all knowing, and all powerful god would choose to reveal ...
@myskosh2 ...cont.,... the "truth" only in the last few thousand years. Your belief system will die out just as every belief system has, and long after you have become dust having wasted your only life believing in fairy tales. Yes you may think i am mocking you ... and I guess I am ... but only after you criticise me for intellectual dishonesty when you don't even know me.
@asgardian001 Intellectual dishonesty explained. First, you argue falsely that a perfect God cannot create. I show that a theistic worldview allows for creation. You counter that man was created evil and God is responsible, and, therefore, not good. I counter that man has chosen to disobey thereby allowing evil to violate God's created order. Then you blame man for God's action because God was created by man. If that is not dodging the argument through faulty reasoning I don't know what is.
@myskosh2 strawman ... I did not argue that a perfect god cannot create - I argued that a perfect god has no desire to create as perfection begets nothing - there is a difference.
I then did not counter that man was created evil and that god is responsible - I was trying to demonstrate the flaws in your argument - I do not believe that god exists so how can I believe that he created man ... I never said that god created man or evil I asked you a question (thus the question marks ...)
@myskosh2 furthermore I will spell out my last point for you - if god does not exist then how is it that I can blame god for man's actions???? That is why I said that I am blaming man for god's actions - in other words man is solely to blame for his own actions ... transferring blame onto a mythical creation does not work - any blame or praise for that matter rests solely and squarely on our species.
It seems faulty reasoning it is not but rather faulty understanding on your part.
@asgardian001 Your words to philWhynk: "you have failed to respond to my claim - that perfection begets nothing - otherwise it would not be perfect then would it." Seems absolute to me. Then you qualify it when challenged. "I argued that a perfect god has no desire to create as perfection begets nothing..." There is no logical basis to claim it as an absolute. The theistic position says God chose to. It's that simple.
@myskosh2 That's just it isn't it - the theistic position is always based upon what the bible or scripture says - it never is based in logic - yes it's that simple. Read the scripture - do not question it - have a closed mind - then die. Hardly an existence that I would wish upon anyone.
@asgardian001 And again you wrote, "so then god chose to create an imperfect creation then? and to create evil? Hardly the creation of a perfect god let alone of a good god." These words were used to counter/question my argument about God choosing to create. They are not lifted out of context. You seem to expect everyone to accept your assumption that God does not exist and is, therefore, a creation of man. There is no reason to accept this assumption. I do not think I misunderstood you at all.
@myskosh2 yes you did misunderstand - you failed to understand the difference between a question and a statement. By asking you this question I am urging you to respond ... hehe ... like any good question. I do not hold a position that god exists so when you claim that I have faulty reasoning ... well go figure. There is nothing faulty. I guess critical thinking atheists and people like yourslef are like ships passing in the night...
@asgardian001 Lastly, if you reread my post, I did acknowledge your question. But, it was you who stated it in such a way as to imply that if God did create, he did so imperfectly (with the inclusion of evil) and you summarized with "Hardly the creation of a perfect god let alone of a good god." It was you who did not respond to my counterclaim. If you don't like people challenging your pronouncements (as though there are no good answers) you should stop making them.
@myskosh2 and I do not expect you to accept my assumption - I expect you to think. But I guess this is too much to ask. You have feebly attempted to dispel the notion that perfection begets nothing. This is a lofty and largely cerebral notion which is very difficult to demonstrate as perfection is a concept which really does not exist anywhere.
@asgardian001The notion of perfection is an interesting one.The fact that you say it does not really exist raises an interesting philosophical question. Why is it that you, as self-described atheist, even bring it up. If matter and energy is all there is, and if all we are is just a collection of atoms and molecules, why do we desire perfection, strive for perfection. If all there is is nature, why conceive of something nature does not contain? Theism is a better explanation for this desire.
@myskosh2 Theism is hardly the best or only explanation for a desire for perfection. And atheism does not = belief of only materialism. That there is spirituality and existentialism there is no doubt but the abrahmic god or theism for that matter is hardly the best explanation of the non material. You ask why strive for perfection? Well it makes us stronger and thus assists our survival. In a nutshell evolution is a mechanism for striving for perfect adaptation to an environment. Simple really.
@myskosh2 I disagree with your "theism as the best explanation" idea. You say:
1. "Everything from something (a creator)" - well I already answered this before - cause and effect is not ubiquitous in the universe and even if it were you are anthropormorphising the issue - the "something" does not have to be a "who" it can be a "what" - ie no need for a god.
2. "Life from an eternal living being" - scientists have proven that the building blocks for life can arise from inorganic materials ...
@myskosh2 3. "intelligence from an intelligent cause" - again you are anthropomorphising. Our idea of intelligence is a purely natural thing. It is foolish to assume that intelligence supernaturally (ie, outside of the universe).
4. "Moral laws from a moral lawgiver" - I assume you believe in the Abrahmic god seeing that you tout about Christ further in your post. You gotta be joking that Yawheh is moral!!!! Have you even read the OT??? Morality has changed through history and is not a constant
@myskosh2 Hmmm - atheism is the non belief in gods. It claims nothing about time, space, matter, and energy, nothing about life from non living matter, intelligence, morality, etc. I have already answered these. And by your submission that the theistic position better answers these you are merely providing a god of the gaps argument.
@asgardian001 Atheism claims nothing about, "time, space, matter, and energy, nothing about life from non living matter, intelligence, morality, etc." This is a pure fallacy. Atheism excludes God as a cause. What you are left with is materialism. You say these are either uncaused or materialistically derived. Pure materialism is self-defeating. Eg. Your theory is not matter. You cannot transcend matter to think about it. Your "nothing but matter" view, requires "more than matter" knowledge.
@asgardian001 Furthermore, if man where just matter and death were the natural order of things, why conceive of the infinite or the notion of living forever? I believe it is consistent with being created in God's image. We desire the to live and explore God's created order because there is a creator behind it. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes that God has placed eternity in our hearts. To argue against this is to say that the effect is greater than the cause.
@myskosh2 The third sentence should read, "We desire then to live and explore God's created order because there is a creator behind it."
And I will further argue that it is perfectly rational to think that if God made the universe and our minds since we can use our minds to study and understand His creation. Atheistic evolution contends we arrived by a random, mindless process. If this is so, why should we trust our own thoughts about it?
@myskosh2 "And I will further argue that it is perfectly rational to think that if God made the universe and our minds since we can use our minds to study and understand His creation" You can argue what you like but please explain why you believe unless this is just your opinion and an uncertifiable claim.
@asgardian001 "Uncertifiable claim"? Do mean unjustified? Regardless, I'm happy to oblige. The position is justified using law of causality. It stipulates that for every effect (result), there must be an equal or greater cause. This applies to all things that begin to exist. So far, so good? As I have argued previously, it makes more sense that our minds came from a creator (one with a mind, mind you) rather than mindless matter.
@myskosh2 "The position is justified using law of causality. It stipulates that for every effect (result), there must be an equal or greater cause. This applies to all things that begin to exist. So far, so good?" - Well NO. law of causality is not absolute. there does not have to be a cause for every effect. This is just how we observe things on our physical level. Quantum physics demonstrates that cause and effect does not always hold. So your analogy of minds may be flawed.
@asgardian001 "[The] law of causality is not absolute. there does not have to be a cause for every effect." If you deny causality, you are denying a first principle of knowledge. Nothing does not exist. Only what exists can cause existence. Now, if you are appealing to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, it is not contrary to causality. It does NOT show that events have no cause, but rather that they are unpredictable as we perceive them with today's technology.
"Atheistic evolution contends we arrived by a random, mindless process" There is no such thing as atheistic evolution or theistic evolution for that matter - evolution claims nothing about theism or otherwise. There are theists and atheists alike who believe and do not believe in evolution. Furthermore evolution is not random. Please understand evolution before you make assertions about it. Otherwise you will sound like an idiot.
@asgardian001 Seriously. You are just equivocating over language. Evolution is the peg atheist hang their hat on. I grant that the process of evolution may be considered true by atheist, theists, agnostics, Buddhist, Muslims, etc. I never argued otherwise. HOWEVER, your position as a self-proclaimed atheist is that evolution is true. That's why I described it as "atheistic evolution." You state the process is not random. What directs it? A natural or supernatural processes? Alien intelligence?
@myskosh2 Evolution is not random and is a natural process. I am confused by your questions and unsure as to whether you are mocking me or whether you seriously believe that evolution requires a sentient being to direct it. But then again I assume that you belong to a christian fundamentalist which believes in Intelligent Design.
@asgardian001 I'm not mocking you. My question is, if evolution is not random, what directs it beside the laws of physics and chemistry? If evolution (I'm talking about biochemical evolution here) required just matter, physical laws, plus time and chance, what gave rise to life in the first place? If these things have no mind behind them, what accounts for all the minds that are now debating this topic? Mind from mindless matter, is this your position?
@myskosh2 I do not know what directs evolution - i do not think anything is needed to direct evolution - why does there need to be anything to direct it? It just is.
You ask what gave rise to life in the first place? I do not know - evolution however does not pretend to predict where life arose from only what has happened to life after it began. However there is more and more observations to suggest that life may exist in other parts of the universe.
@myskosh2 "If these things have no mind behind them, what accounts for all the minds that are now debating this topic? Mind from mindless matter, is this your position?"
I do not know what accounts for the minds that are debating this topic ... what accounts for all the matter from which the minds arose? Does there need to be anything to account for our minds? I do not think so. The universe does not have to have meaning - it just is.
@asgardian001 "Does there need to be anything to account for our minds? I do not think so. The universe does not have to have meaning - it just is." On minds and meaning I will say this. It logically follows that there is first cause with a mind that gave rise to all the others minds. With regard to meaning I will say our world is filled with it. Even the person who says there is no meaning is attempting to say something meaningful. To say there is no meaning is a meaningful statement.
@myskosh2 "logically follows that there is first cause with a mind that gave rise to all the others minds." How so? And if so whence did god's mind arise?
It may seem logical that the earth is flat but it is not - it may seem logical that effect follows cause but virtual particles and spontaneous radioactive decay prove that this is not always the case. Logic does not always equate with truth and not everyone agrees with the "logic" of another.
@asgardian001 You are now playing a shell game with words. (And just when I thought we were starting to come to some mutual understanding.) The laws of logic are not physical or merely conventional. Science presupposes them, AND without them, science would not be possible. If they varied from culture to culture we could not agree on anything. To say logic does no always have to equate to truth is a smokescreen. To say the laws of logic and the mind arose by a natural process strains credulity.
@myskosh2 I never said that the laws of logic arose be a natural process but I did say that "not everyone agrees with the "logic" of another." You should note that I used the term logic in inverted commas - instead I should have exposed your use of the word logic as being flawed - you really meant common sense.
However I strongly disagree when you say that it is incredulous to state that the mind arose by a natural process. Of course it did ...(cont.,)
@asgardian001 "I never said that the laws of logic arose be a natural process but I did say that "not everyone agrees with the "logic" of another." Sure, people may disagree with another on points of logic and conclusions.Given that understanding, no problem. However, I did mean the laws of logic when stating that they are neither material or changing. Schools of thought and world views may come and go, but the laws of logic do not. They are immaterial and unchanging as is the God of theism.
@myskosh2 I agree with everything on this post except for the god of theism (see previous post --- there are thousands of theistic views - they can't all be correct). I am also concerned that you try and link logic and theism. I have yet to find a proof or a satisfying argument how there is any relation between the two.
@asgardian001 "I am also concerned that you try and link logic and theism. I have yet to find a proof or a satisfying argument how there is any relation between the two." Materialism/atheism have their roots in the material world. Abstract concepts and rationality by their very nature transcend the material world. Theism maintains God is rational and that we think God's thoughts after him, i.e., we ought to be rational just as he is. Atheism/materialism has no basis to say the same.
@myskosh2 materialism and atheism are not the same thing... Atheism is simply the rejection of a belief in god ... it is not a belief that the material world is all there is. and another thing ... god (or at least the Abrahmic god) is anything BUT rational. Would you like to debate god's rationality perhaps?
@asgardian001 Forgive me for misrepresenting your position, yet as a self described atheist. (defined by Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.” So if you are not a hard atheist (or materialist--I never said they were the same in every respect) then, then may I ask what transcendent power/transcendence you believe in? And how you justify your belief in it?
@myskosh2 "So if you are not a hard atheist (or materialist--I never said they were the same in every respect) then, then may I ask what transcendent power/transcendence you believe in? And how you justify your belief in it?" - If you could oblige me to answer this question instead of my answering yours - D oyou sincerely believe that the only possibilities are god or materialism?
@asgardian001 (Cont.) "...logic and theism. I have yet to find a proof or a satisfying argument how there is any relation between the two." If matter is all there is, there is not reason to think that our minds are anything more that just chemicals. We would literally be governed by what is chemically transpiring in our brains. However this has very poor explanatory power when considering logic as well as subjects like moral absolutes or human dignity. These categories transcend matter.
@myskosh2 Who said that matter is all there is? You try to place me in a box of how you conceive non theists are and you fail. I am not a materialist. You are using a strawman argument.
@asgardian001 "Who said that matter is all there is?" Materialists (Of course you do not have to be one if you don't want to be. Many atheist say it, too.)
"You try to place me in a box of how you conceive non theists are and you fail." All you have done is espouse the atheistic position. You have also stated that the universe does not have to have meaning. Consistent. Please explain what transcendence you do believe in, and as an atheist, justify believing in it.
@myskosh2 I have no firm ideas on spirituality - but suffice to say that there is no doubt that humans appear to have a desire and need for some form of spirituality. I for one quite often meditate and also through the practice of martial arts and yoga have experienced altered states of consciousness, There certainly appears to be more to the human experience than the material world. However I also feel that it is too simplistic to explain spirituality by invoking superstitions or myths.
@myskosh2 (cont.,) The mind has changed through the ages - there is strong evidence of this - furthermore the mind is different amongst different cultures which strongly points to it being an "evolved" construct.
@asgardian001 "The mind has changed through the ages ...- the mind is different amongst different cultures which strongly points to it being an "evolved" construct." The word "mind" is somewhat subjective. As I stated previously what we are discussing here is, I believe, the worldviews. Certainly culture, schools of thought, and world views themselves may adopted, promoted, rejected, or replaced with another by people INDIVIDUALLY. Truth and the laws of logic do not change; i.e., not evolved.
@myskosh2 "Truth and laws of logic do not change" - I agree with you there but the interpretation of truth does. Manking believed that heavier than air flight was impossible, that the earth was stationary, that there were 12 gods of Olympus, that there is one Abrahmic god (<--- are we so sure that this one is a fundamental truth???). Our knowledge evolves and truth is such a transient thing ... I believe it is a matter of perspective.
@asgardian001 "Our knowledge evolves and truth is such a transient thing ... I believe it is a matter of perspective." I will agree that knowledge on a particular subject may change, but I could not disagree more strongly that truth is transient. What we say is "true" may change, but truth itself does not change. Truth conforms to reality. People err when claiming something is true without proper basis.
@asgardian001 (The nature of truth cont.) To lump flat earth, the gods of Olympus, and the God of Abraham together is dishonest critique (the same one used by R. Dawkins repeatedly). In fact, not long ago it was nearly all other worldviews besides theism that claimed the universe (i.e. matter) was eternal (or co-eternal with god). Theist held firm to their claim that the universe had a creator and a beginning. They had an uphill battle against many other established belief systems. (cont.)
@myskosh2 It was also the theist who affirmed that the earth was placed upon a firmament (pardon the pun) ... that the earth was young ... that the earth was created in 7 days ... these have all been proven wrong.
@myskosh2 "earth was placed upon the firmament" - well I think we can both agree that we both know what the earth is - firmament = an extended solid surface. Literally (and isn't that what fundamentalists do - ie, interpret the bible literally) the earth was placed upon an extended solid surface (totally neglects earth being part of a solar system and of a galaxy) but then again how could stone age Jews know about this????
@asgardian001 "I think we can both agree that we both know what the earth is - firmament = an extended solid surface. Literally...the earth was placed upon an extended solid surface..." Your interpretation of the word firmament is flawed. You impose too narrow of a limit on it. It is used to describe various different expanses (Not all solid!) The word is absolutely equivocal in the sense that God place a separation in the expanse but the content of the expanse is not described.
@asgardian001 (Another note on the theistic position on origin of the universe.) Your firmament diatribe is a distraction (red herring) from the real issue, namely that theism aligns with the fact that the universe has a beginning.
@asgardian001 (Cont.) But when modern science began to point to the universe having a beginning (born out by 2nd law of TD, expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, general relativity), it was the theist that was affirmed in his belief while all others must do one of three things: either change their position, live with the inherent contradiction, or come up with new explanation for the beginning if the universe besides God.
@myskosh2 "But when modern science began to point to the universe having a beginning" ... do not mistaken the beginning of the universe as we know it for the same thing as the beginning of the universe. Lay people believe that science says the big bang and red shift proves a beginning to the universe ... it does not ... all it does is prove the beginning of time and space as we know it. What was there before time?????
@asgardian001 "do not mistaken the beginning of the universe as we know it for the same thing as the beginning of the universe." Another assumption here based on faith. Furthermore, you assume that "all we know," if consistent with theism, must be wrong. Biased. You are saying, "We don't know, but you Christians are wrong." Arrogant. Further, you think red-shift argues against a beginning? Does it point to an eternal universe? What about the other lines of reasoning? Conspicuously unaddressed.
@myskosh2 Arrogant hey? Your religion as you practice it has only existed for the last few decades if that (I can tell you are born again fundamentalist), if you must insist that you are a "true" christian - ie in your opinion a protestant rather than a roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox (hey someone's gotta be wrong here) then your religion has only existed for 400 odd years. Even if you seriously believe that you practice christianity as Jesus intended (cont.,)
@asgardian001 I see a couple of problems here. It seems you have no reasonable counter claims to the origin of the universe (that even meet your own standards of proof.) And for whatever reason, you resort to attacking the person or making a fallacious argument that since Christianity has been around for 1,600 years (false) and that others have been around longer (also not technically correct) that somehow disproves Christianity. Preposterous to say age = truth. Modern science is far less old.
@myskosh2 I am not trying to discredit christianity (at least in the post in which I mention the relatively "young" age of christianity). I am demonstrating that it is you in fact who is being arrogant. This was in response to your post accusing I of being arrogant for dismissing theism. I agree that age does not equal truth but certainly age should provide humility. By the way - in your opinion - how long has christianity been around?
@asgardian001 "I am demonstrating that it is you in fact who is being arrogant." If stating opinions/theories based on evidence is arrogant, I will counter by saying truth-claims by definition are exclusive and in stating them I do not do so to elevate myself but to give a credible position based of the facts. My contention was/is: that for you to rule out a reasonable, coherent position a priori, is to give a license that I do not think is justified or should go unaddressed.
@asgardian001 "... how long has christianity been around?" Christians (those who accept Jesus as messiah) and Christianity have been since the first disciples, nearly 2,000 years. But, Christianity must also be seen in its historical context! It cannot be divorced from Judaism which has its roots extending much farther back. (eg. The time-line to Moses is 1,500 years.)Jesus himself affirmed the Old Testament writings. Also he said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.(Matt 5:17)
@myskosh2 Sure but certainly the christianity of today is far removed from that of Jesus's time - it is vastly different in its practice and vastly different to that of Judaism, especially early Judaism. The reason I said that christianity sprung up about 1600 years ago or so is due to the council of nicaea and that the bible was not actually in existence as we know it until a few hundred years after the supposed existence of Christ.
New testament is too retarded to be true.
RaynorGo 1 week ago
Never herard of this guy before. Great teaching while at the same time entertaining. Loved the bit about what he would have written if he were making it up. Thanks for posting.
TrustinJC 1 week ago
jesus was gay that's why god don't like faggots
michaelflorida56 3 weeks ago
new testament is too stupid to be true
thescorpionking2020 2 months ago
commonly those crucified were buried in mass burials, why do they think jesus got special treatment? Does anyone else think this Jesus case sounds like he had a god complex and was simply trying to change jewish law because he thought it was immoral? Jesus sounds less like a son of god and more like a revolutionary heretic going against the system.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
this makes alot of sense.
god killed every first born child in egypt to change the mind of a pharoah.
he burned children Alive in the city of Sodom.
He drowned children. Many of them. during the flood.
AND he supports slavery and the murder of homosexuals.
If the bible were made up this stuff would not be in it.
it would be "cleaned" out.
Even Hitler wouldn't write a biography that starts with "hey there i'm a crazy psychopath".
The Bible is the only book that does this consisntly
alvisc2002 3 months ago
Conceited and deluded but at least he's not a Muslim - then I would be worried.
rw9259 4 months ago
on the stage is a Randy Rhoads flying V! therefore GOD exists!
natraan 4 months ago
Frank Turek is the best and brightest among Christians. This is only a small fragment of his collection of arguments for God. Good job, Turek! Keep it up!
UnkownSoldier100 5 months ago
I was abducted by aliens but was kicked off of the mothership because i stepped in dogshit and got it all over the spaceship floor. That's too embarrassing to be false!!!!
RomansPwnedJesus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RomansPwnedJesus No, that is just too stupid to be true.
UnkownSoldier100 5 months ago
@RomansPwnedJesus Earlier stories of gods, like those in the Roman and Greek pantheons, were replete with embarrassing details. I guess this means they were real as well.
Bfdidc 5 months ago
@RomansPwnedJesus~ You said - "I was abducted by aliens but was kicked off of the mothership because i stepped in dogshit and got it all over the spaceship floor. That's too embarrassing to be false!!!!" ~~ Now you may convince millions this is true is you claim this abduction & messing the floor up is the good news of salvation to save a soul from judgement & then millions have their lives changed and radical transformation in their lives and a joy unexplained even 2,000 years after this fact.
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@RomansPwnedJesus the only problem is that in the bible it wasn't Jesus who wrote these things about himself...it was his disciples who were eye witnesses. And the things the disciples wrote had a purpose... that is to claim that Jesus was the son of God.
KingDcome11 4 months ago
hysterical deluded jewish girls invented this cult,holy shit
thescorpionking2020 5 months ago
This was a good sermon but....
Is god really going to punish non-christians simply because they don't believe testimony by Paul and others who lived in a very boring and superstitious time. (2000 YEARS AGO! FUCK)
Clifton100 7 months ago
I always love hearing this argument...one of the most idiotic things ever constructed by apologists.
Funny how the "criterion of embarrassment", which these Christians like to peddle as a legitimate historical criterion accepted by scholars has never once been applied to anything outside of the Bible.
ivanisavich 7 months ago
@ivanisavich
dude thats wrong....every historian wen looking at authenticity of an event.....they evaluate things like embaressment, bias, time written, purpose...
all these things r taken into account..
if u think about it ...it makes sense
saleebyman 6 months ago
Why do you think it's "Too Embarrassing"? It's exactly embarrassing as is ought to be. Do huge, frequent potholes in a road prove the road is well built and safe or do they prove that the road can't stand up to traffic? Imagine a structural engineer claiming that a bridge collapsing under its own weight proves the bridge is structurally sound. Really. Imagine. This is ridiculous.
Freethinksman 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Freethinksman "Do huge, frequent potholes in a road prove the road is well built and safe or do they prove that the road can't stand up to traffic? Imagine a structural engineer claiming that a bridge collapsing under its own weight proves the bridge is structurally sound. Really. Imagine."
That is an awful analogy. The way history is studied is not the same way a bridge/road is studied.
98nafets 7 months ago
Because, of course, the same argument couldn't possibly be made on behalf of the Qur'an or any other "holy" book.
TeapotMullah 8 months ago
"the women told me" hahaha brother, the Bible is so powerful!
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
This really shows how diffrent The word is from any other religion ,
Thank you for the Video,
DonDaddaDash 8 months ago
im glad the woman are the braves one they got us in to this mess haha
Taurion4467 8 months ago
Excellent sermon.
KnightOwl2006 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well rehearsed Professional apologist with no opposition makes a great show.......to reassure sheep to stay sheep. Very effective.
Aleksamson 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well rehearsed Professional apologist with no opposition makes a great show.......to reassure sheep to stay sheep. Very effective.
Aleksamson 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well rehearsed Professional apologist with no opposition makes a great show.......to reassure sheep to stay sheep. Very effective
Aleksamson 11 months ago
Comment removed
Aleksamson 11 months ago
You should also consider that the people who wrote this thought about this very point and intentionally put in embarrassing details to make it appear true
globalfraud 11 months ago
Mark 16:17-18, just wanna know.. who believe that god will save you from poison? are you 110% faithful to god? why don't you do what god says in the bible since everything in it is true and that he will save you.
heriko001 11 months ago
The writers of the bible aren't writing about themselves though are they??
What a silly video.
1878EFC2008 11 months ago
@1878EFC2008 Um... yes, they were. The gospel of Mark is actually Peter's testimony, written down by John Mark. Matthew was one of the original 12, as was John. Luke's gospel is the only one that's not directly from one of the original 12, and it's based on their testimony.
Besides, even if they were not speaking directly of themselves, they would not have recorded the difficult sayings or truly shameful events, like Jesus saying they had to eat his flesh or having his feet washed by a whore.
philWynk 11 months ago
@philWynk
Adam didn't write his sotry though. Neither did Noah. Or Moses. Or Abraha. Or Methuzela.
Also you kind of missed the point anyway. Thepoint was the writers were including embarrassing material about themselves so using that as 'proof' the bible is real is, quite frankly, idiotic.
Try to think before you type. Cheers.
1878EFC2008 11 months ago
@1878EFC2008 His topic was the New Testament; Noah, Moses, etc. are Old Testament characters. And since the point was that the authors were including embarrassing materials about themselves, you should have noticed (a) that Matthew, Peter, and John, who wrote the gospels, are all active characters in the story, and (b) that the impression created of those particular authors actually carries over to all the others who were carrying the story.
You should try to think before you type.
philWynk 11 months ago
@philWynk
Oh go, you STILL don't get it. The old/new testament is a red herring.
When mark talks about people being dim witted he isn;t referring to himself, he's talking about other people.
DO you get it now?
1878EFC2008 11 months ago
@1878EFC2008 (A) Mark it PETER'S gospel. Peter is among those portrayed as dim-witted. (B) You've lost. Stop repeating yourself. (C) I see no justification for your smugness (although, to be candid, one seldom does.)
This is my last reply to you. You get the last word, if you want it, but I'm done wasting my time on people who can't read and can't think. Have a great life.
philWynk 11 months ago
@philWynk
lol, i think Mark was talking about you lol.
1878EFC2008 11 months ago
retarded to say d least
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
The new testament writers were dimwitted and so is Frank Turek. Go figure...
Hornadayfan 1 year ago
Praise b 2 God!!! Fantastic insight God has given this man! Very relevant points. Ppl who deride God's Inspired Word, the Bible, often fail 2 c these valid points. The Old + New Testament shows many negative things such as King David killing a man so he could take his wife; The shocking behaviour of King Saul; Judas, who was a Disciple of Jesus who betrayed Him. The Bible is littered with human tragedies, betrayals etc. But the truth is: God uses all kinds of ppl in all kinds of situations.
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
@The3in1trinity It's worth mentioning that many of the stories you might describe as "shocking", such as God ordering the slaughter and rape of the Midianites in Numbers 31, can also be read as glorious triumphs of the followers of Yahweh slaughtering His enemies. I think you'll find that the barbarians OT was written for would interpret these stories rather differently than you do.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@The3in1trinity You're also missing the main point of the bible, which is this: If you bow down to Yahweh and do as he commands - all kinds of good things will happen to you. From getting to slaughter you enemies and take their stuff as happens repeatedly in OT, to getting healed of sickness in NT. If you fail to obey on the other hand - all kinds of misery will rain down on you.
So basically, it teaches "Obey your priests!". A dead simple control mechanism put in place by the priesthood.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Gnomefro It's u that can't grasp Scripture. The Bible is a record of God's interaction with mankind, from the Creation, Fall of Mankind, God calling the chosen ppl, God's Everlasting Covenant with the Israelites, God promising 2 send the Saviour, the eventual rejection of the Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God, Christ;s death-burial-resurrection+His command 2 the Disciples 2 preach throughout the whole world+warning of coming Judgement + new Heaven+Earth where only Righteousness will b found
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
Something creepy about a grown man defending his imaginary friend...
setmedic 1 year ago
@setmedic ROMANS 1:16-32...
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
@setmedic
Nice! Lets use this logic..... I have a purple cow and I picked my nose in the first grade! That was easy!
HighPoweredLasers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FIVE STARS * * * * * And to all of the naysayers, Romans 1 and John 3:16-20. You REFUSE the truth because you LOVE your sin.
walksbyf8h 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To try to convince people to believe your point just SHOUT!!!!!!!
cazannep 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot.
rainman67 1 year ago
@rainman67 Why is he an idiot?
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
Ugghhh, I almost face palmed myself. But I stopped myself in order to face palm Turek.
Authors don't like to put embarrassing things about themselves? Truly interesting. So if the things are embarrassing they must've happened. Now, lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
What you're saying is only a faulty rationalization. And honestly I can't finish your vid because of this faulty rationalization. Please do not force my hand in pointing out the embarrassing CONTRADICTIONS. In the book.
Microtardz 1 year ago
Turek misses that the writers of the Gospels didn't write them until decades after Jesus's passing.
To often these commentaries assume conditions and events as truth, when we have no such corroborating evidence, which is a greater indication that the events are historically true that "they make the authors look bad."
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
So it's true because they wouldn't make it up? Besides a few notable figures, most of the new testament was written anonymously. I don't even see why this assertion that they wouldn't make up embarrassing stuff is necessarily true. Muhammad recorded some embarrassing stuff too. Doesn't mean the Quran is validated through embarrassment.
anzwertree 1 year ago
The disciples didn't write the New Testament. It was written at least 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus and it was written in Greek instead of Aramaic--the language Jesus and his disciples would have spoken. The writers of the Bible had no stake in protecting the reputations of the disciples. They did, however, have stake in spreading a new religion.
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago
@BrooklynRagtag Jesus and the apostles lived in a Greek speaking world. The Old Testament that is quoted in the New is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew bible. They were conversant in both languages; one with the homeys, another in the market place. The world they wanted to reach spoke Greek.
The only stake the apostles had in spreading this religion was the stake rammed through their intestines after being dipped in tar and lit on fire.
MarkHarrellJr 1 year ago 6
@MarkHarrellJr I lion christians. ;)
Drgamedood 8 months ago
The Bible was changed so many times, you have to take into account that scribes misinterpreted and intentionally changed passages many times even before the earliest manuscripts we have available, which are copies from hundreds of years after the originals were written.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
I generally liked Giesler and Turek's book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". One thing found a little annoying was the insertion of conservative political innuendos in a book which is suppose to be theology.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
Damn, that's a nice polka dot Flying V in the background. Must be some awesome worship music, lol.
Camaron47 1 year ago
Comment removed
thadeuluz 1 year ago
This is a very nice video -- actually, I have never heard this point before, but I find it very compelling, and actually, pretty much undeniable.
Purushadasa 1 year ago 27
@Purushadasa is this sarcasm?
TheSmashedPumpkin 11 months ago
@Purushadasa you must be a theist to say something that incredibly stupid
michaelflorida56 3 weeks ago
LOL.@The sleep thing. If I'm guarding something and its there before I fall asleep, and when I wake up its gone, I can safely assume that the body was stolen??? What a dumb argument Dr.
mrtoomy 1 year ago
I don't think that would hold up as evidence in a debate with real scholars.
The NT writers do not depict them self as dimwitted, as the NT writers was not even there when Jesus supposedly lived. The NT writers was probably a bunch of Greek scribes, NOT the desiples.
ostbagen 1 year ago
A Roman soldier who would fall a sleep on duty would be flogged.
A question you can also ask you, is why the Romans should place guards outside the tomb of someone that was not even a Roman citizen, or why the Roman tribune would ever care to hold trail over a Jew (Jesus) that was not a citizen, if you of course don't buy in to the story that Jesus father was in fact a Roman legionnaire (and not God), and as a result in fact was a Roman citizen, giving the Roman Tribune jurisdiction over him.
ostbagen 1 year ago
They saw angels. Angels are mythical beings. Therefore the New Testament is either a myth or a mythical account of something historical. Who knows what that something could have been.
Question:
Why doesn't Frank mention angels? They are in all of the accounts of the resurrection.
Answer:
Angels can not be rationally defended. They are exclusive to religious literature. So the stories are not "factually true."
SamWiseGingy 1 year ago
Wow, your authors are really shoddy and ridiculous- more reason to not listen to them.
yngbullwnohorns 1 year ago
no body created god! that is why he dosent exist. if he did then someone would have created him.
harleymaori 1 year ago
if you put the bible in the context of a chlidrens fantasy story it all makes perfect sense.
harleymaori 1 year ago
this guy is weird and is spazzing when he talks
samtatroff 1 year ago
shouting doesn't make it true
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago
Hm? First few minutes of the video and I can't understand why he wasn't embarrassed for assuming the writers of the gospel were four of the very apostles of Jesus. And why is it embarrassing to tell a story like the gospel writers did? If I had a great guru and I wanted to write about him, I'd just tell the very truth that I saw and experienced. I wouldn't feel embarrassed if my writings were true. I would be if they weren't and I wouldn't want it. Solution: I would add some divinity to my guru.
ivanxninerzz 2 years ago
The point of noting the embarrassing testimony is to demonstrate that the events are real events. If one were embellishing, one would not embellish by creating events where the author made an ass of himself, or was shown to be a coward, or was shown up by a woman.
Furthermore, while there are instances in history of embellishments being added to the life of a leader, they usually appear long after the leader and his immediate circle have died. The gospel accounts are contemporary.
philWynk 2 years ago
Alien abduction stories do not mean that they are true - even though writing about anal probes would be pretty embarassing.
asgardian001 2 years ago
You're arguing with criteria used by professional historians, not with me. You know that, right?
I'll accept a small correction to MY statement here. Embarrassing testimony can safely be taken not to have been KNOWLEDGEABLY manufactured. Alien abduction testimony is not knowledgeably manufactured.
If your claim is that the apostles were delusional, the fact that their testimony is embarrassing cannot be used to prove they are not delusional. Are you claiming that? You'd be the first.
philWynk 2 years ago
When did I say they were delusional? They believed what they were writing. Does not make it correct though as is evidenced by witness testimonies quite often being fallacious.
asgardian001 2 years ago
@philWynk
The gospel accounts are arguably not contemporary.
From Wikipedia:
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the first century by a Jewish Christian.Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel.However most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q
asgardian001 2 years ago
Be embarrased Frank.
jazzyazz 2 years ago
oops one last post - I woud like to reference Chad Docterman for the posts I had made - although many logical non theists and philosphers have personally come up with these ideas themselves (they are after a logical conclusion when someone ponders the possibility of god) - Chad certainly sums up theses ideas very eloquently.
asgardian001 2 years ago
Dude... do you really expect anybody to go to the trouble to debate you in a forum where no comment can exceed 500 characters? The fact that you went to this trouble in this forum suggests you don't have a life. Why not go get one?
Item 2 contains a contradiction, and fails. Your description (3) of the Abrahamic God is inaccurate. Your assertion that perfection won't create is absurd. Your understanding of Christianity is shallow. And so forth. This is all lame, son.
philWynk 2 years ago
Wanker - you do not know me so who are you to say whether I need to get a life or not. If you would like to debate without the ad hominems sure but otherwise keep your opinions to yourself.
Perfection has no desire - to desire and create change would suggest that the original position is not perfect.
asgardian001 2 years ago
What I know about you is that you posted a dozen times in a row, and didn't consider it a waste.
Your "argument" is a word game using equivocation on the meaning of the word "perfect." This is a game for fools, not an argument. You actually have not the slightest basis for claiming what the characteristics of a "perfect" God would be.
Here's help to get you thinking correctly: are the characteristics of a perfect tennis racquet the same as those of a perfect automobile, or different?
philWynk 2 years ago
You are begging the question - think on that.
you have failed to respond to my claim - that perfection begets nothing - otherwise it would not be perfect then would it.
asgardian001 2 years ago
@asgardian001 Let me get this straight. A perfect God cannot create; if he did, he would not perfect. Following your logic, questions arise. Does nearing perfection only limit oneself? That is, the closer to you get to perfection, the less you can do, and conversely, the less perfect you are, the more creative potential you have? Obviously, your logic fails. To argue perfections begets nothing is self-stultifying. The perfect box you are creating for God can't even hold your own argument.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 - You misunderstand - u r not following my logic - u r going off on a tangent. I never said that the closer u get 2 perfection the less you can do - and I do not beleive there is a close to perfection - you are either perfect or you are not - it is not a spectrum. My argument on this point was that Perfection begets nothing - why would perfection want or want to change anything when by doing so it would result in imperfection. eg, a perfect circle cannot be changed and remain perfect
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 At least we can agree on the point that one is either perfect or not. The Bible affirms that God is both perfect and good. It affirms that He created the heavens and the Earth (+ everything in it). Only volitional beings can choose to do something. These (to name a few) are Biblical attributes of God. Eternal. All powerful. Personal. Again the Bible does not say that He needed to create, merely that he chose to.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 so then god chose to create an imperfect creation then? and to create evil? Hardly the creation of a perfect god let alone of a good god.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 God did not create evil. His creation was good. He created man good. He created man free and volitional. (Any love relationship requires freedom, does it not?) Man chose to rebel and to disobey. It may be said that God made this disobedience/sin possible (i.e.,evil), but man made it actual. Man did not have to disobey, but he did. You're blaming God for man's actions.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 No I am blaming man for god's actions - after all we created him - imperfect and all
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Your last two statements summarize your intellectual dishonesty. When confronted with a cogent answer you resort to this farce of reasoning. When you can't win, you change the rules. Sad indeed. I'm convinced you have no idea what you are actually saying. Would that you could recognize that so many believing Christians pray that you could comprehend the gift God is offering you. They will continue to even as you mock them.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 myskosh2 - intellectual dishonesty??? how so. Farce of reasoning???? Please explain. IMHO it is you who are sad in believing in a mythology that has only been around for a few thousand years (and less than a few hundred years in its current form -assuming you are part of one of the dozens of protestant sects). When you consider that modern humans have existed for over 150,000 years do you seriously believe that a perfect, all knowing, and all powerful god would choose to reveal ...
asgardian001 1 year ago
@myskosh2 ...cont.,... the "truth" only in the last few thousand years. Your belief system will die out just as every belief system has, and long after you have become dust having wasted your only life believing in fairy tales. Yes you may think i am mocking you ... and I guess I am ... but only after you criticise me for intellectual dishonesty when you don't even know me.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Intellectual dishonesty explained. First, you argue falsely that a perfect God cannot create. I show that a theistic worldview allows for creation. You counter that man was created evil and God is responsible, and, therefore, not good. I counter that man has chosen to disobey thereby allowing evil to violate God's created order. Then you blame man for God's action because God was created by man. If that is not dodging the argument through faulty reasoning I don't know what is.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 strawman ... I did not argue that a perfect god cannot create - I argued that a perfect god has no desire to create as perfection begets nothing - there is a difference.
I then did not counter that man was created evil and that god is responsible - I was trying to demonstrate the flaws in your argument - I do not believe that god exists so how can I believe that he created man ... I never said that god created man or evil I asked you a question (thus the question marks ...)
asgardian001 1 year ago
@myskosh2 furthermore I will spell out my last point for you - if god does not exist then how is it that I can blame god for man's actions???? That is why I said that I am blaming man for god's actions - in other words man is solely to blame for his own actions ... transferring blame onto a mythical creation does not work - any blame or praise for that matter rests solely and squarely on our species.
It seems faulty reasoning it is not but rather faulty understanding on your part.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Your words to philWhynk: "you have failed to respond to my claim - that perfection begets nothing - otherwise it would not be perfect then would it." Seems absolute to me. Then you qualify it when challenged. "I argued that a perfect god has no desire to create as perfection begets nothing..." There is no logical basis to claim it as an absolute. The theistic position says God chose to. It's that simple.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 That's just it isn't it - the theistic position is always based upon what the bible or scripture says - it never is based in logic - yes it's that simple. Read the scripture - do not question it - have a closed mind - then die. Hardly an existence that I would wish upon anyone.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 And again you wrote, "so then god chose to create an imperfect creation then? and to create evil? Hardly the creation of a perfect god let alone of a good god." These words were used to counter/question my argument about God choosing to create. They are not lifted out of context. You seem to expect everyone to accept your assumption that God does not exist and is, therefore, a creation of man. There is no reason to accept this assumption. I do not think I misunderstood you at all.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 yes you did misunderstand - you failed to understand the difference between a question and a statement. By asking you this question I am urging you to respond ... hehe ... like any good question. I do not hold a position that god exists so when you claim that I have faulty reasoning ... well go figure. There is nothing faulty. I guess critical thinking atheists and people like yourslef are like ships passing in the night...
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Lastly, if you reread my post, I did acknowledge your question. But, it was you who stated it in such a way as to imply that if God did create, he did so imperfectly (with the inclusion of evil) and you summarized with "Hardly the creation of a perfect god let alone of a good god." It was you who did not respond to my counterclaim. If you don't like people challenging your pronouncements (as though there are no good answers) you should stop making them.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "was you who did not respond to my counterclaim" Sorry what was your counterclaim? I do not remember reading one.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@myskosh2 and I do not expect you to accept my assumption - I expect you to think. But I guess this is too much to ask. You have feebly attempted to dispel the notion that perfection begets nothing. This is a lofty and largely cerebral notion which is very difficult to demonstrate as perfection is a concept which really does not exist anywhere.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001The notion of perfection is an interesting one.The fact that you say it does not really exist raises an interesting philosophical question. Why is it that you, as self-described atheist, even bring it up. If matter and energy is all there is, and if all we are is just a collection of atoms and molecules, why do we desire perfection, strive for perfection. If all there is is nature, why conceive of something nature does not contain? Theism is a better explanation for this desire.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Theism is hardly the best or only explanation for a desire for perfection. And atheism does not = belief of only materialism. That there is spirituality and existentialism there is no doubt but the abrahmic god or theism for that matter is hardly the best explanation of the non material. You ask why strive for perfection? Well it makes us stronger and thus assists our survival. In a nutshell evolution is a mechanism for striving for perfect adaptation to an environment. Simple really.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 I never said theism is the only one. I say it is the best explanation. to the questions of origins, meaning, morality, and destiny.
1. Everything from something (a creator)
2. Life from an eternal living being
3. intelligence from an intelligent cause
4. Moral laws from a moral lawgiver
5. The promise of eternal life for those who chose life in Christ
I'm anticipating your request for proof. Well, the non-theist has a steeper mountain to climb. (more in the following post)
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 I disagree with your "theism as the best explanation" idea. You say:
1. "Everything from something (a creator)" - well I already answered this before - cause and effect is not ubiquitous in the universe and even if it were you are anthropormorphising the issue - the "something" does not have to be a "who" it can be a "what" - ie no need for a god.
2. "Life from an eternal living being" - scientists have proven that the building blocks for life can arise from inorganic materials ...
asgardian001 1 year ago
@myskosh2 3. "intelligence from an intelligent cause" - again you are anthropomorphising. Our idea of intelligence is a purely natural thing. It is foolish to assume that intelligence supernaturally (ie, outside of the universe).
4. "Moral laws from a moral lawgiver" - I assume you believe in the Abrahmic god seeing that you tout about Christ further in your post. You gotta be joking that Yawheh is moral!!!! Have you even read the OT??? Morality has changed through history and is not a constant
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 The non-theist (I'll focus on atheism here) has to claim or explain:
1. Everything (time, space, matter, and energy) came from nothing
2. Life from non-living matter
3. intelligence from non-intelligence (No bringing up aliens now. And, we can dispense with your fixation with anal probes, too. :-))
4. Morality from amoral matter
5. The promise of the non-existence of life through universal heat death
I submit that the theistic position better answers these questions.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Hmmm - atheism is the non belief in gods. It claims nothing about time, space, matter, and energy, nothing about life from non living matter, intelligence, morality, etc. I have already answered these. And by your submission that the theistic position better answers these you are merely providing a god of the gaps argument.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Atheism claims nothing about, "time, space, matter, and energy, nothing about life from non living matter, intelligence, morality, etc." This is a pure fallacy. Atheism excludes God as a cause. What you are left with is materialism. You say these are either uncaused or materialistically derived. Pure materialism is self-defeating. Eg. Your theory is not matter. You cannot transcend matter to think about it. Your "nothing but matter" view, requires "more than matter" knowledge.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Furthermore, if man where just matter and death were the natural order of things, why conceive of the infinite or the notion of living forever? I believe it is consistent with being created in God's image. We desire the to live and explore God's created order because there is a creator behind it. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes that God has placed eternity in our hearts. To argue against this is to say that the effect is greater than the cause.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 The third sentence should read, "We desire then to live and explore God's created order because there is a creator behind it."
And I will further argue that it is perfectly rational to think that if God made the universe and our minds since we can use our minds to study and understand His creation. Atheistic evolution contends we arrived by a random, mindless process. If this is so, why should we trust our own thoughts about it?
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "And I will further argue that it is perfectly rational to think that if God made the universe and our minds since we can use our minds to study and understand His creation" You can argue what you like but please explain why you believe unless this is just your opinion and an uncertifiable claim.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "Uncertifiable claim"? Do mean unjustified? Regardless, I'm happy to oblige. The position is justified using law of causality. It stipulates that for every effect (result), there must be an equal or greater cause. This applies to all things that begin to exist. So far, so good? As I have argued previously, it makes more sense that our minds came from a creator (one with a mind, mind you) rather than mindless matter.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "The position is justified using law of causality. It stipulates that for every effect (result), there must be an equal or greater cause. This applies to all things that begin to exist. So far, so good?" - Well NO. law of causality is not absolute. there does not have to be a cause for every effect. This is just how we observe things on our physical level. Quantum physics demonstrates that cause and effect does not always hold. So your analogy of minds may be flawed.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "[The] law of causality is not absolute. there does not have to be a cause for every effect." If you deny causality, you are denying a first principle of knowledge. Nothing does not exist. Only what exists can cause existence. Now, if you are appealing to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, it is not contrary to causality. It does NOT show that events have no cause, but rather that they are unpredictable as we perceive them with today's technology.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2
"Atheistic evolution contends we arrived by a random, mindless process" There is no such thing as atheistic evolution or theistic evolution for that matter - evolution claims nothing about theism or otherwise. There are theists and atheists alike who believe and do not believe in evolution. Furthermore evolution is not random. Please understand evolution before you make assertions about it. Otherwise you will sound like an idiot.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Seriously. You are just equivocating over language. Evolution is the peg atheist hang their hat on. I grant that the process of evolution may be considered true by atheist, theists, agnostics, Buddhist, Muslims, etc. I never argued otherwise. HOWEVER, your position as a self-proclaimed atheist is that evolution is true. That's why I described it as "atheistic evolution." You state the process is not random. What directs it? A natural or supernatural processes? Alien intelligence?
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Evolution is not random and is a natural process. I am confused by your questions and unsure as to whether you are mocking me or whether you seriously believe that evolution requires a sentient being to direct it. But then again I assume that you belong to a christian fundamentalist which believes in Intelligent Design.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 I'm not mocking you. My question is, if evolution is not random, what directs it beside the laws of physics and chemistry? If evolution (I'm talking about biochemical evolution here) required just matter, physical laws, plus time and chance, what gave rise to life in the first place? If these things have no mind behind them, what accounts for all the minds that are now debating this topic? Mind from mindless matter, is this your position?
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 I do not know what directs evolution - i do not think anything is needed to direct evolution - why does there need to be anything to direct it? It just is.
You ask what gave rise to life in the first place? I do not know - evolution however does not pretend to predict where life arose from only what has happened to life after it began. However there is more and more observations to suggest that life may exist in other parts of the universe.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "If these things have no mind behind them, what accounts for all the minds that are now debating this topic? Mind from mindless matter, is this your position?"
I do not know what accounts for the minds that are debating this topic ... what accounts for all the matter from which the minds arose? Does there need to be anything to account for our minds? I do not think so. The universe does not have to have meaning - it just is.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "Does there need to be anything to account for our minds? I do not think so. The universe does not have to have meaning - it just is." On minds and meaning I will say this. It logically follows that there is first cause with a mind that gave rise to all the others minds. With regard to meaning I will say our world is filled with it. Even the person who says there is no meaning is attempting to say something meaningful. To say there is no meaning is a meaningful statement.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "logically follows that there is first cause with a mind that gave rise to all the others minds." How so? And if so whence did god's mind arise?
It may seem logical that the earth is flat but it is not - it may seem logical that effect follows cause but virtual particles and spontaneous radioactive decay prove that this is not always the case. Logic does not always equate with truth and not everyone agrees with the "logic" of another.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 You are now playing a shell game with words. (And just when I thought we were starting to come to some mutual understanding.) The laws of logic are not physical or merely conventional. Science presupposes them, AND without them, science would not be possible. If they varied from culture to culture we could not agree on anything. To say logic does no always have to equate to truth is a smokescreen. To say the laws of logic and the mind arose by a natural process strains credulity.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 I never said that the laws of logic arose be a natural process but I did say that "not everyone agrees with the "logic" of another." You should note that I used the term logic in inverted commas - instead I should have exposed your use of the word logic as being flawed - you really meant common sense.
However I strongly disagree when you say that it is incredulous to state that the mind arose by a natural process. Of course it did ...(cont.,)
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "I never said that the laws of logic arose be a natural process but I did say that "not everyone agrees with the "logic" of another." Sure, people may disagree with another on points of logic and conclusions.Given that understanding, no problem. However, I did mean the laws of logic when stating that they are neither material or changing. Schools of thought and world views may come and go, but the laws of logic do not. They are immaterial and unchanging as is the God of theism.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 I agree with everything on this post except for the god of theism (see previous post --- there are thousands of theistic views - they can't all be correct). I am also concerned that you try and link logic and theism. I have yet to find a proof or a satisfying argument how there is any relation between the two.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "I am also concerned that you try and link logic and theism. I have yet to find a proof or a satisfying argument how there is any relation between the two." Materialism/atheism have their roots in the material world. Abstract concepts and rationality by their very nature transcend the material world. Theism maintains God is rational and that we think God's thoughts after him, i.e., we ought to be rational just as he is. Atheism/materialism has no basis to say the same.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 materialism and atheism are not the same thing... Atheism is simply the rejection of a belief in god ... it is not a belief that the material world is all there is. and another thing ... god (or at least the Abrahmic god) is anything BUT rational. Would you like to debate god's rationality perhaps?
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Forgive me for misrepresenting your position, yet as a self described atheist. (defined by Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.” So if you are not a hard atheist (or materialist--I never said they were the same in every respect) then, then may I ask what transcendent power/transcendence you believe in? And how you justify your belief in it?
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "So if you are not a hard atheist (or materialist--I never said they were the same in every respect) then, then may I ask what transcendent power/transcendence you believe in? And how you justify your belief in it?" - If you could oblige me to answer this question instead of my answering yours - D oyou sincerely believe that the only possibilities are god or materialism?
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "Do you sincerely believe that the only possibilities are god or materialism?" No.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@asgardian001 (Cont.) "...logic and theism. I have yet to find a proof or a satisfying argument how there is any relation between the two." If matter is all there is, there is not reason to think that our minds are anything more that just chemicals. We would literally be governed by what is chemically transpiring in our brains. However this has very poor explanatory power when considering logic as well as subjects like moral absolutes or human dignity. These categories transcend matter.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Who said that matter is all there is? You try to place me in a box of how you conceive non theists are and you fail. I am not a materialist. You are using a strawman argument.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "Who said that matter is all there is?" Materialists (Of course you do not have to be one if you don't want to be. Many atheist say it, too.)
"You try to place me in a box of how you conceive non theists are and you fail." All you have done is espouse the atheistic position. You have also stated that the universe does not have to have meaning. Consistent. Please explain what transcendence you do believe in, and as an atheist, justify believing in it.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Only a fool would beleive that there is no such thing as spirituality - And yet I am still an atheist. Hardly a materialist.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 I would be interested in knowing your beliefs on spirituality.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 I have no firm ideas on spirituality - but suffice to say that there is no doubt that humans appear to have a desire and need for some form of spirituality. I for one quite often meditate and also through the practice of martial arts and yoga have experienced altered states of consciousness, There certainly appears to be more to the human experience than the material world. However I also feel that it is too simplistic to explain spirituality by invoking superstitions or myths.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@myskosh2 (cont.,) The mind has changed through the ages - there is strong evidence of this - furthermore the mind is different amongst different cultures which strongly points to it being an "evolved" construct.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "The mind has changed through the ages ...- the mind is different amongst different cultures which strongly points to it being an "evolved" construct." The word "mind" is somewhat subjective. As I stated previously what we are discussing here is, I believe, the worldviews. Certainly culture, schools of thought, and world views themselves may adopted, promoted, rejected, or replaced with another by people INDIVIDUALLY. Truth and the laws of logic do not change; i.e., not evolved.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "Truth and laws of logic do not change" - I agree with you there but the interpretation of truth does. Manking believed that heavier than air flight was impossible, that the earth was stationary, that there were 12 gods of Olympus, that there is one Abrahmic god (<--- are we so sure that this one is a fundamental truth???). Our knowledge evolves and truth is such a transient thing ... I believe it is a matter of perspective.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "Our knowledge evolves and truth is such a transient thing ... I believe it is a matter of perspective." I will agree that knowledge on a particular subject may change, but I could not disagree more strongly that truth is transient. What we say is "true" may change, but truth itself does not change. Truth conforms to reality. People err when claiming something is true without proper basis.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Agreed
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 (The nature of truth cont.) To lump flat earth, the gods of Olympus, and the God of Abraham together is dishonest critique (the same one used by R. Dawkins repeatedly). In fact, not long ago it was nearly all other worldviews besides theism that claimed the universe (i.e. matter) was eternal (or co-eternal with god). Theist held firm to their claim that the universe had a creator and a beginning. They had an uphill battle against many other established belief systems. (cont.)
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 It was also the theist who affirmed that the earth was placed upon a firmament (pardon the pun) ... that the earth was young ... that the earth was created in 7 days ... these have all been proven wrong.
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 Explain what you understand "earth was placed upon the firmament" to mean.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 "earth was placed upon the firmament" - well I think we can both agree that we both know what the earth is - firmament = an extended solid surface. Literally (and isn't that what fundamentalists do - ie, interpret the bible literally) the earth was placed upon an extended solid surface (totally neglects earth being part of a solar system and of a galaxy) but then again how could stone age Jews know about this????
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "I think we can both agree that we both know what the earth is - firmament = an extended solid surface. Literally...the earth was placed upon an extended solid surface..." Your interpretation of the word firmament is flawed. You impose too narrow of a limit on it. It is used to describe various different expanses (Not all solid!) The word is absolutely equivocal in the sense that God place a separation in the expanse but the content of the expanse is not described.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@asgardian001 (Another note on the theistic position on origin of the universe.) Your firmament diatribe is a distraction (red herring) from the real issue, namely that theism aligns with the fact that the universe has a beginning.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@asgardian001 (Cont.) But when modern science began to point to the universe having a beginning (born out by 2nd law of TD, expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, general relativity), it was the theist that was affirmed in his belief while all others must do one of three things: either change their position, live with the inherent contradiction, or come up with new explanation for the beginning if the universe besides God.
myskosh2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myskosh2 "But when modern science began to point to the universe having a beginning" ... do not mistaken the beginning of the universe as we know it for the same thing as the beginning of the universe. Lay people believe that science says the big bang and red shift proves a beginning to the universe ... it does not ... all it does is prove the beginning of time and space as we know it. What was there before time?????
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "do not mistaken the beginning of the universe as we know it for the same thing as the beginning of the universe." Another assumption here based on faith. Furthermore, you assume that "all we know," if consistent with theism, must be wrong. Biased. You are saying, "We don't know, but you Christians are wrong." Arrogant. Further, you think red-shift argues against a beginning? Does it point to an eternal universe? What about the other lines of reasoning? Conspicuously unaddressed.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Arrogant hey? Your religion as you practice it has only existed for the last few decades if that (I can tell you are born again fundamentalist), if you must insist that you are a "true" christian - ie in your opinion a protestant rather than a roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox (hey someone's gotta be wrong here) then your religion has only existed for 400 odd years. Even if you seriously believe that you practice christianity as Jesus intended (cont.,)
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 I see a couple of problems here. It seems you have no reasonable counter claims to the origin of the universe (that even meet your own standards of proof.) And for whatever reason, you resort to attacking the person or making a fallacious argument that since Christianity has been around for 1,600 years (false) and that others have been around longer (also not technically correct) that somehow disproves Christianity. Preposterous to say age = truth. Modern science is far less old.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 I am not trying to discredit christianity (at least in the post in which I mention the relatively "young" age of christianity). I am demonstrating that it is you in fact who is being arrogant. This was in response to your post accusing I of being arrogant for dismissing theism. I agree that age does not equal truth but certainly age should provide humility. By the way - in your opinion - how long has christianity been around?
asgardian001 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "I am demonstrating that it is you in fact who is being arrogant." If stating opinions/theories based on evidence is arrogant, I will counter by saying truth-claims by definition are exclusive and in stating them I do not do so to elevate myself but to give a credible position based of the facts. My contention was/is: that for you to rule out a reasonable, coherent position a priori, is to give a license that I do not think is justified or should go unaddressed.
myskosh2 1 year ago
@asgardian001 "... how long has christianity been around?" Christians (those who accept Jesus as messiah) and Christianity have been since the first disciples, nearly 2,000 years. But, Christianity must also be seen in its historical context! It cannot be divorced from Judaism which has its roots extending much farther back. (eg. The time-line to Moses is 1,500 years.)Jesus himself affirmed the Old Testament writings. Also he said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.(Matt 5:17)
myskosh2 1 year ago
@myskosh2 Sure but certainly the christianity of today is far removed from that of Jesus's time - it is vastly different in its practice and vastly different to that of Judaism, especially early Judaism. The reason I said that christianity sprung up about 1600 years ago or so is due to the council of nicaea and that the bible was not actually in existence as we know it until a few hundred years after the supposed existence of Christ.
asgardian001 1 year ago