Successfully removed.
Sorry, an error occurred.
|
JosephVanHelsing liked a video
(3 weeks ago)
Este video es una respuesta para el usuario stardust, asi como sus compi...
more
Este video es una respuesta para el usuario stardust, asi como sus compiches ateitos que alucinan que la moral no es objetiva.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
JosephVanHelsing liked a video
(3 weeks ago)
Well Zipadeedoodaa - DarkAntics has formulated a syllogism!!
"1. God...
more
Well Zipadeedoodaa - DarkAntics has formulated a syllogism!!
"1. God's plan is for people to get into heaven.
2. Everyone has a purpose in fulfilling God's plan.
3. Given 1 and 2, the purpose of my existence can only be: a) to get into heaven b) to cause other people to get into heaven c) both of the above
4. When God created me, He already knew that I wasn't going to heaven (thereby eliminating 3a and 3c, leaving only 3b as a viable option)
5. Given 3 and 4, my purpose in fulfilling God's plan can only be to cause people other than myself to get into heaven."
http://www.disbel...
Since 5 depends on 3 being true and 3 depends on 1 and 2 being true we can show how the whole thing falls apart by denying 1 and 2, or either of them or finding either or both of them to be inaccurate of the Christian position.
In P1 "plan" is more than a little vague. The NT talks about God wanting all to be saved but it is clear that people can reject him. So part of the "plan" is not just to get people to heaven as if the destination was what mattered in some utilitarian notion. Part of the plan is also to put human beings in a position where they will have a genuine choice to make. So things are certainly more complicated than P1 suggests on the face of it.
P2 has more problems. "Everyone has a purpose in fulfilling God's plan." Well where is DM getting that from exactly? That's just an assertion. He makes it sound like there are some necessary rejectors [which is why the point I made about it was important and not redundant as he later claims] who need to play their part in the saving of others. But this is not part of Christian doctrine. It is the existence of real choice which is part of the plan and which DM leaves out which muddies his waters here. God's plan of salvation is said to be "finished" on the cross furthermore.
Later on he says:
"In other words, if I have a purpose in fulfilling God's plan of getting people into heaven..."
Exactly - "if"! I have not encountered any Christian theologian or philosopher past or present who thinks that non-believers play a crucial role in the plan of salvation and it appears to be complete hubris to think such a thing.
Furthermore DM could have asked me about language usage but instead made more assumptions. When I say "reject God" I obviously do not mean that the atheist believes in God but rejects God. What I mean is that they reject the existence of God or the concept of God. If I say "I reject aliens" that is a perfectly acceptable way of saying I reject the concept of there being any aliens. Since that is my intent in the sentence any criticisms based on a faulty interpretation are therefore moot.
Then in the comparison of the slides he fails further by failing to notice that one is talking about some revelation and the other speaks of revelation to some degree of complete certainty. Clearly there is no contradiction in saying both statements. I have evidence of evolution but I don't have evidence to a degree of complete certainty of evolution. That sentence is not contradictory either and this was what I was pointing out.
Then the number thing at the end is AGAIN oversimplistic even though I have pointed this out already. If one were ONLY making a decision on whether it is better to save more or less than 50% then DM might just have a point. But again, what he fails to factor into this horribly oversimplistic point is free will. Is it better that people have a genuine choice about their destiny even if this might mean the figure fall below 50%? And that is the theodicy DM would have to overthrow in order to make any serious point here. Since he simply ignores this crucial point the argument is impotent.
DM demonstrates how desperate he's getting for a refutation when he cannot accept authorial intent once again on the number given. It's clearly there to fill the page and represents numbers over 50%. Did I bother counting the zeros? Of course not! The calculation cannot be done since we simply have no certain number for the amount of people who have lived. Then he tries something very underhanded in suggesting I am belittling people who are lost. That is a very low blow by DM since it's clear what I was joking about was his assertion of 50% as the magic number. That was the ONLY thing being mocked there. As I said - desperate.
Don't get me wrong - I am not against laymen having a go. But when the laymen don't listen, don't check their interpretations, fail to realise there are other interpretations, make constant disanalogies and ignore and deride authorial intent whilst having enough hubris for a small country you have to know it's probably time to say enough is enough and disengage yourself.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
JosephVanHelsing liked a video
(4 weeks ago)
Good reasons why the Bible should be taken seriously. In this video two ...
more
Good reasons why the Bible should be taken seriously. In this video two main reasons are given. The strong textual support and archaeological evidence which both demonstrate its authenticity.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
JosephVanHelsing favorited a video
(4 weeks ago)
Good reasons why the Bible should be taken seriously. In this video two ...
more
Good reasons why the Bible should be taken seriously. In this video two main reasons are given. The strong textual support and archaeological evidence which both demonstrate its authenticity.
less
|
|
♜♞♝♛♚♝♞♜
Who's up for some chess?