Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 13, 2002 6:36:26 GMT -5
Pity. I overlooked one of your replies. Christianity centers itself on Jesus being the son of god. Islam, on the other hand, says Jesus was NOT the son of god, another important aspect of Islam. These are tenets central to the religion itself, so that especially in the case of Christianity, it falls apart if it's false. Because they are both right yields a contradiction, either Islam is right on the matter, or Christianity is right on the matter. If Islam is right on the matter, then Christianity collapses. Not to mention Christianity states that it is the only true path, which would rule out any such claims for other religions, if Christianity were true. All I'm saying is that I keep an open mind on the matter. Islam COULD be true, but I personally believe that Christianity is true. This is because of the teachings outlined in the gospels, and the existence of Jesus and his ressurection are very believable. Strive for perfection (Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection - 2 Cor 13), not be perfect. The idea of praying is admitting ones sins and being forgivven. When one asks for forgivness one is not claiming to be perfect. Well of course its subjective, and thats because its a personal experience. Theres only a certain amount of times you can say that without it getting a little repetitive. Take a look at the argument in the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 13, 2002 15:10:33 GMT -5
Blark, as a basic definition, is causeless (infinite), and created the universe. With just that, that does not give us enough to argue whether a blark exists. Kindly define god completely, so that one can understand you when you say "god". What is a god? What qualities are necessary to classify one as a god? Until you present such, you're arguing an empty term no different than saying a blark exists.
You observe gravity through your five senses. You can see its effects, and even feel them, should you jump from a high location. Being an abstract concept, it doesn't have material existence. It's a concept that explains causal processes.
I love blatant assertions without evidence.
No, you are trying to skip the basics. First, before anything else, you must define your terms. I have asked for a definition of god, but you are not completely forthcoming in this request. THEN, you must explain how your claim "God exists" is falsifible. As in, what conditions or evidence would you accept as evidence against? What criteria do you use to evaluate your own claims and the claims of others? If your belief is non-falsifible, then you cannot argue rationally. FINALLY, you provide evidence for your claim.
You, on the other hand, are mangling things by injecting confusion into the topic, by trying to re-define god to be something it doesn't actually mean traditionally. By attempting to define god as "the ground of being" or "ultimate reality" destroys both theism and atheism, which undercuts the very root of your argument (plus it's non-falsifible, and is simply going on presupposition).
Naturally, most sciences cannot guarantee certainty because their basis is inductive reasoning. The evidence, not beliefs, are what determine reality with induction, and changing to meet the evidence. However, if you are claiming theism is based upon "reasonable faith", then you're ultimately appealing to reason, in which case an appeal to faith is unnecessary.
I've yet to shown open-mindedness? I've asked for a definition of god, how your belief is falsifible, and then for you to present evidence. Instead, I get an incomplete definition, no mention of falsifibility on your part, and a presuppositionist's argument which has no convincing power. Although theism could be true (except in the case of self-contradictory definitions of god), I have yet to see any evidence of it. The burden of proof lies with you, the one claiming god exists. If you cannot demonstrate it, basic atheism, the lack of believe in god(s), wins by default.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 13, 2002 15:10:58 GMT -5
Isn't this the same Jesus who said he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill, and until everything has been fulfilled, and heaven and earth pass away, that nothing would change from the law? Last I remember, that's the same Jesus. Not to mention Paul says ALL scripture (that includes the OT, you know), is "god-breathed" and good learning for righteousness. Let's not also forget that according to Christianity, Jesus is supposed to be god, and so would be also responsible for any OT atrocities, if Christianity is true. So, if you're going to toss your Bible out the window, then you shouldn't argue Christianity in the first place.
However, there are some "loving" quotes of Jesus. Luke 14:26, various verses I quoted earlier about hell, Matthew 10:34, to name a few.
Did any of these writers say they met Jesus? If not, why should one believe hearsay reports? Certainly you don't think hearsay is credible, do you? Last I recall, there aren't any contemporary historians who mention Jesus, despite there being quite a few who were more than able of doing so.
Now, the only reason why I brought this up was due to your response to Tool 666. It's really doesn't make too much difference whether a historic Jesus existed (although Christianity isn't true if he didn't exist, but it would be nigh impossible to demonstrate such), as even if one did exist, that does not automatically mean he was the son of god, just like saying Mohammed existed does not automatically mean we was a prophet of Allah.
Look at cults today. "The love of money is the root of all evil... so give us all your money (or 10%, or however much), and you'll get treasure in heaven" *Takes money* "But why do you bishops/cardinals/pastors have so much money?" "It's the will of god."
Notice how easy an ad hoc is to compose for such?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Hmmm... what does that say of an omnipotent god?
It doesn't matter what one believes, but rather what evidence says. You've yet to say what would falsify your belief, too.
"Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."
Which is why religious experience shouldn't be used on an objective basis. It makes no sense to say "subjective experience X of which I won't accept any explanation other than god" is proof of god.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 13, 2002 15:35:50 GMT -5
Blark, as a basic definition, is causeless (infinite), and created the universe. With just that, that does not give us enough to argue whether a blark exists. Kindly define god completely, so that one can understand you when you say "god". What is a god? What qualities are necessary to classify one as a god? Until you present such, you're arguing an empty term no different than saying a blark exists. So what your really saying is that you want me to say some qualities that contradict each other which I'm not going to do. What makes God God is that he is not contingent (i.e neccesary) and that he created the universe. Yes, you can see and feel its effects but you cannot see IT. I would say the same thing about God but the effect that we CAN pick up on the 5 senses is existence itself. I think therefore I am. That maybe why you make them so much. I have defined but you just want me to define him again. The evidence against such a being would be the non existence of existence. Something exists, evidently. This is where a couple millenia of a debate come in. I will present deductive evidence in other threads, such as the one just appeared on the boards. The Ground of Being and Ultimate Reality are possible definitions. As I said, my definiton of God is causelessness and one of his actions is causing the universe. Thr faith of which I speak is faith regarding Jesus being the Son of God. What is commonly regarded today as 'faith' is faith in Gods very existence. Now I argue that God exists. You argue against that. I have answered your questions! Look I'm writing this right now! Well answer then! Come on! Your silent - therefore I've won the debate. Oops - forgot to press post. Something you should remember to do when you're typing that I havent answered your questions yet.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 13, 2002 16:03:32 GMT -5
No, I want you to define "god" by assigning it qualities that one can say what it is. If you present a contradictory definition, then such a being doesn't exist. However, your silence on the matter says much. Shall I have to pull from a Christian source what they define god as?
Secondly, I can just retort "Blarks are not contingent, and created the universe. Because something exists, Blarks exist. If Blark exists, god does not exist. Because Blark exists, god does not exist." Not a very convincing argument, eh? Perhaps you should try taking the hint.
Gravity isn't an "it". Gravity is a causal process that explains a certain phenomena of reality. Are you trying to say "god" isn't an it either, but just an abstract thing?
I'm not the one using the presuppositionist argument, silly.
Ah, there's the ticket. Firstly, you've admitted your belief is non-falsifible. Congrats on placing yourself beyond rational discourse. Now, regarding your little bit "Why something exists rather than nothing" is quite a meaningless question. "Why?" presumes a causal explanation, and causality presupposes existence. You cannot have causality without existence, and the entire idea of causality makes sense only in the context of the natural universe. Not to mention your entire idea runs on a composition fallacy of "we see things in the universe that has causes, therefore the universe itself needs a causal explanation". Once again, this only destroy the context of causality to begin with, which destroys your argument from the start.
Present them here, and without linking to large articles. Summarize in your own words. It's not hard. Link to sites if you wish to show your source, but don't expect myself or others to have to dig through such for "your" argument.
Well then, you're just going on assumptions which aren't falsifible. Any "evidence" is just begging the question in your view. One does not begin with a conclusion and search for "evidence" to support it, but instead find evidence and draw conclusions from it.
So then you're advocating blind faith in Jesus, or are you advocating reason?
Well, you still haven't given a good definition of god yet, and you've shown yourself incapable of rational debate. Unless you abandon your presuppositions, you'll get nowhere.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 13, 2002 16:04:42 GMT -5
Isn't this the same Jesus who said he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill, and until everything has been fulfilled, and heaven and earth pass away, that nothing would change from the law? Last I remember, that's the same Jesus. Not to mention Paul says ALL scripture (that includes the OT, you know), is "god-breathed" and good learning for righteousness. Let's not also forget that according to Christianity, Jesus is supposed to be god, and so would be also responsible for any OT atrocities, if Christianity is true. So, if you're going to toss your Bible out the window, then you shouldn't argue Christianity in the first place. You forget that the bible was not entirely put together unitl after Jesus. As well as this, Paul refers several time to the discarding of the writen law and the two great commandments leading to all the other actions; A new covenant. Lets not forget that much of OT is questionable as literal as opposed to parable, and Jesus being born a human did not know this. Luke 14:26 - He was encouraging those in Rome that were superficial to either go deeper or to turn back.Following Christ as a disciple meant total submission to him, perhaps even to the point of death. Matthew 10:34 - Christian commitment may seperate friends and loved ones. Jesus was not encouraging disobedience to parents or conflict at home. Rather he was showing that his presence demands a decision. Because some will follow Christ and some won't, conflict will inevitably rise. As we take our cross and follow him, our different values, morals, goals, and purposes will set us apart from others. Don't neglect your family, but remember that your committment to God is even more important than they are. God should be your first priority. Yes, many did. Many of them were first hand reports based on actual witnesses. And even the second hand reports are entirely credible due to their intense correlation. And thats not my argument! I'm argueing for the existence of Jesus, not Jesus as the Son of God. (The love of money isn't the root of all evil according to the bible - its the root of all kinds of evil.) But seriously, why would have to lie to the masses about what the bible said if it was originally designed for getting money? LOL! Oh yes, you are a joker. Stop saying that! I've answered! Yes, if one strives for a C in an exam then the best he can get is a C. If one strives for an A then the best he can get is an A. Strive for perfection, get as close as you can to such. I wasnt using it on an objective basis, I was using it as a basis for personal belief in a certain religion.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 13, 2002 16:16:55 GMT -5
So you're saying Jesus, who according to Christianity is the son of god, who Christians say is omniscient, didn't know something?
That's Luke 14:34. v. 26 is the command to hate your family. Not exactly a loving attitude, but if one is supposedly going on total submission to Jesus, v. 26 shouldn't raise any problems. However, I do love the liberals' re-interpretations of things.
Not exactly a saying one who attribute to one whom Christians consider the "prince of peace".
Funny that you don't mention these *CONTEMPORARY* historians.
I never said it was your argument. I simply said that if a historic Jesus were to exist, that wouldn't mean he was the son of god.
So are you saying that absolute power doesn't corrupt absolutely? Or is your god not omnipotent, contrary to what most Christians believe (And yes, I refer to omnipotence in regards whatever is logically possible).
So subjectivity is the key? "If it feels good, do it!"? Not certainly the attitude I'd like in choosing a religion, and not especially a good one when one is claiming their religion to be true.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Nov 13, 2002 16:38:13 GMT -5
[Random Encounter] Enemies: God (x1) PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKAthiest uses Intelligence!! God dissappears VICTOLY!! (Spelt VICTOLY on purpose) That sums up my standpoint on religion. I'd go more detailed with you but I have better things to do with my time then try to argue the idea of "something you can't see or prove exists, exists" ... You two need to get out more, really
|
|
celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Nov 13, 2002 19:45:58 GMT -5
Hm.. this is fallacious resoning. There could be other reasons. Its like saying "Because the sun is yellow, it is made of cheese!" .. or .. "Because there are presents under the christmas tree, Santa Clause must have visisted!"
Another point thing I find interesting.. you define God as being 'causeless', and yet you insist that the universe must have been caused by God. Isn't it just as possible that the universe is causeless?
|
|
|
Post by Trononot singed on on Nov 14, 2002 5:52:48 GMT -5
So you're saying Jesus, who according to Christianity is the son of god, who Christians say is omniscient, didn't know something? He wasn't omniscient. When he was born he was at a state of tabula rasa, and he learnt things from God. He didn't know when appocalypse was going to be. As he said 'only the father knows'. What is it with atheists asking theists to interpret things and then when they do telling them 'I love it when they do that'. I mean, you asked for it! When people say that they are reffering to the eventual peace (lion lying down the lamb, etc.) Look, man, it doesn't matter how many times you say the word contemporary in capitals. It doesn't add to your argument in any way. And I agree! Absolute power corrupts the corruptable absolutely (i.e humans). This isn't what I'm argueing. I'm argueing that if a person prays and meets an 'angel' or being from God, he cannot use such an experience to prove it to others, but it is absolute proof for himself.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 14, 2002 9:12:18 GMT -5
Hm.. this is fallacious resoning. There could be other reasons. Its like saying "Because the sun is yellow, it is made of cheese!" .. or .. "Because there are presents under the christmas tree, Santa Clause must have visisted!" It is nothing like that at all, those parrallels are falicious. The argument is that because there is existence itself, there is a God. Nothing like the judging of colours. We know for certain that something exists. In fact the fact that something exists is the only certainity (I think therefore I am). No - it isn't. Deductively speaking, the universe is within time and therefore within contingency (it is not neccesary and needs to be caused in order to exist) Inductively speaking, and through scientific method we can see through the big bang theory that the universe did have a beggining and therefore is not infinite.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 14, 2002 9:14:37 GMT -5
[Random Encounter] Enemies: God (x1) PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKAthiest uses Intelligence!! God dissappears VICTOLY!! (Spelt VICTOLY on purpose) That sums up my standpoint on religion. I'd go more detailed with you but I have better things to do with my time then try to argue the idea of "something you can't see or prove exists, exists" ... You two need to get out more, really This is coming from the guy who owns and moderates an entire website about programming RPG's? Kidding!
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 14, 2002 12:11:57 GMT -5
I never asked for an interpretation. I presented the verse with what it says, and you re-interpreted it to suit your needs. THAT is what I enjoy seeing, because you're saying that what is written is wrong.
Ignorance on your part about hearsay not being credible doesn't add to your argument in any way.
And one could say the same of god. Considering you're playing the pantheist definition game, it's easy to do.
Only if you're a pantheist. Pantheists define god as ultimate reality, but the problems of this is that not only does it erase the distinction between atheism and theism, but is incoherent and arbitrary. In addition, if you can suddenly just re-define god to suit your needs, then everyone else can, too.
So, I define god as non-existence. However, because something exists, god does not exist. So, unless nothing exists, god cannot exist. See how easy it is to re-define things to suit one's need?
I see that you have yet to take the hint. Perhaps you'll get it through your head that arbitrary definitions not agreed upon make you unable to rationally debate, but I'm not holding my breath.
Inductively speaking, we never observe the creation or destruction of matter, so it's actually quite against you. Funny how theists, whenever they get to something that is still being researched, are quick to posit god as an explanation; but then again, theists such as yourself Tim work backwards: You begin believing a god exists, and then do whatever you can to try and support such. However, the god of the gaps fallacy will get you nowhere.
So god is outside of time, eh? Anything to support such, or is it just another bit of re-defining to suit your needs? Definitions are quite meaningless unless they have something to show that the definitum possesses the qualities of the definition. You cannot just define things into existence, and appealing to ignorance and magic is not the method of a rational person.
Next, you're assuming the universe requires a causal explanation, but the concept of causality only makes sense in the context of universe, and causality presupposes existence (so no universe, then causality makes no sense because you destroy the context in which causality functions). Because of such, your question of "why something rather than nothing" is meaningless.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 14, 2002 13:47:20 GMT -5
I never asked for an interpretation. I presented the verse with what it says, and you re-interpreted it to suit your needs. THAT is what I enjoy seeing, because you're saying that what is written is wrong. No, you interpreted in your way and I interpreted it another. Who judges which is the right and wrong one? You, obviously. If it was ignorance it wouldn't be adding to my argument anyway so theres no need to say that. However, since 'hersay' correlates so well amongst authors with no contact between each other, written before Mark (so no base story), we begin to question just how credible it is - in this case, very. Lets not foget that many of the accounts were written by people who claimed to have actually seen Jesus. Since there is such a large difference between us and God, and that the strongest of leaders should not get corrupted, one would suspect the same would be true of a being infinitely stronger than our strongest. Another question is why would God want to get corrupted? People only become corrupt if they need something. What does God need? The argument is not that all existence rests on God but that existence can only have been triggered by God. I am not redifining God, I am talking about what is neccesary for the universe to exist. All that is neccesary is an infinte being or thing that is able to cause other beings or things to exist. This we call God. You cannot define something out of existence. You can't add non-existence to the ontology of a bunny and expect it to exist. In the same way, you can't do that for God, just as I am not defining God into existence. I'm not argueing for arbituary definitions. I'm saying that existence itself NEEDS at least a causeless cause in order to exist. This, so far, is a neccesity. Add other qualities such as bonevelence and omnipotence and then we're in the question zone. It has been researched, and the best theory as yet is that the universe had a beggining. This is all I am saying. Not against me at all. Not a God I am argueing for. The problem with your debating stance is that you think that once you've seen one theist you've seen them all, and that they all think the same. Besides, whatever stance I take you should argue with the arguments, not what I personally think about it.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 14, 2002 13:48:19 GMT -5
NOTE: Last post went over 5000 characters, second post.
Since the big bang began time then anything which is before or outside that is timeless. This is not changing any definitions, its simple logic. I am not defining something into existence, I am using the proof of existence itself (which is the only thing we can ever truly know ever).
If causality only makes sense in the context of the universe then I am right in saying that the universe either was caused, or was an infinite regress of finite causes.
|
|