|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted July 11, 2013 02:09 PM |
|
|
<< wait until the day you kiss your mother's cold forehead >.
Stop. Please, stop this.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 02:43 PM |
|
|
@ Artu
Quote:
Quote:
As a Christian I DO have evidence my God exists, whether it is evidence any non-theist accepts or not. Non-theists do not have, and cannot have any evidence for their faith that God does not exist.
No you don't. It's that simple. If you did your faith would be common knowledge, if not scientific knowledge. You are just unaware of the meaning of the word evidence. Not to mention it is impossible to have evidence of something's non-existence unless you are omnipresent and omniscient. Burden of proof is upon existence of things (yet another simple rule you keep dodging daily in the OSM).
As useless as this discussion is - he and you talk about EVIDENCE, not proof. Now, EVIDENCE is something that is interpreted as pointing to something, and often the expectation of what you would like a certain something to be evidence for lets you look for specific evidence.
The vastness of the universe, for example, might be taken as evidence for or against the existence of God - or even any god - depending on how your assumptions are.
The bottom line is, that Elodin takes things to be evidence pointing to the existence of the Christian God as "logical" or "only possible" conclusion, while we would take other or maybe even the same things to be pointing to the non-existence of the Christian God.
Keep in mind that we are obviously not arguing about the SCIENTIFIC meaning of evidence, but of the PHILOSOPHICAL meaning, since we cannot formulate a scientific theory or even hypothesis involving God.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:15 PM |
|
|
Well, the dictionary says proof and evidence are synonyms but fine, let's take your nuance as valid not to get lost in technicalities. Let us assume evidence means indicator.
a)Do you really think Elodin uses the word evidence as in indicator like you do? I don't. I think he simply means proof.
b)How would you relate the vastness of universe to such a local custom that is limited both historically and geographically? I mean, I can imagine a deistic or even non-cultural theistic approach but after that I think it would be stretching logic beyond reason.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:30 PM |
|
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:43 PM |
|
|
You assume God has to heal them. God doesn't "have to" do anything 
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:44 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:47, 11 Jul 2013.
|
Yes, not bad. I had already said people who don't pray sometimes beats off the odds too and here's the same thing with a clearer expression:
There are not two laws of probability -- one for people who pray and one for everyone else. There is a single law of probability that applies equally to everyone. Prayers have zero effect in any statistical study.
Quote:
You assume God has to heal them. God doesn't "have to" do anything
Obviously, you didn't even bother to read it. That rationalization is mentioned and answered.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:49 PM |
|
|
Obviously, you forgot our agreement...
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, the dictionary says proof and evidence are synonyms but fine, let's take your nuance as valid not to get lost in technicalities. Let us assume evidence means indicator.
a)Do you really think Elodin uses the word evidence as in indicator like you do? I don't. I think he simply means proof.
b)How would you relate the vastness of universe to such a local custom that is limited both historically and geographically? I mean, I can imagine a deistic or even non-cultural theistic approach but after that I think it would be stretching logic beyond reason.
Elodin is a contemporary person, so the "vastness of the universe" is something not alien to him.
While he might take the fact as an evidence for the omnipotence of the creator - remember, something isn't coming out of nothing, he says -, we may take the vastness as evidence for the contrary, since we would think that within such an infinity we are rather insignificant - TOO insignificant to matter in the way the Bible says.
Maybe the example wasn't that good, though.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 03:59 PM |
|
|
|
Nope, it was you who first engaged in an argument I was actively in and replied to me (Newton). You cant have it both ways. If you make comments in situations where I'm obviously a participant you cant expect me not to answer. I will if I choose to, not that I'll usually bother to.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:00 PM |
|
|
I didn't quote your post...
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If in such a huge universe and such great length of time, a belief is based on a God who puts some humans above everything else and spends his time watching things such as if they had sex out of wedlock or not, that level of anthropomorphical egocentric behavior can only be described with the word CHILDISH to me. I'm sorry, it's not deep, it's not sophisticated, it's actually quite primitive.
The idea that God has all knowledge is not primitive or childish. Primitive pagan ideas about deity in fact differ a great deal from the Christian view of God. Again, I can interpret your words as nothing more than provocation.
[qutoe]
And I am not truth incarnate, nobody knows the absolute truth but we may know what the truth is NOT. I know such a primitive concept is NOT the truth, that it's so far from it with 99.9999999 percent certainty.
Explain why you are 99.999999% sure God is now all knowing if he exists.
Quote:
Quote:
As a Christian I DO have evidence my God exists, whether it is evidence any non-theist accepts or not. Non-theists do not have, and cannot have any evidence for their faith that God does not exist.
No you don't. It's that simple.
It is quite impossible for you to rationally say I have no evidence for the existence of God.
Quote:
Burden of proof is upon existence of things (yet another simple rule you keep dodging daily in the OSM).
Stop the falsehoods. I dodge nothing.
You make the dogmatic statement that God does not exist. You have not the slightest bit of evidence for you claim. I can point to the Bible, history, the testimony of others, my experiences, the experiences of those close to me, miracles I have personally witnessed, and the universe itself as evidence for God. The scale is in my favor. I have evidence. You do not.
Quote:
Quote:
The New Testament defines who is and who is not a Christian, not you. It explicitly states that no one who murders or hates knows God, as I've quoted numerous times
You again miss the point. Murdering is not necessarily a characteristic, it's sometimes an unexpected situation. People who read and understand the New Testament may not be able to practice that belief in every single situation. People are not perfect. You yourself may go berserk some day, let's say a serial killer butchered your family, you after some time (so it's not self-defense) caught him personally, lost control and killed him in anger. Does that mean you never understood the NT to begin with?
I am not missing any point, you are. The New Testament says anyone who claims to know God but who hates or murders is in fact a liar.
Again, the New Testament, not you, is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:33, 11 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is impossible for you to experience "not God" or "not Jesus." Quote:
Again, wait until the day you kiss your mother's cold forehead. MAYBE you get surprised.
God is not my genie in a bottle. Further, the Bible does not promise me a bed of roses. Quite the opposite. We learn through our hardships and trials.
And we all die. Death is a common human experience. Yes, death has a sting. But death has been defeated already. I will live forever with my God. My mother walked faithfully with God and will be with me as well. I heard her prayers when I was in the hospital with her for 11 days when we had every test run that could be done to make sure the diagnosis of Alzheimer's was correct. She never lost her faith or love for her God.
Quote:
And has I remember your Jesus experienced it...
Not that I'm a fan of gospels (well, the music style I am...) but what do you think: "Father, why did you abandon me?" means?
Jesus is God existing as a [now glorified] man. Of course when God began to exist a man he did not cease to exist as the ever-present Spirit. Jesus was "forsaken" on the cross (as far as fellowship goes) as he voluntarily became the sacrifice for our sins. The words of Jesus point to Psalms 22, which was a prophecy of the crucifixion of the Christ.
Quote:
It is you I find CHILDISH, incoerent and (I hope, for the better) a liar on the matter of your own personal feelings.
I'm getting tyred of this...
I'm not sure why you feel the need to insult me. I've certainly not thrown insults your way.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:43, 11 Jul 2013.
|
How can you write so many sentences and actually answer nothing, ignore all valid objections and seriously show the Bible or your personal experiences as evidence.
- Why is there a God?
- The Bible says so
- Why does the Bible count?
- God says so.
Scale is not in your favor by any angle because everything you say is only self-fulfilling. I know people who say they experienced Allah, now if that counts as evidence, run to a mosque and convert immediately to be consistent. History?!! 200.000 years of human existence, 2000 years of Christianity (and never with even a close ratio to 51 percent world population) and history backs up your religion, how do you even conclude that? Really just how? And why is it so impossible for you to understand that there is no such thing as proving non-existence of God? It can not be done because such a method can't exist: You can't prove I'm not thinking of the number 12389 right now, why, it is not provable to begin with. Wishful thinking that is not falsifiable isn't even taken into consideration to be proved or not, by your standards you can't prove ANY of the gods dont exist and if such a thing was evidence we would be in a Marvel Special Issue now with thousands of deities.
Quote:
It is quite impossible for you to rationally say I have no evidence for the existence of God.
Present your so-called evidence and see how many people will classify it as evidence or even take it seriously. Or better, run to the nearest university, claim you have proved the existence God with evidence and ask for your Nobel prize. Careful though, they may give you something else.
Quote:
Again, the New Testament, not you, is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine.
Again, I didn't claim to be the authoritative source so that's not an answer. I asked you a very simple question involving yourself as an example. Answer the question instead of repeating yourself.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
|
The New Testament says anyone who claims to know God but who hates or murders is in fact a liar. True. But as humans we are capable of hate and murder even so. We must control ourselves as Christians.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:41 PM |
|
|
@ mvassilev
Quote:
It's only a No True Scotsman if the definition keeps changing, which is not the case here.
Agree, the argument centers on "intent". Would anyone believe a "nice-person" can plan the extermination others? Maybe I don't want to know that answer.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 04:53 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:55, 11 Jul 2013.
|
In the original no true scotsman case, there is no contextual reason for the scotsman not to commit those crimes, it's just an ethnicity. In case of murder and NT, there is a contextual reason that prevents murder. However, as I said, that will only matter if you assume people will always rationally follow the doctrines they believe in. They don't and if you look at the definition of the fallacy, you will see it fits:
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 05:42 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 18:24, 11 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Further if I am capable of understanding something it does not mean that someone else is also capable of grasping it.
Objective experience is something everyone can grasp and understand. If I gave you results of some scientific research, you can see how some things work because there were factors measured and checked by several people. You can agree with it or say that this research isn't reliable, but you can actually have some view on something that you, I and many other people see. If you don't agree with me, I can't tell that you just "don't see it" or that "you can't grasp it" - instead of saying that I have more "attributes" than you, I'll assume that you are no worse human than I am.
Now, while I don't deny any spiritual experience (as I'm not sure if I have such an experience or not), I can't say that such experience is objective. You prove that this experience is nothing but subjective, therefore it can't be measured in any possible way that could be understandable for everyone.
Quote:
No, it is not like that at all. If God exists and wants to have a father relationship with us and I embrace that relationship and you deny that relationship we are obviously going to have different experiences in the universe. Mine will be fuller and richer and yours will be lacking.
"If God exists and wants to have a father relationship with us" is a spiritual experience which is subjective. It can't be really measured in any but YOUR way. So your view is "fuller and richer" but only by YOUR standards, therefore it's not really a reliable statement by any meanings.
In other word: yes, I'm "lacking" such an experience, but if you're lacking experiences of pantheism, gay love, being injured in a car accident, allergy to chicken and breeding a chickadee, is my experience more well-rounded than yours by any meanings?
Quote:
I know of no atheists who claim to have encounters with God.
"Spiritual" does not necessarily mean "with God" and I said that.There are atheists who are buddhists and they're pretty sure about their spiritual experiences. Perhaps you should respond after reading the whole post.
Quote:
The vast majority of atheists are materialists who deny that God exists and deny anything but the material world exists. When I say atheist that is usually the brand of atheism I am speaking of. Sometimes I remember to say "materialistic atheist" and sometimes not.
If there are atheists who deny God's existence but don't deny spiritual experiences (therefore they aren't pure materialistic atheists), are their world views still less well-rounded than yours?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can you write so many sentences and actually answer nothing, ignore all valid objections and seriously show the Bible or your personal experiences as evidence.
So far mostly all you've been doing is "bullying" with insults and false statements.
I actually addressed most of what you said. Most of what you said was "childish" this and "primitive" that.
I asked you to explain why you are 99.9999% certain that if God exists he is not all-knowing and you did not answer.
Quote:
- Why is there a God?
- The Bible says so
- Why does the Bible count?
- God says so.
Who are you quoting? If you claim to be quoting me your claim is false.
Quote:
Scale is not in your favor by any angle because everything you say is only self-fulfilling.
Oh yes, the scale is very much in my favor. You have NO evidence that God exists.
I have quite a bit of evidence that God exists. Like I said, non-theists, and particularly anti-theists may not accept the evidence. However that does not mean those things don't point to the existence of God.
Some of my evidence for God:
1) The universe.
It is irrational to believe that the universe is eternal. It is irrational to believe the universe created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing.
The first cause, the uncaused cause that caused all things had to be: self-existent, eternal, immaterial, spaceless, intelligent, and powerful. Hey, that's the way the Bible describes God. 
2) The Bible
3) My personal experiences.
4) The testimony of others, including people I personally know.
5) Miracles I have witnesses and experienced.
6) History.
I can see God's hand in history. I can see certain things the Bible spoke about beforehand fulfilled.
Again, I have evidence; you do not.
Quote:
200.000 years of human existence, 2000 years of Christianity (and never with even a close ratio to 51 percent world population)
When did I or the Bible say most people would be Christians? Jesus said narrow is the gate and few enter in.
However, Christianity is larger than the tiny cult of atheism, and always will be.
Quote:
Wishful thinking that is not falsifiable isn't even taken into consideration to be proved or not, by your standards you can't prove ANY of the gods dont exist and if such a thing was evidence we would be in a Marvel Special Issue now with thousands of deities.
I don't have to prove any god is not real. I know mine is real.
But the gods of other religions don't match up to what is needed to be the first cause.
Quote:
Again, I didn't claim to be the authoritative source so that's not an answer. I asked you a very simple question involving yourself as an example. Answer the question instead of repeating yourself.
You made the false claim that Christians can murder. The Bible says anyone who hates or murders and says he knows God is a liar. The Bible is right, you are wrong. The Bible, not you defines Christianity.
Quote:
People are not perfect. You yourself may go berserk some day, let's say a serial killer butchered your family, you after some time (so it's not self-defense) caught him personally, lost control and killed him in anger. Does that mean you never understood the NT to begin with?
Rest assured, I'll never go berserk and track down and kill a murderer. It is impossible. I am a Christian.
Mere intellectual understanding of some of the New Testament Scriptures does not make a person a Christian. A person who is a true Christian has been born again of water and of the Spirit. He is a new creation.
Christians are not person but Christians will not hate or murder according to the New Testament, and the New Testament is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 06:19 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 18:26, 11 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Like I said, non-theists, and particularly anti-theists may not accept the evidence.
It's not about accepting, it's about seeing - and if I have to have some spiritual experience (that I can't really gain by myself) to see something that makes my view much better, then it's no longer objective thing and thus can't be measured or even proven. So your evidence is not really an evidence, it's just based on believing if that's evidence or not.
Let me, as a nontheistic guy, point out how do I see your "evidence" of God:
1. It is irrational to believe that ANYTHING is eternal and that ANYTHING created itself out of a state of absolute nothing. Therefore, your God is also irrational, because a rational God must have some cause. The term "first cause" itself is quite irrational to begin with - we have no evidence that such first cause had to exist.
2. Methodology of the Bible is quite disputable, to say the least.
3. and 4. Personal experiences are subjective, not objective - they are not evidence by any meanings. If a subjective experience was an evidence, then I could easily prove anything that would make me look like a psycho.
5. Can you explain what are these miracles and how do they confirm that God exists?
6. I can't see God's hands anywhere. Can you make me see any of these? If not, then I'm afraid that's also a subjective experience, and there's no evidence here.
Quote:
Again, I have evidence; you do not.
Evidence of what? Of God not being present? Well, I'm pretty sure you have no evidence of Svetovid not existing, and since there is "historical evidence" of his existence and I know people who claim he's real, it seems that Svetovid must really exist. Where's your statue of him? Why aren't you giving your mead to him? Why do you deny him and his relationship with you? Or you simply don't want to accept him, huh?
Quote:
Christians are not person
Wow.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 11, 2013 06:25 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:02, 11 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Who are you quoting? If you claim to be quoting me your claim is false.
When you present the Bible as an evidence of God, this is automatically what you're saying:
- Why is there a God?
- The Bible says so.
- Why does the Bible count?
- God says so.
I didn't answer to the omniscient thing because that was not what I said, I said I'm 99.999 percent certain that such an anthropomorphic God (which is obviously originated in some mythology btw)isn't the truth.
Now, let's come to your evidences:
1- The Universe:
Neither scientifically nor philosophically, the existence of the universe necessarily indicates a God. In fact, the people who study and know most about the structure of universe, the scientists are lots of times "from the tiny cult of atheism." Definitely not evidence.
2- The Bible: Look above.
3- My personal experiences: That's the definition of subjective, something NOT wanted in an evidence.
4- Testimony of friends: Yeah, people like you, born into a massively conservative, Christian culture. Why don't any Buddhists ever witness or experience Jesus is still a wonder. Again, definitely not evidence and using Occham's Razor, can be explained in such a simpler way: Cultural conditioning.
5- Miracles: None of them are beyond possible materialistic explanations, you are the one perceiving such things as "miracles." It's not like you witnessed the Red Sea dividing into two.
6- History: I don't understand what you mean by that. You say you dont mean historically most people were monotheists (that's why I gave you the numbers, because you said history is evidence. My answer to: "When did I or the Bible say most people would be Christians? Jesus said narrow is the gate and few enter in.")
How does history prove God? You just line up words but make no meaningful connection to them proving God. You might have also said "6- Cats."
"I can see God's hand in history. I can see certain things the Bible spoke about beforehand fulfilled." is not evidence, they are your PURELY subjective interpretations and they are not even elaborated. As I stated earlier you dont even know what evidence means. And for the hundredth, well by now actually two hundredth time: You can not expect evidence on non-existence of unfalsifiable things, there is no such method, by doing that you may think you're making a clever move but unfortunately it just shows your lack of formation on such matters.
Your "evidence" lacks any criteria to be accepted as valid. Sorry Elodin, the Nobel prize wont decorate your shelf.
@Hobbit
Quote:
Christians are not person
Quote:
Wow.
I think that's a typo (if not a very twisted lapsus ), he meant "Christians are not perfect but..."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
