Have a look at this here website:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Step through the 'quiz', see what happens. I'd be interested in seeing the 4-ch'ers responses.
Indeed. This dodging game gets old fast.
Let's try this one:
> You see, if you really wanted to have a rational discussion, you would provide your basis for rationality even if you disagreed with my demand for it.
Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
Now tell me why I am wrong.
>Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
Very well, I need to know more about your worldview in order to properly respond. On what basis do you claim that your God, 'The FSM,' is the precondition for intelligibility. Please support your claim.
>>172 for me to not believe in absolute truth, it is irrelevant whether that is my belief is an absolute truth. You are pressing me to decide whether there is absolute truth even though I (in my only post here yet) already mentioned that I don't believe in that.
Maybe you are struggling with the concept 'to believe' or at least the way I used it here. I say believe, because with my limited understanding of the rules (assuming there are rules) of the realm in which I live I believe it is impossible to make strong statements. In the situation that I live in, I am thus not able to validate the existence of any absolute truth. Withouth at least the knowledge of an absolute truth, it is imho impossible to identify an absolute truth.
So your challenge should be - if you take this topic seriously, and if you wish henceforth to be taken serious here - to show how it is possible arrive at a certainty, when you're inside a world of uncertainty.
My worldview is the exact same as your except whenever you would say "god" I say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster", and if you should feel like referencing the bible, I reference the Flying Spaghetti Bible, which is constructed in a similar way.
Is it absolutely true that it is irrelevant whether your belief is an absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that I am pressing you to decide whether there is absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that you believe it is impossible to make strong statements?
Is it absolutely true that you are not able to validate the existence of absolute truth?
You can't escape it man. Denying absolute truth is self-refuting.
Please give the FSM Bible references, which explain the nature of the FSM, the precondition for universal, abstract invariants, and the justification for the uniformity of nature so I can examine them and propery respond.
Just take your own arguments and replace "god" with "FSM". I already told you.
Actually I use my Bible to support my claims, you use your Bible.
From what I can gather the FSM is a 'physical' being, with at least one component being 'spaghetti.' This already distinguishes it from God as God is non-physical, so interchanging God with the FSM does not work.
Please correct me if I am wrong, and give me the FSM bible references to support your claims.
You just don't understand this argument, do you?
The thing that I do not understand is your worldview. I need the details so I can refute it. Please give the FSM Bible references so I can examine them and refute them. Surely you didn't make up your claims?!? See, now you are just playing a new game of dodge. I have agreed to refute your claim, yet you will not provide details of it. You cannot support this worldview or the one you actually do hold.
In other words, you don't understand the argument.
I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
> I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
If the "God" in your worldview has the exact same definition, with the exact same attributes, as defined and justified by the exact same book, then you would believe in Christianity, except do so in your own 'language.' I would have no problem with that. You, however, use a different book, to define a different God, with different attributes. I am asking you to defend the God of your worldview, with your 'bible.' You just keep running away from the question. Please give me the FSM bible references which support your claims.
Again, it is glaringly obvious that you can neither support your fallacious belief in the FSM or in the worldview that you actually hold.
The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist. It seems you still do not understand the argument.
And the "I'm not, you are" thing is getting pretty old. That's yet more childish parroting, and you should be capable of better than that if you had an actual argument.
>>213
lol, semantics.
uhoh, starts to feel like talking to |_|lrich again.
anyway, I think this is a nice prank, although a bit discomforting at first because I thought you actually had an idea where you were going to.
But it looks like you don't know an answer yourself, either. You are stuck asking other people 'insightful' questions without being able to explain why we (in your opinion) don't seem to get it. I've asked you before to please explain that. These questions like 'is it absolutely true that proofofgodexists is a dweeb?' will not be answered by me again. <-- is not an absolute truth, its an approach to an absolute truth since I cannot tell the future. So try again, please.
As an alternative answer to you; fine you found a proof that god exists. Now you need to prove that your proof is valid. good luck, kid.
one more thing, out of curiosity I finally went inside your confined tunnel of 'proof' until I hit the 'absolute morality' wall. What ever made you think people even try to observe moral laws obediently, let alone following some moral laws that are coherent within a system that surpasses human behaviours? unless of course you say "well, duh, but where did those laws come from, then?" with the obvious answer "GOD uhuh, uhuh, uhuh..!" Of course I presume you wouldn't fall for such a simple cycling logic?
but I distract. please answer the >>215 first if you can.
203<<
actually, sorry, but forget about me. After more investigation it seems you won't be able to think along any lines other than your own lines of thought. Um, maybe you're just going too quickly for me, perhaps you're missing out a few steps that seem huge for me but insignificant for you.
And about the God thing, isn't it much more practical to just accept God in your life? I think I do, but He hasn't bothered to come by and say "thank you for being so open" and I haven't received any powers either (actually, unless I can't cause massive collateral damage with such powers, I'm not really interested) - still, the fact that there is currently no feedback (dead line?) at all doesn't worry me too much, cuz yknow, if He wants something from me, I'll notice that sooner or later, won't I?
There's no need for you to pray for me, that I may find God. He's everywhere, I don't need to waste my time looking for stuff that's omnipresent.
well, thats what I believe...for now......
>The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist.
Look, I pointed out one huge difference already, your God being at least partially comprised of 'physical' spaghetti. The God I posit is immaterial.
You should be highly embarrased that the best you can do to attempt to refute my worldview is to claim Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. I ask you to support your claim and of course I get NOTHING, just like your previous worldview - ZIPPO.
If you continue in this useless vein, I will no longer reply to your posts.
Um ,is it absolutely true that it "is not an absolute truth, and that it's an approach to an absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that you cannot tell the future?
These questions are not the proof of course, they merely point out the absurdity of denying absolute truth.
The proof is a 'transcendental proof,' i.e. proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Just like you would prove the validity of the laws of logic. In the site I demonstrate how the Christian worldview accounts for universal, abstract, invariants and therefore the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternate explanation and justification for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature. As you can see, no one has taken up the challenge.
>What ever made you think people even try to observe moral laws obediently, let alone following some moral laws that are coherent within a system that surpasses human behaviours?
What does the existence of absolute moral laws have to do with obedience to them?
>>218
It seems you do not really understand what >>213 is talking about (Please remember, not all persons are the same here).
>>213 is asking you why someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
would be wrong, while you would be right.
>still, the fact that there is currently no feedback (dead line?) at all doesn't worry me too much,
Well since you cannot account for logic, or science without God (let alone your existence), I would say that everyone of your thoughts is feeback.
>if He wants something from me, I'll notice that sooner or later, won't I?
Absolutely, but might I advise you find out sooner, rather than later.
I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence? Can he only be the necessary precondition for intelligibility if he is entirely immaterial?
(And if he is entirely immaterial, then what's the deal with Jesus?)
>>213 is asking you why someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
He is not the christian god.
The christian god does not exist.
would be wrong, while you would be right.
No one has positted such a worldview here. If anyone would, I would be happy to refute it.
That was exactly what I posited. You really are not understanding the argument at all!
>>224
Ok. Go.
>I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence?
No part of it.
> Can he only be the necessary precondition for intelligibility if he is entirely immaterial?
God IS immaterial. I would have to see an argument for a physical god being the necessary preconditions for intelligibility in order to evaluate the rationality of such a worldview.
(And if he is entirely immaterial, then what's the deal with Jesus?)
God in His dvine nature is immaterial spirit, but had physical elements in His human nature. Only the eternal nature of God is 'entirely' immaterial.
>That was exactly what I posited. You really are not understanding the argument at all!
No, you positted the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and did not defend how it or its bible is exactly like the God of Christianity, and our Bible.
>> I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence?
> No part of it.
Then why did you bother talking about the FSM being physical, if it doesn't matter?
No, don't bother answering that. Just answer >>213 properly.
> No, you positted the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and did not defend how it or its bible is exactly like the God of Christianity, and our Bible.
I said, and I repeat:
I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
With the additional clarification:
The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist.
Please try to keep up, and answer >>213 properly. Or just pretend it doesn't exist and answer >>224 instead. Either way.
>Then why did you bother talking about the FSM being physical, if it doesn't matter?
His claim was that his God was exactly the same as the God of Christianity, I pointed out a glaring difference. It had nothing to do with the justification for intelligibility (yet).
Surely you can see the problem with his argument?!? He says his god and his bible are exactly the same as the God of Christianity and our Bible. I asked him to support his claim, which he has not done, and obviously cannot do.
>I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
I would have to see the claim and the justification for it to answer properly. As far as I know such a worldview does not exist, so the argument is non sequitur. He (or you) was not positting such a god, and as I said, I will glady refute any real worldview which anyone here has which is contrary to the truth of Christianity.
Would you please try to understand that in a logical argument, such as the one I am trying to have with you no matter how hard you try to avoid it, one does not need to honestly believe everything one says in order to have it accepted? You can not dodge a question just because someone does not really believe it. If you want to have a logical argument, please abide by these rules. If you do not want to have a logical argument, please admit that your supposed proof of god is not logically sound and you can not defend it.
>Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
This is what I am refuting. Once you tell me how you account for logic, and the uniformity of nature in your worldview, I will be happy to have a logical discussion with you.
Just because you cannot, you revert back to your old argument.
Should I take this as an admission that you will simply not abide by the normal rules of a logical argument?
I surely will, as soon as you give me the justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and tell me why anyone SHOULD 'abide by the normal rules of a logical argument,' according to YOUR worldview. Without that, you are just blowing hot air.
While you are at it, why don't you tell me what the "normal rules' of a logical argument are according to your worldview.
I don't think anybody but you will disagree if I here draw the conclusion that you are completely incapable of logically supporting your supposed proof of god, despite being given an incredible amount of time and patience to do so.
Instead, you make up rules of your own that are completely non-sensical to any student of philosophy and logic, and use them to dodge any question that threatens your position. You really seem to have no interest in arguing your case honestly.
In summary, you have completely failed to support your claims. Does anyone disagree, other than "Proofthatgodexists"?
They are the same as everyone else's, except maybe yours. Take my earlier advice and attend some classes in philosophy, or read some decent books on the subject, to find out more. I really do not feel like teaching you basic philosophy here. That really is your job to do before getting into the argument in the first place.
Okay, I've come back to this after a day and I see we've reached the point where you agree that your arguments rests on the Christian God being right and not just any God. This makes logical sense because logic was coming from just any old god, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then anyone could claim to be divinely inspired.
How about this, Proofthatgodexists: Let's forget about silly hypothetical things, because we don't need flying spaghetti monsters to disprove your argument.
I MYSELF know what is moral and what is not, but I do not believe in God.
How is this so? Because my morals come from myself. When I read the Bible, I see Jesus says a lot of smart things, but when I read Buddhist teachings or medieval Muslim expositions I recognize a lot of the same truths.
There are a few responses to this. The first is: "If you know which morals are correct, obviously you didn't come up with this yourself, because these morals came from the Christian God." No. Because the Christian God says things such as "an eye for an eye" and ordered killings of the Jews' enemies back in ancient times, and I don't believe those are moral.
The second, which I think is closer to what you're getting at, is: "Sure, you might think you know what's moral. But if you disagree with the Bible on anything, then you are wrong." How would you expect to argue logically with a Muslim on that point? He would say you're wrong, and you would say he's wrong, and you would resolve nothing.
You think you have divided up your argument into two separate things: first prove that God exists, then prove that the God is the Christian God. But actually you have proven nothing. What you have effectively proven is that "MORALS COME FROM SOMEWHERE," and if atheists say "morals come from the individual," making up silly hypothetical cases about child abuse is just as helpful to your eventual cause of converting us to Christianity as pointing out the immorality of jihad is to a Muslim.
And why is this so? Because while atheists recognize that child abuse is morally abhorrent, this does not conflict at all with our view that morality is determined by the individual and has numerous outside influences. In fact, it's helpful for us, because it allows us to view the judicial system as something that's supposed to remedy problems rather than punish people for disobeying God; and thus, murder is a high crime in agreement with the Ten Commandments, but rape (not mentioned in the Ten Commandments) is just as bad a crime, and adultery (mentioned in the Ten Commandments) is usually not a crime at all because we recognize that it is often its own punishment, and we feel no need to put someone to death for adultery just because God says so. And child abuse, or the Holocaust, are both crimes not because of Jesus or God, but because this is our society and we say so.
In summary, you have completely failed to support your claims. Does anyone disagree, other than "Proofthatgodexists"?
Um, that would be the logical fallacy of an 'argument ad populum.'
Look, I agree that the rules of logic are universal, my question is, and has always been, how do you account for this apart from God?
You cannot. QED.
> I MYSELF know what is moral and what is not, but I do not believe in God.
Of course according to the Christian claim, you know what is moral because God has 'written it on your heart.' If morality were arbitrary, you could not KNOW what was moral, you could only have a moral preference.
>Because the Christian God says things such as "an eye for an eye" and ordered killings of the Jews' enemies back in ancient times, and I don't believe those are moral.
In the progressive revelation in the Bible, the Old Testament Jews were under the 'old covenant,' and under God's direct command for war etc. Under the 'new covenant,' Christ died as the payment for sin, and Christians are commanded to seek peace.
The burden of proof was never on me. You are the one who claims to have a proof of god, and thus it is up to you to justify this. But you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling to do this, and thus I can only conclude that you are unable to do so.
An argument ad populum would be if I said that you are wrong because most people think you are wrong. This happens to be the case, but I do not think it proves you wrong. I am asking other people's opinions merely to point out to you that you have failed to convince anyone that you are correct. As the burden of proof has always lain on you, failing to convince anyone would count as a failure.
>Because my morals come from myself.
The problem is, so do the morals of murders, rapists, and child molesters. If man is the measure of all things, which man?
>When I read the Bible, I see Jesus says a lot of smart things, but when I read Buddhist teachings or medieval Muslim expositions I recognize a lot of the same truths.
The problem here is that Buddha has zero authority, and the Muslims affirm that the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and the prophets are true, yet refute themselves by countering them in the Qur'an.
Here is another disproof, which you can deal with separately: Should we honor our fathers and mothers, as the Ten Commandments says, or should we hate our fathers and mothers, as Jesus clearly commands (Luke 14:26)? I am not mocking the words of Jesus, but he does say "hate." But obviously the answer is to respect our parents. Why is that? Because these are both subject to interpretation, and Jesus is clearly using hyperbole, whereas the Second Commandment is literal. Here's a Christian source to back me up:
http://www.equip.org/free/JAL014.htm
Proofthatgodexists, notice what this source says:
> How can we tell when a statement is hyperbolic? The test is easy: whenever a statement cannot be literally true in the way or to the degree to which the statement claims, it must be exaggerated.
WHO decides that it's hyperbolic? THE INDIVIDUAL DOES. There is nowhere in the Bible that says "by the way, this is hyperbole so don't actually hate your parents." There are other sources from the first century AD that use "hate" in a similarly hyperbolic sense, but the interpretation of that particular phrase, "hate his own father and mother," is ultimately up to the INDIVIDUAL.
So, here we have a case where Christianity fails us just as much as atheism does for the child abuse thing. But don't say "Christianity is still better because in every case except this one it gives moral guidance." I have disproven your statement for one case, so I have disproven it for every case. Do you see why this is? In this case, the individual has to make a decision. He decides that the Ten Commandments version is the literal truth and Jesus's words are the metaphor, because he is a rational person. How do we define "rational?" NOT in terms of the Bible! The Bible can't tell us which is rational because it uses both "honor" and "hate." Rationality, and morality, lies in the mind of the individual for this case.
Every line in the Bible is yours to interpret. How do you figure out which is right? Oh, you use common sense... and where does common sense come from? Oh, from God... and how do we know what God considers common sense in a sticky situation? Oh, we read the Bible...
Oops, you're fast! Let me read your comment.
Thanks for your response, although it simply goes back to what you said before.
> The problem is, so do the morals of murders, rapists, and child molesters. If man is the measure of all things, which man?
The Bible is no help here. A pedophile could justify himself by quoting Mark 10:13. And how do we know his interpretation is wrong? Well, we have the obvious line "Love your neighbor as yourself" which you quoted before. But can't that line be interpreted, too? Every line in the Bible can be misinterpreted! How do we know what's right? Well, our morals come from God. And how do we know what God thinks... etc...
According to what rule of logic is the burden of proof on me, and how do you account for that rule of logic in your worldview?
>Every line in the Bible is yours to interpret. How do you figure out which is right?
You interpret the Bible with the Bible. People will be held accountable for unrepentently interpreting the Bible for their own selfish gains. It is obvious from the rest of Christ's teachings that He was using hyperbole in that statement.
Tell me, what is your worldview, and how do you account for the laws of logic which you are attempting to employ in your attempt to refute Christianity?
Surely you would agree that someone who interpreted 'love your neighbour,' as 'rape children,' would be without excuse for such a selfish, fallacious, disgusting, interpretation?
I am a Buddhist. I believe that logic and morality are determined by myself. Now, I don't know where the laws of science come from-- if you'd like to prove that God exists maybe you should make a website pursuing that line of reasoning.
> People will be held accountable for unrepentently interpreting the Bible for their own selfish gains.
By who? By God? Not on this planet. If someone covets his neighbor's possessions, nobody cares here on Earth. And if you want to prove the Christian God exists by reminding us that he's going to judge us in the afterlife, you're going back to a rather medieval circular reasoning.
> It is obvious from the rest of Christ's teachings that He was using hyperbole in that statement.
Who says it's obvious? A schizophrenic person might think the "hate your parents" statement is perfectly logical. Who will tell him he is wrong?
>I am a Buddhist. I believe that logic and morality are determined by myself.
Can anyone make up their own law of logic such that it would be true? According to your worldview, what is good, what is bad, and why should anyone be good?
>Now, I don't know where the laws of science come from-- if you'd like to prove that God exists maybe you should make a website pursuing that line of reasoning.
Um www.proofthatgodexists.org (It's there).
>By who? By God? Not on this planet. If someone covets his neighbor's possessions, nobody cares here on Earth. And if you want to prove the Christian God exists by reminding us that he's going to judge us in the afterlife, you're going back to a rather medieval circular reasoning.
Yes, by God, whenever and however He pleases in accordance with his just nature. And no, the fact that God punishes sin is not the proof of His existence.
>Who says it's obvious? A schizophrenic person might think the "hate your parents" statement is perfectly logical. Who will tell him he is wrong?
Hey, If anyone wants to stand before God saying: "I thought by 'love your neighbour,' you meant 'rape children,' that is up to them. I would not suggest it however.
> Can anyone make up their own law of logic such that it would be true?
Sure. Maybe there is a rambling, illogical nutcase somewhere out there who is actually perfectly right and we'll never know. That's just something you have to deal with in life.
> According to your worldview, what is good, what is bad, and why should anyone be good?
Good and bad are determined by the individual. You can say they are rewarded by society, or they benefit you, but that's not always the case. It is your opinion alone that makes YOU decide whether you've lived a virtuous life.
There's another disproof of your argument, by the way. Whether you've been good is your decision! Obviously since you know God so well, you can say whether things are good or bad and you'll be right. But in this everyday world, nobody can stop other people from making incorrect judgements. Let's imagine you, the God-fearing Christian, live in a society that rewards the greedy and corrupt, and punishes the charitable. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. When will they realize they are evil? Only when God casts his final and undeniable judgement! Until then, "good" and "evil" are words used only by those corrupt people, and maybe they will even write a dictionary defining them the wrong way. Nobody will know how wrong they are until God comes out of the clouds and actually tells them.
In this way you can see that "good" and "evil" are sort of different words when you use them than when I use them. In your view, "good" is a virtue that was defined by God. But my definition need not include God.
> Um www.proofthatgodexists.org (It's there).
If I skip the moral thing and agree that the laws of physics are unchanging we come to "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." Uh... oh. I thought the word "God" came with a lot more baggage than just "something that makes science work." You need to work on that section. But I don't want to argue with you about that so let's ignore it.
> Yes, by God, whenever and however He pleases in accordance with his just nature.
So you're saying that God judges us here on Earth. Hey, that's a proof in itself! Forget all this dumb philosophical stuff, let's start talking about how God manifests himself to let us know which interpretation is correct.
> Hey, If anyone wants to stand before God saying: "I thought by 'love your neighbour,' you meant 'rape children,' that is up to them. I would not suggest it however.
Neither would I, but once again this presupposes that God exists!! We aren't even talking about that yet, we are still on Earth, wondering which interpretation to believe.
Oops, I just realized that you can easily ignore my second two statements and we might get into an argument about the first three, which are all kind of rambling and not really to the point.
My point is:
The Bible can be misinterpreted. But there is no obvious evidence that here on Earth, God punishes those who interpret it incorrectly. So, without dying and going to Heaven/Hell, how do we know which interpretation is correct? And how is that better than believing in no Bible at all?
>Sure. Maybe there is a rambling, illogical nutcase somewhere out there who is actually perfectly right and we'll never know.
Are the laws of logic universal, unchanging and immaterial?
> Good and bad are determined by the individual.
Can torturing babies for fun ever be good according to your worldview?
>It is your opinion alone that makes YOU decide whether you've lived a virtuous life.
Would the opinion of a child molester who believed he lived a virtuous life be true?
>But in this everyday world, nobody can stop other people from making incorrect judgements.
This does not mean that there are no correct judgements?
>Let's imagine you, the God-fearing Christian, live in a society that rewards the greedy and corrupt, and punishes the charitable. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. When will they realize they are evil?
They would already know that they are evil as God has written His law on their hearts.
>Until then, "good" and "evil" are words used only by those corrupt people
"Good" and "Evil" are meaningless words apart from an absolute standard. Those words are meaningful only because there IS an absolute standard.
>So you're saying that God judges us here on Earth.
I'm saying that He can judge us wherever, and whenever He pleases in accordance with His nature.
>Neither would I, but once again this presupposes that God exists!! We aren't even talking about that yet, we are still on Earth, wondering which interpretation to believe.
Logic, and rationality are impossible without presupposing that God exists. You could not wonder about anything if Christianity were not true. Contrary to your claim that the laws of logic are 'individual,' they are in fact universal, abstract, and invariant. This cannot be accounted for outside of God. I would be happy to discuss the nature of the laws of logic with you if you still disagree.
>The Bible can be misinterpreted. But there is no obvious evidence that here on Earth, God punishes those who interpret it incorrectly.
The evidence is clear within the Bible that God must and does punish evil.
>So, without dying and going to Heaven/Hell, how do we know which interpretation is correct?
We will be held accountable for any unrepentent interpretation which is contrary to the laws which God has written on our hearts.
>And how is that better than believing in no Bible at all?
Without believing in the Bible, you lose the preconditions for intelligibiliy, and the justification for logic, science, and morality. In effect, you could not know ANYTHING, if the Bible were not true. Also, the Bible tells us about the only hope we have to be put right with God.
> Can torturing babies for fun ever be good according to your worldview?
My worldview? No way.
> Would the opinion of a child molester who believed he lived a virtuous life be true?
According to me? No. How could we get an objective statement on this? Of course according to you God knows who's right, but if God doesn't exist nobody knows. And that's my belief. It might seem kind of odd to you but to me it is simply a lack of illusion-- when I judge people, I am judging them based on my own morals. Even if I believed in God I would pretend I could make judgements for him. Jesus told me not to.
> Logic, and rationality are impossible without presupposing that God exists.
I am not going to argue with you about logic because that's semantics. Logic, like morality and math, is something that exists only in our heads. You say that some higher power created it. Who cares? It is still only in our heads. If it's worth anything to you, I place my full faith in the laws of mathematics and logic. Does that mean I'm a Christian? I don't think so. I won't find any new revelations about logic or math in the Bible. No, what you want me to believe is that the Bible tells me how to live my life, and that is wholly within the sphere of morality.
> The evidence is clear within the Bible that God must and does punish evil.
How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
The fact is that God punishes evil in such mysterious ways that there is no hard evidence for it at all.
> We will be held accountable for any unrepentent interpretation which is contrary to the laws which God has written on our hearts.
Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again. I wish you would stop doing that. I know you're saying God is obvious, but you are trying to prove God's existence, not remind us how obvious it is.
> Without believing in the Bible, you lose the preconditions for intelligibiliy, and the justification for logic, science, and morality. In effect, you could not know ANYTHING, if the Bible were not true. Also, the Bible tells us about the only hope we have to be put right with God.
But I believe it's not true and I do know things. Oops! Am I just lying to myself? This is not an argument, it is a claim, and you need to back up this claim with an argument.
> Should we honor our fathers and mothers, as the Ten Commandments says, or should we hate our fathers and mothers, as Jesus clearly commands (Luke 14:26)? I am not mocking the words of Jesus, but he does say "hate."
just thought i'd point out that he doesn't say "hate". he says "μισει", which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by
extension, to love less".
here is luke 14:26 in wycliffe's translation:
If ony man cometh to me, and hatith [Note: that is, lesse loueth hem than God. ] not his fadir, and modir, and wijf, and sones, and britheren, and sistris, and yit his owne lijf, he may not be my disciple.
corrections:
"Even if I believed in God I wouldn't* pretend I..."
"...and that is wholly within the sphere of morality"-- this is wrong, you also want me to believe Jesus died for my sins and that's in the realm of spirituality = not something we can argue about.
> he says "μισει", which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less".
IANA Greek Scholar but that "extension" is actually a cultural possibility and is open to interpretation in each individual case.
>>261
yes, but it makes a lot more sense than the other possibility in that verse.
if someone says "4chan sucks", do you assume that by "suck" they mean "to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue"?
No, but I'm a reasonable fellow, and the statement "4chan sucks" is not being read as the infallible word of God. Although it ought to be.
Okay, I've been talking for two hours so I need to go do other stuff now. I'll look back at what you have to say later.
Remember, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to be a Christian. For all I know you could be right. But here's a parable for you:
I am a clueless non-religious person. Ten people come to my door. Each is carrying a scripture, pamphlets, etc. Each one addresses me thusly: "Sir, I would like to share some good news with you. I have a copy of our scriptures with me that tells the 'truth' about God, you, me, life, death, eternity, and everything." They tell me their stories one after another.
They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
>My worldview? No way.
So, according to your worldview, torturing babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong. I thought morality was up to the individual?
>According to me? No.
Truth is not arbitrary.
>How could we get an objective statement on this?
Truth is objective. Feel free to try to refute this. (you might want to scroll up a few posts first though).
>if God doesn't exist nobody knows. And that's my belief.
If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
>Logic, like morality and math, is something that exists only in our heads.
Something 'in our heads' cannot be universal or invariant, as the laws of logic are. Feel free to argue this point, I will be happy to respond.
>How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
What does your belief have to do with whether or not God punishes people in the afterlife? What is his punishment according to your worldview, and how do you know this?
>Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again.
When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
>But I believe it's not true and I do know things.
That's why the Bible teaches that you DO know God but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1, 18-20)
>They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
> You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
...and christianity ends up somewhere at the bottom of the pile. You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
You have repeatedly failed to support this argument.
> You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
examples plx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible
One very telling phrase is:
> The Roman Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that God intended to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory.
In other words, very selective and creative reading is required.
Maybe for Catholics, but not for me.
Besides, no one here has yet given justification for the rationality one would use to evaluate the Christian worldview anyway.
Nevermind that this is partially copypasted, but you just seem to always dodge answering this simple question.
Why would someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
be wrong, while you would be right?
Important hints, since you didn't get it the last 20 or so times:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Just answer the question. Why would this person be wrong, while you would be right?
So how do you explain away all the inconsistencies in the bible, then?
I interpret the Bible according to my presupposition that it is the inspired infallible word of God. What you interpret as an inconsitency, I would not. That is not say that I understand every facet of the Bible, but since it gives the only preconditions for intelligibility, and the logic with which one uses to argue against anything, I find myself on a firm epistemological foundation.
>It does not matter if someone actually believes in this. It is possible for someone to believe in this, that is enough.
It is possible for someone to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, but without justification for rationality, such a belief is irrelevant.
I deal with real worldviews. If you care to posit one, I will be happy to refute it.
>>276
DO NOT.
ATTEMPT.
TO.
DODGE.
THE.
QUESTION.
Read carefully:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Then again, pretty much everyone who reads this has probably noticed that you either really do not understand the argument, or that you knowingly dodge the question because you cannot answer it.
So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
For reference, see >>271, or why not http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html.
PS:
> I deal with real worldviews.
No, you deal only in arguments you can defeat, and dodge those you can't.
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DODGE THE QUESTION.
The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
I am not dodging your question. I am telling you that it is irrelevant. Until you give evidence for such a worldview, all you are doing is positting an impossible hypotheitcal, and asking me if it could be possible. My answer is no. Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
Why are you dealing in hypotheticals anyway, just tell me what you really believe and I will be happy to refute it.
> Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
In other words... It is impossible because you are right and it is wrong? So basically you presuppose that you are right?
>So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
Look, you assume that the statements are contradictory because of your presupposition that the Bible is not infallible, I on the other hand look for the proper context and translation which shows that the statements are in fact not contradictory.
The difference is that I can account for the logic which says that contradictions are not allowed, while you cannot. Tell me why, according to your worldview, are contracictions not allowed? Once you do that, we can examine the texts.
Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
>So basically you presuppose that you are right?
No, I presuppose that God exists, and that the Bible is His infallible word. With such a presupposition I can account for 'rightness' and 'wrongness' and the very logic YOU use to try to argue against my presuppositions, while you cannot.
>Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
As soon as you tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview. You see if they are allowed, I would be wasting my time.
This is a very simple request, but I know why you ALL are avoiding it.
They are not allowed because:
This can't be right, now, can it?
>The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
And why would that matter? You are trying to argue against arguments, not against people, right? Also, the burden of proof is upon you, since you are trying to proove somthing, while people arguing against you are trying to disprove you. People who are not trying to prove someone wrong can ignore arguments and just try a new approach, one succesful approach is enough. People who are trying to prove that their argumentation is correct can not, since they have to show that each and every argument, even possible argument, is invalid.
Anyways...
Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted. This means:
Why would I be wrong while you would be right?
Read the challenge again, I asked you to explain why contradictions are not allowed according to YOUR worldview.
I know why they are not allowed according to MY worldview. You demonstrate my point very well though, you cannot account for the laws of logic apart from my worldview. Thank you.
Are you questioning my faith? I am already having a crisis here since it seems that my beliefs mean God does not exist, are you trying to make this worse?
"People who are not trying" should be "People who are trying". Sorry, typo'd.
>Proof that god exists? There is none. So why such a long convresation about something we already know? Believing in a god takes faith, not fact or rational thinking of any kind.
How do you know that the reasoning you use to make this statement, is valid? I submit that you have blind faith in your ability to reason.
>Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted
Support your worldview please. What is the name of your god, what is the Bible of your worldview, and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
>>293
As of all of this mattered, but ok, I'm going to go along with your little game of "me no understand".
>What is the name of your god,
>what is the Bible of your worldview
Your bible, with all names that would make it the christian bible changed to their reverse version, and >>273's statements added.
>and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
For that, you can just look at http://proofthatgodexists.org/ (Same changes as in my bible apply)
Same question.
Are you refusing to offer your guidance to a fellow christian in need, by not responding to >>287?
A christian is not allowed a crisis of faith? I am asking you for guidance to resolve this crisis and bring me back into the fold! Why do you deny me this?
If you just change the names, then it IS the God of Christianity but in a different 'language.' Not all languages say the name of God the same way. What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
300