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.
> No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
> So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?
LOL
Or, to put it less bluntly, of course it's not univerally true because the statement itself denies the concept of "universal truth" as you define it, and in fact it obviously isn't universally true anyway since you disagree with it.
Again, universal truth, has NOTHING to do with subjective agreement to what that truth is.
That would be like the math teacher saying there is no true answer to what is 2+2, because his students couldn't agree on the answer.
My question again: Is your statement "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," univerally true, or only true in your mind?
Formal logic is based on axioms. These are statements that are considered to be always true within the system. If there was room for doubt of these axioms, logic would be a pointless endeavor.
I suppose these axioms are God.
Of course, this means that we can create, destroy and manipulate God at will depending on the purpose we require Him for.
Oh, by the way, now your job is convincing me that the God of the axiom is the same entity as your Biblical God.
>Of course, this means that we can create, destroy and manipulate God at will depending on the purpose we require Him for.
Hardly.
> Oh, by the way, now your job is convincing me that the God of the axiom is the same entity as your Biblical God.
I have never believed, nor do I now believe, that I am capabable of convincing you of anything regarding God. The Bible teaches that you already know God, and that convincing you to submit to Him, is not my jurisdiction.
> Hardly.
Why not?
So was I.
First, since you apparently didn't bother reading them, I'll repeat the OTHER statements from >>361:
> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.
Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.
So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?
>Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.
>So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith
All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.
>>378 congratulations
you are the winner of the thread
you are the winner of life
<<want to play again? YES/NO>>
> That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.
You keep saying this. You have never once shown it to be true. Neither is it an answer to my question.
See, the argument "your worldview can't account for logic!" does not imply that your own can. You have to actually prove that first.
And I can just as well take the view that "logic exists", and thus be on equal footing with you, who claims "god implies logic and logic implies god". Both of us presuppose that we are right.
I could even claim, "logic exists, and god is contrary to logic", therefore, as logic exists (and you have to assume this or else you are not allowed to argue against me!), god does not exist!
(It is easy to see why the existence of god excludes logic - god is omnipotent, and can fool us into believing anything, thus we can never know if anything is true.)
> All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.
So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith? Why is "faith in A, which implies B" better than "faith in B"? Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.
>So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith?
No, I do not have faith in my human reason. I trust its validity as a gift from God. You have blind faith in your ability to reason, as simply presupposing it accounts for nothing.
>Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.
"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed." ~ Paul Manata
> No, I do not have faith in my human reason. I trust its validity as a gift from God. You have blind faith in your ability to reason, as simply presupposing it accounts for nothing.
So? You still have to have faith in something, as opposed to being able to use reason all the way. Once you've taken that step, what does it matter which thing you put your faith in?
> "Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed."
Exactly. So if I want to account for the laws of logic, god is an extra entity that is not needed. You, of course, want him to exist, but that is not sufficient reason to require him in the argument.
>So? You still have to have faith in something, as opposed to being able to use reason all the way. Once you've taken that step, what does it matter which thing you put your faith in?
ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.
> So if I want to account for the laws of logic, god is an extra entity that is not needed.
Then how do you account for the laws of logic?
>You, of course, want him to exist
You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
> ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.
Neither does yours. Just because you derive something from something else that is implicitly assumed does not make it any more true than just implicitly assuming it directly. You still have to assume. And an argument does not become more valid by being more complex.
That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.
> You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
Entirely true, but I fail to see the relevance, unless you wanted to add another ad hominem fallacy to the list.
I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him, because from reading the bible, he sure is one big asshole and is not worthy of respect, much less worship.
(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)
>If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
But your God does let you get away with sin. You don't think you'll be punished, do you?
>That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.
The validity of the argument is based on the 'reasonableness' of the faith, and not in the faith itself. One can have strong faith in a 2 legged chair made of paper or weak faith in a sturdy 4 legged chair maid of steel to hold one up, yet the weak faith would be more reasonable. My faith in an eternal sentient being as the origin of logic, rationality, life, sentience, and morality seem to be far more reasonable than faith in eternal, invariant, abstract laws given what atheistic worldviews say about the 'random,' 'chance,' 'material,' nature of the universe, not to mention that these worldviews still do not account for matter, life sentience, morality etc. etc.
>I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him,
This is entirely in line with Biblical teachings that atheists do not object to God for intellectual reasons, but for their hatred of Him.
With this admission, my survey of atheists on this topic is still at %100 agreement.
>(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)
I try to refrain from sin because I love God, and am thankful for what the creator of the universe has done for little ol' me.
You on the other hand, if you believe in evolution, cannot even account for free will. According to evolution your thoughts are the mere by-products of the chemical reactions in your brain which you could no more control than a shaken can of pop could control its fizz when you open it. According to the evolutionistic worldview, you simply fizz "God does not exist," while I fizz "God exists." Free will is not in that equation. How do you account for the free will you claim you have?
>But your God does let you get away with sin. You don't think you'll be punished, do you?
No one 'gets away' with sin. All sin is punished. Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment I deserve for my sin. Still, the consequences of my sin is separation from my maker. Thankfully the sacrifice of Christ brings me back to Him.
I have conditional faith: if God exists then I will believe in Jesus.
fixed?
I would advise you not to see how that works for you.
>>391 why not? don't I give respect to God?
Not if you reduce His existence to a hypothetical.
> The validity of the argument is based on the 'reasonableness' of the faith, and not in the faith itself. One can have strong faith in a 2 legged chair made of paper or weak faith in a sturdy 4 legged chair maid of steel to hold one up, yet the weak faith would be more reasonable.
"Reasonableness" does not exist as a logical concept. If you want to make a logical argument, things are either true, false or undecidable. You are of course welcome to claim that your belief is reasonable, but that is not part of any logical argument.
> My faith in an eternal sentient being as the origin of logic, rationality, life, sentience, and morality seem to be far more reasonable than faith in eternal, invariant, abstract laws given what atheistic worldviews say about the 'random,' 'chance,' 'material,' nature of the universe, not to mention that these worldviews still do not account for matter, life sentience, morality etc. etc.
Saying that something happened by chance is "accounting" for it just as much as saying it happened because of a god. You seem to be treating "accounting" as a synonym for "explaining by a theory I approve of".
> This is entirely in line with Biblical teachings that atheists do not object to God for intellectual reasons, but for their hatred of Him.
That would make sense if I believed in god and hated him, and thus stopped. That never happened. I was taught that god exists, and that he was good. I looked at what was claimed, and noticed it just did not add up. Thus, I stopped believing in him. Now that I could look at the belief system from the outside, I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
But tell me, assuming he exists, why should I follow a god who tells his followers to kill their neighbours?
> I try to refrain from sin because I love God, and am thankful for what the creator of the universe has done for little ol' me.
Then what was that statement about creating a god that lets you get away with sin all about? Do you feel the need to sin?
> You on the other hand, if you believe in evolution, cannot even account for free will. According to evolution your thoughts are the mere by-products of the chemical reactions in your brain which you could no more control than a shaken can of pop could control its fizz when you open it. According to the evolutionistic worldview, you simply fizz "God does not exist," while I fizz "God exists." Free will is not in that equation. How do you account for the free will you claim you have?
I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question. I know this, though: We do not know yet whether the laws of physics are deterministic or not, so we can not say whether the processes in our brains are deterministic. Furthermore, I know that deterministic systems are not necessarily predictable.
And as I sit here, I sure feel like I have free will, and that is enough. I do not feel the need to "account" for it. But I look forward to learning more about this in the future, as human ingenuity works to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
>You are of course welcome to claim that your belief is reasonable, but that is not part of any logical argument.
Never said it was.
>Saying that something happened by chance is "accounting" for it just as much as saying it happened because of a god.
Sure, just like saying that a fully functional 747 'happened' by the chance results of a tornado ripping through a junkyard, makes as much sense as saying someone made it.
You, however, are not even saying that the laws of logic happened by chance, you (or whichever Anon Scientist) are making the equally ludicrous claim that they are eternal - a concept completely at odds with most atheistic worldviews.
>I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
Based on what stabdard of morality?
>But tell me, assuming he exists, why should I follow a god who tells his followers to kill their neighbours?
Which Bible were you reading?!? We are commanded to LOVE our neighbours.
>Do you feel the need to sin?
No, but my sinful fallen nature feels the desire to.
>I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question.
That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.
God also lists numerous "death-worthy" crimes, including:
Talking back to parents
Homosexuality
Worshipping other gods
Witchcraft
etc
Plus, orders the Israelites to kill all Amalakites (musta worked, there are no Amalakites anymore), allows them to keep slaves and buy and sell forgein slaves, among other things.
That and pages of War. Lots of war.
Yeah, it says love your neighbors, but if you read the thing literally, I think you'd have a mighty small list of "neighbors".
I'm not saying there's no god, but I doubt this is it...
>That and pages of War. Lots of war.
You are confusing the "Mosaic Covenant" with the "New Covenant" under Christ. I could explain "Covenant Theology" to you, but then you'd just find another reason to reject God.
Again though, by what standard of morality do you condemn God, and what is your evidence that God did not have a morally sufficient reason for what he commanded?
>Yeah, it says love your neighbors, but if you read the thing literally, I think you'd have a mighty small list of "neighbors"
You must have missed the parable of the Good Samaritan.
> Sure, just like saying that a fully functional 747 'happened' by the chance results of a tornado ripping through a junkyard, makes as much sense as saying someone made it.
Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
>> I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
> Based on what stabdard of morality?
On my personal standard of morality, of course.
>> I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question.
> That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.
Admitting that you do not have the answers to every question is equal to "faith" now? That's a definition I had not previously encountered.
> Which Bible were you reading?!? We are commanded to LOVE our neighbours.
Joshua:
11:11 They struck all the souls who were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was none left who breathed: and he burnt Hazor with fire.
11:12 All the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded.
11:13 But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.
11:14 All the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey to themselves; but every man they struck with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any who breathed.
11:15 As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses.
Now, you can try and talk about "Covenant Theology", but I am pretty sure you yourself said the bible is absolutely true, and the bible quite cleary says there that god commanded Joshua to kill entire cities of innocents.
Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus already in my heart, but he's just not making it explicit?
> Joshua
>Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus already in my heart, but he's just not making it explicit?
I don't understand the question. What do you expect?
>Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
Perhaps you are pretending I did not say it because you cannot refute it? You certainly have not here.
>On my personal standard of morality, of course.
Of course, on an arbitrary set of morals which you deem better than God's. What is your standard of morality based on, and why should anyone else care?
>Admitting that you do not have the answers to every question is equal to "faith" now?
You have 'faith' that you have free will, and 'faith' that someday an explanation will arise that faith can be explained in an evolutionary framework.
>"that faith can be explained in an evolutionary framework."
Should read that 'free will' can be explained in an evolutionary framework.
>> Joshua
> 1. You and I are not the Old Testament Israelites.
> 2. The personal command to love your neighbours does not translate into the national command to the Israelites of the Old Testament to destroy their enemies.
> 3. No one is innocent. We inherit the sin of Adam.
Neither of these address the fact that god quite clearly told Joshua to kill all those people. You say god is eternal, so it would seem to me he's still that exact same god who told Joshua to slaughter innocents. I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I find that quite enough reason to distrust him.
I assume you think god is never wrong - would it then be right and just to slaughter a city of people like that, if god told you to?
>> Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
> Perhaps you are pretending I did not say it because you cannot refute it? You certainly have not here.
There is nothing to refute - it is a completely non-sensical simile, which can easily be dismissed as being completely irrelevant. It shows a complete lack of understand of the role of randomness in evolution. Evolution is not about "random parts suddenly flying together to create a perfect whole", it's about small, random changes guided by strong external pressures.
> You have 'faith' that you have free will, and 'faith' that someday an explanation will arise that faith can be explained in an evolutionary framework.
Neither of these claims is true. I have no faith whatsoever in the fact that I have free will. I just assume I have because it seems like I do, and it is the simplest explanation. Nowhere did I say I believe this will be confirmed. I said it may be answered, in either the positive or the negative. Either is fine with me. I will figure out where to go from there once I am given that answer.
Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus, and/or God already, without knowing it? Would Jesus tell me, if I believed in Him? Would He tell me if I didn't?
>>362
Oh I missed this. Thanks for responding!
>The law of identity is not a given.
It is immediately perceptually evident. Pretty much self-evident. And a cool thing about it is it'd have to be true for anyone to even deny it.
>Certainly in what most non-theists consider a random universe
I do not believe in a 'random universe'. Some atheists do, I know; that's their problem, not mine.
>A could be B tommorow.
Yes, change is possible. That is not a violation of identity. B is still itself.
>These naturally do not necessarily follow, even so, universal knowledge is reserved for the Omniscient, and those to whom He has revealed knowledge.
Is this not valid?
I don't need to be omniscient to know that everything that is, is.
>Well, having read this thread, you would have seen at least one person posit that the laws of logic are NOT universal. (the rest have mostly been silent on the matter).
Not my view, not my problem.
------
>>364
>This is proven with transcendental logic, i.e. the impossibility of the contrary.
That is what I'm asking for support for.
>God is the necessaroy precondition for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature by the imposibility of the contrary. I am here to refute contrary proposals, but as you see they are few and far between.
You can refute contrary positions till the cows come home. But that won't show that a valid contrary position is impossible.
>Evolution is not about "random parts suddenly flying together to create a perfect whole",
Who is talking about evolution??? We were talking about the laws of logic.
>Neither of these claims is true. I have no faith whatsoever in the fact that I have free will.
Your belief in free will is contrary to an evolutionary framework, and is entirely without evidence, i.e. faith.
>No one 'gets away' with sin. All sin is punished.
But you, as an individual, get off the hook, correct?
Free will doesn't exist. Choose determinism today!
>Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus, and/or God already, without knowing it?
No, it is a conscious effort.
>Would Jesus tell me, if I believed in Him? Would He tell me if I didn't?
He's never told me. You should know what you believe and what you don't. There of course are assurances in the Bible when you take that step, and how it manifests varies among people.
>It is immediately perceptually evident. Pretty much self-evident.
But the normalcy of the perceiver, or the perception, is arbitrary in a non-theistic worldview.
>I do not believe in a 'random universe'.
Where did the 'order' come from. Who was the 'orderer?'
>Yes, change is possible. That is not a violation of identity. B is still itself.
Good point, but we still have the problem of the normalcy of the perceiver, and the unaccounted for means by which we interperet perception.
> But you, as an individual, get off the hook, correct?
I would not call separation from God, 'getting off the hook."
I would also not call having someone else punished in my place getting off the hook. I live with this fact.
If you call avoiding eternal punishment in Hell 'getting off the hook,' then yes, I get off that hook.
>Free will doesn't exist. Choose determinism today!
Hahahaha. Sadly that's about what these arguments amount to.
>>414 how can you be so certain? why should I believe you? If Jesus never confirmed to you that you actually believe in Him, how do you know that you aren't believing in something that's a lot like Jesus, but not exactly right?
Why does Jesus not communicate with me? Because I only have conditional faith?
So you just say about people "he/ she believes" because you see certain attributes from their behaviour of which the bible says these are behaviours of believers?
>But the normalcy of the perceiver, or the perception, is arbitrary in a non-theistic worldview.
A is still A. This has to be true for me to perceive anything, even if my self/perception is abnormal.
>Where did the 'order' come from. Who was the 'orderer?'
The 'order' of reality comes from the fact of things having identity and acting in accordance with that identity. There is no need for an 'orderer', reality just has to exist.
>Good point, but we still have the problem of the normalcy of the perceiver, and the unaccounted for means by which we interperet perception.
We use (hopefully logical) reason to interpret our perceptions, and identify the objects in reality. And we use concepts and memory and all sorts of nice things. I can't claim to understand it all quite yet ... but what's unaccounted for?
>>416 Okay, understood :)
>>417 I was actually being sincere :)
> how can you be so certain? why should I believe you?
Never said you should, but suggesting you might believe something and not know it, is kind of silly. Is it, for instance, possible that you could believe the moon is made of green cheese and not know that you believe this?
>how do you know that you aren't believing in something that's a lot like Jesus, but not exactly right?
I know Jesus as defined in the Bible, if my beliefs were contrary to the Bible, all bets would be off. Sure my perceptions may be off, but that does not mean I believe in someone different. If you had a wrong perception of your parents, would they cease to be your parents?
>Why does Jesus not communicate with me?
What are you looking for? I would say that Jesus communicates with all of us in every thought and experience we have. He also communicates with us through His word (the Bible). I would be in the camp that questions the sanity of those in this day who claim to hear voices.
>So you just say about people "he/ she believes" because you see certain attributes from their behaviour of which the bible says these are behaviours of believers?
Not at all. The Bible teaches that everyone, even Satan believes (and trembles).
>A is still A. This has to be true for me to perceive anything, even if my self/perception is abnormal.
But without a standard of normalcy, how do you know that A is A, when the person beside you says it's B? What determines who is the normal preceiver when 2 perceptions differ?
>The 'order' of reality comes from the fact of things having identity and acting in accordance with that identity.
Are the laws of logic universal? How do you know? How can you have universal perception of 'things'?
>There is no need for an 'orderer', reality just has to exist.
There is order, because there is order? What is the argument here?
>We use (hopefully logical) reason to interpret our perceptions, and identify the objects in reality. And we use concepts and memory and all sorts of nice things. I can't claim to understand it all quite yet ... but what's unaccounted for?
The laws of logic you use to interperet your perceptions, the uniformity of nature which makes sense of knowing anything, and the idea of 'perceptions' in a 'material' universe for three.
>>I was actually being sincere :)
Surely you jest :)
>> Evolution is not about "random parts suddenly flying together to create a perfect whole",
> Who is talking about evolution???
You are! I don't know why you keep bringing it up! You're bringing it up again here:
> Your belief in free will is contrary to an evolutionary framework, and is entirely without evidence, i.e. faith.
No. We do not know enough to say if it is contrary or not. I already said this. You're also severely confused about what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim. "Evolution" is not a complete worldview. It is a scientific theory of limited scope.
And why are you avoiding my question about god ordering Joshua to slaughter entire cities? Surely you have some justification for that, seeing as how you believe the bible is absolutely true?
>If you had a wrong perception of your parents, would they cease to be your parents?
No indeed, they would still be my parents. I think there are many possible perceptions I can have about my parents, and over the years have changed my perception about them. Because earlier impressions of my parents (and myself) we have gotten in serious, very stressing disagreements (solved now). I imagine that a wrong perception of God would lead to similar problems. Perhaps, with your perception of God, you're pissing him off more than if you didn't have a relationship with him at all?
>Not at all. The Bible teaches that everyone, even Satan believes (and trembles).
So then, I believe, according to the bible. Then what is the problem anyway?
>Perhaps, with your perception of God, you're pissing him off more than if you didn't have a relationship with him at all?
I'm willing to take my chances.
>So then, I believe, according to the bible. Then what is the problem anyway?
Belief is not enough, there is also complete submission.
Then indulge us: How does Covenant Theology justify the slaughter of entire cities on the direct command from god?
And further, if god gave the order, would you slaughter an entire city?
>Belief is not enough, there is also complete submission.
>>424 umm, you're not in the right religion actually. you need to upgrade to islam.
For one, God does not need justification for what He does. He is the potter, we are the clay, and His will is perfect.
Under the Old Covenant the Israelites were under God's law and direct command for their protection, so that they could remain intact and pure until the coming of the Messiah. Under the New Covenant, Christ's blood was shed so that all who partake of this sacrifice can be made pure.
The Israelites, and we all, are taught through these wars the consequences of being an enemy of God. I think one thing that many professed unbelievers forget, is that death is not a terrible thing for those God has chosen to be with Him in eternity. If that included some children of God's enemies, then death before they could adopt the pagan practices of their culture would have been a blessing.
>And further, if god gave the order, would you slaughter an entire city?
This would be contrary to the Biblical teachings of the New Covenant where Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to make us pure. It would therefore violate the law of non-contradiction as God cannot lie.
>umm, you're not in the right religion actually. you need to upgrade to islam.
The Bible teaches that any future revelation cannot conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Islam accepts the teachings of Moses, Jesus and the prophets yet refutes itself by discounting them in the Qur'an.
Wait, you need to upgrade to Baha'i Religion.
> Baha'ism which claims to be a 'cosmic embrace of all religions,' ends up excluding the exclusivists, thus refuting itself.
> The Israelites, and we all, are taught through these wars the consequences of being an enemy of God.
So an omniscient, omniportent god can find no other way to teach his people other than by slaughtering innocents and sending them, as you say, into eternal torment?
I know you don't agree, but could you at least try and make the effort to see why someone looking at this from the outside would be just a little bit put off by it?
>Put off??? It should scare the livin' crap out of you.
Folks, this 20-page thread is a great reminder of why when you write a holy text, you need to put in a reminder to respect people of other religions.
I would agree that we should respect one's right to be wrong, but do you think it is absolutely wrong to disrespect people of other religions?
>>435 Nah, religion is a brainwashing tool. No respect intended.
See the Crusades, the Spanish Inqusition, the witches burning, etc etc.
"You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time."
I don't think i like how the site in the OP's post makes that leap of faith, introducing the Nazis and suggesting that he knows i use my morals to judge others. RE: the Nazis, while i may not agree with their methods/morals/whatever, they did have a right to attempt to break "tradition". in fact, to say they failed to introduce a anti-semitic feeling in Germany would be as illogical as saying the holocaust didn't happen at all. no, i don't believe that absolute morals exist. i believe that if, hypothetically, the nazis won WWII, their moral rule would be the the standard by which the rest of society judges themselves, either for or against.
>i believe that if, hypothetically, the nazis won WWII, their moral rule would be the the standard by which the rest of society judges themselves, either for or against
So, with that thinking, if your hypothetical came true, then those who thought killing Jews was wrong would be 'bad,' and those who thought killing Jews was 'right,' would be inline with what society thought and therefore be 'good?!?'
Is that what you believe?!?
Oops, lost my name. Those posts with the W6Ne55 ID were mine of course.
>>440
Not like most people here care about names, don't worry. Names are pretty much irrelevant anyways.
Perhaps, to those who wish to hide behind anonymity :-)
>>442
It's more of a "oh hey why should anyone care who the fuck I am, they know what I said and that is enough" kind of thing. That is pretty much the point of this type of board after all.
Yes, but with anonymity one can deny the inconsistency of past comments, claiming they did not make them.
Not quite, more like:
Me: "You said that this is true, but now you contradict yourself by saying this is true instead."
Anonymous: "No, I didn't contradict myself, because that wasn't me before."
You really need to learn to accept that when you are defending a claim, you have to defend it on the basis of the arguments put against it, not on the sincerity of those who present the arguments.
> So, with that thinking, if your hypothetical came true, then those who thought killing Jews was wrong would be 'bad,' and those who thought killing Jews was 'right,' would be inline with what society thought and therefore be 'good?!?'
Is that what you believe?!?
There's no need for hypotheticals. This is what the majority of Christians believed until quite recently, isn't it?
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justtryindex.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html
Answer the question please.
>You really need to learn to accept that when you are defending a claim, you have to defend it on the basis of the arguments put against it, not on the sincerity of those who present the arguments.
Huh? I am pointing out inconsistencies in the arguments of those who try to refute me, what does that have to do with sincerity?!?
When refuting an argument, it is extremely common to us hypotheticals and other arguments that do not actually correspond to what one believes, and can easily be inconsistent with one's own beliefs.
You don't seem to get that to refute somebody else's argument, you don't need to provide a consistent argument of your own. You just need to prove the other person wrong.
>But without a standard of normalcy, how do you know that A is A, when the person beside you says it's B?
Maybe we are both right, as long as he's not denying that A is itself. Without identity, it is meaningless to even talk about differences and disagreements.
>What determines who is the normal preceiver when 2 perceptions differ?
Maybe nobody is a normal perceiver. With regard to logic alone, it doesn't matter.
>Are the laws of logic universal? How do you know? How can you have universal perception of 'things'?
I've been over this... >>358
Yes, laws of logic are universal. I know because (I can see and identify that) existence is self-identical. I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.
>There is order, because there is order? What is the argument here?
There is order because there is causality, because there is identity, because there is existence.
>The laws of logic you use to interperet your perceptions, the uniformity of nature which makes sense of knowing anything, and the idea of 'perceptions' in a 'material' universe for three.
Logic... that's what I'm trying to deal with first. I think I'm doing a good job :)
Uniformity of nature... we could discuss that too. I've hinted at it in my response just above~
'Perceptions' in a 'material' universe. Eh... I don't really know what matter is. That's for physicists to worry about, not my concern. My concern is with objects and identities. And I'm not quite sure what sort of account you are looking for. I'm conscious and I perceive things. Perhaps you could give your account of perception in a... spiritual(?)... universe. So I have something to compare. And criticise :)
>Surely you jest :)
Nope. I do not believe in free will. But choice definitely exists.
>You don't seem to get that to refute somebody else's argument, you don't need to provide a consistent argument of your own. You just need to prove the other person wrong.
Huh? You don't seem to get that positting a refutation with an inconsistent argument, refutes the argument. For example: "The laws of logic are man made, and eternal," is a contradiction which is self-refuting.
>Maybe we are both right, as long as he's not denying that A is itself.
You can both be wrong, you cannot both be right.
>Maybe nobody is a normal perceiver. With regard to logic alone, it doesn't matter.
That's ridiculous. If I perceive the law of non-contradiction to be that A can be non-A, then surely it matters.
>I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.
How do you know? You certainly do not have universal knowledge.
> Huh? You don't seem to get that positting a refutation with an inconsistent argument, refutes the argument. For example: "The laws of logic are man made, and eternal," is a contradiction which is self-refuting.
No, you still do not understand what I say. If I want to refute an argument of yours, I can give SEVERAL arguments, and those arguments can be mutually contradictory, but only ONE needs to be true to refute your argument. You can't counter with "but just a while ago you said something DIFFERENT!", because I can change my angle of attack as I see fit, as long as any argument taken on its own is consistent. What I said earlier is immaterial.
The fact that I have to keep explaining this just once again shows how unfamiliar you are with logic and philosophy, and I would once again urge you to actually study it, and actually study other views than your own to try and understand them, even if you do not agree with them. That is how true wisdom is gained, not by steadfastly sticking to one opinion and refusing to listen to others.
All I am doing is pointing out the inconsistencies of those who would argue against Christianity. You may say that being inconsistent is okay in your worldview, but it is not okay in mine.
Of course you could be inconsistent and now say that being inconsistent is not okay, but I'd like to know how you support that claim in your worldview, something you have yet to do. (not to mention that fact that NO argument, inconsistent, or otherwise, has yet been able to refute my worldview. Please re-state it if you feel otherwise.
Please take the time to learn some philosophy and logic. I am tired of trying to explain to someone who will not listen, because it is inconvenient to him.
You have constructed a worldview in which it is impossible to prove you wrong, because you can arbitarily dismiss any argument against you. This does, however, not make it true. It merely makes it impossible to discuss, and completely useless.
If you need a diagram, see >>347.
I never said you couldn't use logic, I just want you to account for the laws of logic in your worldview before you use them.
Seems fair to me. I tell you how I account for the laws of logic in my worldview, in my website. You have yet to give any indication as to how the laws of logic make sense in your worldview.
You seem to want to keep invoking these laws, but have no basis for using them. You keep avoiding this subject because it reveals the vacuousness of your worldview. For the umpteenth time, how do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?
>>458
So, what you're saying is, you are not allowed to use logic without backing up your use of logic with an illogical statement such as "God allows me to prove things."
So, Nature allows me to prove things.
You are exceedingly tiresome.
I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview, not how you are able to prove things.
Way to avoid the question again though!
My brain did it. Logic only works because I think so.
>My brain did it. Logic only works because I think so.
How can something in your brain apply to anyone else? How is something in your brain universal, and invariant?
He's got a totally awesome brain.
Ya, like totally man.