 |
Read Me: Topics and Guidelines Apologetics 301
February 7th 2007
Replies: x
| Views: 2,145
|
|
Thread
|
Thread Starter
|
Last Post
|
Rating
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: September 7th 2010
@ 10:15 PM
|
|
A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:
The Gospels are Fictional.
Doug Shaver will be defending the affirmative and Metacrock will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Doug makes his first post. The debate will last 2 rounds.
This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.
|
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: September 4th 2010
@ 11:51 PM
|
|
A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:
For a moral system to be legitimate, it must be grounded in a god
Manwe Sulimo will be defending the affirmative and Chrs181818 will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as makes his first post. The debate will last four rounds.
This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.
|
|
|
dizzle
|
Posted: August 28th 2010
@ 05:32 PM
|
|
Let's post some of the best apologetics links here.
First on my list... Tekton Apologetics Ministries
Massive site with articles on alleged Biblical contradictions and refuting sceptical charges against the Bible. Other article concern misc Christian doctrines such as eschatology (he advocates orthodox preterism), baptism, soteriology, etc.
|
|
Dr. Jack Bauer
|
Posted: December 22nd 2009
@ 11:45 PM
|
|
Hi folks
This is my first post in Apologetics 301 as a moderator, so I thought I'd say a few things to introduce myself to the forum. The other mods are also welcome to follow suit in this thread, since it hasn't been done before.
I have posted very little in this forum at Tweb in the past, largely due to frustration. What I have tended to see is people, some of whom have degrees in various subjects, like science, or perhaps engineering - or women's studies, but who post as though they had...
|
| |
|
CalmingFlow
|
Posted: Today
@ 07:16 AM
|
|
The word "nothing", acts like the empty set; {}. The word "nothing", is not nothing.
nothing is nothing
proof; ({} ≡ {})∧({} → {})∧(id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})
Logical Tautology (1); nothing is nothing
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
|
|
|
Pitchforkpat
|
Posted: Today
@ 06:58 AM
|
|
In Samuel 1: 4-5, the Israelites have just lost 4,000 men in battle with the Philistines. They bring the Ark of the Covenant into the camp in order to help. Unfortunately for them it doesn’t, and they lose another 30,000 men in the next battle. In the process the Philistines capture the ark.
The ark is brought home to the Philistine town of Ashod and the god of the Hebrews gets mad. He strikes the people of Ashod with what the KJV calls “emerods” (an archaic form of the word hemorrhoids)....
|
|
|
Jaecp
|
Posted: Today
@ 05:41 AM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6MWo_drOhI&feature=sub
Speaking of Robert G. Ingersoll
No real focus aside from that, Evid3nc3 brings excellent visuals with good information as ever. Minute 5-7 is a Reductio Ad Absurdum, so please try to avoid jumping on that without knowing that its a small part of a greater whole.
|
|
|
Metacrock
|
Posted: Today
@ 05:29 AM
|
|
This is prompted by Hawkings publicity stunt.
Argument:
1) Naturalism assumes cause/effect.
2) c/a governed by laws of physics.
3) Laws of physics must have orgnaizing principal
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
Posted: Today
@ 04:03 AM
|
|
86015
In The Beginning by Jack Chick
Not really having come to the Lord, via any sort of Creationist route, I guess each thought is precious.
Where did this thought, about 'the beginning' originate from ? It is a wonderful thought, but why does there have to be a beginning? I realize this might seem, quite elementary for some of you, but for someone who was not raised on the Bible, those thoughts are new, and fresh and curious.
So, why this need to have a beginning. Why does it have to...
|
|
|
aspirnietzche
|
Posted: Today
@ 03:47 AM
|
|
1. What evidence do we have of divine intervention?
2. Should naturalism be taken as the default state of reality? If not, what should we put in its place?
3. What is the most effective and/or reliable method for discovering truth or reality? Things to keep in mind:
a. how far can we trust our senses?
b. how do we know what we know?
c. what is intuition?
4. If something cannot be studied by any process, does it exist?
5. What separates us from the other animals?
|
|
|
BumbleBeeZ
|
Posted: Today
@ 02:07 AM
|
|
I thought Id' begin with an argument that gets theists every time: if god made the universe then who made god? It seems to me like the old "everything needs a cause apart form my god." So let the theists start committing logical fallacies left right and centre....:eek:
|
|
|
Individualist
|
Posted: Today
@ 01:35 AM
|
|
Were the Gospels originally intended to be thought of as fiction? This is an interesting suggestion from Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle. What evidence cause you to agree or disagree with him?
|
|
|
Metacrock
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:51 PM
|
|
This is the view that I' am defending. Most of the enigmatic statements that I make about "you are reducing God ot the level of a thing" are made considering this concept as the basis of my view.
It's the view put about by Paul Tillich, one of the major theologians of the 20th century (died 1965).
The concept is synonymous withe notion of superaessential Godhead but not necessarily to be taken as Neo-Platonic. in a nutshell the idea is this:
God is not a big man in the sky, but the basis,...
|
|
|
YourMaster
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:28 PM
|
|
I thought you guys would find this amusing (I know I do):
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
It gets better:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"...
|
|
|
CalmingFlow
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 04:35 PM
|
|
energy is eternal
proof; ∑E = Ek+Ep
Scientific Fact (1); Conservation of energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
energy cannot be created
ergo by time reversal symmetry it is a scientific fact that energy never was created
ergo energy cannot be created, never was created, energy exists and yet cannot be destroyed,
ergo it is a scientific fact that energy is eternal. Q.E.D.
|
|
|
yo lunch
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 12:25 PM
|
|
I shall herein show, through the words of Jesus himself, that he was not a true prophet and not divine or from God. Hopefully you can do better than just to trot out your hackneyed exegesis against these damaging scriptures because they have yet to be defended to the satisfaction of most skeptics.
1. "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I shall do it." John 14:14
Any Christian knows that Jesus did not deliver on this one.
2. "And these signs shall follow them that believe, In my name...
|
|
|
ww24
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:48 AM
|
|
Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief, the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God...
|
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 09:34 AM
|
|
A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:
Jesus was crucified.
Mattsterpiece will be defending the affirmative and no_crucifixion will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Mattsterpiece makes his first post. The debate will last 2 rounds.
This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.
|
|
|
RyanS
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 09:23 AM
|
|
I'm just curious about your opinion on this. Do you think it's totally myth, part-myth part-fact, or totally fact?
The majority of scholars believes that the Exodus (at least the way the Bible describes it) was mostly legend. That's not to say that it didn't occur. Obviously the majority can be wrong, but then again these are credible scholars who make a living researching and sifting through the evidence and deciding what is and is not true. I don't think it would be wise to dismiss the...
|
|
|
JimL
|
Posted: September 7th 2010
@ 10:52 PM
|
|
If as is admitted God is a simple, indivisible, and immaterial substance and or does not admit of number, then by virtue of what could God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit, be said to be distinct?
|
|
|
Zombie
|
Posted: September 7th 2010
@ 10:23 PM
|
|
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
i havent heard it broken down like this before, interesting.
|
|
|
Seasanctuary
|
Posted: September 7th 2010
@ 09:34 AM
|
|
I've been reading a lot about divine command theories of ethics lately, yet I still don't see how all moral goodness can be defined by God's commands, attitudes, or character without ultimately appealing to a standard which need not reference any actual God.
Probably the most common popular-level formulation these days is that morality is defined by God's commands, but God's commands aren't arbitrary because they are based on God's essentially good character. This is probably coming from...
|
|
|
ww24
|
Posted: September 7th 2010
@ 06:13 AM
|
|
Hi all, I really appreciate participating in your forum and will start my posting with new information.
I have read many books and recently found some information contradicts to what we have been told like:
None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God
The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus
The Truth About Prophet Jesus
The Real Story Of Mary
Is Jesus the same as God ?
|
|
|
sylvius
|
Posted: September 7th 2010
@ 05:32 AM
|
|
Sparko posted this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm
It starts with this:
The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh. ln this technical sense the word incarnation was adopted, during the twelfth century, from the Norman-French, which in turn had taken the word over from the Latin incarnatio. The Latin Fathers, from the fourth century, make common use of the word; so Saints Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, etc. The Latin incarnatio (in: caro, flesh) corresponds...
|
|
|
showmeproof
|
Posted: September 6th 2010
@ 09:43 PM
|
|
As an atheist, I think that religions are explicable by cultural evolution and are thus completely man made. I have been spending a great deal of time lately towards learning about Canaanite (Levant) religion. I have very far to go, but as of right now my sources include Robert Wright's The Evolution of God which then pointed me towards Israel Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, Richard Elliot...
|
|
|
TheAgeOfMeow
|
Posted: September 6th 2010
@ 04:34 PM
|
|
I've come across a youtuber by the name of CalpurnPiso just a few weeks ago, and was pleased to see the depth of his critiques against theism, and refutations of various apologetic arguments, etc. etc. What do you guys think?
http://www.youtube.com/user/calpurnpiso#p/u/251/x3wqaZFJjGE
|
|
|
Christopher31
|
Posted: September 6th 2010
@ 12:48 PM
|
|
Seeing as Yo Lunch's thread on failed prophesies has dragged on for far too many pages, and has largely turned into a vapid serial of one-upmanship, I thought I'd resurrect the intention behind Yo Lunch's original thread. However, instead of looking at prophesies, I'd like to go with something a little more cut-and-dry: contradictions.
There are many of them in Christian scripture. And I'm not convinced that their resolution is simply a matter of context, so let's dispense with that as a...
|
|
|
TyRockwell
|
Posted: September 6th 2010
@ 12:17 PM
|
|
Evil spirits are separate beings from the people they influence. The spirits enter people to manipulate them, though the people struggle against them if they do not have the power of the Holy Spirit to resist and reject them and keep them from entering them in the first place. An evil spirit will not enter a Christian usually, unless the light of the candle of the Lord has gone out in them. "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord." Proverbs 20:27
So if the light within you is darkness,...
|
|
|
JimL
|
Posted: September 6th 2010
@ 06:49 AM
|
|
There is but one God and one "mediator" between God and men, the "man" Jesus.
If we take these words literally then its meaning seems to be explicit in that there is only one God and that Jesus is not that God but rather he is a mediator or a prophet if you will between God and man.
Just wondering how Christians interpret this to mean that Jesus is God?
|
|
|
Abigail
|
Posted: September 5th 2010
@ 09:07 PM
|
|
I watched this show on More 4 tonight and was interested in the piece where they asked reception aged children (4/5 year olds) some questions about naturally occuring things and the answers they gave showed their internal models were basically creationist.
The questions were (basically):
Why are some rocks very sharp:
a. because layer upon layer builds up forming a point
b. so that animals can scratch itches on them
Why don't lakes have waves:
a. they don't have moving water flowing into...
|
|
|
LGM
|
Posted: September 5th 2010
@ 08:48 PM
|
|
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not...
|
|
|
journeyman
|
Posted: September 5th 2010
@ 05:00 PM
|
|
It is wrong that the laws of physics explain everything ,so that there is no need for God.
This i understand is the claim by Stephen Hawkins in a recent book, but, as i have not read it, i take it as a general assertion.
The laws of phsics cannot explain everything as they have no independent existence.
This is easily demonstrated. The lasw of physics extract hoow things work by looking at things on the ground. If the laws of phsics do not explain everything, they, not things on the ground,...
|
|
|
Rusty T
|
Posted: September 5th 2010
@ 01:40 PM
|
|
What say you about this?
rusty
|
|
|
volcano rocket
|
Posted: September 5th 2010
@ 11:02 AM
|
|
Is God Supernatural?
I got a surprising statement from an atheist who claimed God was not supernatural. I am wondering what your thoughts were.
|
|
Siggy Ivarsson
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Oolon Colluphid
|
Posted: September 3rd 2010
@ 11:23 PM
|
|
Professor Stephen 'A Brief History of Time' Hawking (it's a great middle-name isn't it?) has a new book coming out. In it we learn that Professor Hawking's take on religion and God has shifted somewhat.
Here are a few choice quotations:-
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the...
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
Posted: September 3rd 2010
@ 05:54 AM
|
|
85729
...to Jesus, if you had been Nicodemus? ( the same referred to in the gospel according to John - refer Chapter 3 )
Or, ....
85730
...to Jesus, if you had been chosen to be one of his disciples? ( one of those whom the Father had given to Son )
|
|
|
Seasanctuary
|
Posted: September 3rd 2010
@ 03:13 AM
|
|
In the third edition of Reasonable Faith on page 92, W.L. Craig wrote:
Biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life for man: God and immortality.
I find this interesting, not because of the typical tiresome assertion that God is needed for anything to matter to us, but because Craig mentions immortality as the other necessary condition for anything to matter.
Suppose there is a God, but death is a natural and final end...
|
|
|
phaedrus
|
Posted: September 2nd 2010
@ 08:37 PM
|
|
There seems to be a particular psychological view that some Christians appear to have of those who are of different or no faith. To be fair, I have only seen it explicitly stated by a handful of posters, but I sense it is a foundational belief of more. I wonder if it makes apologetics or even dialogue problematic.
We may have different views on social policy or education but we can still dialogue with good grace. I may think your views are wrong but I can accept you hold them with integrity...
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
Posted: September 2nd 2010
@ 09:47 AM
|
|
85158
Are you a god, or a goddess?
If you answered yes, or no, or maybe, or I am not sure, or it's complicated but I will try to explain myself, then please do so ...
|
|
|
Individualist
|
Posted: September 2nd 2010
@ 08:10 AM
|
|
1 Corinthians 9:5, KJV: Are these "brethren" the physical brethren of Jesus? Are they just other Christian men, just as the "sister" mentioned is only a Christian woman?
Note the placement of the term "brethren" ("brothers," NASB) between "apostles" and "Cephas." Also, since these men are identified as "of the Lord," doesn't that imply that they're not brethren of the writer, unlike the "sister"?
|
|
|
aspirnietzche
|
Posted: September 2nd 2010
@ 05:10 AM
|
|
I just want to see if this goes anywhere.
|
|
|
josephrubbens
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
TheFiveSolas
|
Posted: September 1st 2010
@ 09:48 PM
|
|
Up until a recent move to new headquarters in NYC I was a weekly attendee/contributor (from the opposite viewpoint of course) to an atheist organization called The Center for Iniquity (ooors, sorry, Inquiry). During one of the discussions there, and one in a web forum I brought up my observation that I was unaware of even a single Atheist charity organization. Several people challenged me on this assertion, but were unable (at the time, and in subsequent weeks) to provide me with even a...
|
|
|
DigitalInkling
|
Posted: September 1st 2010
@ 07:31 PM
|
|
I just listened to a debate between William Lane Craig and Dr. Shelly Kagan. It was the first debate that I have ever heard William Lane Craig participate in that I felt he lost.
http://static.veritas.org/media/files/a09cbia01.mp3
Craig didn't seem as prepared as usual. Kagan's Social Contract appeared to be rational on the surface. I also think Kagan's questions to William Craig were very effective in the debate.
I want to make it clear I totally disagree with Kagan's position but I...
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Seasanctuary
|
Posted: September 1st 2010
@ 06:29 AM
|
|
I watched the video version of this and was surprised at its popularity. The Case For A Creator claims God specially created "most major phyla" 3.8 billion years ago and they've evolved naturally since then. So birds, fish, snakes, and humans could have evolved from a common ancestor so long as God made that ancestor directly!
What's the point of spending 3/4 the film bashing "Darwin" when it actually assumes Darwin's theory is correct? The Case For A Creator only has two essential arguments:...
|
|
|
nightbringer
|
Posted: August 31st 2010
@ 08:23 PM
|
|
I'm not sure if Plantinga has presented this argument in standard essay form but he gave it at a lecture at Biola University. You can listen to it here and read an outline of it here.
He argues that the probablity of our cognitive faculties being reliable (i.e. prone to reliably producing true beliefs) is low or inscrutable given naturalistic evolution. He therefore concludes that one cannot rationally accept evolution and naturalism. I think it's an interesting argument but I'd like to hear...
|
|
|
plasdas
|
Posted: August 31st 2010
@ 07:30 AM
|
|
This thread will try to discuss 3 things:
Does the fact that with simple feedback mechanisms you can get in theory an infinitely complex system rule out the need for the need for a creator?
Does Chaos theory negate the possibility of god being omnipotent and all powerful?
And does what theists believe to be god, just the maths behind what they are doing/thinking/ whatever, running in the same direction/ throwing something unusual out?
As a small introduction; when you make the output of an...
|
|
|
The Pixie
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 08:03 PM
|
|
One piece of evidence for the empty tomb that seems to crop up here every now and again is that the Bible states that women found the tomb empty. The argument goes (as I understand it) that if this had been made up, the author would have said the tomb was found empty by men, as women would not have been consider reliable witnesses at that time; it is therefore more reasonable to suppose that the account of the empty tomb is true.
Here are a couple of web sites that use that...
|
|
|
Individualist
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 05:15 PM
|
|
There is an obvious similarity between chapter 2 of 2 Peter and the epistle of Jude (actually named Judas, but nobody wants to call it that). What accounts for this? Were there both based on a common source? Did one copy the other?
Also, were "Peter" and "Judas" the original names of the authors of these epistles? What's with the similarity of the names in the closing of 1 Peter to the names from the Pauline epistles (yeah, I am asking about 1 Peter, too)?
|
|
|
Metacrock
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher31
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 11:45 AM
|
|
I still keep company and contact with my religious friends. For the most part, they are lively, intelligent, and an endless source of sharp conversation. It really would be a pity to lose their insights and input.
Aside from my feelings about their participation in my life (which, as noted above, is mostly positive), I continue to come up against a very peculiar difficulty when in debate with them. I'm not sure what to call this difficulty so, for the purposes of description, I'll call it...
|
|
|
Anon
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 11:31 AM
|
|
One of the most intriguing examples of an extreme counter-cultural belief, in my opinion, is Young Earth Creationism. Like other minority-view topics, like germ theory denial, the rejection of evolution, racism and holocaust denial, and 9-11 conspiracy theories, the bulk of the mainstream scientific and sociological evidence is stacked against their position. Yet millions of people, some extremely intelligent and accomplished, continue to hold to the idea absolutely. I'm opening this thread to...
|
