Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    That's fine Littlejoe, but it's a bad analogy.
    Your opinion is duly noted and dismissed for that reason...Sorry, but your opinion just doesn't hold much weight.
    Believing in Christ and acting accordingly may help, and may have helped you in life, but the fact that it helps you doesn't make the belief itself real. Believing in God regardless of which religion, or which god, I'm sure is a help to many of those who believe and practice accordingly as well, but it doesn't make their belief true either.
    You have no idea how, I came to believe in Christ, or how he has proved his existence to me over the last 30 years. Because of my experiences, you could never prove to me that Christ does not exist. I don't have a blind faith, but it's not something provable to YOU, but it's proof to me because I lived it. Sorry, you are wrong...I can't prove that to you but you are.
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
      This statement certainly describes (at the very least) more than a few Christians...but, I'm not sure if it's the major view or not. It certainly is not so in my case...and many people I personally know. In my case, I went from agnosticism to Christian by first believing in Christ after being told it would work for me and help me in my life. So, I believed in Christ First, then sought more about Him and the Godhead and finding the Bible. An adequate analogy would be someone who needing to remove a stubborn stump is told to mix sulphur, charcoal and potassium nitrate and pack it into a tube with a fuse and lilght it and it will help blow out the stump. Upon trying it and finding it successful, they then research and find a book on the history and making of black powder.


      That's the way many people, esp. later converts such as myself would see it. And the testimonies of us Christians who find it authoritative in this manner leads those in the first camp to affirm, at least to themselves, they are correct in their assumption.
      Thank you for your testimony but, to be honest, I don't find personal testimonies to be very convincing. Especially when, at bottom, that's all there is.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        OK. But there are more variant claims purporting to be Christian than all the other belief claims combined. That being said, only Christianity has the claim of a yet living founder.
        Your “living founder” died 2,000 years ago, if he ever existed. That’s the problem with legends, one cannot know for sure.

        Now, if that is true, what do you think you know that refutes it? Can you provide that definitive argument that there cannot be a God?
        I note your use of the conditional “IF”.

        Hmm . . . . You, for what ever reason, do in fact show some kind of interest in Christianity. Why?
        Deep down, I yearn to walk with Jesus as my invisible friend and saviour. Just kidding!

        But that’s the sort of nonsense you want to hear isn’t it? If nothing else it would validate your own ill-founded beliefs.

        Yes, do you understand the gospel of grace?
        Jesus died as a pure sacrifice for the sin of all mankind etc, etc, etc. Apart from the absurd notion of the ‘fall of man’, it is interesting that god-the-father was still, demanding a blood sacrifice to appease his wrath. Hard to give up old habits I guess.

        None of those beliefs are being promoted by you. And no one seriously believes in the mock "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Your atheism seems to be based on ignorance. As most atheism is.
        Most people do not seriously believe in a dying/rising god/man either.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          That being said, only Christianity has the claim of a yet living founder.
          Poppycock. There are several religious movements whose founders are still alive, and several more whose founders are claimed to still be alive in the same way that Jesus isn't.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
            You have no idea how, I came to believe in Christ, or how he has proved his existence to me over the last 30 years. Because of my experiences, you could never prove to me that Christ does not exist. I don't have a blind faith, but it's not something provable to YOU, but it's proof to me because I lived it. Sorry, you are wrong...I can't prove that to you but you are.
            Well, I wouldn't have had any idea how you came to believe in Christ if you hadn't told me yourself. First you believed, then you sought to reinforce that belief. And btw, I'm not trying to prove to you that Christ does not exist, all I said was that simply because you believe it doesn't make it true.
            Last edited by JimL; 04-24-2018, 08:12 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Poppycock. There are several religious movements whose founders are still alive, and several more whose founders are claimed to still be alive in the same way that Jesus isn't.
              You are talking modern now living religious leaders. Not what I was talking about.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Your “living founder” died 2,0 00 years ago, if he ever existed. That’s the problem with legends, one cannot know for sure.
                Christianity does make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. And you know that claim is being made.


                I note your use of the conditional “IF”.
                Only because you do not already believe in the risen Christ. The claim is that God raised Him from the dead. So what do you know that makes it impossible for there to be God?

                <snip>
                But that’s the sort of nonsense you want to hear isn’t it? If nothing else it would validate your own ill-founded beliefs.
                No. Seriously, why believe something that not true? Wishful thinking? Learn the gospel of grace. Make the case that it is nothing more than wishful thinking. You have got to get it right, if you think you are going to refute it. And as for God, can you show, irrefutably that God is not God? God has a real identity.


                Jesus died as a pure sacrifice for the sin of all mankind etc, etc, etc. Apart from the absurd notion of the ‘fall of man’, it is interesting that god-the-father was still, demanding a blood sacrifice to appease his wrath. Hard to give up old habits I guess.
                You are just hearing stories. Not getting what the alleged truth is.


                Most people do not seriously believe in a dying/rising god/man either.
                Hear this, those who perish in the judgement do not having their name in God's book (Revelation 20:15; >> Exodus 32:33).
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Thank you for your testimony but, to be honest, I don't find personal testimonies to be very convincing. Especially when, at bottom, that's all there is.
                  Nor would I expect you to...this wasn't really a testimony so much as pointing out that it's not always circular reasoning...at least from my standpoint.
                  "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                  "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Well, I wouldn't have had any idea how you came to believe in Christ if you hadn't told me yourself. First you believed, then you sought to reinforce that belief. And btw, I'm not trying to prove to you that Christ does not exist, all I said was that simply because you believe it doesn't make it true.
                    True...you couldn't unless I told you...again, I was responding to the charge of circular reasoning and showing how that is not always the case.

                    True, just because I believe it doesn't make it true...at least to anyone else. I would point out that the inverse is also true...that you don't believe does not make it untrue.

                    I'm fresh off a Kairos weekend where I was a member of a team that ministered to a group of 42 max security inmates. To hear some of their testimonies...now that really enforces my belief.
                    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                    Comment


                    • Hear this, those who perish in the judgement do not having their name in God's book (Revelation 20:15; >> Exodus 32:33).
                      Grammatical kludge. Should either be ". . . not having . . ." or ". . . do not have . . ."
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Christianity does make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. And you know that claim is being made.
                        So!

                        Islam makes the claim that Mohammad flew his famous night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem on the heavenly steed Buraq. And you know this claim is being made. I dismiss both these “claims” due to lack of substantive evidence for such improbable occurrences.

                        Only because you do not already believe in the risen Christ.
                        Well yes, obviously.

                        The claim is that God raised Him from the dead. So what do you know that makes it impossible for there to be God?
                        The existence of gods is highly improbable, not impossible...like Bertram Russell’s ‘celestial teapot’ orbiting between Earth and Mars. You can’t prove that it’s not, nor can you prove that it is.

                        No. Seriously, why believe something that not true? Wishful thinking? Learn the gospel of grace. Make the case that it is nothing more than wishful thinking. You have got to get it right, if you think you are going to refute it.
                        There is nothing of substance to refute.

                        And as for God, can you show, irrefutably that God is not God? God has a real identity.
                        So you believe.

                        You are just hearing stories. Not getting what the alleged truth is.
                        So god-the-father wasn’t appeased by the blood sacrifice of Jesus, I thought that what it was all about. God has always demanded sacrifices. Leviticus is full of it. Jesus was the sacrificial 'Lamb of God', surely.

                        Hear this, those who perish in the judgement do not having their name in God's book (Revelation 20:15; >> Exodus 32:33).
                        When will you understand that what you regard as authoritative is not for those who regard religion as superseded nonsense? Or do you believe that scripture has magic converting power?
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          So!

                          Islam makes the claim that Mohammad flew his famous night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem on the heavenly steed Buraq. And you know this claim is being made. I dismiss both these “claims” due to lack of substantive evidence for such improbable occurrences.
                          That is not in the Quran and that story did not exist until more than a hundred years after Mohammad's death.


                          The existence of gods is highly improbable, not impossible...like Bertram Russell’s ‘celestial teapot’ orbiting between Earth and Mars. You can’t prove that it’s not, nor can you prove that it is.
                          Russell's tea pot is a conjecture, [uncaused] Existence is long been God's identity, Exodus 3:14-15.


                          There is nothing of substance to refute.
                          Denial of its substance does not refute it. And worst yet, you do not even understand what you think you are denying. ". . . But if our good news is hid, it is hid to them that are lost, . . ."



                          So god-the-father wasn’t appeased by the blood sacrifice of Jesus, I thought that what it was all about. God has always demanded sacrifices. Leviticus is full of it. Jesus was the sacrificial 'Lamb of God', surely.
                          Yes, there was a means by which it was to be done. But do you understand it (Hebrews 10:1, Romans 3:23-26)?



                          When will you understand that what you regard as authoritative is not for those who regard religion as superseded nonsense? Or do you believe that scripture has magic converting power?
                          What is the authority of any truth?
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            That is not in the Quran and that story did not exist until more than a hundred years after Mohammad's death.
                            John and Revelation did not exist until 70 plus years after the death of Jesus.

                            Russell's tea pot is a conjecture, .
                            Prove it wrong.

                            [uncaused] Existence is long been God's identity, Exodus 3:14-15
                            Only according to man-made myths deriving from the Bronze Age.

                            Denial of its substance does not refute it. And worst yet, you do not even understand what you think you are denying. ". . . But if our good news is hid, it is hid to them that are lost, . . ."
                            Again, you are assuming something exists when there is no good reason to do so.

                            Yes, there was a means by which it was to be done. But do you understand it (Hebrews 10:1, Romans 3:23-26)?
                            There is nothing to understand. Like most gods, god-the-father demanded sacrifices to appease his wrath. It’s what any self-respecting god does.

                            What is the authority of any truth?
                            Reliable evidence for a start! Not the gospel narratives, which were written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who had heard circulating stories.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              John and Revelation did not exist until 70 plus years after the death of Jesus.
                              That is the general consensus. John being an eye witness who wrote those accounts.


                              Prove it wrong.
                              It, Russell's teapot, was as you know an analogy made on the premise that it could not be explicitly proven not to be in that orbit around the Sun. So it was never a real entity even though teapots do exist. That place for a teapot could not be explicitly proven that there was not one there. Point of the analogy.

                              Only according to man-made myths deriving from the Bronze Age.
                              That Exodus account was not recorded as a myth, but as an actual set of historical events.


                              Again, you are assuming something exists when there is no good reason to do so.
                              The teaching and the NT documents making historical claims for the teaching do exist.


                              There is nothing to understand. Like most gods, god-the-father demanded sacrifices to appease his wrath. It’s what any self-respecting god does.
                              No. Denying claims exist do not refute them. And by your non-answer you so much as admitted that you do not understand the teaching of the good news and the undeserved favor to be found in it.


                              Reliable evidence for a start! Not the gospel narratives, which were written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who had heard circulating stories.
                              Matthew and John are regarded as eye witnesses. Peter was an eye witness. Saul became a witness seeing Jesus Himself. Luke consulted eye witnesses. No ancient documents are better attested than the NT.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                That is the general consensus. John being an eye witness who wrote those accounts.
                                No, the consensus of scholars is that there is no New Testament account of Jesus that could have been received directly from any eyewitness.

                                “Even though there may well have been eyewitnesses alive some 35-40 years after Jesus’ death, there is no guarantee – or, I would argue, no reason to think – that any of them were consulted by the authors of the Gospels when writing their accounts. The eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. Mark was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine (Rome?), who never traveled, probably, to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel.

                                The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels”.

                                https://ehrmanblog.org/question-abou...d-the-gospels/

                                It, Russell's teapot, was as you know an analogy made on the premise that it could not be explicitly proven not to be in that orbit around the Sun. So it was never a real entity even though teapots do exist. That place for a teapot could not be explicitly proven that there was not one there. Point of the analogy.
                                Russell's Celestial Teapot is an analogy intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim, whether in general or in religion. By using an intentionally absurd analogy, it draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works.

                                That Exodus account was not recorded as a myth, but as an actual set of historical events.
                                The Exodus account was not recorded as a myth, but mainstream history and archaeology now consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE. ‘Reading the Pentateuch: A Historical Introduction’ - John J. McDermott.

                                The teaching and the NT documents making historical claims for the teaching do exist.
                                The documents exist; there is no good reason to consider them based in fact.

                                No. Denying claims exist do not refute them. And by your non-answer you so much as admitted that you do not understand the teaching of the good news and the undeserved favor to be found in it.
                                Deities have historically demanded sacrifices, YAHWEH is no exception. Leviticus lists endless forms of sacrifices required. And of course Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God.

                                Matthew and John are regarded as eye witnesses. Peter was an eye witness. Saul became a witness seeing Jesus Himself. Luke consulted eye witnesses. No ancient documents are better attested than the NT.
                                That’s’ simply not true. The Gospels are not eyewitness sources and have no verifiable eyewitness accounts. OTOH there are numerous for say, Caesar plus considerable external evidence as well.

                                /
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X