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

Three irrefutable miracles.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Not as "cute" as believing, in this day and age, that it was all done by an invisible sky-god.
    God is indeed invisible. But God is not your straw man sky god. God being omnipresent.

    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    One cannot “deny” what cannot be shown to exist.
    God is the Existence in which all other things exist. As I said, you deny that God is God.


    The nature of the universe(s) is not as yet fully understood. Science, unlike religion, is a work in progress.
    We are all works in progress.


    So they believe. I believe they are wrong.
    Ok.


    There is a great deal of evidence that it was composed by men with an agenda to sell Jesus and that the final canon was decided over numerous synods (and a great deal of vitriol), over several centuries. All the evidence points to it being a totally human construct.
    Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written, not when some group decided it to be.


    It is more convincing for beliefs to be based upon substantive evidence rather than wish-fulfilment.
    Your atheism denies substantive evidence.


    By demonstrating that their delusions are not supported by substantive evidence...’delusions’ are idiosyncratic beliefs that are firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.
    Then are you admitting atheism is delusional? Can you give the rational arguments that former professed Christians give for overcoming their personal delusions of having known God?
    Last edited by 37818; 06-30-2018, 10:56 AM.
    . . . 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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      Whether any fact F is evidence for a proposition P depends on the probability that F could obtain if P were false. That probability is not determined by the mere assertion that F is evidence for P.


      Only on the assumption that the universe is a miracle.
      The evidence of our observable universe is that it has an apparent measurable beginning. We understand what begins has a cause. Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, 3 make claims, if understood to be true, would indicate the origin of the universe is with God and His agent. As for what we can deem a merely natural cause would seem not to be possible.

      Any book is evidence of something that its writer or writers were thinking. There is nothing miraculous about the thinking of anybody who might have involved in producing the Bible.
      Not according to what is written in the Bible. [2 Peter, 2 Timothy.]

      The claim of any human being to know any god is not inconsistent with that god's nonexistence.
      Explain your thinking here. Since there is a difference between being imagined and the real.

      I don't need a definitive refutation. I'm not obliged to believe it just because you say so.
      Fine. And it goes unrefuted.

      I'm not interesting in making any psychiatric diagnoses. I believe that Christians who say they know God are mistaken. If you want me to think that isn't possible, it's up to you to definitively show me that you cannot be mistaken.
      As far as I know, there is not a single former professing Christian that explains having gotten over a delusion of having known God. [John 17:3: 1 John 4:7, etc]
      . . . 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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        This is so cute.
        . . . but a possibility.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          1) Creation (the natural revelation).

          2) Special revelation of Holy Scripture (the 66 book Bible).

          3) Salvation (By God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone).

          Mere denial does not refute anything.
          That's dumb. Assertion doesn't make them true either, whether they can be refuted or not, which seems to be what you're insinuating. You see, I can assert the opposite, i.e. that creation is false, that special revelation is bull pucky, and that salvation is nonsense. Mere denial doesn't refute my assertion either.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            That's dumb. Assertion doesn't make them true either, whether they can be refuted or not, which seems to be what you're insinuating. You see, I can assert the opposite, i.e. that creation is false, that special revelation is bull pucky, and that salvation is nonsense. Mere denial doesn't refute my assertion either.
            JimL, what does Genesis 1:1 c!aim? What does 2 Timothy 3:16 say? What is attributed to Jesus to have said in John 17:3? This universe having a beginning is in evidence. There is the Bible. And there are the Christians.
            . . . 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


            • #36
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              God is indeed invisible. But God is not your straw man sky god. God being omnipresent.
              “Sky god” or “omniscient god” what’s the difference? Neither are real.

              God is the Existence in which all other things exist.
              No he's not, he doesn't exist.

              As I said, you deny that God is God.
              One denies the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist.

              We are all works in progress.
              The scientific understanding of the origin of the universe(s) certainly is.

              Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written, not when some group decided it to be.
              Nope! The final canon was decided over numerous synods over several centuries, all the evidence points to it being a totally human construct.

              Your atheism denies substantive evidence.
              There is no substantive evidence of your worldview to deny.

              Then are you admitting atheism is delusional?
              It is not delusional to reject unsubstantiated claims.

              Can you give the rational arguments that former professed Christians give for overcoming their personal delusions of having known God?
              I cannot speak for others.
              “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


              • #37
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                JimL, what does Genesis 1:1 c!aim? What does 2 Timothy 3:16 say? What is attributed to Jesus to have said in John 17:3? This universe having a beginning is in evidence.
                Genesis is generally held to be making theological points about God vis-ŕ-vis Man, not providing a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. And how the universe(s) began is still an open question in science.

                There is the Bible. And there are the Christians.
                There is the noble eightfold path and there are Buddhists, your point?
                “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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  JimL, what does Genesis 1:1 c!aim? What does 2 Timothy 3:16 say? What is attributed to Jesus to have said in John 17:3? This universe having a beginning is in evidence. There is the Bible. And there are the Christians.
                  Why should I care what those biblical passages say? What they say is no more evidence of anything than is my assertion that what they say is bull pucky. What we call the universe, i.e. the spacetime that we have access to, didn't necessarily have a beginning. What we call the beginning is merely that point in the past of spacetime beyond which we have no access.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    The evidence of our observable universe is that it has an apparent measurable beginning.
                    That is not what current cosmology says. That is how you are interpreting what you think it says. And I doubt very much that you are basing your thinking on the basis of any scientific literature that you have yourself read.

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    We understand what begins has a cause.
                    That is what you understand.

                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                    Any book is evidence of something that its writer or writers were thinking. There is nothing miraculous about the thinking of anybody who might have involved in producing the Bible.

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Not according to what is written in the Bible. [2 Peter, 2 Timothy.]
                    Do you know what a circular argument is? Do you care?


                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                    The claim of any human being to know any god is not inconsistent with that god's nonexistence.

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Explain your thinking here. Since there is a difference between being imagined and the real.
                    What do you not understand?

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    And it goes unrefuted.
                    Yes, because it doesn't need to be refuted. Whatever you can say without argument, I can deny without argument.

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    As far as I know, there is not a single former professing Christian that explains having gotten over a delusion of having known God.
                    Because if they do say it, you just deny that were actually a Christian. So, I'm supposed to believe whatever you say just because you say it, but I'm not supposed to believe anything different if somebody else says it. So it's all about what you say, and you alone. You are asking me to treat your word as if it were the word of God.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      The evidence of our observable universe is that it has an apparent measurable beginning.
                      Our universe does not have an apparent measurable beginning.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        “Sky god” or “omniscient god” what’s the difference? Neither are real.
                        There is a difference between the "sky" and being all knowing. God being invisible and omnipresent is not the same thing. The omnipresence does make all information His knowledge.


                        No he's not, he doesn't exist.
                        Does it make sense to say "Existence does not exist?" There is in fact an omnipresent existence in which all things have existence. Now to deny that is God is denying God is God. You refuse to believe God is God. Fine. That is your problem. Your denial does not change the identity of God whom I know.



                        One denies the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist.
                        The very identity of the God I know does exist, being that He is the uncaused Existence, the Existent One. Now if you want to argue that "it" is not God, make that argument. It is not logical to say existence does not exist.


                        The scientific understanding of the origin of the universe(s) certainly is.
                        And so are we [works in progress].


                        Nope! The final canon was decided over numerous synods over several centuries, all the evidence points to it being a totally human construct.
                        Again, the written word of God was the word of God upon being written [2 Peter, 2 Timothy] not when some so called church makes that declaration.


                        There is no substantive evidence of your worldview to deny.
                        Prove that.


                        It is not delusional to reject unsubstantiated claims.
                        Is it an unsubstantiated claim that the know universe has a measured beginning? Is it unsubstantiated that the Bible claims it has a beginning with God having created?



                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Genesis is generally held to be making theological points about God vis-ŕ-vis Man, not providing a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. And how the universe(s) began is still an open question in science.
                        Two things here. 1) The Bible was not written as a science book as we moderns think of science. 2) It teaches about God and His dealing with mankind.


                        There is the noble eightfold path and there are Buddhists, your point?
                        The so-called noble path does not and cannot lead anyone to know God.
                        . . . 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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          There is a difference between the "sky" and being all knowing. God being invisible and omnipresent is not the same thing. The omnipresence does make all information His knowledge.
                          Your alleged "omniscient god" is no more real than a sky god!

                          Does it make sense to say "Existence does not exist?"
                          It makes sense, you were claiming the existence of a deity.

                          There is in fact an omnipresent existence in which all things have existence. Now to deny that is God is denying God is God. You refuse to believe God is God. Fine. That is your problem. Your denial does not change the identity of God whom I know.
                          So you say....

                          The very identity of the God I know does exist, being that He is the uncaused Existence, the Existent One. Now if you want to argue that "it" is not God, make that argument. It is not logical to say existence does not exist.
                          I said “One denies the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist. Personal testimony does not show that this entity exists.

                          And so are we [works in progress].
                          Yes we are evolving in knowledge and understanding, so is science...religion has been superseded.

                          Again, the written word of God was the word of God upon being written [2 Peter, 2 Timothy] not when some so called church makes that declaration.
                          Quoting bible passages, especially pseudepigraphic ones like 2 Peter that barely made it into the canon, is no argument...or are you counting on the converting power of scripture.

                          Prove that.
                          It’s up to you to “prove” that what you believe should be taken seriously.

                          Is it an unsubstantiated claim that the know universe has a measured beginning? Is it unsubstantiated that the Bible claims it has a beginning with God having created?
                          The origins of the universe are an open question at this stage in science. As for the Genesis (ne Mesopotamian) creation narratives they are generally considered theological accounts, not scientific explanations, of how the universe evolved.

                          Two things here. 1) The Bible was not written as a science book as we moderns think of science. 2) It teaches about God and His dealing with mankind.
                          Yes. See above.

                          The so-called noble path does not and cannot lead anyone to know God.
                          I was parodying your comment: “There is the Bible. And there are the Christians”
                          “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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Your alleged "omniscient god" is no more real than a sky god!
                            To you. But then you do not regard God as God either.


                            It makes sense, you were claiming the existence of a deity.
                            No. I was claiming God is the uncaused Existence. Big difference.


                            So you say....
                            So which is it? You deny that there is uncaused existence or deny uncaused Existence is the identity of God?


                            I said “One denies the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist. Personal testimony does not show that this entity exists.
                            Do you or do you not deny uncaused Existence to be the identity of God?


                            Yes we are evolving in knowledge and understanding, so is science...religion has been superseded.
                            So are you against progress in the area of helping the needy too? Science is the study of God's natural revelation, BTW.


                            Quoting bible passages, especially pseudepigraphic ones like 2 Peter that barely made it into the canon, is no argument...or are you counting on the converting power of scripture.
                            Wow. You have to argue that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic.


                            It’s up to you to “prove” that what you believe should be taken seriously.
                            And if you do not take any arguments made by me seriously? Do you or do you not believe that there is an uncaused existence?


                            The origins of the universe are an open question at this stage in science. As for the Genesis (ne Mesopotamian) creation narratives they are generally considered theological accounts, not scientific explanations, of how the universe evolved.
                            They are not science in any modern sense.






                            I was parodying your comment: “There is the Bible. And there are the Christians”
                            I am glade you had at least the pleasure in doing so.
                            . . . 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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              No. I was claiming God is the uncaused Existence. Big difference.
                              No difference. If God exists God is the uncaused cause of our physical existence.

                              And if you do not take any arguments made by me seriously? Do you or do you not believe that there is an uncaused existence?
                              It remains possible that Natural Law is the uncaused cause of our physical existence.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                No difference. If God exists God is the uncaused cause of our physical existence.



                                It remains possible that Natural Law is the uncaused cause of our physical existence.
                                Yes exactly! And that's all that need be said in this discussion with 37818. Either Natural Law is the uncaused cause of our physical existence or a deity is. We really have no way of knowing for sure at this stage but I would go for the former as the most likely.
                                “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, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                233 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X