Become a theist

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 496
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent)
There is no way to distinguish between the two.
I disagree. The universe in all its parts screams of God, it displays God's knowledge and purpose.


Psalm 19:1-3 (NIV)
Psalm 19
For the director of music. A psalm of David.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.

Even though the universe has no speech it speaks of the glory and knowledge of God. 

Presuming gods does not automatically entail that they care at all about you as an individual.

I do not presume gods, I reject them. I only believe in God. Gods (small g) are figments of the imagination, things we make up and put in the place of God. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you get meaning from the quantitative as opposed to the qualitative?
Quanta (the quantitative) is emotionally meaningless.  Only qualitative experience is emotionally meaningful.
I agree the quantitative is meaningless, but how do you get qualitative from quantitative? It is what David Hume called the is/ought problem or fallacy. What "is" is a difference from what ought to be. What "is" is descriptive. It just describes. What ought or SHOULD be is prescriptive. It describes what should be the case. If we are just material than how do you get what ought to be from materialism? 


A dog a fish and an ant have motives.  For example they seek out particular foods and consume them.  Their particular type of food is valuable to them.  Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them.  Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.
Dogs and fishes don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature. 
I don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature either, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, are you suggesting that other animals don't value the same things and experiences that humans do?  Well, that is actually my point.  Humans don't value the same things and experiences and other animals.  We seem to agree.
My point is that we have the ability to do these things; fish and dogs do not. Animals do not have the capacity we have to understand and manipulate our world. 


Not in the same way. Humans are the dominant species on the planet because of their reasoning ability to manipulate their environment like no animal.
Human survival instinct is functionally identical to the survival instinct of other mammals.  Your magical ability to reason and manipulate is absolutely immaterial.
Immaterial? How does something abstract, intangible, non-physical, immaterial come about through a strictly material process? That is your ASSUMPTION, not mine. Thus, it is your burden to prove. 


I value my community because humans cannot exist in isolation.  If you have an impulse to "kill all humans" you are basically suicidal.
More like genocidal.
"Genocide" does not usually include killing the people who are actively directing the killing.
Okay.


A dog, a fish, and an ant can't manipulate the world to the same degree humans can. They do not have the same ability.
Human survival instinct is functionally identical to the survival instinct of other mammals.  Your magical ability to reason and manipulate is absolutely immaterial.
Answered above.


I'm not sure how a hypothetical Deistic Being adds any meaningfulness to human existence.  Please explain.
Why is He hypothetical? That is your assumption, not mine. 
Please answer the question.  How does the concept of any particular god or gods add any meaningfulness to human existence?
Because God is a meaningful Being. We find the reason we were created when we find God. We understand what is meaningful. We find true love (1 Corinthians 13:4-13)

How does meaning originate from inanimate, non-living matter? That again is your assumption, not mine.
You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/
I'll look into the link. I can't open it in a response.


I don't buy it. 
You don't have to "buy it", it is 100% free to everyone everywhere.


It is an idol. An idol is something put in the place of God. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief.
Let's start from the axiom that a Deistic Being is a fact.  Now what?

Your limited subject reasoning becomes the key. Instead of focusing on the overall picture you divide the picture up into tiny pieces and focus on one aspect of the picture. Thus we have a conflicting theory of reason and evidence between atheism and Christianity.
Ok, ok, let's start from the axiom that the "YHWH" is a fact.  Now what?

You hold a non-theistic conception of reason and evidence, which assumes the ultimacy of your human mind. And you use as an excuse for holding your position of atheism that only the facts as you determine them are valid, that what you hold as fact does not act on faith, but solely on reason and proof. You fail to look at how you arrived at atheism because this is an uncomfortable subject that exposes what I would coin a foundation resting on thin air (no visible means of support). Until you look deeper at that system of thought and determine what makes it tick I claim it is you who is delusional for you have built your whole house of cards on a shaky beginning that you refuse to look at (the Emporer has no clothes). The foundation is cracked at the seems. 
Your accusations of "atheist bias" (even if 100% valid) grant zero credibility to your conclusions.

You base your facts on the empirical, on what you see, what complies with your rules and your evidence (only the facts please, sir).
Don't forget logic.

But your very system of belief, atheism, is an assumption.
Atheism is not a "system of belief".  Atheism is a general skepticism of unverifiable phenomena, like Russell's teapot.

And for many atheists that I have encountered, they make the assumption that their system of thought, how they look at the world and the universe is not a belief taken by faith.
Faith is believing confidently in anything that does not have verifiable and or logical evidence, like bigfoot or the lochness monster.

It is precisely that, for their structure of thought is based on the materialistic, on what they see and how they understand what they see, devoid of God. (i.e., Show me what your epistemology rests upon.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.  All epistemology begins with the statement "I think, therefore I am".  It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

I contend, and you have stated as much, that it rests on you. Why should I believe you? Who are you that you determine what is and what should be?) So you think you can make sense of your experience, yet you fail to look at the starting point of your worldview experience, what it all hangs upon without God, and with the denial of God - blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. Why is that reasonable? So you have declared your independence from God, a law unto yourself. Without God, you would have to assume that you are not created. You would look for means that verify this hidden presupposition.
Epistemology rests on zero assumptions.

If I make any assertions that are illogical or unverifiable, then you shouldn't believe me.

I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is not a "system of belief"
yes it is

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
I say it does, for you are discussing that very meaning and purpose now. The question that keeps bugging me with an atheistic perspective is why would you expect to find meaning and reasons in a chance happenstance universe? Even the chaos has an order. (^8
I am ok with discussing meaning and pupose because I am not into discussing atheism v theism.  I consider that done and dusted - you may disagree and there are many posters who you can argue about that with, but not with me!
I do disagree, but it still doesn't answer the question of why we not only find meaning and purpose in a supposed meaningless universe but also create meaning and purpose.


i don't think the philosophical and ethical consequences of a god-free universe receives enough attention - many atheists enjoy battling theists too much to worry about the consequences of victory!
I would hazard a guess and say most societies operate on a secular level. So, I again disagree. I think that the philosophical and ethical consequences of a godless world are evidence and the twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date as humanity continues on the path you suggest does not receive enough attention. My contention is when a society does not worship God as He is they replace Him with some kind of idol that falls way short of God and His goodness. I content this is the very witness of history (His story).   

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Atheism is, and isn't, a system of belief. This is because the term atheism encompasses two mutually exclusive meanings.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
This is a Red Herring.
I'm not not all clear what aspect is the 'red herring'!   I don't believe in gods or 'meaning' and 'purpose'; I am trying to second-guess the mindset of people like PGA who do.   I'd guess they suppose life gets meaning by virtue of our being part of a universe that has god-given meaning and purpose.

My own view is that we create our own meaning and purpose.  We can choose to flourish and spread peace and harmony across the galaxy or we can choose to smother ourselves and die under a poisonous and polluted sky - the universe doesn't care either way.  Of course i don't mean we choose our destiny in a referendum even consciously - we decide our future implicitly as the consequence of our actions and activiies today.   
It is a red herring to debate "intelligent design" versus "random chaos" for a number of reasons.

Most prominently because even if you adopt "intelligent design" that does not automagically "give your life meaning".

Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@janesix
Atheism is not a "system of belief"
yes it is
Please explain to me which gods are real and why anyone should care.

Not believing in Santa Claus is not "system of belief" - believing in Santa Claus might be a "system of belief" but disbelief or skepticism is not itself "a system of belief".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Atheism is, and isn't, a system of belief. This is because the term atheism encompasses two mutually exclusive meanings.
What are you talking about?

Some atheists have a low to middle level of skepticism regarding all mythological and hypothetical gods.

Some atheists have an extremely high level of skepticism regarding all mythological and hypothetical gods.

I'm pretty sure these are not "mutually exclusive".

All atheists recognize that Spinoza's god is perfectly logical, but only "exists" ontologically.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain to me which gods are real and why anyone should care.
Not sure what that has to do with my claim that your atheistic worldview is a system of belief.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
the twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date
More Americans died in their civil war than died in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
--> @Fallaneze
the twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date
More Americans died in their civil war than died in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined.

We have always been very good at killing each other.

(my mistake to @Falleze not PGA2.0)



keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL

Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".
PGA2.0 is not arguing for a deistic being - I am not sure if anyone in this thread is.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@janesix
Please explain to me which gods are real and why anyone should care.
Not sure what that has to do with my claim that your atheistic worldview is a system of belief.
Skepticism/atheism (lack of belief) is not a system of belief.

It is neither a "system" nor a "belief".

Belief in something is a system of belief.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief. 
Let's start from the axiom that a Deistic Being is a fact.  Now what?
Are you willing to live with faith in His standard (His Son) or do you think your own is adequate? You either meet His just requirements and standards through what the Son has done on your behalf, or you are responsible for meeting those requirements on your own merit. How well do you think your merit measures up?


Your limited subject reasoning becomes the key. Instead of focusing on the overall picture you divide the picture up into tiny pieces and focus on one aspect of the picture. Thus we have a conflicting theory of reason and evidence between atheism and Christianity. 
Ok, ok, let's start from the axiom that the "YHWH" is a fact.  Now what?
Either you believe in the means He has provided for reconciliation (His Son) or you continue to live alienated from Him. 


You hold a non-theistic conception of reason and evidence, which assumes the ultimacy of your human mind. And you use as an excuse for holding your position of atheism that only the facts as you determine them are valid, that what you hold as fact does not act on faith, but solely on reason and proof. You fail to look at how you arrived at atheism because this is an uncomfortable subject that exposes what I would coin a foundation resting on thin air (no visible means of support). Until you look deeper at that system of thought and determine what makes it tick I claim it is you who is delusional for you have built your whole house of cards on a shaky beginning that you refuse to look at (the Emporer has no clothes). The foundation is cracked at the seems. 
Your accusations of "atheist bias" (even if 100% valid) grant zero credibility to your conclusions.
Why is that?
Do you recognize that we all hold bias?
If you believe God does not exist how will you ever know Someone you deny exists?
If you are acting on your mind being necessary on understanding the universe, or even yourself, how well are you doing in that understanding?
Why do we exist? 
Are you a fluke of nature?

What would be necessary for certainty? 


You base your facts on the empirical, on what you see, what complies with your rules and your evidence (only the facts please, sir). 
Don't forget logic.
Logic is not material in nature, but abstract and immaterial. So how do you get something immaterial from the strictly material?


But your very system of belief, atheism, is an assumption. 
Atheism is not a "system of belief".  Atheism is a general skepticism of unverifiable phenomena, like Russell's teapot.
Yes, it is for you have to believe something to disbelieve God. You start out with the premise that God does not exist or there is no evidence for God and you look for your explanations by excluding God as the likely reason. You build your whole worldview from its core belief on outward like the layers of onion on materialism and naturalism.  

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL


And for many atheists that I have encountered, they make the assumption that their system of thought, how they look at the world and the universe is not a belief taken by faith. 
Faith is believing confidently in anything that does not have verifiable and or logical evidence, like bigfoot or the lochness monster.
There are three kinds of faith that I'm aware of; reasonable faith, unreasonable faith, and blind faith. The Christian faith is reasonable. It gives reasonable and logical evidence for its belief in God. For example, prophecy deals with history before it happens, and history happens as prescribed. How reasonable is it to say that prophecy does take place before the facts before the history occurs? I believe it can be shown to be extremely reasonable and I think your case logically falls apart when you try to prove that prophecy was written after rather than before the fact. I keep challenging those who have a good working knowledge of prophecy to debate the subject. So far I have only had a few takers, and on DDO, not here to any in-depth degree of discussion. I got more assertions than proof of the position that prophecy was written after the fact/historical event.


It is precisely that, for their structure of thought is based on the materialistic, on what they see and how they understand what they see, devoid of God. (i.e., Show me what your epistemology rests upon. 
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.  All epistemology begins with the statement "I think, therefore I am".  It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Yes, it is all about how we know what we know. What would be necessary for you to know about your origins or why you exist? Science can sometimes answer the how, but not why. It more often than not speculates about origins. 


I contend, and you have stated as much, that it rests on you. Why should I believe you? Who are you that you determine what is and what should be?) So you think you can make sense of your experience, yet you fail to look at the starting point of your worldview experience, what it all hangs upon without God, and with the denial of God - blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. Why is that reasonable? So you have declared your independence from God, a law unto yourself. Without God, you would have to assume that you are not created. You would look for means that verify this hidden presupposition.
Epistemology rests on zero assumptions.
But do you know you are not created? Do you know a blind, indifferent chance is your maker? Knowledge would be a certainty. You can't be sure of something unless you know it, can you?


If I make any assertions that are illogical or unverifiable, then you shouldn't believe me.
I agree. 


I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.

What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is? 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".
PGA2.0 is not arguing for a deistic being - I am not sure if anyone in this thread is.
Let's suppose the "YHWH" IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheists believe there are no Gods. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
the twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date
More Americans died in their civil war than died in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined.
Death rates by socialist and communist governments are greater than at any other time in history (you could argue that it is because we have more people now than in any other time in history but the fact still remains that millions have been systematically killed or left to starve by such atheistic and secular regimes). 

"Just consider that alone 61,911,000 people were murdered by the Soviet Union, 38,702,000 by the Chinese communists, 10,214,000 by the Chinese Nationalists, 17,000,000 by the German Nazis, and 5,890,000 by the Japanese militarists during World War II. This does not even exhaust the list of this century's mega-murderers, which also would include the past governments of Turkey, Cambodia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia; nor does it include the lesser killers responsible for hundreds of thousands of corpses each, such as past governments of Uganda, Indonesia, Albania, Burundi, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Hungary, Romania, Spain, and Vietnam. Then there are the numerous third-class murders who have "only" killed in the tens of thousands. In sum well over 100,000,000 people have been murdered by their governments since 1900, several times greater than the 35,654,000 battle-dead from all the foreign and domestic wars fought in these years, including World Wars I and II."

More than 100 million. That is what atheism, socialism, and communism have contributed to society. Now, Kim Jong-un, President Xi of China, and President Putin of Russia, and many other dictators and oligarchs have vice-like grips on their populations. Some claim to be Christian of God-fearing but their actions give no evidence of such beliefs. 

To my thinking, Chine and Russia (and as America goes - either Democratic, liberal, and socialistic or Republican, conservative, and small government) seem to be the areas of greatest concern for the near future. 

Right now in your country, there is a battle over ideologies. If Democrats win out heaven help your country. Look at the socialist, big government states/countries around the world and see where socialism takes you. If your country does not win the fight over socialism I see a sharp decline in your values and living standards. You see, ideas have consequences and a denial of God leads to might/preference makes right for standards become relative, not absolute or objective but personal and preferential.


We have always been very good at killing each other.

Very true. But there was a cultural shift with the Age of Reason and Enlightenment that changed the paradigm from God to humanity as the measure of all things, and the results continue to pile up. Human beings started to think apart from God as the answer. 
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think Godless societies/individuals are worse than theists? Are they ethically inferior in your opinion?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The one who gave you life and everything else cannot give your life meaning as well?




keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
You might be arguing that god is a useful fiction.   We can't establish truth by body count.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you willing to live with faith in His standard (His Son) or do you think your own is adequate? You either meet His just requirements and standards through what the Son has done on your behalf, or you are responsible for meeting those requirements on your own merit. How well do you think your merit measures up?
The christian teachings seem to suggest that nobody can "meet gods just requirements and standards" and the only way to get into heaven is by faith and grace.

This would seem to devalue human life, suggesting that only the Jesus is worth anything and everyone else are just worthless free-loaders who don't deserve to get into heaven on their own merit and can only get in if they have blind faith in something for which there is zero evidence.  This means that "blind faith" itself is worth more than human life, and if you don't have "blind faith" then your life is worth nothing.

Either you believe in the means He has provided for reconciliation (His Son) or you continue to live alienated from Him. 
Either I am lucky enough to be born into an environment that allows me to have "blind faith" or I am unlucky enough to be either unaware or skeptical of this magical free trip to heaven limited time, special offer.

It seem like luck is a very poor principle to base your sense of personal "meaningfulness" on.

Your accusations of "atheist bias" (even if 100% valid) grant zero credibility to your conclusions.
Why is that? 
It seem like luck is a very poor principle to base your sense of personal "meaningfulness" on.

Do you recognize that we all hold bias? 
If you believe God does not exist how will you ever know Someone you deny exists? 
Saul of Tarsus didn't believe in gods until he saw an angel with his own eyes.  It sounds to me that Saul of Tarsus didn't have any faith at all.

If you are acting on your mind being necessary on understanding the universe, or even yourself, how well are you doing in that understanding? 
Well, since you can only "understand" information with your "mind" it would seem to be tautological.

Why do we exist? 
Because our parents had an adequate survival instinct and reproductive impulse.

Are you a fluke of nature?
I wouldn't imagine.  There are a great many creatures that have adequate survival instinct and reproductive impulses.

What would be necessary for certainty? 
Perhaps a personal, qualitative "road to Damascus" experience.

Reading an old book isn't really going to cut it.

Logic is not material in nature, but abstract and immaterial. So how do you get something immaterial from the strictly material?
Logic is not itself "material", however, like speed and weight, it is rigorously defined and independently verifiable.

Without basic logical functions, a mind cannot learn from experience or make simple predictions.

Logic is verifiable by its efficacy.

Atheism is not a "system of belief".  Atheism is a general skepticism of unverifiable phenomena, like Russell's teapot.
Yes, it is for you have to believe something to disbelieve God.
This is provably false.  Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past.

I just don't understand how any of them change anything about epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.

You start out with the premise that God does not exist 
I start out, like anyone, with the premise that nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable).

or there is no evidence for God and you look for your explanations by excluding God as the likely reason.
The axiom "there is no god" is absolutely nowhere in my ontology.

You build your whole worldview from its core belief on outward like the layers of onion on materialism and naturalism.  
My "whole worldview" is based on the core belief that, "I think, therefore I am".

Prima facie, axiomatic "atheism" has absolutely nothing to do with epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.

I mean, I certainly believe it is fair to say that Spinoza's god exists.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The one who gave you life and everything else cannot give your life meaning as well?
Are you speaking about your parents?

Do your parents "give your life meaning"?

Do your grandparents "give your life meaning"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@janesix
Atheists believe there are no Gods. 
That's not precisely true.

Atheists are unconvinced.

It is illogical to presume, without rigorous definitions, that any particular thing "does not exist".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Faith is believing confidently in anything that does not have verifiable and or logical evidence, like bigfoot or the lochness monster.
There are three kinds of faith that I'm aware of; reasonable faith, unreasonable faith, and blind faith.
Belief in bigfoot, Santa Claus, and the lochness monster could also be said to be based on "evidence" and therefore "reasonable" as well.

The Christian faith is reasonable. It gives reasonable and logical evidence for its belief in God.
Please present your formal syllogism (IFF/AND/THEN/THEREFORE) that explains your claim of logical evidence for the "YHWH".

For example, prophecy deals with history before it happens, and history happens as prescribed. How reasonable is it to say that prophecy does take place before the facts before the history occurs? I believe it can be shown to be extremely reasonable and I think your case logically falls apart when you try to prove that prophecy was written after rather than before the fact. I keep challenging those who have a good working knowledge of prophecy to debate the subject. So far I have only had a few takers, and on DDO, not here to any in-depth degree of discussion. I got more assertions than proof of the position that prophecy was written after the fact/historical event.
You are making a classic appeal to ignorance.  (IFF) nobody can prove me wrong (THEN) I must be correct!!

The critical error with this type of assertion is that unfalsifiable claims are numerous (bigfoot, Santa Claus, lochness monster, aliens, bermuda triangle) and the simple fact that these cannot be "disproven" does absolutely nothing to validate their claims.

Manifest prophecy is not unique to the christian tradition, many religions claim to have made "true" predictions and even non-religious prognosticators (like Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce) claim to have made "true" predictions.

Being able to predict the future in vague terms is the primary function of our prefrontal cortex, it is no magic trick.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.  All epistemology begins with the statement "I think, therefore I am".  It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Yes, it is all about how we know what we know.
I'm glad we can agree on this fundamental concept.

What would be necessary for you to know about your origins or why you exist? Science can sometimes answer the how, but not why. It more often than not speculates about origins. 
Science only considers the available data.  Science doesn't even pretend to answer the questions of "why".

I am perfectly comfortable with the mystery (of what is beyond our epistemological limits).

I do not feel compelled to fabricate a "one size fits all" answer in order to avoid saying "I don't know"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM

Epistemology rests on zero assumptions.
But do you know you are not created?
I have never claimed to know such a thing.  I've only claimed that it doesn't appear to make any discernible difference either way.

Do you know a blind, indifferent chance is your maker?
I have never claimed to know such a thing.  I've only claimed that it doesn't appear to make any discernible difference either way.

Knowledge would be a certainty. You can't be sure of something unless you know it, can you?
In other words, if knowledge is knowable and verifiable and logically coherent then you can have confidence in it.

I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.
What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is? 
From Ancient India - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@janesix
Do you think Godless societies/individuals are worse than theists? Are they ethically inferior in your opinion?
Not necessarily with individuals but, generally speaking, godless societies tend to adopt the preferences of those in power rather than the biblical norms. Some godless people live much better lives than their Christian counterparts. I have an explanation why. They adopt Christian values, like love your neighbor (as opposed to, say, use your neighbor until they are of no longer of use), instead of living according to what their roots would dictate, survival of the strongest or fittest. 

I like taking the example of China because President Xi has now made himself dictator for life and is leading his people down the road to Chinese dominance at the expense of other countries. He is doing this by what the West would call dishonest means (manipulating currencies, intellectual theft, using large companies for his own gain) and the world is sitting back and watching him do so. Some of those who oppose him or even speak against him and his ideology are detained and harassed. It remains to see how this will develop but I think a confrontation may be likely in the not too distant future.

The same happens in your country with the Democrats, generally speaking (and in my opinion). They control the country by devious means and deceptions that no one seems to confront. The media is used as a propaganda tool to influence the minds of the gullible. Institutions of higher learning are largely run by liberal-minded professors (9 of 10 per one stat) who push a leftist ideology on their students. Freedom to express conservative values is squashed by the student bodies and faculties to an extent, as witnessed numerous times in the news during the last two years. Hollywood (many of its actors are liberally educated) also promotes secular values and ideas. The Arts portray images and ideas that are secular and profane. Large multinational companies adopt the same liberal, leftist outlooks. So, the gatekeepers of American society (especially in the big population centers on the coasts and around the Great Lakes) promote things that Christians see as not healthy to society by indoctrinating their population at every level with political correctness and secular values and ideas. 

The political situation in your country disgusts me. As an outsider, I see the Democrats, more so than the Republicans as pushing an agenda that I feel will leave your country worse off than it has ever been before. I think your democracy that has lasted for hundreds of years is at stake with the manipulation going on by these dishonest politicians and their hate mongering. There is a double-standard, duplicity with moderate Republicans (Flake, for one, and Romney for another) and a large portion of the Democrat Party in unequal justice, coverups, and hypocrisy on all levels. What I don't understand is how Americans can vote Democrat? It makes no sense to me. I chalk it up to an indoctrination that has continued over the course of many decades and also the inability of the moderate branch of the Republican Party to get things done that are good for the country. I see President Trump as the last hope for a radical change, or else things are going to continue to get worse until your country declines in its influence.

Obama let most of the radical world (countries in deep opposition to freedom) away with their saber rattling but now it is being addressed, however uncomfortable this may be. It needs to be done. With a Democratic Congress, I think things are going to come to a stand-still unless Trump is willing to compromise what should not be compromised. 

Border security should be a no-brainer, but it is not. The drugs, gangs, illegal immigrants, sex-traffickers, rapists, and terrorists have an open path to your country and neighborhoods, and not only this, these illegals cost your country billions more than a barrier would cost. Meanwhile, your debt load spirals further and further out of control because of ineffective government. Sanctuary cities are one stupid idea, so is the Chuck Shummer lottery system. And when some of these Democrats suggest that there were no walls when Jesus fled to Egypt, while this is true, in some Israeli cities there were walls to protect and secure the population of cities against foreign attacks, such as in Jericho and Jerusalem.

That is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth if anything.  

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So it's not right but do it anyway, objective morality at work or is that hypocrisy?
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you agree with Christian values, such as women should be submissive to their husbands? I think that's a pretty big one.

EDIT: I am not ignoring the rest of your post, i am still thinking about it
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am of course talking about God, not your parents.