Become a theist

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 496
#241
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
@PGA2.0
I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 
Which is more reasonable?
Then I choose chance.
How do you logically eliminate all other possible gods?
#242
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
They don't claim to be the Creator of the universe. There may be some reason for the beliefs and some may be reasonable, so what, and what does this have to do with the Christian worldview as being a reasonable faith? The Christian faith has logical evidence.

The Lochness monster could be a relic from the past still in existence at the time of the supposed sightings, or an illusion created by the fog on the lake, or confirmational bias - a wanting it to be so. It is highly unlikely. Big Foot could fall in the same category as the Lochness monster. Santa Claus is not a reasonable belief, that one person could deliver toys and gifts to the whole of humanity in such a short space of time.   


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".
I can give all kinds of evidence but that is a poser, for no matter what argument I present you will find flaws in it because you use human standards of cogency as your ultimate source and authority. You see logic as a human construct or something that is just there. I have a problem with that. The Laws of Logic (A=A; A cannot = A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense, etc) exist whether or not you exist or use them. They are necessary for you or me to make sense of anything. But they exist without you or me supposing them. Since they are laws of reasoning they depend on a mind thinking them, but not your mind or my mind. Whose mind makes them up? Since humans are finite which mind is the necessary mind for logic to exist? If no human mind existed would the laws of logic still be true? Would the Law of Identity still be A=A or the thing we call a dog is the same thing, a dog? Or would a dog become a tree or a rock without a human thought (i.e., something that is it not or a loss of identity)? IOW's, are the laws of logic eternal, absolute truths or are they things made up and contingent on our being? If you say they are things made up then a dog could be a rock or anything before we as human beings existed. Do you think that is true, that a thing is not itself but something else? So, a necessary mind makes sense of the laws of logic. 

No matter what analogy I give you will find a way to make it independent of God because you reason that your finite human mind knows better and you play by your rules, not God's who you deny.

Isaiah 55:8-11
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

I will borrow a syllogism from Vern S. Poythress, Logic, A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought, p. 195, that is evidence of  God as the Trinity.


#243
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Continue:

John 12:49 (NKJV)
49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

What is implied is that the Son says what the Father says. John 17:7-8 backs up the same proposition.

John 17:7-8 (NKJV)

7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 
8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them,  
and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.




So, the Son speaks what the Father says. 

John 16:13-14 (NKJV)
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

The Spirit speaks the words of the Son. 

So, here are two premises;

1. The words the Son says are the words the Father says.
2. The words the Spirit says are the words the Son says. 
C. Therefore, the words the Spirit says are the words the Father says. 

1.  A = B
2.  C = A or (A = C)
C. C = B

We can put the syllogism another way, 

1. The words the Father says are the words the Son says. 
2. The words the Spirit says are the words the Father says. 
C. The words the Spirit says are the words the Son says.

1. B = A
2. C = B or (B = C)
C. C = A

I could do the same with the other three types of syllogism, the Darii, Ferio, and Celarent syllogisms (besides the Barbara syllogism) in demonstrating the Trinity (from the work of Poythess) which displays biblical logic. 

***

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

1. It is impossible to please God without faith/belief in Him. 
2. People cannot come to God without believing He is. 
C. Therefore, He rewards those who believe He is, and who seek Him out because He is pleased with them.

1. Even though God has revealed Himself through what has been created (the universe, life, humanity, etc), and via Scripture (His thinking expressing who He is and the problems with humanity), it still needs faith or belief and trust to please Him. 
2. Those who deny God find reasons not to believe Him by claiming He does not exist, thus they will not trust the biblical revelation.  
C. When a person believes God and seeks Him out that person is rewarded by God because God opens Himself up to them. They see through new eyes things they missed seeing before. Thus, they are rewarded for their searching for Him.



#244
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Response to response #1: Atheism assumes no "origin of the universe." Some atheists choose to believe in evolution as the cause. Others simply don't claim to know. I'm the latter. Evolution does exist, and we've seen it happen countless times with creatures and objects. We have tangible proof of it. However, evolution as an explanation of how the universe started? We have no more proof of that than we do of gods, therefore I believe in neither explanation. You assume that I assume these things because you can't seem to comprehend the idea of not having an affirmative belief of the origins of the universe. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean I assumed something.

Response to response #2: You can't seem to make a point without manipulating every definition you can into fitting your worldview. If you have to manipulate something in order for it to support your beliefs, then they're probably wrong.

Response to response #3: 

Another dispute regarding your debate (link in a previous post):

There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

  • Knowledge a priori
  • Knowledge a posteriori
I contend that there is another form of evidence, transcendent in nature - God's revelation. 
Oh. So the voices in your head? Yeah that'll hold up in court.

Science is a tool with many flaws that forms many worldviews. It can be used as an idol of worship in the sense that it replaces God as the ultimate authority when, as you say, so much just can't be known about the world via science. First, in the case of origins, it relies on the interpretation of the data which could be wrong. It is observing things in the present from the past that doesn't come stamped, 13.9 billion years old, or 3.4 billion years old. Many, many things have to be presupposed. 
You say tangibly proven data is presumptuous, yet you call an incomprehensible "ultimate being" no one has ever actually encountered a reasonable explanation? That's ass backward, bro. Something tells me you don't accept "chance" as an explanation because you simply can't wrap your head around it, and it's so much easier to blame it on something you don't have to try to comprehend(god). Blaming things on magical creatures is intellectually lazy.


#245
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
So?
#246
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 believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 
Which is more reasonable?
Then I choose chance.

Then how reasonable do you think that is?
#247
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 
Which is more reasonable?
Then I choose chance.
How do you logically eliminate all other possible gods?
I was choosing between God and chance, as that is what PGA offered.   But if the choice was between 'gods' and chance i'd still choose chance.

It sesms to me 'God' (or 'the gods') doesn't really help explain anything.   If you start with not knowing where the universe came you end up with exactly the same problem but now its not knowing where the gods came from.   Except now instead of having to explain the origin of some simple physical laws you have to explain where multi-omni-powered entities came from - or very unreasonably - fudge that problem by giving them some other fantastic property such as 'existing outside time and space' or some other nonsense.


#248
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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!!
I'm describing how prophecy deals with historical evidence and stating that I have found few people on these debate forums that show an understanding of the prophetic message, and this can be demonstrated. This can be demonstrated when someone challenges the claim, yet I find people talk around the subject and make claims and charges as a propaganda tool to influence opinion.

If you are going to call me incorrect than prove me so, don't just assert it. I started a prophecy thread a while ago.



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.
The Bible has many proofs. Show me your proofs for BigFoot, Santa Claus, and the Lochness monster.


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.
Show me a religion that demonstrates the same level of prediction, written before the fact/event, that comes true since you are making the claim and we can discuss it.


Being able to predict the future in vague terms is the primary function of our prefrontal cortex, it is no magic trick.
The terms are not vague but very specific. They deal with specific people at a specific time in history. Not only this, there are around three hundred Messianic prophecies that relate to these Old Covenant people that I don't see how the can be fulfilled after AD 70. 


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".
Sure it does in its consideration of the data. "This is why this happened."
 

I am perfectly comfortable with the mystery (of what is beyond our epistemological limits).
What is at stake is whether your or my worldview is correct.


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.
It makes a great difference. One of us is wrong in the way we see the world. 


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.
It makes a difference if the Christian worldview is correct. 


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.
In other words, if God revealed something as so then we can bank on 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/



They contain three contradictory accounts. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? When I asked for your evidence I did not ask for a link and thirty thousand pages of reading. What is it you want me to gather from these links?
#249
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 believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 
Which is more reasonable?
Then I choose chance. 
How do you logically eliminate all other possible gods?
I was choosing between God and chance, as that is what PGA offered.   But if the choice was between 'gods' and chance i'd still choose chance.

It sesms to me 'God' (or 'the gods') doesn't really help explain anything.   If you start with not knowing where the universe came you end up with exactly the same problem but now its not knowing where the gods came from.   Except now instead of having to explain the origin of some simple physical laws you have to explain where multi-omni-powered entities came from - or very unreasonably - fudge that problem by giving them some other fantastic property such as 'existing outside time and space' or some other nonsense.
God explains why we are moral beings, where we came from, why the universe exists, why evil exists in the world, why human beings act unjustly, why we find meaning and purpose in the universe, why we love, why we reason, what truth is, why we are logical beings, etc. Chance addresses none of this. So the nonsense is from chance happenstance and you are welcome to such nonsense since you want to make an appeal to emotion.

How can an eternal Being live within time? Eternal is timeless. 

This space, time universe (generally agreed) had a beginning. What caused it? 

Would you agree that everything that has a beginning has a cause?

If not then explain how nothing can cause something?


#250
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
How many female bishops?
#251
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
A bishop is a living icon of Christ, and just as an icon of Mary cannot be depicted as a male, so can not a bishop be a female.


#252
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Orthodoxy is not a religion of law,
In the same post.

We Orthodox are supposed to obey the law.


#253
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Collaborative evidence would be the history and archeology from the period
Egyptian mention of 400yrs of Jewish slavery. NONE
Archaeological evidence that 4million people wandered around a small desert for 40yrs. NONE

That rules that story false then.

#254
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
They don't claim to be the Creator of the universe.
Neither does your god.
Men claim your god is the creator of the universe.
You really need to get your head around the fact that what you believe are the words of men.

#255
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
God explains why we are moral beings, where we came from, why the universe exists, why evil exists in the world, why human beings act unjustly, why we find meaning and purpose in the universe, why we love, why we reason, what truth is, why we are logical beings, etc. Chance addresses none of this. So the nonsense is from chance happenstance and you are welcome to such nonsense since you want to make an appeal to emotion.
I'm happy to call it chance.

it is perfectly possible to expain human behaviour in physicalist terms.   indeed i would say that the physicalist explanation of human behavoiur explains the existence of 'saintly' and 'devilish' individuals better than God's grace and demon posession does!

its seems to me you seriousy underestimate the explanatory power of physicalism and simulataneoulsy exagerate what god explains.  you don't say how god makesus love, reason or be logical  - he just does, presumbly to serve some private purpose.   

The explantions offered by physicalism for love and reasoning aren't particularly elevating - they boil down to helping us to survive and reproduce.  But how it happened and why happened don't matter as much as the fact that we can - and do - love and reason.  Given that, to what sould we apply our powers of logic to?   To the worship of the non-existent gods?

The nihilists are right that nothing is written in the laws of physics to guide us.   Gravity and entropy have no morality.   it's like waking up alone on a desert island - what do we do?








     

#256
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
This space, time universe (generally agreed) had a beginning. What caused it? 
A voice from nowhere and nowhen, from nothing.. Sound reasonable?

#257
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I disagree. It shows that God is holy and pure, without sin and to enter His presence (have a close relationship with Him) you need to be without sin in yourself.

Oh sure, nobody is disputing that the "YHWH" is super cool, but humans are sinful trash.  The scriptures teach that all humans are born sinful so there isn't really anything we can do about it ourselves.
There is something Someone else had done on our behalf (for those who will trust and believe).



Thus, Jesus accomplishes by grace what no accountable human being can do of their own accord.
Right, humans are sinful trash that should be tossed into the flaming trash heap of She'ol.
You are discussing the penalty for wrongful actions. Do you think wrong should be addressed or would you prefer we had no responsibility for our wrongs? I'm not so sure Sheol is literal. It could possibly be a metaphor for separation from God for eternity. 



So, in fact, it is the opposite of devaluing life to come to faith in Jesus Christ.
I agree, humans are sinful trash and the only way to make a human "valuable" is by a leap of blind faith.
It is not necessarily blind, except for those who don't try to understand what Jesus Christ has done and don't take on the apologetic side of faith in answering the unbeliever.


This logically leads us to the conclusion that "a leap of blind faith" is intrinsically more valuable than a newborn (super sinful) baby.
The newborn is innocent of wrong since it has not committed wrongful acts. 



Life is devalued when we don't treat all human beings equally,
All humans are sinful trash.  So, all in all, mostly equal.
You keep adding the word trash. Where do you find that description in Scripture?



yet the New Covenant teaches we are all one in Christ.
It teaches that only all blindly faithful leapers (christians) are equal in the eyes of the Jesus.
It teaches that those who are forgiven and are members of the family of God should see each other and all humans as equally valuable since we are all created in the image and likeness of God. The Fall marred that image, separating that relationship. Jesus came to restore it.  


That means even though we have different abilities we have equal value before God in our humanness.
Well, not really.  All sinful trash humans are equal and all blindly faithful leapers are equal, but a sinful trash human is not equal to a blindly faithful leaper.
No, faulty thinking. Because you have wronged Someone does not make you less of a human being. You are still as human as I am. Sin just makes you answerable to God for wrongful action, and you must pay the debt if you do not recognize Jesus paying it for you.  



The unborn (being a human being) is of equal value to the newborn or adult human being. 
Well, not really.  All sinful trash humans are equal and all blindly faithful leapers are equal, but a sinful trash human is not equal to a blindly faithful leaper.
Again, a false analogy. You are making all kinds of fallacious mistakes.



For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Exactly, all blindly faithful leapers are "baptized into one body".  The rest of the sinful trash humans go into the flaming sewer hole.
Again, you keep wrongfully grouping all believers into the category of the blind faith kind. That is a fallacy and judging from your use of logic I think you know this. If you want to get into it more thoroughly I will explain it further. With your constant references to "human trash," you are appealing to pity. You are using emotion to win favor with others.  



There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
This statement referrers specifically and exclusively to blindly faithful leapers.
Again, you are mistaken. Not all believers take a leap of faith. We understand the biblical claims and see the evidence for God and Christ. Appeal to Ridicule. You keep using the same argument to ridicule the Christian belief when this is an overgeneralization which is also fallacious.



While we have different roles and different abilities we are one in Christ. 
This statement referrers specifically and exclusively to blindly faithful leapers.
Again, your analogy is faulty. Appeal to Repetition. (X is blind faith, X is blind faith, X is blind faith....with no supporting evidence)



Isn't it funny how the overwhelming majority of Preachers and Deacons are male?  I wonder why?
Appeal to emotion. You are playing on emotions. 



As for the evidence, there is plenty. But I understand how it is easier to deny the evidence than to accept it. I was there once. 
Holy smokes, "evidence"??  Who needs faith again?  In order to maximize your faith, you should ignore as much evidence as humanly possible.

Without your faith, you are human trash.  Anything even remotely resembling "evidence" should be treated like toxic waste!!!!


Without my faith, I am guilty before God of being separated from His presence, yet another took my place, dealt with my sins, suffered the punishment (death) and provided their righteousness in my place. 

#258
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So what was the criterion for being separated from god in the first place?
Without my faith, I am guilty before God of being separated from His presence, yet another took my place, dealt with my sins, suffered the punishment (death) and provided their righteousness in my place. 

This another did this for all humans then?
#259
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

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.
We, as Christians, are not called to blind faith but a reasonable faith. Whether we reason out or salvation with trembling and fear or just blindly trust Jesus told His believing followers to worship God in MIND, spirit, and body. 
Reason and faith are mutually exclusive.  "Trembling with fear" and "intelligent, rational thought" are mutually exclusive.
Reason and faith can be exclusive but they do not have to be. 

  • New American Standard Bible
    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
  • New American Standard Bible
    There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
Do you see the distinction?


And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
If your mind is full of love, there can't possibly be much room left for "intelligent, rational thought".

Interestingly, brain scans of people reportedly "in love" show that intelligence is distinctly inhibited.
What kind of love are you speaking of? What is your definition of love?


I think you know the way the Bible, especially the NT, prescribes. Whether you believe in the prescribed means is up to God and you. He has provided the means for salvation (being saved from your sins that alienated you from God via the Son). 
Unfortunately the "YHWH" didn't design me with the capability to make blind leaps of faith.
Then don't. Investigate the claims and examine your own worldview and what makes it tick (what it all rests on).



Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Of course he did.  The problem is that there are literally thousands of denominations, and many of them claim to be the one and only true path to heaven.
The is still only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ and if what is taught does not line up with Scripture then I am under no compulsion to believe it.



It seem like luck is a very poor principle to base your sense of personal "meaningfulness" on.
Where are you getting the luck from?
You must be lucky enough to have been designed by the "YHWH" with the capacity for blind faith.
My faith is not blind. All of creation speaks to me of God. 



I still don't understand what luck has to do with believing? I think the message is clear - Jesus died to reconcile the world (all those who would believe and trust) to God.
Why didn't the Jesus die for everyone everywhere???
He died for all those who will believe. Is that you? Do you understand the concept of why you do not meet God's righteousness and He does?


Why does the Jesus neeeeeed you to "believe" anything at all?
He does not need you to believe. It is in your best interest. God reveals what you need to understand and that is your merit is flawed before God. Have you ever lied, ever stolen, ever committed adultery in your mind or physically cheated on your wife, or lusted after a woman, or coveted something that is not yours, or not given God His due for His grace towards you? If so, then you are guilty of wrong in the sight of God. You can make the payment yourself or rely on God's means for forgiveness which both meets His justice and His righteousness. The payment is met in Christ, so is the righteousness, for those who will believe and trust in what Another has done. 

#260
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL


Can you imagine a rescue team of firefighters who put out a raging forest fire, and then tell people in the nearby towns that they will surely burn to death if they don't thank them with their whole heart and soul and mind?
Bad analogy. You have wronged God. You are answerable to Him. As a good, just Judge He requires sin be punished. Death (separation) is the punishment. Would you expect God to accept you, give you eternal life in His presence, without your repentance and without being clothed in Christ's righteousness? How would that satisfy justice? You would continue to do what you desired and profane that which is holy and pure. You need a change of heart that comes with faith in Jesus Christ. 

The analogy is bad because it misrepresents what Christ did and for whom. It also makes what God did for all those who would trust in His means of salvation cheap when it cost Jesus His life. It shows no gratitude for the Son sacrificing Himself on your account, not that you could repay Him anyway, because salvation is a gift of God, not earned by our merit. 


If the Jesus fixed the problem of "original sin", then why do we have to thank him or make sure he gets full credit?
The problem is fixed for those who will believe in His merit, in what He has done, not rely on our own merit before God. Your merit does not meet God's righteous and holy standard. 


I mean, wasn't the whole "original sin" problem sort of a design flaw in the first place?
No. God knew what Adam would do, so before the very foundation of the world, God had a solution. But God gave Adam the ability to choose so that humanity could discover the love of God. 

  • New American Standard Bible
    For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you


I mean, who in their right mind would blame all newborn humans for the "sin" of their ancient great great great grandfather?
God will not judge those who have committed no sin even though Adams action was imputed to us.


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.
He still did not believe gods were anything other than idols, even after the Damascus experience. Paul/Saul had faith in God, he was just given a greater understanding of God after the experience. He realized Jesus was also God and the Holy Spirit was God.  
Thanks for the hair-splitting.

Saul of Tarsus didn't believe in the "YHWH" until he saw an angel with his own eyes.
He did not realize the full extent of God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit until the Damascus experience.

3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,

After that experience Paul could say that Jesus is God. 

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

When did God purchase the church with His OWN blood?



Saul of Tarsus had zero faith.

If you ask me, "what would it take for you to believe in the Jesus?" 

I'd simply say, "send me a holy messenger angel that I can see with my own eyes".

Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

If God's word is not enough then what would be? People find ways to excuse themselves from believing. God has given us all we need to believe. 

You do not, at present, see His word as sufficient because you think your autonomy is sufficient to understand.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

What is passed as human wisdom often tends to be very foolish.

#261
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Our religion is not a set of rules to follow. We do respect civil authorities.

#262
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
He does not need you to believe. It is in your best interest. God reveals what you need to understand and that is your merit is flawed before God. Have you ever lied, ever stolen, ever committed adultery in your mind or physically cheated on your wife, or lusted after a woman, or coveted something that is not yours, or not given God His due for His grace towards you? If so, then you are guilty of wrong in the sight of God

So says some man. Why believe such a man?
#263
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
While this is true that you need your mind to comprehend anything your mind is not a necessary mind and what you perceive is not always what really is. So how can you be sure your mind is rightly discerning something?
Basic standards of evidence.
Yet you fail to apply them to the biblical evidence. 


Why did they and those before exist? You are not getting to the base of the question. I'm speaking of origins. Why did this universe happen? Why is there life in this universe? How did you, as a conscious being come about from matter?
This is a red-herring.  Even IF some sort of conscious being created everything, how does this fact alone make the slightest difference regarding your personal sense of "meaningfulness"?
Put it this way, why would you expect to find meaning and reason in a chance universe? And why do you continue to discuss meaning when it is just an illusion made by you and others so you don't kill your neighbor and the universe is meaningless?


So what was molding your development if there was no intent or agency behind it, and what maintains it (the uniformity of nature)? Again, how does chance happenstance sustain anything? Things just happen. Why should they continue to happen in a prescribed pattern that we call a law of nature? There is no reason unless there is a Reasonable Being behind the universe sustaining it. Reason comes from mindful beings. Show me a stone that is reasonable or reasoning. 
Even the scriptures teach that the "YHWH" is incomprehensible to a human mind, therefore it would seem illogical to presume that the "YHWH" "thinks and plans and designs" just like a human or even in some manner that a human might be able to reasonably comprehend.

The "YHWH" is quite simply noumenon.
He is comprehensible in as much as He has revealed Himself. His ways are beyond finding out in the areas that He has not revealed Himself to us through the creation and via His word, His Son, and His Spirit. 


So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

So, if you hear the message faith can arise from it because God's thoughts are being conveyed to you. 
As soon as I "hear" directly from the Jesus, I'll be sure to let you know.
"Hearing" is a figure of speech. The words of Scripture convey meaning. They claim to be the thoughts of God thousands of times. During the OT and while Jesus was on earth people audibly heard God speak. Now, through the written word His thoughts are conveyed to us.  


Logic is verifiable by its efficacy.
But if everything is material, how do you get something immaterial like logic. It can't be touched, tasted, seen, felt, or heard. Grab hold of logic for me. 
Grab hold of the concept of verifiability for me. 
Mathematics is an abstract system that directly relates to quantifiable reality.  Nobody has "faith" in mathematics.  We know mathematics is valid because we are able to independently verify its efficacy.
The law of addition states that 2+2=4. It relies on teleology since there are design and meaning in it. It does not depend on you or any other human for it to be true. There is a mathematical relationship in the laws of nature that we discover, we don't create them. They exist and we are able to express them which speaks of a goal or purpose because there is coherency there. It is not blind chance happenstance. We find purpose. We discover it. Why in a chance, chaotic, happenstance universe? And how do you explain the conformity of nature to these laws that continually, year after year, decade after decade, billions of years later, sustain the universe? Why do you continue to find this meaning and teleology? 

 


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.
Is that a belief?
The statement, "Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past." is a tautological fact.

This is not a belief.

The salient question is, "who cares?" or perhaps, "why does this matter to anyone?" or even more specifically, "why should I care?"

Then show me the evidence for them is believable. I can show you that the evidence for the Christian God is reasonable. The Bible states numerous times there are no other gods except those humanity fashions from their minds and elevates to the position of a god or gods.   
#264
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
We can't see God who we put our faith in, yet He has left us evidence that we can see in the physical universe as well as His word. He has also left us with a mind that can reason it out. So in respect to Him who we put our faith in, that statement applies. Faith has to have an object it rests upon. Your faith rests on there not being a God who you are accountable too. 

#265
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You place enormous faith in the proclamations of men, why is that?
#266
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

God explains why we are moral beings, where we came from, why the universe exists, why evil exists in the world, why human beings act unjustly, why we find meaning and purpose in the universe, why we love, why we reason, what truth is, why we are logical beings, etc. Chance addresses none of this. So the nonsense is from chance happenstance and you are welcome to such nonsense since you want to make an appeal to emotion.
I'm happy to call it chance.

it is perfectly possible to expain human behaviour in physicalist terms.   indeed i would say that the physicalist explanation of human behavoiur explains the existence of 'saintly' and 'devilish' individuals better than God's grace and demon posession does!

its seems to me you seriousy underestimate the explanatory power of physicalism and simulataneoulsy exagerate what god explains.  you don't say how god makes us love, reason or be logical  - he just does, presumbly to serve some private purpose.   

The explanations offered by physicalism for love and reasoning aren't particularly elevating - they boil down to helping us to survive and reproduce.  But how it happened and why happened don't matter as much as the fact that we can - and do - love and reason.  Given that, whatmatters is what should we apply our powers of logic to?   To the worship of the non-existent gods?

The nihilists are right that nothing is written in the laws of physics to guide us.   Gravity and entropy have no morality, good nor bad.   Atheism is  bit like waking up alone on a desert island - the big question is what do we do?


#267
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I just don't understand how any of them change anything about epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.
The biblical teaching is God has revealed Himself, thus it would be via His thoughts written down and by His interactions in the world and universe. 

From a created universe you would expect to find things that give evidence of a Creator, like finding reasons in what we see. We find meaning and reasons why things are the way they are. We don't create those reasons, we discover them. The reasons were there before we thought them. The laws of logic or the laws of gravity or any natural law, such as the laws of thermodynamics do not depend on your reasoning for their existence. They exist independent of your reasoning. 

"Reasoning" is a mindful process, yet these laws are not dependent on your mind, or mine, and yet you find they are reasonable. 
Logical and mindful are not the same.  A computer acts logically, this does not mean a computer is mindful.
A computer is designed and does logical things because a logical mind has programmed it. We are logical beings, according to the Bible, because we are made in the image and likeness of our Maker, different from the animal kingdom. That is the way we were designed.


You keep harping on "meaningfulness" but what is that?  Doesn't the "YHWH" teach that our highest purpose is to worship god forever and ever?

That seems pretty pointless to me.
Since God's mind is infinite we can be in awe (worship) of it and enjoy the beauty and complexity of it forever! That seems inspiring to me. 


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).
If all phenomena are unreliable then don't worry about looking both ways when you cross the street. That car coming at you is unreliable. It is not there. Nothing exists. Now see how your thought process works in the real world (Nice knowing you!). Do you see the inconsistency of such a statement? 
Step one, wipe the slate clean of presupposition, you can do this by hypothesizing, "nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable)".
Step 1 is presuppositional. You presuppose this can be done.


Step two, identify what is logically impossible to disbelieve, you can do this by recognizing the fact that, "I think, therefore I am".

Step three, continue along this path, making a clear distinction between what is logically impossible to disbelieve (QUANTA) and what is purely imaginary (QUALIA).
Then not all that is quanta is an illusion for you said:

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.
It must be somewhere or you would not have stated it. 
I've never asserted "there is no god".  In fact, I am often very quick to defend hypothetical Desim.
Your actions tell the tale. You deny him by what you do and the way you think. 


You can conceptualize God. You are discussing God. You have beliefs ABOUT God. 
Oh, god.  Not the ontological argument again.
You have a concept of what God is when I speak to you about Him. You even quote the Bible. 


Nevertheless, you deny God. 
I only "deny" god in the same way you "blaspheme" Marduk.
Give reasonable proof that Marduk is real. 

#268
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 discuss Someone/thing you have no belief about? 
How can you have a serious discussion about Sherlock Holmes unless you believe they are a real, flesh and blood person????????
Because you read about him and understand he is a fiction courtesy of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I do not understand the same of God. Humanity, since conception has had an idea of God. 


If I said pink unicorn you would conjure up an image of a horse with a horn in the middle of its head, so there is a belief there. 
You just destroyed your own argument.  Do you believe that "pink unicorn" is a really real, real actual and existing thing?  I'm going to guess "no".
How does that disprove God?


You also have a concept of the color pink. You believe it is different than the color green or purple or you have a wrong conception of pink. "Pink" is the word we use to describe a particular color or hue. Unicorn/God is the word we use to describe a particular being.    
I know how language works, thank you.

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".
Then have you stuffed everything into a very small narrow box in which things are hanging out that don't fit into your neat little box? Have you not contemplated how you got here unless you believe you created yourself (novel idea - self-creation; also self-refuting) or everything is an illusion? And what about your parents? You mentioned them earlier. 
This is where I repeat myself about standards of evidence and epistemological limits.
What makes you think that because you think you are the standard?


Prima facie, axiomatic "atheism" has absolutely nothing to do with epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.
The worldview is constructed on particular premises. It looks for naturalistic means to explain things. 
It clearly separates what is knowable from what is unknowable.
The problem is that so much of what is passed as science is speculated about and what is known as scientism. You also claim there is no evidence for God's existence that you are aware of.


It clearly separates what is Quantitative from what is Qualitative.

I mean, I certainly believe it is fair to say that Spinoza's god exists.
I don't know much of Spinoza or his teaching, so what you are saying is not being comprehended except that I believe he thought everything was god or held to pantheism (the universe is god and god is the universe). The biblical God, on the other hand, is personal and distinct from the universe.
Spinoza's reasoning is something like, (IFF) god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all things (AND) this oooc god properly "exists" (THEN) everything that properly "exists" must NECESSARILY be god. 

This is bullet-proof, air-tight, perfectly valid and sound logic.

No, it is not airtight. God could exist apart from His creation. Thus, His creation would be separate from Him and He would transcend the created order. All the qualities you gave are of personal Being. You can't be all knowing with being a personal being. The reasoning is that if God is omniscient and the Creator then He is an intentional Being for He chose to create it. 

#269
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
Response to response #1: Atheism assumes no "origin of the universe." Some atheists choose to believe in evolution as the cause. Others simply don't claim to know. I'm the latter. Evolution does exist, and we've seen it happen countless times with creatures and objects. We have tangible proof of it. However, evolution as an explanation of how the universe started? We have no more proof of that than we do of gods, therefore I believe in neither explanation. You assume that I assume these things because you can't seem to comprehend the idea of not having an affirmative belief of the origins of the universe. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean I assumed something.
Let's make a distinction here. What you see is microevolution which I have no dispute over. What I object to is macro-evolution. We are capable of adapting to different environments, but show me the evidence that we change from one kind of being to another. 

What you have is an interpretation of the data built on a particular worldview that you call tangible proof because you have become convinced of it since it is indoctrinated into each one of us from childhood onwards. 

You would not call yourself an atheist but a deist if you believed in a god or God. So, there are things that go along with that worldview, as I explained before.  


Response to response #2: You can't seem to make a point without manipulating every definition you can into fitting your worldview. If you have to manipulate something in order for it to support your beliefs, then they're probably wrong.
What makes you think you do not do exactly what you accuse me of - manipulate every definition? I supplied you with the standard meaning of evidence. It does not fit your nice and tidy packed box, so you ignore it. So, I would question who is manipulating what?


Response to response #3: 

Another dispute regarding your debate (link in a previous post):

There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

  • Knowledge a priori
  • Knowledge a posteriori
I contend that there is another form of evidence, transcendent in nature - God's revelation. 
Oh. So the voices in your head? Yeah that'll hold up in court.
No, the thoughts of Someone who makes sense of my existence.

Funny but Simon Greenleaf, who wrote the thesis on what constitutes evidence (his textbook is still used in determining credibility) examined the claims of the NT and became a believer. So I would place my bet on him understanding the criteria over you. That is just my personal preference.   


Science is a tool with many flaws that forms many worldviews. It can be used as an idol of worship in the sense that it replaces God as the ultimate authority when, as you say, so much just can't be known about the world via science. First, in the case of origins, it relies on the interpretation of the data which could be wrong. It is observing things in the present from the past that doesn't come stamped, 13.9 billion years old, or 3.4 billion years old. Many, many things have to be presupposed. 
You say tangibly proven data is presumptuous, yet you call an incomprehensible "ultimate being" no one has ever actually encountered a reasonable explanation? That's ass backward, bro. Something tells me you don't accept "chance" as an explanation because you simply can't wrap your head around it, and it's so much easier to blame it on something you don't have to try to comprehend(god). Blaming things on magical creatures is intellectually lazy.


Perhaps you misunderstand me. I do not dispute all science, but rather scientism, where the data of origins has not been repeated and various models have been suggested in what actually happened. Since none of us were there we rely on our interpretation of the evidence. 

God is comprehensible in as much as He has revealed Himself through His creation, and through the written word, His Son, and the Holy Spirit.  

Can you wrap your head around "chance?" What is chance? What ability does it have? Please inform me! 

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago (around 13.9 billion years ago), something happened for no reason that we speculate about as to what exactly....

A nice fairy tale for the gullible!


Although many atheists don't blame things on magical creatures you are then left with either a Real Creator or a magical chance happenstance if you are going to pass out blame. I believe I read something from you (could be mistaken) where you used the thoughts of Richard Dawkin's or others that have capitalized on those thoughts, on the nastiness of the biblical God, so there was blame to be had. It always amazes me how someone can put blame on Someone they do not believe exists and still not account for the evil in the word. 


#270
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 
Which is more reasonable?
Then I choose chance. 
How do you logically eliminate all other possible gods?
Logical consistency and the contradictory nature of these gods is a starter.