A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#391
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
It is when people are murdered or killed or abused by illegal immigrants that would not have been affected if they had not come across your border. 
So you would threaten your god's plan? Everything that happens is god's plan, what gives you the right to thwart it?
.
They built walls to protect themselves from those who would do them harm. 
They built walls as defense against enemies, don't lie.

What does that have to do with illegal immigration? They came into the States legally. What about the line of people wanting to come to your country legally that is denied because illegal immigrants take priority?
Citation?
#392
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

Many would argue that those societies have declined since socialism, as I already pointed out. I would agree.  
By every metric used to determine human well being the citizens of these socialist countries are better off than all other countries, that makes you and your mythical "many" WRONG.

How does looking after the poor coincide with ILLEGAL immigration? These people are breaking the laws of the land. Many are smuggling in illegal drugs and people. Terrorists can negotiate a crossing into your country unhindered. The cost to your country is billions of dollars every year.  
How many Swedes are crossing the US border illegally? Stick to the already insane argument you were pursuing and leave your brain rattles at home.

#393
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
. Under socialism, the practice has been to squash any opposition and deny freedom of speech.
Yeah just look at Denmark, Oh Your God.
#394
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Illegal immigration has proven to be harmful to your country.
Trump would never have got his hotels built without them.

#395
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
You seem to equate wrong to God. How is it God's fault if the individual chooses?

On what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual?
My personal theory is that quite often homosexuality is gender confusion or compensation for not having a positive role model in a parent, thus the person tends to try to attract what they missed. The Bible attributes some sins of the children to the father for three to four generations, thus through heredity.  

#396
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Changing your story won't help you, you claim that homosexuality is a choice so on what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual? The choice is between those two so you had to have made a conscious choice to be heterosexual and that must have been an auspicious occasion surely you remember the date. The date when you rejected your homosexual tendencies?

But as an aside this is hilarious:
thus through heredity
Homosexuals are the offspring of homosexuals. bahahahahahahaha. Do you have any idea how deep you have engulfed yourself in stupidly stupid land?
#397
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
1. What am I, [ontology]
2. Why am I here, [philosophical]
3. Where do I come from, [metaphysics]
4. How do I know, [epistemology]
5. What difference does it make [axiology]
6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].
I reckon I know  the answers to most of those!   The hard question is 'What do I do?'.

I'm interested in what that may be.
1. What am I - Cogito Ergo Sum (I am) "what" is beyond epistemological limits
2. Why am I here - Teleological fallacy - "why" (if there even is such a thing) is beyond epistemological limits
3. Where do I come from - Cosmological fallacy - The big bang, where that came from is beyond epistemological limits
4. How do I know - Through your mind and your senses
5. What difference does it make - You are the most important being in existence
6. What happens to me when I die - You decompose - Your presumed "essence" or "soul" is beyond epistemological limits

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
#398
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
1. What am I, [ontology]
2. Why am I here, [philosophical]
3. Where do I come from, [metaphysics]
4. How do I know, [epistemology]
5. What difference does it make [axiology]
6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].
I reckon I know  the answers to most of those!   The hard question is 'What do I do?'.

I'm interested in what that may be.
1. What am I - Cogito Ergo Sum (I am) "what" is beyond epistemological limits
It is beyond your epistemic limits. 

My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!

2. Why am I here - Teleological fallacy - "why" (if there even is such a thing) is beyond epistemological limits
Again, beyond your epistemic limits. 

My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.

3. Where do I come from - Cosmological fallacy - The big bang, where that came from is beyond epistemological limits
Beyond your epistemic limits. Your worldview can only go so far then ignorance. You can't make sense of origins. You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can. Thus, your epistemic knowledge is inconsistent. It is unexplainable but used by those who are inconsistent by what they believe. 

4. How do I know - Through your mind and your senses
Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview. 

5. What difference does it make - You are the most important being in existence
No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you. 

6. What happens to me when I die - You decompose - Your presumed "essence" or "soul" is beyond epistemological limits
Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death? 


It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat. 

And why should I trust your limited epistemic views? Who are you that what you say should be trusted? 


Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.

Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.

Topic's author
#399
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0

My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!

Right, it SAYS that. You don't arrive at that conclusion, you conclude it without demonstrating it's true in any way. That's the point of the topic. You like the idea so you presuppose it's correct, you don't follow logic to it. I've asked you to, and you can't prove that your god is the right god and someone else's religion is wrong. It was before you got all distracted with your politics stuff. What exactly IS your specific reason for being here, the one god has told you? Is it this one:

My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.
It doesn't EXPLAIN that. It asserts that. And "his pleasure and glory" creates a number of problems. First of all, it doesn't sound as noble as I think you hope your existence would demand. Your reason is essentially "as a toy," which is not much more appealing than 'no PURPOSE required' or 'imbue your own PURPOSE.' (emphasis to keep the distinction between purpose and 'reason' which you tend to conflate).  Second of all, if you're created for his pleasure and glory, why's he always so mad at all of his creations? Again, you might say free will, but then you're taking away any 'plan'. 

 You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can.
I presume based on this, you must have incontrovertible proof of stuff that happened before the big bang, or how how life came from non life. It can't be from the bible, because that asserts that it happened, it doesn't explain how it happened. It simply says 'by magic.' There is no functional difference between "god did it by his holy word" and "by saying googityboogityboo." And again, I hate to keep harping on this for you, but the topic removes the big bang cosmology inasmuch as it GRANTS A CREATING AGENT. The topic agrees that there's something before the big bang, something that created the universe. Your answer to "why would that be Jesus" is still pending. 

Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview. 
Mind and senses are all we have that are demonstrable, repeatable and reliable. "When it comes to origins" is an immaterial add on to that sentence, we can derive what little we can from our studies, and appealing to magic doesn't advance the ball. You're still at "a creator," not "god of the bible," as it pertains to the topic. You say "you've already stated you don't know!" as if you DO know. You don't. You think you do, but you can't show any steps that go from "Quetzocoatl is wrong" and from there to "Jesus is right." You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it. That's not how conclusions work in any other scenario: "I think X, so that's correct" is all you've done. No one thinks "therefore I'm god," that's just rhetoric. 

No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you. 
Which one of us believes in an all powerful being with a plan for every individual in the universe that plays along with a stated purpose in the plan? BEcause that one has no control over their existence. And MY life depends on me, just like yours. 

Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death? 
He can't prove we decompose? Can you prove that there's a soul? An afterlife? His are observations of physical science. Yours are fairy tales from a book. There is no 'after death' for living things that anyone can demonstrate, and if there is, you'd have a lot of work to do to still demonstrate that such an afterlife is yours and not, let's say, the Islamic version somehow.

I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat. 
Yes, exactly. So you bring him in with no justification demonstrated, even when granted that A creator exists. I have bad news for you, though, I think you're going to find out you're in our boat all the same :). 

Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.
Taking your ball and going home is not only unbecoming, it's also in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: but gin your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," 

In lieu of challenging his rather straightforward axioms, please simply show how you got from a thinking agent to god of the bible. 
#400
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
1. What am I, [ontology]
2. Why am I here, [philosophical]
3. , [metaphysics]
4. How do I know, [epistemology]
5. What difference does it make [axiology]
6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].

1 - What am I,
Over billions of years organisms evolved brains because they help organisms with them to find the neccessities of life. Brains work by generating an internal model of the world - ie we are not conscious of the world per se, but of an 'internal model'.  The most important element of that model is the organism itself, for obvious reasons! 'I', therefore, is how the biological machine that is my physical form is represented within the brains larger model of its environment.

3 -Where do I come from
I come from a long line of biological machines, with each link in the line being almost but not quite the same as its neighbour.

2 -Why am I here
I am here because the laws of physics are such that matter can self-organise in apparent (only apparent!) violation of the laws of thermodynamics. 3.5 billion years ago matter fell into an arrangement such that replication was energetically favoured.

4 - how do i know?
How do I know 1-3 or how do i know in general?  I don't know the details of 1-3. Perhaps I don't know... i only believe.  How I 'know' anything is that I see how new information fits in with my existing beliefs.

5 - What difference does it make
Don't get the question - it's a bit vague...

6 - What happens to me when I die
the biological machine that is my physical manifesttuon will break down and decompose.  My brain will stop working, and as 'I' am something that is generatded by the brain's operation 'I' will ceaseto be, as the electricity generted by a dynamo ceases when it stops spinning.  butunlike a dynamo the brain cannot start gain - think of it as a smashed dynamo!


#401
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!

Right, it SAYS that. You don't arrive at that conclusion, you conclude it without demonstrating it's true in any way.
I can give reasoned evidence for its truth claims and I have a worldview that can make sense of origins. The atheist worldview can't. It is too inconsistent in making sense of its core beliefs, on what everything else rests. 



That's the point of the topic. You like the idea so you presuppose it's correct, you don't follow logic to it. I've asked you to, and you can't prove that your god is the right god and someone else's religion is wrong. It was before you got all distracted with your politics stuff. What exactly IS your specific reason for being here, the one god has told you? Is it this one:

My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.
It doesn't EXPLAIN that. It asserts that.
It is an explanation that makes sense, it gives a logical reason, it makes it clear.  

And "his pleasure and glory" creates a number of problems. First of all, it doesn't sound as noble as I think you hope your existence would demand. Your reason is essentially "as a toy," which is not much more appealing than 'no PURPOSE required' or 'imbue your own PURPOSE.' (emphasis to keep the distinction between purpose and 'reason' which you tend to conflate).  Second of all, if you're created for his pleasure and glory, why's he always so mad at all of his creations? Again, you might say free will, but then you're taking away any 'plan'.
Nonsense. There is a purpose for life, to know and enjoy God, the reason He created us - a personal relationship in which we can enjoy His goodness and mercy. Sin, or our willingness to do our own thing, has gotten in the way. That is my Christian reasoning. 

He is angry with the evil that we choose since it hurts us. In your worldview how do you explain evil and injustice??? Please answer. 
 

 You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can.
I presume based on this, you must have incontrovertible proof of stuff that happened before the big bang, or how how life came from non life. It can't be from the bible, because that asserts that it happened, it doesn't explain how it happened.
It boils down to your highest authority and whether it can make sense of life and origins. You either presume God or you presume some other avenue and explanation. What is your starting point? You start somewhere. You build upon a starting point. 

For me, the proof is incontrovertible because it is necessary for making sense. I can't prove it incontrovertibly to you except to question how you make sense of origins and life. Then there is always the question of what you will accept? Will you be biased towards your current system of thought since you have so much invested and so much riding on it? You bet you'll be biased! Will you accept what is reasonable? Will you even allow the discussion without dismissing it?

It simply says 'by magic.'
What definition are you using of magic? If you mean be sleight of hand, no, it does not. If you mean by the use of charms or spells, no it does not. If you mean by incantations, no it does not. If you mean power or influence by a supernatural Being then I'll accept your definition, but what you call magic the biblical God has made known. If you use the last definition I somewhat agree, otherwise, it is BS. How does a personal Being translate to magic? First, prove He does not exist. You know you can't do that, so you employ doubt as to His existence.    


There is no functional difference between "god did it by his holy word" and "by saying googityboogityboo." And again, I hate to keep harping on this for you, but the topic removes the big bang cosmology inasmuch as it GRANTS A CREATING AGENT. The topic agrees that there's something before the big bang, something that created the universe. Your answer to "why would that be Jesus" is still pending. 
Big Bang cosmology does not exclude God as the reason. How does the Big Bang cosmology go? Where do they get this singularity from? 

If there is nothing before the Big Bang then nothing created something. How preposterous is that? It is illogical, for one. It is magical for another (since you raise the contention with God as magic). 

Show me how the Big Bang happens. Is there a cause for it?

I want your input otherwise this is all one sided in that you question me yet I can't question you. 
#402
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x


Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview. 
Mind and senses are all we have that are demonstrable, repeatable and reliable. "When it comes to origins" is an immaterial add on to that sentence, we can derive what little we can from our studies, and appealing to magic doesn't advance the ball. You're still at "a creator," not "god of the bible," as it pertains to the topic.
Is it reasonable that if I shake a dice one million times I get the same number every time without that dice being fixed? Why should I find uniformity or consistency and sustainability in nature? Why should we have the laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics? We discover these uniformities. Why if things are just random? Why should they continue to "act" in a precise manner that we can predict things because of these constants? Do you have a reason why this is so?


You say "you've already stated you don't know!" as if you DO know. You don't. You think you do, but you can't show any steps that go from "Quetzocoatl is wrong" and from there to "Jesus is right."
Sure I can. What is the reasoning behind "Quetzocoatl?"

Give me your most reasonable proofs of this serpent gods existence. 

Now, what is the reasoning behind Jesus?

There are accounts from writers that claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim He rose from the dead after death and willing die for this belief. The OT constantly predicted a Messiah and Jesus fits these predictions. What is the most reasonable explanation for these countless coincidences? Why is there such unity between testaments? 


You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it. That's not how conclusions work in any other scenario: "I think X, so that's correct" is all you've done. No one thinks "therefore I'm god," that's just rhetoric.
I admit that a presupposition is each of our starting points. Can your starting point make sense of the universe? What is it? Let's see how consistent it is. Name where you start regarding origins. Do you start with a god? Which one? Do you start with chance happenstance and without intent or agency?
 

No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you. 
Which one of us believes in an all powerful being with a plan for every individual in the universe that plays along with a stated purpose in the plan? BEcause that one has no control over their existence. And MY life depends on me, just like yours. 
You either start with such a being or you start with chance happenstance. Where is your starting point and how do you make sense of the universe, or do you? If the universe does not follow the intent and purpose of such a being then what sustains its uniformity and why do things happen in a way in which we can predict outcomes? 

My life does not depend on me but on Someone else. Prove otherwise. 


Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death? 
He can't prove we decompose? Can you prove that there's a soul? An afterlife? His are observations of physical science. Yours are fairy tales from a book. There is no 'after death' for living things that anyone can demonstrate, and if there is, you'd have a lot of work to do to still demonstrate that such an afterlife is yours and not, let's say, the Islamic version somehow.
Yes, proving is complicated and involved. I am in the same boat you are in that you can't demonstrate there is no life after death. All you can do is say you see no evidence for it. 


I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat. 
Yes, exactly. So you bring him in with no justification demonstrated, even when granted that A creator exists. I have bad news for you, though, I think you're going to find out you're in our boat all the same :). 
We will see. Will you participate in a thread on prophecy if I create one?

I was going to show the reasoning behind the seventy sevens or seventy weeks of Daniel as a starter. From there I can tie it into a host of prophetic messages. I can show that the prophecy is most reasonable in not only understanding the Bible but also confirmed reasonably by history. 

IOW's, I can show my faith as a reasonable faith. Can you do the same with yours? I'm still waiting for you to identify what you believe in as to your starting presuppositions - God/gods or chance happenstance. Go ahead, name your poison. 


Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.
Taking your ball and going home is not only unbecoming, it's also in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: but gin your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," 

In lieu of challenging his rather straightforward axioms, please simply show how you got from a thinking agent to god of the bible. 
By not making sense of a worldview that does not first presuppose the biblical God and by trusting that the biblical God is adequate in explaining why I am here whereas others are not I find consistency. I challenge you to do that with your worldview. 

QUESTION: How do you arrive at morality? Do you look at morality as based on a necessary Being or do you believe morality is a mechanism that is a result of evolution and chance happenstance?

Can you even answer these few questions for me? If not then your motive is what Jesus would call giving pearls to a pig. IOW's can I get any honesty from your worldview perspective or do you just want to test mine without any responsibility to justify and test your own position too?  


Topic's author
#403
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
I can give reasoned evidence for its truth claims and I have a worldview that can make sense of origins. The atheist worldview can't. It is too inconsistent in making sense of its core beliefs, on what everything else rests. 
What core beliefs does atheism claim besides "the claim of anything supernatural has not met the burden of proof"?  You've yet to provide any reasoned evidence why the creator would be your god without referring to your own claim, and not any other god. We're at page 17. You've done this move several times, well I COULD show you something but you wouldn't believe it on its face. I COULD demonstrate this that or the other, but what good is it. I can demonstrate to you, for a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that is true whether you believe it or not. Your claim seems to be because you believe it's true, it is, and that's that. 

here is a purpose for life, to know and enjoy God, the reason He created us - a personal relationship in which we can enjoy His goodness and mercy. Sin, or our willingness to do our own thing, has gotten in the way. That is my Christian reasoning. 
Can you use REGULAR reasoning to demonstrate why anyone should believe your Christian reasoning? Why are Hindus wrong (without using the bible)? There are far, far more people on earth today, and even more from the past, who'd never heard of Jesus, don't care about him, from lands he never mentions. Strange way to create stuff to believe in you for your glory, isn't it? 

In your worldview how do you explain evil and injustice?
People do bad things, that's just how some people are. How you explain it: God planned it and is okay with it happening, he's going to make sure those folks burn in some hell someplace well after, for example, they murder your wife. Doesn't that make you feel much better?

Will you accept what is reasonable? 
Will it be regular reasonable, or Christian reasonable? You keep asking this then never presenting anything. I'm still waiting on any answer to the core question: how do you prove any other deity false without referring to yours by default? 

First, prove He does not exist. You know you can't do that, so you employ doubt as to His existence.    
I don't claim something that I can't prove exists, exists. You do. Your job is to prove it's there to me. That's how burden of proof works, but you know that and continue to ignore it. I employ the same doubt about your god that you do about every other god, it should be easy to understand. "Making a universe out of his word" = magic. 

You can start any topic you like and I'll participate as warranted, I've said that several times. One more time for you now: without referring to your own religion, can you prove, or make a reasonable case, that any other god of your choosing definitely does not exist and never has? The alternative is can you prove that a creator of the universe has to be the god you worship without referring to the claim itself (the bible) but this has already proven too difficult.
#404
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
What core beliefs does atheism claim besides "the claim of anything supernatural has not met the burden of proof"?
Nah.  Proper atheists claim God/gods don't exist.  That 'the supernatural has not met the burden of proof' is not grounds for atheism because it asserts theism is unproved, not that atheism is proved.  Ergo, it's an agnostic claim, not an atheist one.

As an atheist, I claim 'God does not exist, period'.  Anything less is shilly-shallying.

#405
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
1. What am I, [ontology]
2. Why am I here, [philosophical]
3. , [metaphysics]
4. How do I know, [epistemology]
5. What difference does it make [axiology]
6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].

1 - What am I,
Over billions of years organisms evolved brains because they help organisms with them to find the neccessities of life. Brains work by generating an internal model of the world - ie we are not conscious of the world per se, but of an 'internal model'.  The most important element of that model is the organism itself, for obvious reasons! 'I', therefore, is how the biological machine that is my physical form is represented within the brains larger model of its environment.
Thanks for your answer! 

So, you start with a common ancestor, the prototype, that all others evolve from, correct?

Make sense of how consciousness come from inorganic matter and give me examples of this happening from inorganic matter or are you just presuming it happens?


3 -Where do I come from
I come from a long line of biological machines, with each link in the line being almost but not quite the same as its neighbour.
What about irreducible complexity? How do these first organic engines come about then function without engineering on a complex scale? 


2 -Why am I here
I am here because the laws of physics are such that matter can self-organise in apparent (only apparent!) violation of the laws of thermodynamics. 3.5 billion years ago matter fell into an arrangement such that replication was energetically favoured.
It just happened. There was no agency or intent behind it happening. Darwins favoured species is just a way to describe chance happenstance, is it not?

So, there is no sense to be made from your original starting point. 

Mine is different. I see and understand what I would expect to see and understand; that is from rational, reasoning Being comes other rational reasoning beings.


4 - how do i know?
How do I know 1-3 or how do i know in general?  I don't know the details of 1-3. Perhaps I don't know... i only believe.  How I 'know' anything is that I see how new information fits in with my existing beliefs.
Exactly my point. You BELIEVE. That belief is not based on a reasonable, rational starting point. It can't make sense of why we are here. You don't know the details of how immaterial matter becomes conscious being or how the Big Bang originates and from what. Is it the start of the material universe - of time, space, matter, or does something transcend it and causes it? IOW's, is the universe self-creating (a logically absurd contradiction).


5 - What difference does it make 
Don't get the question - it's a bit vague...
I'm asking how you arrive at axiology or meaning from a meaningless universe?


6 - What happens to me when I die
the biological machine that is my physical manifesttuon will break down and decompose.  My brain will stop working, and as 'I' am something that is generatded by the brain's operation 'I' will cease to be, as the electricity generated by a dynamo ceases when it stops spinning.  but unlike a dynamo the brain cannot start [a]gain - think of it as a smashed dynamo!



So, you believe that what makes you unique is your brain? I'll try and work on a refutation of that. 
Topic's author
#406
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it reasonable that if I shake a dice one million times I get the same number every time without that dice being fixed? Why should I find uniformity or consistency and sustainability in nature? Why should we have the laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics? We discover these uniformities. Why if things are just random? Why should they continue to "act" in a precise manner that we can predict things because of these constants? Do you have a reason why this is so?
Distraction.The laws of the universe, not a one of them, are in the bible, so it's weird that you bring them up. THere's plenty of laws about stoning non virgins and what you can wear and eat though. 

Sure I can. What is the reasoning behind "Quetzocoatl?" 
As I don't believe in him, or it, I don't have any reasoning for it. My point is since you've chosen to presuppose Christianity, reason and logic must have been used to disqualify him. What was that logic and reason? I have already given reasonable arguments for the existence of the greek / roman pantheon, you didn't bother refuting them. I think it's like page 11. 

There are accounts from writers that claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim He rose from the dead after death and willing die for this belief. The OT constantly predicted a Messiah and Jesus fits these predictions. What is the most reasonable explanation for these countless coincidences? Why is there such unity between testaments? 
Claims. The bible is the claim. It is not evidence for itself. Again: being accused of something is not evidence for whatever you're accused of. EVIDENCE is evidence.  

You either start with such a being or you start with chance happenstance. Where is your starting point and how do you make sense of the universe, or do you? If the universe does not follow the intent and purpose of such a being then what sustains its uniformity and why do things happen in a way in which we can predict outcomes? 
IS your answer "because JEsus said so?" Because mine is "I don't know why nor do I care, it has no impact on me." You're adding more than you're earning again and with nothing gained from an explanatory perspective. EVEN IF IT'S JESUS, it doesn't explain WHY. It just takes "I don't know" into "I don't know, but Jesus did it." You keep asking me to make sense of the universe, I don't care about making sense of it. It's here and that's all I know for sure. Same as you. Adding Jesus into it, adding some 'reason' into it, demands that you then explain the reasons for things that you suddenly have an even harder time of doing. Watch: if Jesus made the universe for a purpose and you know that purpose, why do so many planets exist outside of our solar system? What are their purposes? What purpose does a child getting cancer and dying serve for Jesus? 

 How do you arrive at morality? Do you look at morality as based on a necessary Being or do you believe morality is a mechanism that is a result of evolution and chance happenstance? 

We will see. Will you participate in a thread on prophecy if I create one?

I was going to show the reasoning behind the seventy sevens or seventy weeks of Daniel as a starter. From there I can tie it into a host of prophetic messages. I can show that the prophecy is most reasonable in not only understanding the Bible but also confirmed reasonably by history. 

IOW's, I can show my faith as a reasonable faith. Can you do the same with yours? I'm still waiting for you to identify what you believe in as to your starting presuppositions - God/gods or chance happenstance. Go ahead, name your poison. 
If your thread on prophecy relies on the bible and the bible alone, not stuff outside the bible, I'd be quite interested in it. I'd also be interested in how you square all the stuff the bible gets wrong, demonstrably, against one prophesy you can't prove without going outside the bible. I do not have any faith in anything supernatural. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I do not presuppose anything. 

 How do you arrive at morality? Do you look at morality as based on a necessary Being or do you believe morality is a mechanism that is a result of evolution and chance happenstance? 
It's a product of evolution. Are you going to ask "who are you to say what's good versus what's bad?" That's a different topic. 

PLEASE address the topic at hand. For once. Page 18 now. Not an attempt. 
Topic's author
#407
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
Fair enough, I'll amend: "I do not have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed or exist today." I remain open for the convincing. 
#408
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Make sense of how consciousness come from inorganic matter and give me examples of this happening from inorganic matter or are you just presuming it happens?
Well, really we're tied on that!   You don't really have an explanation of how consciousness works either - 'the finger of God' isn't an actual explanation!  It seems infair to demand more detail from me than you provide. 

That said, the origin of consciousness and of life are hard questions and I'm honest enough to say we hardly know anything about them for sure. But I hope that you'll concede that 'miracle' or 'divine act' leaves out some of fine detail of the process!
 

#409
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
"I do not have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed or exist today"
Hmph.   You're still attacking theism, not establishing atheism.  I would suggest "the atheistic worldview is consistent with observation".  That is why I am an atheist. 

#410
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
EVEN IF IT'S JESUS, it doesn't explain WHY. It just takes "I don't know" into "I don't know, but Jesus did it."
Well stated. [LINK]
#411
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Hmph.   You're still attacking theism, not establishing atheism.  I would suggest "the atheistic worldview is consistent with observation".  That is why I am an atheist.  
Deism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive.
#412
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I have a worldview that can make sense of origins.

I have a worldview that can make sense of origins and it's the same as the golfer's.
***********************************************MAGIC*********************************************
Topic's author
#413
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I think it'd naturally follow: I don't have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed, and thus I believe the worldview that doesn't require gods to exist is most consistent with reality." It seems a distinction without a difference. I'm at the Dawkins 6.9 on the 7 point scale of being convinced, but that doesn't mean I am certain. 
#414
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
It seems a distinction without a difference.
It's a fine distinction I admit!  Is atheism about discrediting theism or establishing its own validity? 

Topic's author
#415
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not sure those are strictly the choices. It's just as simple for me as "I can't believe in something simply by choice, I need convincing reasons."

Give you an example: I used to believe the only way to evaluate batters in baseball was on the traditional metrics like batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, and I would hand wave any other assessment techniques because they are not readily apparent. After learning what they were trying to measure, and after several years of watching baseball with those metrics in mind (not wholly giving myself over to them first), I can now see the absolute necessity like batting average on balls in play, hard contact rate, average exit velocity rate...and I'm convinced they are a truer way to predict what a player will do over a longer course of time than less precise metrics like the traditional ones. I remained open for convincing on something I didn't believe in, evidence was presented, I studied it, and concluded the metrics correlated with how a player performs to the naked eye. These are the stats that MAKE UP the traditional stats. The evidence is exceptionally strong and changed my mind. If I had said "Well I know what I already know, and I don't care about those statistics that nerds invented!", then I'm liable to make very, very bad decisions if I'm running a baseball team, like give a guy who has an insanely high batting average on balls in play (essentially a luck measurement) and an insanely low hard contact rate (meaning he's not hitting the ball very hard but just happens to have the ball land in the right spot) a contract that will handcuff my team. 

Jeez, I wish baseball was on right now! Sorry. 

I believe something similar happened to soccer (a numbers / science revolution in the last ten years), but I'm only just learning to appreciate that sport on the surface after watching my kid play it incessantly for the last six years. I can't do it with soccer yet, it took me four years to figure out offsides :). 


#416
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
I believe any sport other than cricket is uncivilised.

I think atheism can come across as purely negative - Mopac would say it's 'nihilistic'.   We sometimes appear to be pure iconclasts who attack religion without offering anything positive; we only ever 'tear down', we never 'build up'.  

For instance, I like to write about the bible as literature that refects its social and historical context.  I try not simply mock it (except when I'm feeling peevish!) for instance by pointing out that bats aren't birds.   I think its more interesting to work out why the Hebrews divided animals into clean and unclean.  I like to tell theists why the bible is as it is in cooly objective terms - I'm sure they find that far more annoying!

If we are agressive, theists will focus on the agression rather than the argument.  Atheism is correct and it is positive - it isn't just about laying waste to 2000 years of civilisation!   I know that, you know that; but you can forgive theists for not knowing it, given the tone of WoA's posts!
 

#417
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive.
Where does agnosticism fit in?

#418
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
There are both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Atbeism/theism is concerned only with belief while gnosticism/agnosticism is concerned with knowledge (or at least the claim of knowledge) agnosticism is actually unconnected with atheism. Beside the point if you will.
Topic's author
#419
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
If we are agressive, theists will focus on the agression rather than the argument.  Atheism is correct and it is positive - it isn't just about laying waste to 2000 years of civilisation!
So do you believe it's overtly 'aggressive' to ask a theist then to demonstrate how they go from 'some being created the universe' to "MY being created the universe, yours didn't"? I don't think it is, not inherently. Yet believers, not one in 17 pages now, have bothered to make a coherent argument, and instead have focused on all sorts of other distractions. Really, does ANYONE decide they believe in god because of the Olivet discourse or some arcane writing by some saint in 600 AD? I've even offered a less difficult alternative: how does one disprove any religion as false? No one's taken a crack at either. PGA's spent a lot of words and time writing stuff that has nothing to do with this central question. Do you think it's because the question was aggressive, or because I'm an atheist and not worth talking to, or some other reason? 

I think it's because there's no valid answer, otherwise we'd have seen one. 
#420
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Debates and threads about defining 'atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are sure-fire to get a good level of response if things get quiet on a forum!  I think I'll pass on this one. :)