A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#481
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The number of single-family homes would be an explanation of such behaviour occurs (lacking one or the other role model), plus the constant promotion of a gay lifestyle 24/7 in our cultures.
For instance, the odds of homosexuality increased slightly when divorced parents remarried, bringing two step-parents into the picture. However, the likelihood of homosexual orientation actually decreased where there was only one step-parent. A 2008 US study by Andrew Francis found that having no involved parents was mildly associated with a same-sex partner for both boys and girls. However, single parent homes, whether with mom or dad were not associated with having a same-gender partner or romantic attraction to the same sex. [LINK]   

The question is who is right? Is it logical to think that a child who experiences a marriage break up will have more problems than one who does not, generally speaking?


Is it logical to think that if you lack a father figure or a mother figure that you could tend to compensate? 
Is it reasonable to think that if you have been abused by one parent that you could associate and harbour bad feelings towards that parent and possibly seek compensation in the opposite sex of that parent?





In contrast to reparative theory expectations, he reported that identifying as less than 100% heterosexual for males was associated with living with only dad. No romantic attraction or same-sex behavior was reported for males living with only mother. [LINK]

It would be interesting to see the stats in regards to now and fifty years ago regarding family breakups (divorce) and how it correlates to homosexual tendencies. 

#482
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
it seems to me that if sexual preference is influenced by home environment the role of conscious choice is reduced.
#483
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Show me a socialist country that does not exploit its people
Surely a country that exploits its people is not socialist?   I know of no socialist theorist who has put 'exploitation of the people' as the core principle of socialism!

African countries are not socialist - they are kleptocracies.


Socialism way too often leads to kleptocracies. Big government mostly controlled by dictators exploit the masses. 

Zambia, where I was born, was influenced by Communist China. I remember going to the annual agricultural fair in Lusaka and everyone who went through the toll gate received a copy of Mao's Little Red Book. I remember how the Zambian society changed when Kenneth Kaunda sought communist help in developing Zambia, as did much of Africa. It was a poor country despite (at that time) being the third largest producer of copper in the world. I saw the same thing happen in Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique who adopted similar types of governments influenced by China and communist thought who supplied arms to topple capitalistic governments.  
  


#484
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
it seems to me that if sexual preference is influenced by home environment the role of conscious choice is reduced.

Well stated.
#485
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, I'll break down the evidence into small soundbites regarding the seventy sevens or seventy weeks. 

1. The Literal Approach Per Philip Mauro (then I will present the evidence for the Approximate time frame approach). I will try and establish both as reasonable and logical.

Daniel 9:24 (NASB)
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
 
Footnotes:[a] Daniel 9:24 Or units of seven, and so throughout the ch.


Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture?

***

"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."


Do you accept that "sevens" is a reasonable interpretation of Daniel 9:24 or do you want me to establish further proof that both Jews and Christians think along such lines? 

How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy? Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?

If you are in agreement I will continue, otherwise, let's discuss it further.
#486
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You left out all the scandinavian countries, who by any metric have better living standards than the piss poor USA.
#487
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Gods are the creation of man, there can be no argument against that. That's not a presupposition it's a FACT.
#488
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
WHAT IGNORANT TRIPE
#489
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Zambia, where I was born, was influenced by Communist China. I remember going to the annual agricultural fair in Lusaka and everyone who went through the toll gate received a copy of Mao's Little Red Book. I remember how the Zambian society changed when Kenneth Kaunda sought communist help in developing Zambia, as did much of Africa. It was a poor country despite (at that time) being the third largest producer of copper in the world. I saw the same thing happen in Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique who adopted similar types of governments influenced by China and communist thought who supplied arms to topple capitalistic governments.  

Nothing to do with socialism then. It's only indoctrinated ignorance on your part.
#490
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture?
Wrong it's 70 weeks, a week is seven days.


"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."
There is absolutely no mention of this in what you claim is Daniels prophesy ie Dan 9 24:27 LOOK:
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [j]to finish [k]transgression, and [l]to make an end of sins, and to [m]make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and [n]prophecy, and to anoint [o]the most holy. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [p]the anointed one, the prince, shall be [q]seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and [r]shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.
It doesnt really matter what someone Thinks about it or how many changes and additions you need to add to the prophesy to make it say what you want it to say, once you change the prophesy you are no longer talking about the prophesy.
Topic's author
#491
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are in agreement I will continue, otherwise, let's discuss it further.

You are discussing a different topic. If you want to discuss that topic, go ahead and start a topic. THIS TOPIC, which for 20 pages you've skirted, is about proving if your version of god is the correct one. We have tried this several different ways and you're talking about some scholar's interpretation of a prophecy that I'm pretty certain has no real impact on if you believe in god or not, scandinavian socialism, divorce rates, gay kids...just anything but this. Here we are again:

THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?

Alternatively:

I'm starting with the presupposition that the roman pantheon is real. I know it's real, because it comports with reality, and if I start with the knowledge that Zeus and his cohorts are behind all of the stuff I see, how would I follow that? Hmm. Well, wars exist and are objectively terrible for everyone involved...but why would Mars care about people dying? So long as there's war, he's doing his job. Would an ominbenevolent god allow for this atrocitiy? Maybe, but why? Hmmm. A tidal wave wiped out 250,000 people in Sri Lanka that one time, and I know Neptune, god of the sea, causes those, and also doesn't really care about what happens to the people on land, they're not his problem. That makes sense if I start with the presupposition that Neptune's there. What's that? Someone's telling me it's not Mars or Zeus or Neptune? It's instead some single god from a far less advanced culture? WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT?
And finally, I can't find the author, you have the option of dealing with the following example, I'm going to paraphrase and credit to whoever (Brutal?) wrote it up:

Ten people on board a boat witness a child go overboard. All ten pray for the child's rescue, but they pray to different gods, each exclusive of the other nine. The child is saved. How do you determine whose prayer was answered?
Any one of these three propositions, you have either said nothing, or you've used your claim (bible) as evidence. Do you have anything else on THIS TOPIC? You want to talk about other topics, I'm game, but start other topics. In fact, I'll start one for you. 
#492
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it logical to think that if you lack a father figure or a mother figure that you could tend to compensate? 
Without data, your statement is merely a hypothesis.

And to propose that single parenting is somehow a causal factor for homosexuality, without any scientific evidence, is a naked appeal to ignorance.

It is not "logical" to believe something without concrete data.
Topic's author
#493
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not "logical" to believe something without concrete data

Well, what if you PRESUPPOSE it? Then can I say I arrived at it via logic? For example, "Jim's parents are divorced. And he's gay as a result of that. Now, let me look at my available data: Jim is definitely gay. And his parents are definitely divorced. What do you know! I'm right!" 

Is that valid logic?
#494
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, what if you PRESUPPOSE it? Then can I say I arrived at it via logic? For example, "Jim's parents are divorced. And he's gay as a result of that. Now, let me look at my available data: Jim is definitely gay. And his parents are definitely divorced. What do you know! I'm right!" 

Is that valid logic?
People often conflate "personal experience" with "scientific data".

Personal experience often seems compelling, but it is heavily sample biased.  You need a comprehensive data set (or at least a representative sample) in order to draw reasonable conclusions.

For example, there appear to be an unusual number of planes and ships that go missing in the area known as "The Bermuda Triangle".  And if you plotted every reported missing plane and ship in recorded history, you would see a distinct clustering, which might lead you to conclude "something strange is afoot".  HOWEVER, if you account for traffic, the number of missing planes and ships are NOT out of the ordinary.  "The Bermuda Triangle" is merely a high traffic area.  Every single plane and ship has the exact same chance of disappearing (per mile traveled over open ocean) whether or not they travel through this area.

Mathematicians are also shown as averse to making hasty generalizations from a small amount of data, even if some form of generalization seems plausible:

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees [what appears to be] a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, "How odd. All the sheep in Scotland are black!" "No, no, no!" says the physicist. "Only some Scottish sheep are black." [which would be a strange conclusion given a sample of one] The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions' muddled thinking and says, "In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which appears to be black from here some of the time." [LINK]

Topic's author
#495
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
So you think assuming your answer and then either consciously or subconsciously fitting your research to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion might not be the most honest way to arrive at that conclusion might not be the best way to do research and arrive at what you're sure is the truth? It sounds like maybe you'd be at risk of BIASING for CONFIRMATION of a certain hypothesis that way. If only there was a name for such an error prone methodology. It sounds almost like "Seek and ye shall find" idea...like if you want to find god, look for that version of god, rather than start from a null hypothesis. Hm, food for thought. 

:)
#496
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Good point.

It sounds like, "motivated reasoning" (presupposed solution motivates sample selection process). [LINK] and [LINK]
#497
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
It doesnt really matter what someone Thinks about it or how many changes and additions you need to add to the prophesy to make it say what you want it to say, once you change the prophesy you are no longer talking about the prophesy.
Well stated

#498
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
BIASING for CONFIRMATION
Another classic example of confirmation-bias is, "all toupees look terrible".
Topic's author
#499
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
"all toupees look terrible".

Wait, what do you mean? That's ridiculous. I don't know who you've been talking to or who told you what. This is natural. It's all mine! Why would you even bring this up, I mean it is patently false. I mean I agree, all toupees look terrible, but mine isn't one, it's natural hair. Only my hair. STOP LOOKING AT ME. It's REAL!


#500
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
If you are in agreement I will continue, otherwise, let's discuss it further.

You are discussing a different topic. If you want to discuss that topic, go ahead and start a topic. THIS TOPIC, which for 20 pages you've skirted, is about proving if your version of god is the correct one.
No, I was presenting why the evidence for the Christian God is reasonable and logical. You refuse to engage which tells me immediately that you are closed minded. You can't see because you are indoctrinated into your belief system. You block your ears so you can't hear. You asked me to supply evidence that the Christian God is the Creator. I can only give you evidence that He is. What you do with it and whether you believe is another question. It is not unreasonable evidence but you continue to ignore the discussion. 

We have tried this several different ways and you're talking about some scholar's interpretation of a prophecy that I'm pretty certain has no real impact on if you believe in god or not, scandinavian socialism, divorce rates, gay kids...just anything but this.
What makes you think prophecy is not evidence for the Christian God as Creator? 

I'm speaking of an interpretation that can make sense of prophecy, and once made sense of it makes sense of around a third or two-thirds of Scripture because prophecy is a central theme of Scripture. If prophecy is from God then God speaks to us through prophecy and should line up with human history because it claims to predict the future before it happens. 

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NASB)
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Prophecy requires a correct interpretation to make sense of it, for it claims God is speaking to us and giving us proof of His existence via history. What I'm' telling you is there is a correct interpretation of Scripture and unless you understand what is being said, to whom, the time frame, how they understand it, you miss the beautiful verification of God's word.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

I was trying to show you how Scripture is reasonable to believe and points to the claimed God as true. He is under no obligation to you (but you are to Him) yet by grace He has given His word as a proof for those who will humble themselves and seek His face. If you are not interested, I'm wasting my time since you can't talk to someone who is dead to God. 

I answer each post, the charge someone makes, so it is not only me that turns the thread onto a different topic. Find me a thread that does not have this problem. 

I believe a possible reason you and so many others rejected Christianity is that all your life you were told of the soon come of Jesus Christ and over and over again this was proven wrong. When you read Scripture you see a time frame that is different from the message Christians present to the public today of a soon coming apocalypse. 

#501
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

Here we are again:

THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?

Alternatively:

I'm starting with the presupposition that the roman pantheon is real. I know it's real, because it comports with reality, and if I start with the knowledge that Zeus and his cohorts are behind all of the stuff I see, how would I follow that? Hmm. Well, wars exist and are objectively terrible for everyone involved...but why would Mars care about people dying? So long as there's war, he's doing his job. Would an ominbenevolent god allow for this atrocitiy? Maybe, but why? Hmmm. A tidal wave wiped out 250,000 people in Sri Lanka that one time, and I know Neptune, god of the sea, causes those, and also doesn't really care about what happens to the people on land, they're not his problem. That makes sense if I start with the presupposition that Neptune's there. What's that? Someone's telling me it's not Mars or Zeus or Neptune? It's instead some single god from a far less advanced culture? WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT?
And finally, I can't find the author, you have the option of dealing with the following example, I'm going to paraphrase and credit to whoever (Brutal?) wrote it up:
The Roman gods are considered myths. How can you say they comport with reality? The Christian community, from its beginning, refuted charges against the biblical God as a myth or human construct. 

Because wars exist give no more credence to Mars than to human nature, greed, anger, differences over morality, etc., that explain wars as well or better than Mars. 

A tidal wave gives no more proof of Neptune that other explanations. In fact, other explanations explain the cause better. Now if Neptune said that a tidal wave would happen 490 years from now and destroy the city of Istanbul and listed six other factors that happened, that would be a better case for Neptune. 

Ten people on board a boat witness a child go overboard. All ten pray for the child's rescue, but they pray to different gods, each exclusive of the other nine. The child is saved. How do you determine whose prayer was answered?
Any one of these three propositions, you have either said nothing, or you've used your claim (bible) as evidence. Do you have anything else on THIS TOPIC? You want to talk about other topics, I'm game, but start other topics. In fact, I'll start one for you. 


What does the last have to do with giving evidence for the Creator? You refuse to engage so why don't we engage in a formal debate on prophecy as reasonable evidence for the Christian God? Are you game? Let's see who makes a better argument, the one for God revealing Himself through prophecy or the one who claims the evidence is unreasonable. I can set up the challenge. 

#502
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it logical to think that if you lack a father figure or a mother figure that you could tend to compensate? 
Without data, your statement is merely a hypothesis.

And to propose that single parenting is somehow a causal factor for homosexuality, without any scientific evidence, is a naked appeal to ignorance.

It is not "logical" to believe something without concrete data.

It is just a way of understanding it using a biblical reference and thought system. I find it reasonable. We have one member of our family who is gay. I have watched his father undervalue him and not give him the attention and love he desired. I have watched him become more and more feminine.

I have heard cases of women who have been abused and been turned off of relationships with men. Abusive and hurtful actions can turn a person away from others. I understand this. 

You take your views from a secular society, not a godly worldview, so take it however you want. I can't change your mind.
Topic's author
#503
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The Roman gods are considered myths. How can you say they comport with reality? The Christian community, from its beginning, refuted charges against the biblical God as a myth or human construct. 

A tidal wave gives no more proof of Neptune that other explanations. In fact, other explanations explain the cause better. Now if Neptune said that a tidal wave would happen 490 years from now and destroy the city of Istanbul and listed six other factors that happened, that would be a better case for Neptune. 

Jesus is also considered myth by more people than believe he was real. I explained how they comport with reality and you didn't refute it, you just said no they don't. It's not even an argument. "No they don't" is missing "because XYZ" after it. As it is, it's the contention of a child. Yeah, I know Neptune doesn't DIRECTLY cause the tidal waves. Sometimes an undersea earthquake does. But that's just the tool that Neptune USES to make it happen sometimes. Yeah, I know a buildup of electricity in the air under certain atmospheric conditions cause lightning, but that's just the METHOD Zeus uses to make them. What, you don't believe me? Prove to me Zeus isn't there, then. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING EVERYONE ELSE TO DO, and it's the result of an impenetrable presupposition. I am the one saying no, tectonic shifts often cause tidal waves. You are basically responding with the Neptune argument, except you're using Jesus. 

"The Christian community refutes charges against their god being not real" is not an argument for anything either. It's simply saying Christians believe in Jesus. Okay, not in dispute. It's exactly what one would expect a Christian to do, but it in no way makes an argument that anything they believe is true or real, just that they believe and therefore do not agree with those who see it as a myth.

Because wars exist give no more credence to Mars than to human nature, greed, anger, differences over morality, etc., that explain wars as well or better than Mars. 

If you exchange the word MARS for the word JESUS, it's exactly the same. 

What does the last have to do with giving evidence for the Creator?
There is no need for evidence of a creator, the creator in this thought experiment is already granted. It goes to the question of how do you know which god, if any, IS THE CREATOR. It's a backdoor way to help me understand your reasoning: if you can't prove yourself right, then how might you go about proving all others wrong, ending up correct by process of elimination. Ergo which god saves the child if ten gods exclusive of each other are prayed to? You've yet to attempt that in earnest either: 

I've set you a topic for discussing your prophecy fascination already. have at it. But your prophecy isn't in the bible as you describe it, it takes someone else to add the rest in to get to your number, and as disgusted points out, once you do that it's no longer biblical. It's a person. 


#504
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It is just a way of understanding it using a biblical reference and thought system.
I'm pretty sure the holy scriptures don't say anything about which family situation is more likely to makes kids gay.

I find it reasonable.
Based on what?

We have one member of our family who is gay. I have watched his father undervalue him and not give him the attention and love he desired. I have watched him become more and more feminine. 
If every kid who was sent to boarding school turned gay, then we'd certainly notice.

Your personal experience is not scientific.  It's called "anecdotal evidence".

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Stalin brushed his teeth every morning.  Therefore brushing your teeth makes you a vicious commie dictator.

I have heard cases of women who have been abused and been turned off of relationships with men. Abusive and hurtful actions can turn a person away from others. I understand this. 
Humans, whether abused as children or adults will tend to be anti-social.  I'm pretty sure this is not in dispute.  We're all firmly "anti-abuse" I hope.

You take your views from a secular society, not a godly worldview, so take it however you want. I can't change your mind.
Data will do it.  Got data?  I'd like some more data please.
#505
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Are you saying it is impossible to start from a neutral position on God's existence and deduce whether God does or doesn't exist?
I believe it takes an act of grace (faith comes from hearing God's message) because you and I have a problem. We are not neutral but biased. We want to do our own thing, follow our own desires. Why do some hear the message yet others are deaf to it? I believe it is because we have a natural disposition, we have a sinful nature inherited by Adam; we are dead to God. That is why Jesus said you must be born again, regenerated, to see or enter heaven. 

I believe that only Adam and Jesus Christ had free will. Adam had the choice to sin or not to sin. We do not have the choice not to sin. Life bears this out every day. Don't get me wrong, we all have a volition but we choose what we want and desire. Try to never lie again, or never ever take something that does not belong to you again (steal), or never covet something that is not yours ever again. Can you do it (never lie, steal, covet again) or are you what the Bible calls (and teaches throughout its pages) under bondage to sin and what the Bible calls dead to God because of your sin?

How long can you go before you find sin in yourself again? So, I do not see you as free to choose never to sin again, nor do I see your will as free but in bondage to sin. Thus, you need a rescue from God (via Jesus Christ) who gives you a new nature in that He places you in Christ, covered and forgiven by His merit, not yours. Your merit is filthy before God for you continually sin before Him and are accountable to Him in one of two ways, either by your own merit (or lack of it) or by the merit of Another (by what He has done). 

That, in a nutshell, is the gospel message - faith through grace or faith by works of your own merit. How do you think you are going to measure up to the biblical standard - The Ten Commandments? 

Topic's author
#506
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe it takes an act of grace (faith comes from hearing God's message)

Appeal to special knowledge. We're playing all the hits! Up next, "Et Tu Quoque!"

Honestly there's a lot of questions from the rest of that post, but again none of what you say in it encroaches on the question at hand. The answer to Keith's question directly, from you, based on what you just wrote, has to be "Yes, it is impossible to arrive at my conclusion from a purely null hypothesis," if you're being at all honest.
#507
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
A simple yes or no would have sufficed!  I think your saying it is impossible to be neutral - I agree we are biased; I am not quite assure it can't be overcome.

But I suggest that human behaviour is shaped by the need for each individual to strike a balance between selfishness and altruism because neither pure selfishness nor pure altruism is a practical stategy for a human being living in human society. 

What is not explained by that simple observation?
#508
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Appeal to special knowledge
A holy hit-man with a flaming sword and a talking donkey would probably convince me.
#509
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
The Roman gods are considered myths. How can you say they comport with reality? The Christian community, from its beginning, refuted charges against the biblical God as a myth or human construct. 

A tidal wave gives no more proof of Neptune that other explanations. In fact, other explanations explain the cause better. Now if Neptune said that a tidal wave would happen 490 years from now and destroy the city of Istanbul and listed six other factors that happened, that would be a better case for Neptune. 

Jesus is also considered myth by more people than believe he was real.
The evidence is better for Him than Zeus as being a real person. Currently, there are around two billion people, worldwide that believe in Him and that He was a real Person. That beats professing atheists if you are going strictly by numbers which is not necessarily an indication of truth. It is still the leading religion by profession (but not necessarily by the actions of its adherents) in the world.

Those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of His life, death, and resurrection willingly died for what, a myth? Would not only you but hundreds of others be willing to die for a myth? They did not think He was a myth, and they continually pointed to OT prophecy as being fulfilled in Him. The whole unity of the OT centers around (and can be demonstrated) in types and shadows as referring and pointing to Him, per the New Testament.  

After AD 70 the prophecy cannot be met. The OT Jewish economy and ritual system of worship no longer exists. Throughout the OT there is a constant warning to these covenant people of a coming judgment and a change in how the believer would worship God. 

I explained how they comport with reality and you didn't refute it, you just said no they don't.
You gave poor evidence that can be used for a number of different beliefs (but which belief does it fit the best and I offered other scenarios that I believe explain war or freaks of nature like tidal waves better than these gods), some having better proof that your flimsy statements. 


It's not even an argument.
Your arguments were nothing but opinions. You have no facts as to why they pointed to Mars other than that Mars was said to be the god of war, there are wars, therefore wars must be the result of his influence. The premises of the syllogism are faulty.

1. Mars is said to be the god of war, but so was Ares. Same with Neptune as opposed to Poseidon.
2. There are many other reasons why wars happen that can be explained other than Mars. 
So the conclusion does not necessarily follow because the premises are both flawed.  

 "No they don't" is missing "because XYZ" after it.
I offered to give you the XYZ via prophecy.

Who worships Zeus or Mars and who believes they are anything other than myth in our day and age? You made the claim. Support it with tangible evidence rather than opinion and assertions. 


As it is, it's the contention of a child. Yeah, I know Neptune doesn't DIRECTLY cause the tidal waves. Sometimes an undersea earthquake does. But that's just the tool that Neptune USES to make it happen sometimes.
Then prove Neptune did this by offering reasonable evidence. 


Yeah, I know a buildup of electricity in the air under certain atmospheric conditions cause lightning, but that's just the METHOD Zeus uses to make them. What, you don't believe me? Prove to me Zeus isn't there, then. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING EVERYONE ELSE TO DO, and it's the result of an impenetrable presupposition. I am the one saying no, tectonic shifts often cause tidal waves. You are basically responding with the Neptune argument, except you're using Jesus. 
The Neptune argument does not back up its claims through specific and detailed verifiable history. 

#510
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x


"The Christian community refutes charges against their god being not real" is not an argument for anything either. It's simply saying Christians believe in Jesus. Okay, not in dispute. It's exactly what one would expect a Christian to do, but it in no way makes an argument that anything they believe is true or real, just that they believe and therefore do not agree with those who see it as a myth.
You keep challenging Christians to give evidence then you tell them what evidence you will and will not accept and refuse to hear the evidence. How reasonable is that? Biased from the getgo and directing the narrative so that it becomes impossible to give evidence. 


Because wars exist give no more credence to Mars than to human nature, greed, anger, differences over morality, etc., that explain wars as well or better than Mars. 

If you exchange the word MARS for the word JESUS, it's exactly the same. 
I am offering to explain why there is reasonable evidence for the Christian God that can't easily be dismissed by those who want to engage in refuting it, yet you keep denying it without even hearing the position. That is unreasonable and I waste my time. 


What does the last have to do with giving evidence for the Creator?
There is no need for evidence of a creator, the creator in this thought experiment is already granted. It goes to the question of how do you know which god, if any, IS THE CREATOR.
Through the consistency and reasonableness of the Christian God as opposed to other systems of belief. I claim the Christian God is necessary and a necessary being. I claim that the Bible comports to what is real and verifiable. I use prophecy as a vehicle to establish this. I could also use other vehicles like making sense of morality or existence. Your worldview can't make sense of morality is my claim. You continually borrow from the Christian worldview that can. It has what is necessary - an objective, unchanging, eternal, absolute, omniscient measure. I ask you what is necessary for moral right and wrong? Can you establish why your views that oppose mine are any "better?" You do not have what is necessary other than by using force to establish right and wrong, and I question how that makes something right or wrong. Can you say Hitler's Germany or Kim Jong-un's North Korea is wrong because it opposes your preferences? 

It's a backdoor way to help me understand your reasoning: if you can't prove yourself right, then how might you go about proving all others wrong, ending up correct by process of elimination. Ergo which god saves the child if ten gods exclusive of each other are prayed to? You've yet to attempt that in earnest either: 

I've set you a topic for discussing your prophecy fascination already. have at it. But your prophecy isn't in the bible as you describe it, it takes someone else to add the rest in to get to your number, and as disgusted points out, once you do that it's no longer biblical. It's a person. 



No, you are wrong. The biblical understanding of the OT people looked at the seventy sevens along the lines I laid out. You have to understand how they would understand something to correctly interpret it. The prophetic timetable is taken from the Bible. How would they understand it?

I asked you whether you accepted the first segment of my argument as reasonable. I was next going to establish why I find the time frame most reasonable by showing the Ptolemaic dating system was at fault. I can lay down my arguments why I think this way but I see you are not willing. You just want to direct the narrative away from a presentation of the evidence. How reasonable is that?