A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#511
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
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?
Some things are reasonable and your senses, as well as your logic, correspond to what is said. There are verifiable facts from history that correspond to the Bible like the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 or the OT as being in existence way before that point in history. Thus, the warnings and the predictions came about in specific details as promised. That speaks to accuracy. It tells me it is reasonable to trust what is said. 

I can only present a reasoned argument. I can't make you believe. I have learned that you can't make someone believe something they do not want to believe.  

Topic's author
#512
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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.

Ad populum, and poorly executed: there are currently more people on earth that do not believe in Jesus than there are that do. By this argument, they're right. Clearly you don't think that. 

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? 
So if anyone at any point was willing to die for something, then that something is more likely true than false? I'll let the 9/11 hijackers know. I'mnot willing to die for any myth, what's that make me?

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.  
Mars and Ares aren't exclusive to each other. And yeah, there are many things that cause wars, those things are just what Mars uses to cause them. I think you'd be familiar with a straw man. Can't you just explain why the causes of wars isn't Mars for sure, but it IS Jesus?

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. 
How does this mean they're false? Because they're old? Wouldn't that mean that Mormonism and Scientology have a better chance at being real than Christianity? They were born during the last 200 years. You're literally about five generations from the tablets or Moroni. I'm only observing that lightning bolts exist, and that the atmospheric conditions that produce them reinforce my presupposition that Zeus is using those atmospheric conditions to generate them. What's so weird about that? 

Then prove Neptune did this by offering reasonable evidence. 

Many people believed it, and the stuff attributed to Neptune's activities goes on all the time. I mean there are storms that swallow ocean liners, right? Again, Neptune is not grabbing them by hand, he's just using storms to do that. I don't think you can believe in Neptune unless you believe he's probably there. I am open for you to convince me that Jesus is doing it instead, you won't bother. 

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. 

I'm waiting for EVIDENCE. You are restating the claim, we've been over this. Again you: "THe bible is true!" Me: "How do you know?" You "THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS TRUE, because there's a story about a dream some guy had about a statue with clay feet, and DUH! That's ROME!" And Neptune has plenty of verified sunken ships to his credit. 

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. 
I'm willing to hear this evidence, so long as it isn't from the claim. But not here. How do you know the Christian god is the one that created the universe? How do you convince someone else they're wrong? You complained that I didn't bother with your evidence again, and I set up a topic to talk about your prophecy. You ignored this one though, which is more to this topic:

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: 

#513
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
It gives reasons for why what is wrong before God happens - men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness...they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened...they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man...24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error...

they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
 
If (I say this for your consideration, not mine) God has laid out what kind of relationship with Him He wants us to have, and if we choose to ignore the best God has for us, then there will be consequences for those actions. 

Romans makes it plain three times that when we don't want to maintain that relationship with God He gives us over to do what we should not do. We choose to go against His word. We choose to do what is unnatural. We choose to do what is not in our best interested or what we were made for.  


I find it reasonable. 
Based on what?
Based on many factors, prophecy being one, making sense of morality, origins, existence, truth, knowledge, being others. 


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.
True, but what I read in His word is reasonable. The family is important to God and the right relationships are important. That is why the Ten Commandments give the command to honour your father and mother. The family relationship is important. I have an explanation just like you do. I see abusive relationships destroying a sacred bond. I see sin causing problems. Does that mean I would treat a gay person without compassion and respect and of equal value to any other person? No. Is it wrong for me to point out what God has said as wrong? No. I understand that God as true means they are not in right relationship, either father or son, the father not for supplying a healthy relationship and the son for seeking something that is not condoned by God. 


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.

All data is interpreted and interpretive. It does not come stamped, "This is wrong" or "this is right." 

You work from your highest authority - possibly science. I work from what I believe is the highest court of appeal of which no higher can be found. If there was a more ultimate authority God would no longer be the highest authority of appeal.

Why would I look for a flawed authority if He is true and has given reasons for His being that is wired into every one of us, yet we suppress that truth?

 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 

The premise is simply that if He is true then what you believe is not if what you believe is contrary to Him. 
#514
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
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.
Joseph Smith was a real person.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was a real person.

Ernest Holmes was a real person.

Helena Blavatsky was a real person.

Tenzin Gyatso was a real person.

Do you really think that if the Jesus was a real person, that makes the holy scriptures TRUE?

It is still the leading religion by profession (but not necessarily by the actions of its adherents) in the world.
Do you really think that popularity makes something TRUE?

Nearly half of all modern day christians are Catholic.  Do you believe this makes Catholicism true and all other denominations FALSE?
#515
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 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. 
Joseph Smith was a real person.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was a real person.

Ernest Holmes was a real person.

Helena Blavatsky was a real person.

Tenzin Gyatso was a real person.

Do you really think that if the Jesus was a real person, that makes the holy scriptures TRUE?
Yes, for they all center on Him and point to Him as not simply a human being but God incarnate. You have numerous NT accounts, four different gospels plus epistles that magnify what was said and revealed about Him. The OT predicted His coming and what is describe of Him in the NT meets the requirements of those detailed accounts and cannot fit any other person. Many of these NT accounts are from eyewitnesses who claim to have seen Him alive after He was put to death. They expand on His teachings which are noble and if practiced make this world a better place. The disciples do not appear as delusional by their words or by what they reportedly did. 


It is still the leading religion by profession (but not necessarily by the actions of its adherents) in the world.
Do you really think that popularity makes something TRUE?
No, it can but I don't think it is necessarily the case. What makes something true is whether it is true. 


Nearly half of all modern day christians are Catholic.  Do you believe this makes Catholicism true and all other denominations FALSE?

No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error. 
#516
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

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? 
1. Sinful action. 
2. If God exists and is a personal being that has revealed Himself then you are answerable to Him. If it is our character that is flawed as you point out in the distinction between altruism and selfishness, then we are accountable to a perfect Being for our wrongs. Do you think you can live up to perfection?
3. Why would I need to strike a balance with you if I am just a biological machine driven by the way my biological factors are determined to act? Why do I have to live according to what you deem as necessary or desirable? If all I am is strictly a biological machine and I act in selfishness in letting you live then consider it as only being done so that it would benefit me. That is not altruism. 

Definition of altruism

1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others - charitable acts motivated purely by altruism
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

#517
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error. 
Let us say we accept this. How exactly do you know the word of god? You claim that the bible is the word of god and that prophecy from the bible proves this. Now let us grant for the sake of argument that there is accurate straight forward undeniable prophecy in the bible. How then do we determine that god was the source of said prophecy? Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.

#518
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 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.

Ad populum, and poorly executed: there are currently more people on earth that do not believe in Jesus than there are that do. By this argument, they're right. Clearly you don't think that. 
Precisely, and I was pointing it out to you. Here is your statement that resulted in mine:

"Jesus is also considered myth by more people than believe he was real."

Look in the mirror. You were the first to employ this argument based on more people making believing in Jesus questionable.  
And you do it again in the underlined above this statement with your first statement. 

My claim was the evidence for Jesus is better than for Zeus. Supply your evidence for Zeus as a real person. 


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? 
So if anyone at any point was willing to die for something, then that something is more likely true than false? I'll let the 9/11 hijackers know. I'm not willing to die for any myth, what's that make me?
Sensible!


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.  
Mars and Ares aren't exclusive to each other. And yeah, there are many things that cause wars, those things are just what Mars uses to cause them. I think you'd be familiar with a straw man. Can't you just explain why the causes of wars isn't Mars for sure, but it IS Jesus?
Because I do not believe the cause of war is Jesus. He preached and taught peace, and peace with God, not war.

I'm saying that the cause of war is more reasonable to believe as our greed, lusts, and moral disagreements since which of these wars is attributed to Mars by those who fight them? You just list Mars as the cause of war by assertion. Prove he is the cause with evidence that backs up your claim. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof. 


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. 
How does this mean they're false?
It doesn't. I rely on reasonable support for this belief. They are many contrary gods of war. Why aren't they right? 

Because they're old?
No, based on the evidence. 


Wouldn't that mean that Mormonism and Scientology have a better chance at being real than Christianity?
Again, based on the evidence. Joseph Smith claimed he found the Book of Mormon under a rock. It contradicts the Bible which it claims is another revelation. Which is more reasonable? 


They were born during the last 200 years. You're literally about five generations from the tablets or Moroni. I'm only observing that lightning bolts exist, and that the atmospheric conditions that produce them reinforce my presupposition that Zeus is using those atmospheric conditions to generate them. What's so weird about that?
It has no support other than your wishful thinking. Do you really think Christianity offers this lack of evidence - mere assertion? 


 

Then prove Neptune did this by offering reasonable evidence. 

Many people believed it, and the stuff attributed to Neptune's activities goes on all the time.
Again, now it is you using all kinds of logical fallacies such as the argument from alleged assertion which asserts a conclusion without evidence and makes the conclusion seem certain when it is not; the argument of appeal to popularity; appeal to the possibility (X is possible thus X is true); appeal to tradition which uses the historical preferences of a specific people; avoiding the issue by not proving or addressing the point; begging the question; etc. 

 
I mean there are storms that swallow ocean liners, right?
Argument from incredulity. You are making an extraordinary claim that ships sinking in storms are the activities of Neptune.



Again, Neptune is not grabbing them by hand, he's just using storms to do that. I don't think you can believe in Neptune unless you believe he's probably there. I am open for you to convince me that Jesus is doing it instead, you won't bother.

#519
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I have offered. You refuse to engage in why prophecy is unreasonable because you fail to hear the argument. You keep changing the narrative or insisting that the Bible cannot be used in conjunction with history to show the reasonableness in believing it. 
 

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. 

I'm waiting for EVIDENCE. You are restating the claim, we've been over this. Again you: "THe bible is true!" Me: "How do you know?" You "THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS TRUE, because there's a story about a dream some guy had about a statue with clay feet, and DUH! That's ROME!" And Neptune has plenty of verified sunken ships to his credit.
No, that is not my argument. Prophecy goes hand-in-hand with history and verifies the claims made are reasonable to believe. So, I have a biblical claim and I have historical evidence that supports the claim. 

Daniel 2 is very specific in its claims. We know from history that Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the inhabitants were taken in exile. History backs up this narrative. We also know that three other main empires had sway in this region of Israel and during the fourth empire the claim is that God would set up a kingdom that would never be destroyed. The Christian witness and writings are that Jesus came preaching this kingdom, the eternal kingdom that is not of this world, yet its people live in the world. 


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. 
I'm willing to hear this evidence, so long as it isn't from the claim. But not here. How do you know the Christian god is the one that created the universe? How do you convince someone else they're wrong? You complained that I didn't bother with your evidence again, and I set up a topic to talk about your prophecy. You ignored this one though, which is more to this topic:

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: 


If all religious views correspond with the true God in their prayer then God did save the child. Now, what is the evidence for these different gods? How do they correspond to what is real? How consistent are their worldview claims?

I see you have created a new thread and I am going to transfer the topic of prophecy and what I believe is reasonable proof/evidence onto that thread. As I said, I lost two days of work by not saving it and hitting the wrong button, so I will recompile it.  

#520
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would I need to strike a balance with you if I am just a biological machine driven by the way my biological factors are determined to act? Why do I have to live according to what you deem as necessary or desirable? If all I am is strictly a biological machine and I act in selfishness in letting you live then consider it as only being done so that it would benefit me. That is not altruism. 
At this time I don't want to quibble over definitions or if altruism is only 'enlightened self-interest'.   My poinytis simply that pur behaviuor is the resut of competing 'drives' to be selfish on one hand and a dutiful member of society on rhe other.  Those drives exist because they are wired into our brains by a billion years of evolution.
For most of us - most of the time - the latter 'wins', but occasionally the former does.  Feelings such as guilt is one way evolution has arranged that we are encouaged to reject selfish behaviour.
#521
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error. 
Let us say we accept this. How exactly do you know the word of god?
The Bible claims to be His revelation and that He does not lie. If this is true then history and what has been made would correspond to His revelation and is consistent with it. So, is what we find in historical records and use our logic to understand and what we see and witness with our senses reasonable to believe as with what corresponds to His revelation and what we should expect?

For instance, is it reasonable to believe that life comes from the living? Where do you ever witness the contrary? 
Is it reasonable to believe we derive morality from a necessary moral source? I invite you to explain it reasonable if its source is not such a Being. 


You claim that the bible is the word of god and that prophecy from the bible proves this. Now let us grant for the sake of argument that there is accurate straight forward undeniable prophecy in the bible. How then do we determine that god was the source of said prophecy?
First, I can only prove it is reasonable to believe, I can't make you believe. So, the test comes with whether what is said is, in fact, reasonable and logical to believe, which I have stated many times.

I can't show you the wind, I can only show you the effects of the wind and let you feel it on your face for it is not something we see, just like logic is not something we see yet we comprehend that it is necessary for our understanding of anything.

Since God is Spirit I can't show you His existence like I can show you I exist. We have a tangible nature to our being, He does not for He is intangible.

Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.


What are the reasons to believe they are those sources? 

Well, the Bible makes claims that can be reasonably verified via history. History should correspond to its prophetic claims. 

Was Jerusalem destroyed in AD 70? 

 Was the OT written before the 1st-century? Is this reasonable to believe? 

There are many prophecies that focus on a Messiah and judgment by God on an OT people that can be verified as happening before the OT and its prophecies became null and void. Thus, it is reasonable to believe from this one aspect of the word that it corresponds to what actually happened. A messiah was predicted to come to an OT people, and that people no longer live in covenant after AD 70. 
#522
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible claims
This is THE MOST important thing that you said. Yes the bible claims. Claims require a burden of proof. Since the bible is the claim it cannot also be the proof. There must be some extrabiblical evidence or you have only the circular argument "the bible is true because the bible says so."

#523
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error. 
Let us say we accept this. How exactly do you know the word of god?
You know its truths when what you believe does not contradict its statements of truth. There is a unity and beauty to His revelation that when understood makes sense of so much of Scripture that the contradictions and discrepancies disappear with logic and reason. Scripture becomes alive to you. You start to understand it and its beauty. 

Hebrews 4:12 (NASB)
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

God requires our being born again to know Him as He is. The means faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Why would you believe in a God who you deny His existence? Various passages reveal that those without the Spirit do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are spiritually discerned. 

When you trust Jesus as Lord and Savior He confirms His word to you and in you. You can make sense of existence, or origins, or morality, of truth. That is why I continually question those who are not Christians and ask them to make sense of their worldview, of why things are the way they are, of what is necessary for things to be the way they are, of their proofs in juxtaposition to the biblical claims.

You claim that the bible is the word of god and that prophecy from the bible proves this. Now let us grant for the sake of argument that there is accurate straight forward undeniable prophecy in the bible. How then do we determine that god was the source of said prophecy?
Your heart or inner being is one confirmation. Another is the reasonableness of the Christian belief. I claim others are not reasonable and I try to demonstrate this. 

Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.


How do such sources comply with reality, with what we see and with our logic and understanding? Again, are demons or aliens reasonable to believe as the source of all things or are they just another regress that only goes so far and no further? 

Again, that is why I use prophecy as a vehicle for it combines the Bible and history. There are countless proofs for God that could be used as a witness for His existence, but I like using prophecy and morality because they are hard to get around and still find a reasonable explanation by their denial. 
#524
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.


What are the reasons to believe they are those sources? 

What are the reasons not too? I am not claimimg any particular source is more likely than the other. You are the one claiming a specific source. You should be able to demonstrate this independently unless you are making an argument from ignorance or an appeal to special knowledge. Let's go through them one at a time shall we?

The first was demons. Are you certain that a demon could not either make or gain access to an accurate prophecy?

#525
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
How do such sources comply with reality, with what we see and with our logic and understanding?

Does the bible not make mention of demons? If the bible is the word of god then there are demons. If the bible is not the word of god then you will need some other evidence. Since you accept the bible as the word of god you must also accept the existence of demons. Demons therefore must comply with reality by the terms of your argument.
#526
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Why would I need to strike a balance with you if I am just a biological machine driven by the way my biological factors are determined to act? Why do I have to live according to what you deem as necessary or desirable? If all I am is strictly a biological machine and I act in selfishness in letting you live then consider it as only being done so that it would benefit me. That is not altruism. 
At this time I don't want to quibble over definitions or if altruism is only 'enlightened self-interest'.   My poinytis simply that pur behaviuor is the resut of competing 'drives' to be selfish on one hand and a dutiful member of society on rhe other.  Those drives exist because they are wired into our brains by a billion years of evolution.
That is your explanation for them. But evolution is not an agent in the sense that there is no intent to it. Things just happen and from these things, the strong adapt and survive. The weak die out.

If there is no intent then there is no reason, yet you attribute the reason to evolution. I attribute it to a reasoning necessary Being. 

Is it more reasonable to believe that things just happen by fluke random chance that explain altruism and selfishness or that we are created in the image and likeness of a necessary personal Being that is good and altruistic and when we, as free agents in the sense that we choose, go against His wishes we produce strife and selfishness in ourselves?   

For most of us - most of the time - the latter 'wins', but occasionally the former does.  Feelings such as guilt is one way evolution has arranged that we are encouaged to reject selfish behaviour. 

How does your system of though achieve justice and who decides on what is right? If my biological bag of atoms is governed differently than your then why is that wrong if you don't like what I do? Should you be the one who determines what is right or should Kim Jong-un? What makes your preference any better than his, or that of President Xi of China, or Putin's? 

#527
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
The Bible claims
This is THE MOST important thing that you said. Yes the bible claims. Claims require a burden of proof. Since the bible is the claim it cannot also be the proof. There must be some extrabiblical evidence or you have only the circular argument "the bible is true because the bible says so."

It depends on numerous issues and proofs but also on whether you believe there is some ultimate authority and what that is. Why is your authority better than any other in determining our origins? Eventually, arguments come down to what is your ultimate source --> core beliefs and making sense of them. 

#528
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.


What are the reasons to believe they are those sources? 

What are the reasons not too?
That would depend on your source. 


I am not claimimg any particular source is more likely than the other.
Then you can't make sense of origins. Your worldview is incapable of making sense of life's ultimate questions in a reasonable manner. Why are you on a debate forum trying to make sense of the insensible, or do you believe that ultimately there is some sense to be made of life? 


You are the one claiming a specific source. You should be able to demonstrate this independently unless you are making an argument from ignorance or an appeal to special knowledge. Let's go through them one at a time shall we?
The onus of proof has been placed on me and I will do the best that I can to give a reasonable and logical explanation here:



The first was demons. Are you certain that a demon could not either make or gain access to an accurate prophecy?


#529
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
How do such sources comply with reality, with what we see and with our logic and understanding?

Does the bible not make mention of demons? If the bible is the word of god then there are demons. If the bible is not the word of god then you will need some other evidence. Since you accept the bible as the word of god you must also accept the existence of demons. Demons therefore must comply with reality by the terms of your argument.
 
I believe Jesus conquered Satan and his demonic legions, thus we do not experience the manifestations they did during the 1st-century. I believe the influence of Satan is still felt in our world today. 

How do demons or aliens explain our existence?

#530
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
It depends on numerous issues and proofs but also on whether you believe there is some ultimate authority and what that is.
Why should I accept that there is any ultimate authority? Assuming I do accept that premis how would I determine what that authority was?
Why is your authority better than any other in determining our origins? 
I do not claim to know. You are the one claiming that one of all possible causes is definitely the actual source. That is why it is up to you to prove your position and if your best answer is "You can't prove me wrong" or "You don't know" or "what makes you an authority?" I must remind you that it doesn't matter how many other claims are proved false it ONLY matters whether your claims have been proven true. To suggest otherwise is a classic argument from ignorance. "I can't think of a better explanation then this one must be true." That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to worshipping thunder gods.

Or to put it another way exactly what about your method of confirming your claims differs from the ancient Romans method of demonstrating theirs? They too believed in prophecy and it's accurate fulfilment only in their philosophy the prophecy had a different source.
#531
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe
Here are those words again. I don't m8nd you believing something and I do not doubt that you believe it I am asking why I should believe it. You explained that you believe prophecy proves the bible. If we accept that the prophecy is accurate and undeniable that still leaves us with a prophecy which a book claims a source for. How do we get from there to the book being verifiably true in all respects? 
I believe the influence of Satan is still felt in our world today. 
This seem completely congruent with the idea that Stan had injected some book full of his teachings into the world with a few true and undeniable prophecies included to sell the lie. Is your claim that books cannot contain both true and false things within its pages? Indeed why could men not have been the source of the true and undeniable prophecies but they then made the rest up for there own (not necessarily nefarious) purposes. After all we can say humans exist and they are therefore a potential source of things.
#532
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
My only core belief is that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory.

Whether or not my experience does correlate in any way with reality I can make certain inferences about the observable physical universe based on those experiences but any degree of true certainty is beyond my epistemology. Any claim of forces that exist outside our observable universe is even further beyond my epistemological limits.

The more extraordinary the claim the more skeptical I become. For example a personal interventionist god that is all good all knowing and all powerful does not comport with my experiences. Of course good is subjective and I prefer the term moral in any case but if you believe in an all good god or not it is still up to you to demonstrate this being independently. If you cannot demonstrate this being then at least from my perspective it is functionally and detectably no different then if no such being exists.
#533
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
How does your system of thought achieve justice and who decides on what is right? If my biological bag of atoms is governed differently than your then why is that wrong if you don't like what I do? Should you be the one who determines what is right or should Kim Jong-un? What makes your preference any better than his, or that of President Xi of China, or Putin's? 
My system does not 'achieve justice' - but perhaps it explains why justice is not automatic.  If there is to be justice we have to make it happen ourselves.   If i trip then then i will fall due to gravity, but if I kill someone I will only be punished if I am caught - nature won't punish me herself.

My sense of what is right and wrong evolved as an approximation to what is likely to beneficial to myself and my society.  I don't mean I make a conscious cost/benefit analysis; my brain is wired up to encourage me to do certain things or avoid doing other things by making things feel 'good' or 'bad'.  Your brain is not wired identically to mine so there will be differences in what we find good and bad, and how good or how bad we feel them to be.

99% of the time we don't think about whether something is good or bad - our attitude to murder or wanton violence are hard-wired because they have been evolved over the ages.  We might have to ponder our attitude to,say, insider trading because we haven't evolved a hardwired response to it yet!

#534
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You just list Mars as the cause of war by assertion. Prove he is the cause with evidence that backs up your claim. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof. 

You just list yhwh as the cause of the universe by assertion. Prove he is the cause with evidence that backs up your claim. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof. 

Topic's author
#535
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin

It depends on numerous issues and proofs but also on whether you believe there is some ultimate authority and what that is.
Why should I accept that there is any ultimate authority? Assuming I do accept that premis how would I determine what that authority was?

THe very question we've been trying to answer for 22 pages! Not "how do you make sense of origins," which I'm sorry PGA, you only SAY you do. You don't demonstrate that you've 'made sense' of anything, you've just said "Well, god did all this, so it makes sense." That's not illuminating anything, unless you'd like to expand on that idea to demonstrate it somehow "makes sense". How, for example, would it "make sense" that god did all this, but left us only evidence that we would interpret as requiring no god at all, then get mad at us for not accepting his unprovable existence? How would that 'make sense'?

That is your explanation for them. But evolution is not an agent in the sense that there is no intent to it. Things just happen and from these things, the strong adapt and survive. The weak die out
I don't think anyone thinks "ONLY THE STRONG ADAPT AND SURVIVE," at least not seriously. The more accurate way to phrase that, to take out the idea that nature is somehow a bully beating up weaker versions of animals, is that those best adapted to survive in a changing environment get more chances to reproduce. But it's not as pithy, and less open to emotional attacks like "Should we then kill all of the people who have birth defects?!?!" which no one thinks. "Survival of the fittest" some people think means "survival of the animal in the best physical shape" when it literally means "most fit to survive." 

You just list Mars as the cause of war by assertion. Prove he is the cause with evidence that backs up your claim. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof. 
No, you prove to me he ISN'T the one doing it. I presuppose him, and my faith in the pantheon is like really, really strong, so it's on you to prove he's not there. Or, I guess, you can prove your god IS there, but don't point to the bible, because that's not the evidence, it's the claim. 
#536
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I admire your tenacity.
#537
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Is your claim that books cannot contain both true and false things within its pages?
Good point.
#538
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 admire your tenacity.
Yours is strong too!
#539
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Who has the best god?

The answer is here - [LINK]
#540
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
- Interesting question. I don't know how Christians would answer this, but in Islam it be would redundant, for the proof of God's existence proceeds from the definition of God itself as stated in the Quran. From chapter 112 (Tawheed), Allah is: 1. One (unique & simple), 2. Self-sufficient (necessarily existent), 3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent), 4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation). Once you prove that an omnipotent & omniscient, transcendent & singular God exists, that is Allah.