A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#751
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay then, what do you think explains why we are here if neither God nor chance happenstance is responsible?
I do not think we have an explanation. There is not enough evidence to support any given hypothesis. This in no way obligated me to accept either of the explanations you have presented.

Your worldview does not have an explanation because it is reductionist. It tries to reduce everything into your small box instead of seeing the bigger picture and what makes sense. I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.  
#752
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Did the Bible claim
I'm not sure how else to say it doesn't matter what the bible claims.
What about the archeological evidence? Does it confirm people, places, events that are stated in the Bible?
I am unaware of any archeological evidence that supports any miraculous claim from the bible.
Do/did the tribes and nations spoken of in the Bible exist?
Assuming they do how does that confirm any other biblical claim?
#753
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
What makes you think that holding up two plus two fingers is not expressing a mathematical concept?
If I hold up two fingers and two fingers and you cime to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 then I am not the one using mathematical concepts you are.

Then what exactly are you expressing?



If you are using mathematical concepts yourself then hopefully youbwould see the logic of conceding that math exists at least intellectually. Of course if you do not understand mathematical concepts I may be unable to prove it to you with or without mathematical concepts. 

The bottom line is I don't care what it says in your book I want to see god(s') fingers.

You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?

#754
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.  
That's odd I'm not sure I've ever heard a reasonable answer to any of those things. After all "some god(s) did it" does not answer any why it only appeals to a larger mystery.

#755
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Then what exactly are you expressing?
I  am not expressing anything I am just holding up fingers. The rest is up to you. What I believe or express is irrelevant to the demonstration itself.
You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?
You are bring irrational. Why would you believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist?
#756
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
gods are contradictory thus only one is logically justified
Please explain your logic.
Logically, two gods that contradict each other in what they state cannot both be true. The writings of all regions have contradictions so if God has revealed Himself and there are many religions claiming their god is true it cannot be so. 

#757
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Logically, two gods that contradict each other in what they state cannot both be true. The writings of all regions have contradictions so if God has revealed Himself and there are many religions claiming their god is true it cannot be so.
Even if we accept this as an axiom it does not bring us any closer to any particular god(s).

Also this does not apply to all god(s) proposed by humans and also does not preclude any god(s) which do exist giving us false information, deliberately or accidentally, about their attributes and the existence of any other god(s).
#758
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.  
That's odd I'm not sure I've ever heard a reasonable answer to any of those things. After all "some god(s) did it" does not answer any why it only appeals to a larger mystery.


Some things make sense. Others do not. 

I narrowed down existence starting via a couple of reasons. You did not agree with either of these scenarios but you did not supply another alternative that you see as reasonable. I asked you whether chance or God or some other reason was more plausible to believe. I do not see your answer. 

How does consciousness come from something void of it? Where do you ever see it happening? We reproduce after our kind. Living beings give birth to other living beings. It is reasonable to believe. It makes sense. We see it. What is more reasonable to believe? 

What was before the Big Bang (how do you know) or are we speaking of something from nothing/self-creation?
#759
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Argument from incredulity. (I cannot think of a better explanation therefore mine must be correct). 

In truth even if I have no evidence for any other hypothesis I am under no obligation to accept yours and in fact I cannot without sufficient evidence. 
#760
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Did the Bible claim
I'm not sure how else to say it doesn't matter what the bible claims. 
What about the archeological evidence? Does it confirm people, places, events that are stated in the Bible?
I am unaware of any archeological evidence that supports any miraculous claim from the bible.
You're shifting the goal posts/changing the subject by adding miraculous claims. Where did I even mention miraculous claims?

Do/did the tribes and nations spoken of in the Bible exist?
Assuming they do how does that confirm any other biblical claim?
Each confirms a biblical claim via historical knowledge. The Bible lists a particular people and history confirms these people existed. 
#761
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Did the Bible claim
I'm not sure how else to say it doesn't matter what the bible claims. 
That is your assumption and bias, not mine. 

What about the archeological evidence? Does it confirm people, places, events that are stated in the Bible?
I am unaware of any archeological evidence that supports any miraculous claim from the bible.
Then you are not aware of Nelson Gleuck who confirmed much of biblical archaeology or Sir William Ramsey who set out to prove the churches in Paul's missionary journeys did not exist and ended up becoming a Christian.

Although Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of the historical accuracy of the New Testament...
When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'


Do/did the tribes and nations spoken of in the Bible exist?
Assuming they do how does that confirm any other biblical claim?


#762
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You're shifting the goal posts/changing the subject by adding miraculous claims. Where did I even mention miraculous claims?
You don't have to mention miraculous claims the implication you are attempting to make is that if some people/places in the bible really existed then some god(s) claimed by the bible must necessarily also exist.

If I am mistaken and you accept that some people/places in the bible having existed is not evidence that anything else claimed by the bible wpuld bevtrue then apologize but in that case I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Each confirms a biblical claim via historical knowledge. The Bible lists a particular people and history confirms these people existed. 
If true it only confirms that some historical places/figures were included in the bible which does not in itself act as proof that any other aspect of the bible is true.
#763
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Is your claim that it is impossible for any one book to contain both true and false things ?
#764
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.  
That's odd I'm not sure I've ever heard a reasonable answer to any of those things. After all "some god(s) did it" does not answer any why it only appeals to a larger mystery.

I will never argue for any god but the biblical God. If you want to do so then be my guest. 

You have already said you "don't know." That makes sense of nothing. The Christian God gives reasons for our existence. We have reasons why. You do not. And the reasons make sense. They are reasonable.

Isaiah 43:6-7 (NASB)
6 “I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
And to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
7 Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.”

WHY: God created us for His pleasure, that we whom He created were created for His glory, that we would know of Him and His love and that we would understand that glory and majesty that is God.



#765
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You keep presenting the claim as thought it were the evidence. You claim to have answers but you have presented no sufficient evidence for any of the answers you propose. Instead you are trying to prove irrelevant issues and conflate them with your main point.
#766
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Then what exactly are you expressing?
I  am not expressing anything I am just holding up fingers. The rest is up to you. What I believe or express is irrelevant to the demonstration itself.
What demonstration? You just said you are not expressing anything.

You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?
You are bring irrational. Why would you believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist?

Just saying something like me being irrational doesn't necessarily make it so. What is irrational about not being able to see Spirit? 

You assume that God cannot be demonstrated to a reasonable degree to exist. Make sense of the world without first presupposing God. I challenge you. 

You are not a necessary being. What do you have to offer in making sense of origins, morality, existence?



#767
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Logically, two gods that contradict each other in what they state cannot both be true. The writings of all regions have contradictions so if God has revealed Himself and there are many religions claiming their god is true it cannot be so.
Even if we accept this as an axiom it does not bring us any closer to any particular god(s).
It brings us closer to only ONE God. 


Also this does not apply to all god(s) proposed by humans and also does not preclude any god(s) which do exist giving us false information, deliberately or accidentally, about their attributes and the existence of any other god(s).

Any god that gives false information is not a god to be trusted. As I said before, I'm along with you in showing that no god makes sense except the biblical God. If you want to try and make sense of another, please do. The biblical God is explained as the one true God and His revelation gives many reasons to believe He is. The Bible is authoritative. Prophecy is just one vehicle that points to His truth. His Son is another. The unity of the Bible is another. 

#768
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

Argument from incredulity. (I cannot think of a better explanation therefore mine must be correct).

I'm asking you to make sense of another. I gave you two of the most plausible explanations for the universe, existence, morality. Either God or Chance. You said neither. So what is left? Go ahead and state what you believe. Let's see how much sense we can make of your belief one I break it down to its key foundational tenets. 


I have stated that the biblical God makes sense. I invite you to demonstrate your belief can make sense of itself and you have not helped yourself. You have already stated you just don't know. 


In truth even if I have no evidence for any other hypothesis I am under no obligation to accept yours and in fact I cannot without sufficient evidence. 


That is right. You are under no obligation. You can go through life wandering aimlessly with no certainty because what you believe does not have what is necessary for certainty.  
#769
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?
You are being irrational. How can you see a make believe Being?
You are being irrational. How can you see a non existent Being?




#770
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
What demonstration? You just said you are not expressing anything.
I am giving a demonstration of two things and then two more things. The words two and four are unnecessary in the process. 
Just saying something like me being irrational doesn't necessarily make it so. 
Well stated. Do you therfore retract your claim that I am being irrational?
What is irrational about not being able to see Spirit? 
What is rational about claiming a spirit exists if you cannot demonstrate that any spirits exist?
Make sense of the world without first presupposing God.
Disproving other hypothesis does born in any way bring us closer to yours. Even if every other conceivable hypothesis could be refuted you must still prove your claim correct or there is no reason to accept it. It is beyond human epistemology to say what if anything caused the big bang and at least since then the universe has run on mundane physical processes to the degree that we can determine how the universe runs at all.
You assume that God cannot be demonstrated to a reasonable degree to exist.
I assume no such thing. In fact past experience has led me to believe that no theistic/spiritual/metaphysical claim can be adequately demonstrated. That is no guarantee that none ever will but the sheer number of directly contradictory claims and the absolute lack of physical evidence of any kind leads me to be somewhat skeptical.
You are not a necessary being.
Au contraire from my perspective I am the only necessary being (assuming even I exist which would explain why my nose itches sometimes) and I cannot be completely certain that you exist. I am prepared to accept that you do since my perceptions woild.seem to indicate that you do and because I enjoy these conversations and they would be less enjoyable if they were completely one sided.
making sense of origins, morality, existence?
Origins: I don't know why or how the big bang started and that is the earliest event we have observable evidence for. That means we cannot know how or why it began or even if how, why or began are sensible terms to use in this context. 

Morality: morality seems to be a learned behavior. Viewed in purely anthropological terms it would seem that working and living together helps pur species survive and reproduce and so we all enter into the social contract as an evolved behavioral trait. Even if there is more to it than that this is still technically true so if you claim that it is more it is up to you to prove that it is anything more.

Existence: I feel as though I exist and other stuff would also appear to exist. These feelings and perceptions may or may not be illusory but even if they are I can still make observations and learn about my perceived reality and so I accept reality prima facie purely as a convenience.
#771
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
You're shifting the goal posts/changing the subject by adding miraculous claims. Where did I even mention miraculous claims?
You don't have to mention miraculous claims the implication you are attempting to make is that if some people/places in the bible really existed then some god(s) claimed by the bible must necessarily also exist.
It gives credibility to the claim to have historical evidence that collaborates it. 


If I am mistaken and you accept that some people/places in the bible having existed is not evidence that anything else claimed by the bible wpuld bevtrue then apologize but in that case I'm not sure why you brought it up.
You were the one who claimed there was no evidence offered in the Bible, that it was a claim unsupported by evidence. I have shown this claim of yours is not true. That is all I set out to do at this particular time. That is why I brought it up. 

Each confirms a biblical claim via historical knowledge. The Bible lists a particular people and history confirms these people existed. 
If true it only confirms that some historical places/figures were included in the bible which does not in itself act as proof that any other aspect of the bible is true.
What do you mean "if true?" History, where records are still available, reveals that these people, places, events actually existed/exist. They are confirmation.

As I pointed out in another post, archeology also confirms the biblical message.

The character of Jesus confirms the biblical message as C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity. He is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord because of what He taught is noble and loving. Not only this but many of His band of disciples died excruciating deaths because they would not deny who He was and that He had risen from the dead. That alone would make Him different from any other religious leader/teacher who is still entombed in the ground and their graves are venerated. 

Not only this, Scripture can be demonstrated to show there are a type and shadow of Jesus in every OT writing. The OT as a physical history of a people, a worship system, places, and events, which is a foreshadow of what was to come and the reality is Jesus Christ. 

Prophecy is a confirmation of the message. The OT revolves around God's relationship with real people, the Jews/Israel. Many prophetic writings are confirmed in history - what was predicted comes to pass. It also revolves around the promised coming Messiah and a better covenant.

The Bible does not contradict what we would expect from Almighty God. It gives a reasonable explanation for the universe, existence, and morality.

#772
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Any god that gives false information is not a god to be trusted. 
I agree.
 As I said before, I'm along with you in showing that no god makes sense except the biblical God. If you want to try and make sense of another, please do. 
I am not the one making a claim you are. It doesn't matter how many other hypothesis you can eliminate if you have not proven yours. The scientific method demands that we try our very hardest to disprove a hypothesis and if we cannot and another team cannot and several other scientists cannot then maybe maybe it's true. How would we even go about doing this with your proposed god(s)?
You can go through life wandering aimlessly with no certainty because what you believe does not have what is necessary for certainty.  
I have no choice but to acknowledge that humans are mostly incapable of objective certainty on any point. The fact that I try to avoid believing in what is not necessarily certain is precisely why I remain skeptical of your claims until thay can be demonstrateded.
#773
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Melcharaz
Paul was anointed by the holy spirit to write what God would reveal to us
Who says.

#774
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
It gives credibility to the claim to have historical evidence that collaborates it. 
No it does not. Real places and historical figures are included in works of fiction regularly. 

#775
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

Is your claim that it is impossible for any one book to contain both true and false things ?
No, may claim is that the biblical God is true. There are lots of lies and liars in the Bible, such as when Satan is involved, but God is not one of them. The Bible does not sugar coat our problem - sin. Thus Satan was false in what he taught under the guise of truth. So were false prophets which the Bible has a lot to say about. 
#776
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
What about the archeological evidence?
Provide said evidence supporting the Exodus story.


#777
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible does not contradict what we would expect from Almighty God.
The bible is the claim and while it does in fact appear to contradict itself in several places it wouldn'tmatter if no contradictions were evident the claim still cannot be used as the evidence for itself.

#778
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

You keep presenting the claim as thought it were the evidence. You claim to have answers but you have presented no sufficient evidence for any of the answers you propose. Instead you are trying to prove irrelevant issues and conflate them with your main point.
I presented some evidence from the claims. I can present much more yet it keeps being dismissed. There is an intricate network of prophecy that connects both testaments in ways those not well versed in the knowledge of the Bible miss. The claim and then the evidence was just ignored as per usual all the while claiming I did not present any. 
#779
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
No, may claim is that the biblical God is true.
I understand that this is your overarching claim but that requires independent verification. The bible by itself is by its very nature insufficient. 
There are lots of lies and liars in the Bible
Then why are you attempting to use it as a source? Honestly.
God is not one of them.
Assuming such a being exists can you demonstrate that it is not a liar or is that just another bald assertion that I am supposed to accept axiomatically?
Satan was false in what he taught under the guise of truth.
If Stan can do that then how can you be certain your personal religious truth is not him off some other force "teaching under the guise of truth"? Can you prove that Stan did not inspire the bible in order to influence humanity to evil?
the Bible has a lot to say about. 
The. Bible. Is. The. Claim. Litteraly nothing it says is evidence unto itself. You must prove every claim presented in the book individually and independently. If that seems like can insurmountable task it could be because the evidence available is insufficient to demonstrate your claims.
#780
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
As you've been told over and over again, the claim is not in any way evidence and your bible is the claim.