A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#181
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I just have to wonder why god didn't "act" upon Adam and Eve's children to remove "original sin" from them, thus saving us and everyone else a whole lot of trouble.
Well, mainly it's because God doesn't exist.

There are library shelves full of theological rationalisations of the paradoxes in scripture.  I have not come across one that really works.
 

#182
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 universe demonstrates the majesty and glory of God and teaches us that the reason for it (and us) is that we might know God who has purposed our existence. 
But you've made not one step toward showing why your version of god is correct and all others are wrong.
Do you want to engage in that conversation? I've tried to engage many on these threads but they want to bypass the investigation.

Let's start with the consistency of your worldview as opposed to Christianity. 
If you want proof, I offer prophecy as to most reasonable. Let's see whose view is more reasonable from a logical standpoint. 
If you want another line of conversation, let's look at morality and how your worldview can be consistent is saying something is wrong as opposed to the Christian system of thought. 
Or we can look at the unity of the Bible for another reason. 

This is the point of the whole idea: you just say "God created the universe for the sole purpose of creating people who would say how awesome he is all the time," you have skipped many, many steps and only created more questions. Remember, the bible is the CLAIM, not the evidence.
The Bible makes various claims that evidence supports. But no matter how good the evidence is those who don't want to believe will not believe. They will justify every lame excuse, IMO.

This is where your god comes from, the bible, it's where his character and all of the quotes you are taking come from.
I disagree. My God does not come from the Bible but is revealed in the Bible. There is a difference. 

Of course the bible says god's real, otherwise who cares about the bible. Please feel free, at any point, to demonstrate EVIDENCE that your god's real and your assessments of its purpose are in any way accurate. 
The Bible is confirmed by what we know of history (and I claim it is logic to believe also). The Bible gives a consistent and coherent explanation of the universe, life, morality, truth, etc. Your worldview does not. It acts inconsistently with its core foundational beliefs.

Regarding prophecy, did the OT predict another building and destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system of worship before it happened (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27 as one such passage)? Is that reasonable to believe? If you think not then provide evidence as to why. 

Does history record that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70? Is that reasonable to believe?

For clarity: the bible is not evidence of itself or anything in it. Otherwise, I will start claiming that this world used to be Westeros and you better figure out which of the seven gods of Westeros you worship, because they're real because they're in a book!


On what authority do you say "the Bible is not evidence of itself or anything in it" and why should I believe your limited, finite opinion over it? Other worldviews, IMO are not consistent in making sense of the universe and life. 

As for the rest of your statement, I have no idea what you mean or your proofs behind such a statement.  
#183
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Vishnu demonstrates to humanity that what is made pours forth reasons for it and humanity has understood this since the record of history began. That is why we find most cultures, if not every culture, has a concept of a higher being that they worship. The problem is that if you do not worship Vishnu as it is you worship an idol, a human construct. To avoid this happening the chosen ones believe Vishnu has demonstrated to humanity in its revelation who it is. Thus, as the Bhagavad Gita explains, we who reject Vishnu in our unrighteousness are without excuse. 
What means does Vishnu provide in the writings that are supposedly from such a being? Give me some examples from these writings that have verifiability to them. What is Vishnu if not a personal being, since you refer to Vishnu as an "it."

List some of the Bhagavad Gita that can be demonstrated by history. What kind of prophecies has come about exactly as written? 
#184
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x
I just have to wonder why god didn't "act" upon Adam and Eve's children to remove "original sin" from them, thus saving us and everyone else a whole lot of trouble.
He made humanity in His image likeness thus they have the ability to make choices. 

I have to wonder which bible verse it was that said "and this original sin shall be commuted onto all people forever until the end of time through the pairs of human chromosomes that won't be discovered for thousands more years." I wonder if CRISPR tech can solve this problem if it exists!

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Topic's author
#185
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
How about you just start with why your god is real and the hundreds of other gods aren't. You say yourself he's only revealed in the bible (which speaks again to the fact that the bible is claim, not evidence), so you don't need the bible for this argument. All the other ridiculous tripe, like how I can't say something is wrong without borrowing from Christianity, is distraction from this. Keep it simple: what is the evidence that your god is real and, for example, the Greek pantheon isn't? Don't fixate on why the Greek Pantheon is wrong, please demonstrate, again without pointing to the claim as evidence, that your god is real. THat's all I'm asking. 

those who don't want to believe will not believe
What I want to believe has no bearing on anything being true. It's either true or it isn't. Gravity doesn't care if I believe in it. 

I don't need authority to say the bible isn't evidence of itself, it's common sense. If I wrote on a piece of paper "Xenu is real" and let it age for a thousand years, would the piece of paper and the writing on it be evidence that Xenu is real? 
Topic's author
#186
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous

Where's the chromosomal component?
#187
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What means does Vishnu provide in the writings that are supposedly from such a being?
Spiritual TRUTH.

Give me some examples from these writings that have verifiability to them.
Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]

What is Vishnu if not a personal being, since you refer to Vishnu as an "it."
Why would a god (like the "YHWH") need an identity defined by human sexual organs?

List some of the Bhagavad Gita that can be demonstrated by history. What kind of prophecies has come about exactly as written? 
Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]

Of course we both know what your are asking for is a red-herring.

We've already established the historical accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but that doesn't "prove" any of their gods were "real".

Historical accuracy is moot.  Accurate predictions are also moot.
#188
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
He made humanity in His image likeness thus they have the ability to make choices. 
HOw is "original sin" which you are born with, a "choice"?

Also, does this mean that the Jesus (and Mary) couldn't make choices?
#189
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

How about you just start with why your god is real and the hundreds of other gods aren't.
It is a given that I start there just like you start with the presupposition that the Christian God is not real. It is a given that if I start with Him I don't start with other gods. 


You say yourself he's only revealed in the bible (which speaks again to the fact that the bible is claim, not evidence), so you don't need the bible for this argument.
In regards to only being revealed in the Bible, I believe He is also revealed by the Creation and through the Holy Spirit, but He has REVEALED Himself through the biblical writings. 

If the Bible is His written revelation then you would expect to see confirmations by history and archeology that confirms His word. When He says Jerusalem will be destroyed again and this will be the end of the OT economy of worship you would expect to find it confirmed in history.   


All the other ridiculous tripe, like how I can't say something is wrong without borrowing from Christianity, is distraction from this. Keep it simple: what is the evidence that your god is real and, for example, the Greek pantheon isn't? Don't fixate on why the Greek Pantheon is wrong, please demonstrate, again without pointing to the claim as evidence, that your god is real. THat's all I'm asking.
If the biblical God is true then all others by logical inference would be false for they are contrary to Him and His revelation. 

A couple of reasons:

1) How does a relative worldview justify morality? Make sense of it for me.

2) Prophecy is reasonable to believe which is another confirmation that what the Bible discloses is true. 

those who don't want to believe will not believe
What I want to believe has no bearing on anything being true. It's either true or it isn't. Gravity doesn't care if I believe in it. 

What you want/desire has every bearing on whether or not you will believe. An unbeliever would rather live with the inconsistencies of their belief system than acknowledge God.
#190
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What means does Vishnu provide in the writings that are supposedly from such a being? 
Spiritual TRUTH.
Anyone can claim spiritual truth. What actual prophecies can be reasonably verified as happening in history?


Give me some examples from these writings that have verifiability to them. 
Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]

What is Vishnu if not a personal being, since you refer to Vishnu as an "it."
Why would a god (like the "YHWH") need an identity defined by human sexual organs?
He doesn't. What do you mean? 


List some of the Bhagavad Gita that can be demonstrated by history. What kind of prophecies has come about exactly as written? 
Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]

Of course we both know what your are asking for is a red-herring.

We've already established the historical accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but that doesn't "prove" any of their gods were "real".

Historical accuracy is moot.  Accurate predictions are also moot.

What prophecy can you confirm as happening from the Epic of Gilgamesh? 

Historical accuracy is just a confirmation that what is written is reasonable to believe. What can you give me that Vishnu is reasonable to believe? How is Vishnu ("IT") a personal being? 

Topic's author
#191
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
It is a given that I start there just like you start with the presupposition that the Christian God is not real. It is a given that if I start with Him I don't start with other gods. 

This effectively ends the discussion, because only one of us actually starts with a presumption of anything beyond what's immediately presentable existing, and it isn't me. I start with no presumption, only the notion that I've not ever seen any convincing evidence that any god is real, or that any god is realer or less real than any other, and that since most things seem explicable through natural phenoman, adding a layer of magic on top of it is unnecessary. I am open for convincing. You, on the other hand, admit freely that in order to prove your god is right, you have to start with the notion that your god is right, without that god having earned it. This is an inhibitor to honest debate. The rest of your post is moot. You start many of your sentences with "if a biblical god is true" and instead of answering the IF part (which is central!), you just proceed as if he IS true. That's not how it works, convincing other people. 

And your other problem tying yourself to the bible is that so much of your contortions seem supported extra-biblically (like the insane notion that 70 = 490ish years). It's either the bible alone, or you have to take into account the scholarship (overwhelming in number) that contradicts your accounting as much as you take into account the ones that support it. For example, you can't point to the hebrews trekking across Egypt without also pointing out that god must have erased all the evidence supporting it for some reason, as modern archaelogists do not find any evidence of hebrews wandering around for 40 years. 
#192
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
He made humanity in His image likeness thus they have the ability to make choices. 
HOw is "original sin" which you are born with, a "choice"?
Original sin separated Adam from an intimate and close relationship with God. I don't think you understand "original sin." 

You did not commit the original sin. Adam did and we suffer the consequences. 

Also, does this mean that the Jesus (and Mary) couldn't make choices?
No, how do you derive this?

The way I understand this is that it means that Jesus only traces His genealogical heritage to Adam through Mary (the female), not through Joseph (the male). God placed the male (Adam, since he was created first) as head of the household and originally He made Adam accountable for the choice of relationship (or no relationship) with Him. Jesus did not have the tainted genetic makeup of Adam. Every human being has 23 chromosomes from the MALE and 23 from the female. Jesus only had 23 from the female and 23 from God.

God made the first Adam without sin. He was perfect until sin was found in him when he made the choice to disobey God. Thus, from that point forward Adam passed on to the rest of humanity a fallen nature by his (the male) corrupted seed. I would argue it was passed via the male seed as well as being imputed by what Adam did is the Federal Head of humanity.  

Do you understand the concept of a federal headship?







Topic's author
#193
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus only had 23 from the female and 23 from God. 

Staggering! Where did you get information that god had chromosomes??? And how you'd somehow figure out that no one in any of Mary's bloodlines were ever related to the first two people on earth, who would NECESSARILY have to be everyone ever's parent...again you're not really looking for honest debate with this sort of stuff. You are literally the first person I've ever heard claim god has literal genetic material. 
#194
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 a given that I start there just like you start with the presupposition that the Christian God is not real. It is a given that if I start with Him I don't start with other gods. 

This effectively ends the discussion, because only one of us actually starts with a presumption of anything beyond what's immediately presentable existing, and it isn't me.
No, you either start with a Creator or a chance happenstance universe as your starting point, from which everything else originates from. You explain things through one of two such worldviews.

If you do not presume anything regarding origins you can't argue against God or for a chance happenstance universe since only what you see in the present is something that you would feel justifiable (i.e., empiricism, or only what you see is evidence).  


I start with no presumption, only the notion that I've not ever seen any convincing evidence that any god is real, or that any god is realer or less real than any other, and that since most things seem explicable through natural phenoman, adding a layer of magic on top of it is unnecessary.
Magic? So how does the universe come into existence without a personal being creating it, or would you argue it always is (such as Carl Sagan - The universe is all there is, or was, or ever will be), and if you haven't seen it come into existence then what are your reasons why it would come into existence?


I am open for convincing. You, on the other hand, admit freely that in order to prove your god is right, you have to start with the notion that your god is right, without that god having earned it. This is an inhibitor to honest debate. The rest of your post is moot. You start many of your sentences with "if a biblical god is true" and instead of answering the IF part (which is central!), you just proceed as if he IS true. That's not how it works, convincing other people. 
I have considered worldviews apart from the biblical revelation. I continually try to make sense of them, yet I can't, nor can anyone else make sense of them for me. 

You believing that the biblical God is not true, yet you believe a chance happenstance universe adequately explains the universe. So you started somewhere too, and you worked out from that position. You don't start without some conception. You have to presuppose one or the other as your starting point.  


And your other problem tying yourself to the bible is that so much of your contortions seem supported extra-biblically (like the insane notion that 70 = 490ish years).
Why wouldn't they be confirmed by extra-biblical evidence since God created the universe and understands everything about the universe? If God says a prophecy will happen within a time period you would expect to find confirmation that this happened and you do. 

I can present two lines of evidence for the 490 years, a literal interpretation or a rounded out interpretation as presented hundreds of times in the Bible. 

Eg.,

“For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.

Does this mean that the cattle on hill one-thousand-and-one is not His? 

It's either the bible alone, or you have to take into account the scholarship (overwhelming in number) that contradicts your accounting as much as you take into account the ones that support it. For example, you can't point to the hebrews trekking across Egypt without also pointing out that god must have erased all the evidence supporting it for some reason, as modern archaelogists do not find any evidence of hebrews wandering around for 40 years. 


Why does it have to be the Bible alone?

For a personal understanding of God, the Bible is the Christian's means of understanding who He is. It reveals His relationship with humanity, His attributes and abilities, the problem with humanity, and His solution. We would not understand these by looking at His creation alone, nor would we have a certainty of these things unless He exists and revealed as much by His word.  

The Bible alone does not mean that other things do not confirm the biblical account. It does not rule out that God has also revealed Himself by what He has made. His creation speaks of Him from the intricacy of the micro to the macro. It suggests order and thought behind it because it gives knowledge by what has been made. We constantly find meaning. We find precision and laws to explain what is. How do you make a law out of random chance happenstance? Why SHOULD something continue to act in a precise and unchanging way? Can you explain why? 

Even if I could not point to the Hebrews trekking across the desert that does not mean it did not happen. We just have not discovered evidence for such an event. I can point to many other instances of what was believed as made up by the writers of the Bible later being confirmed by other extra-biblical historical or archaeological evidence (e.g., the existence of King David or the Pool at Bethesda). 

Topic's author
#195
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
No, you either start with a Creator or a chance happenstance universe as your starting point, from which everything else originates from. You explain things through one of two such worldviews.

Except this is not exactly what you do, is it? You don't start with a creator. You start with YOUR version of the Creator, which just happens to be god. If there's a way to go from little c creator to capital g God of the Bible, you would have to find that way. You have admitted several times you can't do that, and that your view doesn't work unless you start with the view that it's already correct. Try the inverse, let's forget your god for a second: please demonstrate that [ANY OTHER GOD YOU WANT TO CHOOSE] is not real WITHOUT REFERRING TO YOUR GOD OR THE BIBLE. Can it be done?


#196
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Jesus only had 23 from the female and 23 from God. 

Staggering! Where did you get information that god had chromosomes???

It is a logical inference I make from the text. If the Holy Spirit instead of Joseph is the reason for Mary's being pregnant then Jesus did not receive those 23 chromosomes from Jospeph of any other man. 

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

We are told the unborn child (Jesus) was conceived by the Holy Spirit. 


And how you'd somehow figure out that no one in any of Mary's bloodlines were ever related to the first two people on earth, who would NECESSARILY have to be everyone ever's parent...again you're not really looking for honest debate with this sort of stuff. You are literally the first person I've ever heard claim god has literal genetic material. 

My intent was not to infer God has literal genetic material, nor do I believe this, but to infer He created the 23 chromosomes, as He did with Adam in the beginning. 

As for the lineage, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 traces the bloodline.

Do you believe that our lineage came from something other than a human being, like a common ancestor that was a simple one-celled organism? 

#197
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
No, you either start with a Creator or a chance happenstance universe as your starting point, from which everything else originates from. You explain things through one of two such worldviews.

Except this is not exactly what you do, is it? You don't start with a creator.
My Christian worldview starts with a Creator. I trust God is the sufficient reason for the universe. You do not. 

You start with YOUR version of the Creator, which just happens to be god. If there's a way to go from little c creator to capital g God of the Bible, you would have to find that way.
I don't start with my version, I start with the biblical revelation that states God is the only God and I use my logic that confirms this is so. 


You have admitted several times you can't do that,
How have I done that?


and that your view doesn't work unless you start with the view that it's already correct.
Why would I believe in God if I didn't believe He existed? You first have to start with that presupposition. 

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without
faith
it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.


The silly thing is that people expect God to prove Himself to them when they deny He exists. Why should God do that? Do you think He owes you?

Try the inverse, let's forget your god for a second: please demonstrate that [ANY OTHER GOD YOU WANT TO CHOOSE] is not real WITHOUT REFERRING TO YOUR GOD OR THE BIBLE. Can it be done?
Been there, done that. The inverse makes no sense. 

First, look at the reasons for that other god. Do they conform logically to what is real? Does a pantheistic god conform to what is? 

And why would I discard the biblical God as my reference? I find reason in Him, not in you or in some other god. I don't find any other gods as sufficient reason for the universe, nor do I have to. The counterfeit is based on the real, not the other way around. 


#198
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 a) if the biblical prophecies are genuine then God (probably) exists and b)if the prophecies are fake then God (probably) does not exist.

It strikes me a lot rides on the prophecies.

#199
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

Regarding prophecy, did the OT predict another building and destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system of worship before it happened (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27 as one such passage)? Is that reasonable to believe? If you think not then provide evidence as to why. 
Umm no, this prophecy is false. The destruction did not occur 70 weeks after the prophecy

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. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

The Bible is confirmed by what we know of history (and I claim it is logic to believe also). The Bible gives a consistent and coherent explanation of the universe, life, morality, truth, etc. Your worldview does not. It acts inconsistently with its core foundational beliefs.
History rejects the notion that the Jews were slaves in Egypt for 400yrs. History rejects the notion of 4 million people wandering a small wilderness for 40yrs. Science has proved that there was never a worldwide flood and history records that. Your bible is not confirmed by history, it is proven wrong at every turn by history.
Topic's author
#200
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't start with my version, I start with the biblical revelation that states God is the only God and I use my logic that confirms this is so. 

That's your version. A Muslim starts with his version, a Hindu his version, a Cherokee his version...and all would argue it exactly as you do. To whit...

Why would I believe in God if I didn't believe He existed? You first have to start with that presupposition. 
I can think of no other proposition that requires you to believe in it to figure out you believe in it. That's not how reasoning or logic works.


You have admitted several times you can't do that, 
How have I done that?
You mean besides not even attempting it in eight pages? Each of your posts seems to come down to "bible quote" (without demonstrating that bible is true, again it's the claim not the evidence) + "Special pleading / argument from incredulity" X "confirmation bias." If you could do it, you'd have done it, I've asked directly several times. I'll ask again: can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question. 

And why would I discard the biblical God as my reference? I find reason in Him, not in you or in some other god. I don't find any other gods as sufficient reason for the universe, nor do I have to. The counterfeit is based on the real, not the other way around. 
Looks like I left one out: "personal preference." If you've 'been there, done that' proving other gods false without referring to your own god or religion, it ought to be easy, but here we are. You have not answered this one either, and my guess is because you're smart enough to see that your own arguments against most other religions are exactly the same level of problematic for your religion. 
#201
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
You mean besides not even attempting it in eight pages? Each of your posts seems to come down to "bible quote" (without demonstrating that bible is true, again it's the claim not the evidence) + "Special pleading / argument from incredulity" X "confirmation bias." If you could do it, you'd have done it, I've asked directly several times. I'll ask again: can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question. 
Well stated.
#202
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
I have to point out that pga didn't invent 'presuppositionalism'.

I note pga names van Til as a favourite writer in his profile.

#203
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
@ludofl3x
It seems to me that a) if the biblical prophecies are genuine then God (probably) exists and b)if the prophecies are fake then God (probably) does not exist.

It strikes me a lot rides on the prophecies.

Our understanding of the Bible relies much on prophecy for if you get it wrong you misunderstand a huge portion of Scripture. I think I heard that about 1/3 of the Bible is prophetic in nature. If Jesus and judgment came in AD 70 then there is a lot of confusion and error in the current position. The question is what is the most reasonable accounting for the prophetic timeframe (the soon, near, quick, shortly passages) and the Second Coming?  What does the Bible tell us and what does history tell us? I believe once you really start to understand prophecy it tells you one thing. Jesus and the prophets were speaking of that generation and OT people that were in relation to God until AD 70. 

Hebrews 3:7-19
7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tried Me by testing Me,
And saw My works for forty years.
10 “Therefore I was angry with this generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they did not know My ways’;
11 As I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest.’”
The Peril of Unbelief
12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, 15 while it is said,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts, as when they provoked Me.”
16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Hebrews throughout discusses a temple and OT worship system still in existence. That system of worship only came to an end in AD 70. Thus, the writing is to the 1st-century audience about things that would shortly come to pass. The writer of Hebrews (many believe it was Paul) is telling his audience of the superiority of Jesus Christ to their worship system and warning his audience of what would happen if they turned back to the Mosaic form of worship on every page of the thirteen chapters. Again, I could go through each chapter and prove this to you, that it is unmistakable, by just paying attention to the time frame and audience of address. I underlined the audience and time references above in the passage I selected as an example.

The author is comparing what happened in the Exodus with Moses to the new exodus taking place with Jesus Christ (the Second Moses). The author tells the people of his day to what out that what happened to their ancestors does not happen to then (Hebrews 3-4) because of unbelief. He tells them that the generation of Moses perished and only a handful of faithful believers entered the Promised Land from that generation after the forty years. He warns his generation (as does Jesus) not to let the same thing happen to them because the time is near and while it is still termed "today" he pleads with them to enter that rest. 

The time frame of forty years (AD 30-70) is being applied by God to this generation that crucified Jesus too).

So prophecy is relevant to the audience it addresses. This is a key in understanding prophecy for if you don't understand the audience or the time frame you do not correctly interpret God's message.  

2 Peter 2:19-21
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.

Again, who do the pronouns "we" and "you" and "your" apply to? If you don't get this right you don't understand the message. 

Can you logically show me that the prophecies apply to a distant generation and not the 1st-century audience? I do not believe you logically or reasonably can. If you think otherwise I invite you to try. I also invite ludofl3x to do the same. 

#204
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Regarding prophecy, did the OT predict another building and destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system of worship before it happened (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27 as one such passage)? Is that reasonable to believe? If you think not then provide evidence as to why. 
Umm no, this prophecy is false. The destruction did not occur 70 weeks after the prophecy

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. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

The Bible is confirmed by what we know of history (and I claim it is logic to believe also). The Bible gives a consistent and coherent explanation of the universe, life, morality, truth, etc. Your worldview does not. It acts inconsistently with its core foundational beliefs.
History rejects the notion that the Jews were slaves in Egypt for 400yrs. History rejects the notion of 4 million people wandering a small wilderness for 40yrs. Science has proved that there was never a worldwide flood and history records that. Your bible is not confirmed by history, it is proven wrong at every turn by history.

You do not understand the 70 weeks and I have done my best to explain it to you. I am not going to belabor the point with you. I'm not interested. You can't think outside your little box and you can't close its lid with all the contradictions sticking out of it. I have shown the Jewish understanding, the thought process behind the 70 weeks and a lot more (such as the six conditions laid down in verse 24) and I have concluded you are beyond reasoning with, not only on this topic but on any other. IMO, you are so angry and so immersed in your cognitive dissonance that my effort will be a waste of my time (sorry).   
#205
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 don't start with my version, I start with the biblical revelation that states God is the only God and I use my logic that confirms this is so. 

That's your version. A Muslim starts with his version, a Hindu his version, a Cherokee his version...and all would argue it exactly as you do. To whit...
So, you are using "version" to refer to different religions, not just different interpretation of the biblical revelation that Christians accept. 

And each one of these religious views is contradictory, so only one, if any, is true. My claim is that the Christian worldview is true, not yours or theirs, and I do my best to back my argument with reason and logic. 


Why would I believe in God if I didn't believe He existed? You first have to start with that presupposition. 
I can think of no other proposition that requires you to believe in it to figure out you believe in it. That's not how reasoning or logic works.
My contention is that logic and reason confirm the Christian worldview, not your worldview or their worldview. I am willing to match my worldview with yours any day. So far you have focused only on mine. Let us question yours also in making sense of ultimately anything. 

Why is your limited, subjective worldview true to what actually is real? Prove to me that it is necessary to believe as you do. 



You have admitted several times you can't do that, 
How have I done that?
You mean besides not even attempting it in eight pages? Each of your posts seems to come down to "bible quote" (without demonstrating that bible is true, again it's the claim not the evidence) + "Special pleading / argument from incredulity" X "confirmation bias."
So let me get this straight, you want me to prove the Bible is true without referencing it but by accommodating your worldview  and using only sources that you accept? IOW's, you want me to place my highest authority is your fallen system of thought and plead from it. 


If you could do it, you'd have done it, I've asked directly several times. I'll ask again: can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question. 
I have tried to reason with you regarding the Bible. You are not open, even when you claim to be. Every claim is shot down, dismissed, without investigating and discussing its truth claims. 

I could never prove to someone who does not want to hear or understand that the Christian worldview is true. They will always come up with another "but" or "what if" proposition. 

I have offered to demonstrate to a reasonable and logical degree (which is all I can do) that my claims are true or rational to believe. I do this usually in a couple of ways, one is through prophecy since it is based in human history, and another is though worldview analysis and making sense of what we believe by getting to the nuts and bolts of our belief systems, on what they are built on (core presuppositions) and how from these foundations they are able to make sense of anything. 

If you do not choose to engage in these topics we are left exchanging assertions. 


And why would I discard the biblical God as my reference? I find reason in Him, not in you or in some other god. I don't find any other gods as sufficient reason for the universe, nor do I have to. The counterfeit is based on the real, not the other way around. 
Looks like I left one out: "personal preference." If you've 'been there, done that' proving other gods false without referring to your own god or religion, it ought to be easy, but here we are. You have not answered this one either, and my guess is because you're smart enough to see that your own arguments against most other religions are exactly the same level of problematic for your religion.
I'm not interested in disproving every religion. That would take a lifetime. My worldview can make sense of human nature, the universe, life, morality, truth, origins. I believe that when examined others do not. And I don't prove other systems of thought wrong by excluding my belief system but by contrasting the two and showing that only one makes senses of life's ultimate questions, questions like, What are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here? What difference does it make? What happens to us when we die? They discuss origins, meaning, and purpose.

If you want to get by in life on the superficial level then these questions are not important. If you want to find meaning and purpose then they are fundamental.  
 



#206
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you logically show me that the prophecies apply to a distant generation and not the 1st-century audience? I do not believe you logically or reasonably can. If you think otherwise I invite you to try. I also invite ludofl3x to do the same. 
I would never argue that biblical prophecy was about events in the far future of it being uttered.   I believe that the role of prophets was not magical forecasting of events centuries ahead but to comment on the (then) current situation and events.  Their favourite topic was bewailing the impiety of the Hebrew/Jews and how it had either led or would lead to disaster, usually coupled to a promise of eventual recovery when they returned to respecting their god.

OT prophets didn't forecast the far future - the bible is clear that 'fortune telling' was not approved of.  The idea that the OT prophets foretold jesus or the OT prefigures the NT through 'types' arose initially to make Christianity more acceptable and attractive to Jews (the first christians were converts  from judaism).  Later it was used to give Christianity a 'miraculous' aspect - something even you, pga, exploit in selling it!

 

#207
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x

Topic's author
#208
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
So the answer to the yes or no question, which again is:

can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question. 

...is no, right? Because again you didn't attempt it, even after saying "been there done that". I'm not asking you to disprove every religion. I'm asking you to prove you're right, without using the claim as the evidence. Or debunk any other religion, your choice, without referring to your own. This is the topic at hand. The rest of your distractions, I'd suggest starting other threads about if you like, and I'll participate as warranted. 
#209
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
 
Again, I start my proof of God with prophecy. Are you willing to engage?

[1] Let's say we take for granted that the universe is here as it is not because of any natural reaction or coincidence, but instead that it was created by a thinking agent. [2] There is no real rational reason for granting this, at least none I've ever seen argued convincingly here or elsewhere, but let's skip that part, I'm saying, as an olive branch to the believer. It doesn't matter, then, if you subscribe to a big bang cosmology BUT it was started by a thinking agent, or if you think the world was created 10000 years ago. [3] What I'm curious about is how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. How, essentially, can you convince someone else that your version of the creator is correct, and by extension your religion is the right one, and theirs is INcorrect, and therefore the wrong one? 
[1] What of these two positions is more logical to believe, 1) that logic derives its source from a necessary and sufficient logical being or 2) through a random process of chance happenstance?

[2] There is a rational reason. What do you witness every day? You witness logical, sentient, conscious being giving birth to other logical, sentient, conscious beings. Where do you ever witness chance happenstance doing this? So, if you are using your sense of sight, per underlined above, you are inconsistent with what you see and witness.  

[3] I would argue through and from the revelation/writing. Each major monotheistic worldview that espouses a Creator has a written record of that being dealing with humanity. Which one of these three is most reasonable? The OT is the source the other two derive much of their teaching from. Does Christianity follow from Judaism? Does Islam? 

With the world religions that espouse God in pantheistic terms, how do these make sense of origins, humanity, morality, etc., etc., from what is written in their teachings? 

How does atheism, which relies largely on scientism in its belief of origins make sense of things? 

I/you don't have to examine every system of thought, I/you just have to understand the principles behind the system to evaluate its truth claims. 

Does an atheistic system of thought have what is necessary to explain morality? I do not believe you can demonstrate that it does, yet I believe I can demonstrate that the Christian system of thought can make sense of it. 


Simple. You stop being an asshole, stop accusing and judging everyone, stop pretending you're here to educate when you are accomplishing the exact opposite, stop repeating yourself over and over and try discussing things with people. I can think of more, but that should get you started.
This post was not addressed to me but I sense that you are applying it to me. 

As I said, I am willing to discuss my system of belief as to its sensibility and compare it to yours or any other. If you want me to establish that the Christian system of belief is reasonable and rational then I must use something from it that proves it is reasonable to believe that it is true. Unless you are willing to enter that discussion our exchanges will be nothing more than assertions of both your part and mine. 


Deism isn't a God.
It is a belief in a god. The question is what is that god like?

Topic's author
#210
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, I start my proof of God with prophecy. Are you willing to engage?

Prophecy presupposes he's there already. Start your proof of god with proving he's there, to the exclusion of all others. I presume you've already done this and DECIDED to be a Christian, so this should be rather easy for you. Unless, of course, you're mistaking the claim for the evidence. Yes, or no? Can your version of god be proven to exist, without referring to the bible, which is what claims he exists in the first place? The rest of your questions are different topics.

I grant {1} because if I don't there isn't a topic. {2} is immaterial because again, it is granted. Your leap to {3} is what's completely unearned. You've made no case for any monotheistic entity at all, you've not eliminated any pantheistic gods, or any deistic traditions at all, you've just jumped to "must be one deity" for some reason. 

Everything else is off topic.