Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Read-only
Total: 263
#181
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible is evidence. Prophecy is evidence. Jesus Christ as a historical Person is an evidence. The unity of the Bible is evidence. Morality is evidence. Something instead of nothing and how to make sense of it is evidence. The complexity and diversity of life is a piece of evidence. Uniformity of nature is evidence. Truth and knowledge are pieces of evidence. Logic is evidence. The information we find and discover in nature is evidence. The laws of nature and mathematics are evidence. The causal tree or origins is evidence. Consciousness is evidence. 

The Bible's the claim, not the evidence. Historical evidence for Jesus is GENEROUSLY considered disputable, as records of him outside of the bible are extremely scarce. Morality is not uniform, so it can't be evidence of a single mind behind it. You don't make sense of something rather than nothing, what a terrible argument (Because something is here, therefore Jesus is the reason?). 

How does math = evidence for Jesus?
#182
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Whether or not you consider the bible proof, I think it would be silly to deny that it is evidence.

The church itself is evidence, whether or not you consider it proof.

What makes something proof as merriam-webster defines is...


"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."


Proof is evidence that you find convincing. If an evidence causes you to change your mind, it is proof to you. To someone who finds the same evidence unconvincing, they would not be lying if they said "I see no proof".


Lets not get evidence confused with proof. That is all I am trying to point out.
#183
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
A man is accused of stealing from his employer. Is the accusation in any way evidence of him stealing? 

"The bible is evidence that everything in the bible is true."

#184
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Lots of stupid answers and only one sensical one. Can't believe I actually read three whole pages of this lol.

Of course the only response that makes any sense whatsoever (obviously referring to post 8) is ignored by all. Typical DART.

#185
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Certainly an accusation is a type of evidence, and to the prudent individual, could not in itself be considered proof.

#186
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is without a doubt a reference to proverbs 4, verse 23 to highlight.

This is somewhat obscured in translations, but this is the passage that is being referenced.



#187
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
Maybe. I would obviously have some problems with that idea if I was a believer but as it is it seems possible. I would need to see an English translation of what was available to the people at the time to say for sure which explanation makes more sense to me.
#188
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The problem is rooted in the natural difficulty of translating idioms.

Most English bibles may compound this difficulty in that the Old Testament is translated from Hebrew and the New Testament from Kone Greek.


For example, The King James translates the Hebrew word into "the belly" rather than "the heart". The word in question has more to with one's inner being or spirit. 

To believe on Jesus would be the same as to "keep your heart with diligence".

Just as it is also stated in scripture, "From an abundance of the heart, so the mouth speaks", from a pure heart springs forth life.


I am 100% sure this is the scripture Christ is referencing, and if what I just said doesn't make that clear, I can go into more detail if necessary. 










#189
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This some context from the Brenton translation of the septuigint into English.
I would like to point out that since The New Testament uses the language of the septuigint, parallels between the two testaments pop out a great deal more. 




"My son, attend to my speech; and apply thine ear to my words:

that thy fountains may not fail thee; keep them in thine heart.

For they are life to those that find them, and health to all their flesh.

2lKeep thine heart with the utmost care; for out of these are the issues of life.

Remove from thee a froward mouth, and put far away from thee unjust lips.

Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids assent to just things.

Make straight paths for thy feet, and order thy ways aright.

Turn not aside to the right hand nor to the left, but turn away thy foot from an evil way: for God knows the ways on the right hand, but those on the left are crooked: and he will make thy ways straight, and will guide thy steps in peace."

#190
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 information is contained in the Bible either through direct statements or from logical inference. Whether you accept the Bible as what it claims is another matter.
Claim =/= evidence. I knew this was coming. Please prove the bible true. Remember, it contains talking snakes, a global flood, a boat that held two of every species of animal, bird and insect for more than a month, angels, a man wrestling a god, and a magic horn that brings down fortress walls.

The evidence is via history and the internal consistency of the Bible itself. 

When you ask to prove the Bible true, two things,
1) What would you accept as evidence? Are you open or closed-minded? I can reason with you regarding the evidence (and I have to some extent) and point to the Bible and its verifications. As I said, my favourite line of evidence is prophecy. Next is morality. Are you open to reasoning?
2) You do realize the biblical God is a Spirit, right? Thus, I can't show you Him empirically.

If you are interested, Norm Geisler narrows down the options in his book, here,



#191
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Bible=/= evidence for it being true. 

I don't think prophecy is any indication of divinity (see my sports illustrated 2014 Houston Astros prediction of a 2017 WS championship, which is far more specific, accurate and impressive than anything purportedly prophesied in the bible), there is no inherent connection between prediction and divinity. And morality existed before the bible, so that's not a good one either because you could appropriate morals of the day into a book and pretend some power gave them to a 900 year old guy on a mountain. 

Please prove true that people lived to 900 years, or 600 years, that snakes and donkeys can talk, the ark story, that anyone ever rose from the dead...it's just mythology. And it's not even original. 

If you can't prove the bible god empirically, can you empirically prove other gods are false?
#192
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'm asking for what is more reasonable and logical to believe - God creating or chance happenstance in explaining our existence and the existence of the universe? What makes sense in origins?

I'm not convinced these are the only two options, as the laws o f physics may have dictated it. It's never 'logical' to believe something that has no evidence to support it. Would it also be logical to believe in fairies doing it? Why not, because there's no book about them? 
Two logical options, but you could argue for the universe as an illusion, or that the universe is eternal but I don't see them as a good option.

Concerning illusion, you can believe it but you certainly do not live your life consistent with such a belief, do you?

With an eternal universe, there would be an infinite number of causes. We understand a chain of causes in everything we see. Where does it stop in an infinite universe? Whatever is contingent on something else owes it existent/cause to something else. We have a cause yet we live in the present. Infinity has no end or no beginning. How do you get to the present from infinity? 

Do you believe you had a beginning? 

So those examples do not seem feasible but argue for them if you like. 

So, either we were created or we are here by chance happenstance (which has no intent, agency, or reason to our being or existence overall). Unless we get to a first cause that is uncaused (i.e., outside of the physical realm of existence - outside the box we call the universe, that does not have a beginning or end) we have to surmise that something came from nothing. How can that ever happen? If there is nothing how can nothing create or be responsible for itself? First, the universe would have to be self-creating? That is a self-refuting principle. Something would have to exist before it could create itself. If you think otherwise, please explain how something from nothing is possible.

I will also remind you that many concepts are possible in thought such as an infinite series of numbers expressed mathematically but they cannot be demonstrated experientially or in the world or universe we live in. 



***

How can the laws of physics dictate anything? They don't have intent do they? So, you can't get away from thinking in terms of being. You are giving personal characteristics from concepts of mind to describe what we see. Not only this but we discover these laws. We don't create them. They were there before we were born, thus, they are not dependent upon us thinking them. Our minds are not necessary for there existence. The interesting question is without any mind would they exist; what would exist? Would there still be a universe with a mind to contemplate it?

Norm Geisler gives an example of a painter and a painting as an analogy of God and the universe. The painting is not the painter although His mind and body are responsible for creating it from his mental and physiology capacities. The same with a universe. The universe is not God but God is responsible for creating it through and from His mind alone. 

As for fairies, do you think they have sufficient power to create the universe? If so, what is your proof? How are you going to reason for beings that have left no trace of themselves in writing or reasonable confirmation in history? The Bible, if from God, is our highest authority because it says it is a revelation from Him. 

#193
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x


Does no intention, no purpose, no agency, but mindless, indifferent, random chance happenstance make sense or seem like the likely explanation?
Define "make sense."
Is it reasonable and logical to believe it is what corresponds to the actual?

To me, it means, in this context, comports with the evidence.
Providing you are correctly interpreting the data/evidence. Where you start determines what you end up believing. Core beliefs are the hardest to dislodge or let go of for they are the ones you have the most invested in.

In which case, yes, indifferent randomness makes the most sense.
There is no reason or logic to random chance happenstance so how can you make sense of it? Flip a coin as to whether heads or tails turn up. Unless there is an intentionality to the flip why would you expect continually to flip heads? No reason. Roll a six repeatedly one million times. Is that likely? Do you think 'time' is the factor that makes it happen? Things just happen randomly. Why should they continue to happen in a uniform manner?

Again, do you have any answers to my questions?

From the amount of empty space to stuff like famines and floods, that's what it looks like.
Maybe to your confirmational bias, but not from mine. So who is right? Stack up the reasons why you feel you are right.

Also, tell me what caused the Big Bang. Tell me how consciousness comes from non-conscious matter. Those are just two small hurdles. 

I don't think you and I see the phrase "making sense of" anything as the same thing.
Is it logically consistent? If not, you have a problem with your reasoning that doesn't make sense.


You want to feel better about the randomness, so you say "God has a plan for this horrible or senseless shit" and say you've made sense of it.
I have a reasonable explanation for why evil exists and why bad things happen. A mindless universe is indifferent to your feelings, it doesn't care, and if you believe the universe is random why are you so concerned about God whose existence you don't believe in? (Another inconsistency)

Why do you spend so much time debating what to you would only be a concept that you don't believe exists? (Inconsistent/irrational)


#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

How do such beings develop from mindless matter (Ma?GPa?)? 
Don't know. 
Then how do you make sense of it? How can you say God is not the most reasonable explanation?

Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do. 
Yes, it does. It explains origins and existence. It says how, by His word, He spoke and it was so. Whether you believe the Bible or biblical evidence is another matter. It is also logical and reasonable.
So according to you, the most logical explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation, the speed of light, the rapid expansion of the universe, the MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION is "an unseen entity not described in any book at all until the last two thousand years said magic words and the entire universe sprang into existence, then made sure the evidence didn't look like he did that at all"? To you, this is the most logical and reasonable explanation? Clearly we have different standards of reasonable. 
The most logical explanation to these things is that the universe had a created beginning (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth).

You do not think that your essence and personality, what makes you 'you' is immaterial? 

If the entire universe is physical matter how do you explain the laws of logic? How do you see, feel, touch, taste, hear them? They are not dependent on you but without them, you could not make sense of anything. So, some things in a naturalistic, materialistic universe are not physical. Go figure. How can that be? 

 All we ever witness, experientially, is conscious, intelligent beings deriving their existence from other such beings.
What percentage of the time in which humans have existed in their current form on earth has the microscope been employed?
Very short in relation to humanity's existence if it was invented in 1590, but very long in relation to my life span. 

Wait, maybe a better question. How old do you think the earth is?
Relative to what? I don't know how old it is but I suspect it is younger than scientism says it is. If I have sorted it out correctly it would be young. 


#195
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 Bible is evidence. Prophecy is evidence. Jesus Christ as a historical Person is an evidence. The unity of the Bible is evidence. Morality is evidence. Something instead of nothing and how to make sense of it is evidence. The complexity and diversity of life is a piece of evidence. Uniformity of nature is evidence. Truth and knowledge are pieces of evidence. Logic is evidence. The information we find and discover in nature is evidence. The laws of nature and mathematics are evidence. The causal tree or origins is evidence. Consciousness is evidence. 

The Bible's the claim, not the evidence.
It is both. What is said in the Bible often can be confirmed outside the Bible. The names, places, events for instance. There is also internal confirmation and external confirmation. Do you understand what evidence is? 

Historical evidence for Jesus is GENEROUSLY considered disputable, as records of him outside of the bible are extremely scarce.
First, there are numerous eyewitnesses of His ministry, life and death who write about Him. Paul records over 500 who witnessed His resurrection. Some are willing to go to death confessing Him as Lord and Savior. Then there are numerous outside sources of His existence, including early church fathers, outside Jewish sources like Josephus, and pagan sources. Then there is the prophetic message that only fits Him. Then there is the internal consistency of the Bible that in almost every page of the OT that speaks of Him. Then there is His teachings that are mind changing to millions of people throughout history -  the personal experience of His truth.

Morality is not uniform, so it can't be evidence of a single mind behind it.

It is not uniform or consistent with your worldview. As I have said by now many times, your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of morality as anything other than personal or group preference or might makes right. How does that make sense of morality, of what right actually is? It does not and that becomes evident by history lived apart from God.  


You don't make sense of something rather than nothing, what a terrible argument (Because something is here, therefore Jesus is the reason?). 
I have no idea what you mean? What does the underlined mean?

How can something precede the eternal Son?

How does a universe with a beginning begin? Can it create itself out of nothing/no thing (self-creation)? Explain how nothing can create something. 

How does math = evidence for Jesus?
It shows a Mind is behind the universe. That Mind has to be the sufficient cause of mathematics because mathematics is a conceptual thing - it requires mindfulness to think about it. The universe displays principles of mathematics that we discover, we do not invent them. These principles exist before we do so we are not the necessary mind for their existence.  
#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
Bible=/= evidence for it being true. 
How do you know? Consider God communicating to His creation - humanity - via His word and presence. Not only this but His word would necessarily correspond to what is the case. If He said that in 490 years from a revelation Jerusalem would once again be destroyed and that took place it would be a confirmation and it would be evidence.

I don't think prophecy is any indication of divinity (see my sports illustrated 2014 Houston Astros prediction of a 2017 WS championship, which is far more specific, accurate and impressive than anything purportedly prophesied in the bible), there is no inherent connection between prediction and divinity.
How many specific things were fulfilled by that prediction, btw? (I can't remember,) Nevertheless, one prediction and was it unreasonable? The Astros would have had many early picks in rebuilding their team since they were at the bottom of the pack. How many people over the years have predicted other teams without much luck or who got lucky?

I do not think that you understand nor appreciate the specific nature of biblical prophecy or its fulfillment. 

And morality existed before the bible, so that's not a good one either because you could appropriate morals of the day into a book and pretend some power gave them to a 900 year old guy on a mountain. 
Because it existed before the written record how does that discount the written revelation? Morality is explained by the necessity of God --> an eternal, unchanging, omniscient, objective, absolute measure. 

As for the 900-year-old guy, you assume that the present is the key to the past and that God has to be explained exhaustively by human natural reason. That is a mistake in your reasoning, not mine.

Please prove true that people lived to 900 years, or 600 years, that snakes and donkeys can talk, the ark story, that anyone ever rose from the dead...it's just mythology. And it's not even original.
Again, you either think that the present is the key to the past (because the present is where the data is contained) and/or that miracles are not possible, that God can't do with the natural order things we are unable to do?

Again, how do you know that the oral tradition was not passed down from generation to generation and became corrupt (telephone game) through time until God decided to correct the misconceptions developing via His presence and Spirit interacting with Moses and others?

Again, you don't. You have been funnelled into a particular way of thinking by your society and those gatekeepers who influence you. 

If you can't prove the bible god empirically, can you empirically prove other gods are false?
What do you mean by proof? I can give reasonable and logical proof. Whether you accept that is not for me to decide. 

Logically, only one God can be the necessary creator. All religions contain views of God that do not comport; they contradict each other. Thus, logically, only one can be true. 
#197
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
@ludofl3x
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything.
It is part of an explanation. For example, to best understand how my watch disappeared, it is important to know WHO took it, not only how it was taken. The HOW can depend on the WHO.

If it was my wife taking it to engrave a happy 25th anniversary message on the back for me, she knows my safe combination, if it was my neighbors son, he was unmonitored when I left it open.

Answering "God" does explain some things.

It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do. 
He is right. Observe from my example above. If someone should accuse my neighbor's son of taking my watch, he would immediately reply that since he doesn't know the combination to my safe, HOW could he have taken the watch?

You are saying it was not God, so then PGA is asking you how it was done, because only God has the combination to the safe. He is completely right to ask you "how", given your answer for, "who".

You can ask him the same thing too. But given that you've admitted that you don't know how, you cannot possibly know the who.

Now, if we can establish that only my wife knows the combination, and the safe showed no signs of being broken into, then I must conclude it was my wife and not my neighbor's son.

PGA is convinced that only God could have created the universe, and our observation of the universe says everything has a cause, he logically concludes that cause must be God.

So though PGA doesn't yet know the intricate workings of "how", but at least can now eliminate the rabbit's hole of the neighbor's son.

He has part of the explanation. The "who". Much more than you have.
#198
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
@PGA2.0
Answering "God" does explain some things.

Except neither you nor he can demonstrate that this explanation, or start of an explanation, has one thing required to be valid: existence. The rest of the arguments he makes flow from the assumption, rather than demonstration, that this entity exists at all. If we can't do that, then god is on the same playing field as the fairies and the grecoroman pantheon and mind in a vat. Both of you go through a lot of distraction tactics to avoid this question. His seems to be mainly argument from authority + argument from incredulity + et tu quotue. Also, "I think you're wrong therefore I am actually right," which isn't true either. 

Look PGA, I don't have a ton of time to go through your stuff, but I appreciate your effort. You have not, however, demonstrated the existence of this character from the book is anything other than how Batman exists. I have answered all the questions honestly, but you keep asking them. If I knew what caused the big bang, I'd have a nobel prize right now. I just don't think it was a character from a book. You fervently believe this character said magic words, you think the earth is young despite the scientific evidence, you cite oral tradition as corruptible then think the bible is infallible and factual...this is probably as good a place as any to end, I can't sort through four or five posts that have repetitive questions I've already answered. I look forward to engaging you in the future in other topics.  
#199
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything.
It is part of an explanation. For example, to best understand how my watch disappeared, it is important to know WHO took it, not only how it was taken. The HOW can depend on the WHO.

If it was my wife taking it to engrave a happy 25th anniversary message on the back for me, she knows my safe combination, if it was my neighbors son, he was unmonitored when I left it open.

Answering "God" does explain some things.

It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do. 
He is right. Observe from my example above. If someone should accuse my neighbor's son of taking my watch, he would immediately reply that since he doesn't know the combination to my safe, HOW could he have taken the watch?

You are saying it was not God, so then PGA is asking you how it was done, because only God has the combination to the safe. He is completely right to ask you "how", given your answer for, "who".

You can ask him the same thing too. But given that you've admitted that you don't know how, you cannot possibly know the who.

Now, if we can establish that only my wife knows the combination, and the safe showed no signs of being broken into, then I must conclude it was my wife and not my neighbor's son.

PGA is convinced that only God could have created the universe, and our observation of the universe says everything has a cause, he logically concludes that cause must be God.
Good points!


So though PGA doesn't yet know the intricate workings of "how", but at least can now eliminate the rabbit's hole of the neighbor's son.
The workings of how would be God speaking the universe into existence.

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

He has part of the explanation. The "who". Much more than you have.
He does not have a who, only it. The 'it' is blind random indifferent chance happenstance. Now, how that "it" has the agency to do anything he has not explained.   
#200
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
PGA is convinced that only God could have created the universe, and our observation of the universe says everything has a cause, he logically concludes that cause must be God.
Just pointing out that here's where things break down: God hasn't earned his place in this proposition. Pure logic would dictate "everything has a cause, therefore SOMETHING (not god or gods) caused the universe (which strictly speaking is not the same as creating the universe)". The challenge you are both overlooking is turning SOMETHING into "God Of The Bible." I can agree with you that SOMETHING caused the universe. I need to understand the path you follow from that nebulous something to your own conclusioin. 
#201
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
@ludofl3x
Answering "God" does explain some things.

Except neither you nor he can demonstrate that this explanation, or start of an explanation, has one thing required to be valid: existence.
I can demonstrate that the Christian worldview, not yours, Ludo, is necessary for making sense of the universe and our existence. I can demonstrate that the Christian worldview is consistent with what we see and witness experientially, that is life coming from the living, that such a being as God explains the cause of the universe. Not only this, I can give reasonable and logical evidence that what the Bible conveys over and over again is true in the use of prophecy and with its internal consistency. The one thing I can't do is make you believe. Your worldview commitment gets in the way but why anyone would believe such a stretch as blind random chance happenstance is beyond me. It does not have answers to your existence that are plausible.

The rest of the arguments he makes flow from the assumption, rather than demonstration, that this entity exists at all.
Why would I throw pearls before swine? IOW's, why would I take the time and commitment to explain something that a person is not interested in hearing and will only mock? I have been down that road too many times before. First, show me you are interested in the discussion and are willing to make it reciprocal. 

If we can't do that, then god is on the same playing field as the fairies and the grecoroman pantheon and mind in a vat. Both of you go through a lot of distraction tactics to avoid this question.
I would say the same of your worldview commitment. 

His seems to be mainly argument from authority + argument from incredulity + et tu quotue.
Arguments depend on evidence from an authority. You have demonstrated your worldview is already committed to ignoring the evidence of prophecy and evading the moral argument questions as to them making sense of morality. 

Also, "I think you're wrong therefore I am actually right," which isn't true either.
But exactly the same could be said of Ludo's argument. Why would someone commit to a worldview unless they thought it was true?

Look PGA, I don't have a ton of time to go through your stuff, but I appreciate your effort. You have not, however, demonstrated the existence of this character from the book is anything other than how Batman exists. I have answered all the questions honestly, but you keep asking them. If I knew what caused the big bang, I'd have a nobel prize right now. I just don't think it was a character from a book. You fervently believe this character said magic words, you think the earth is young despite the scientific evidence, you cite oral tradition as corruptible then think the bible is infallible and factual...this is probably as good a place as any to end, I can't sort through four or five posts that have repetitive questions I've already answered. I look forward to engaging you in the future in other topics.  
So what have you actually answered? You don't know yet you remain committed to philosophical naturalism. Basically, you are ignorant of how and why and what yet you dismiss the universe as created. I'm saying that your view is not reasonable because it does not have what is necessary to make sense of ultimately anything regarding origins. You favour the Big Bang model of cosmology yet even with this you have no clue how it happened, neither do, as you point out, the proponents of this model. The Big Bang does explain that the universe had a beginning and the evidence points to this but how is it a reasonable model that has no agency for the Big Bang? Because of this glaring deficiency others have proposed multiverses and other theories, even suggesting that nothing produced something.  

Take care!

#202
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Except neither you nor he can demonstrate that this explanation, or start of an explanation, has one thing required to be valid: existence.
I remember PGA saying it was a better and more plausible explanation than saying nothing brought forth the universe. And he is right.

You are demanding we show it to be true, when even science cannot do that. What we do say however, is that it is logically consistent, and more reasonable, and more than what atheism offers.

If we can't do that, then god is on the same playing field as the fairies and the grecoroman pantheon and mind in a vat.
Untrue. The Christian God has logical validity. Fairies do not. There are many facts in science that were found to be logically true long before empirical evidence was found for them.

You want to pretend that theoretical logic is of no value.

I can agree with you that SOMETHING caused the universe. I need to understand the path you follow from that nebulous something to your own conclusioin. 
You are right. But you, and most other atheists never give us a chance to present our argument. You insist we offer proof of God in one sentence immediately.

If something caused the universe, can we agree on some logical restrictions about this something?
#203
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
If something caused the universe, can we agree on some logical restrictions about this something?

Feel free to start a topic and argue for the restrictions I guess. It's a long road from "something" to "personal entity," so good luck, I look forward to reading it. 
#204
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Feel free to start a topic and argue for the restrictions I guess. 

What's wrong with this tread?

But you, and most other atheists never give us a chance to present our argument. 
Topic's author
#205
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,618
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
But you, and most other atheists never give us a chance to present our argument. 


BOO fkn HOO.  Stop lying, again. You and every other theist here have every opportunity to present and defend any single theological argument  of your choice.  No one can stop you. Stop playing victim just for once. ffs.
#206
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I guess you can do it wherever you want, feel free. I just thought not burying it on a ninth page someplace might help others notice it. 
#207
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Stephen
If you'd ever answer a question put to you, your rants wouldn't be impotent.

@ludo
Since you're the one saying that you agree that the universe has a cause, it's you I'm interested in talking to, not just anyone.

But you seemed to be implying that you'd only be an observer in the new thread. If that is so, I decline. I want atheists not afraid to answer questions like the genius is.
#208
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
It depends on your "case" or "argument." As with Athias, I am not going to waste time spamming someone's thread if what they're saying doesn't interest me intellectually. So my suggestion, as you're apparently aggrieved you don't get a chance to lay it out, is lay it out and I'll be glad to look at it and respond if so inclined. Or, don't bother, but don't say you never get the chance to do so, I mean it's an internet forum where anyone can post any topic they like. Saying you're somehow prohibited from doing so seems silly, just make the topic if it's interesting. 
Topic's author
#209
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,618
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
But you seemed to be implying that you'd only be an observer in the new thread.

Wrong. You  start any thread you like sunshine. I have no power to stop you and wouldn't if I could. So you just go ahead princess, it will be nice to read your own take on these ambiguous biblical half stories.

Is all I ever had personally from you is lies trying to defend them. So you just lay it right on out there and let us all know  the full extent of your biblical and theological knowledge and beliefs.. I honestly cannot wait to read your inspiring take and thoughts on biblical matters that you spend all your time lying about .

So when you are ready you just fire away. And Please, do remember to let me know when you have created a thread of your own.
#210
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
It depends on your "case" or "argument."
OK. But as we are already debating it here, another thread with a lower chance of your participation makes little sense to me.

As with Athias, I am not going to waste time spamming someone's thread if what they're saying doesn't interest me intellectually.
Well, you're here now. But please don't spam my threads even if something interests you intellectually. Posts are preferred to spam.

So my suggestion, as you're apparently aggrieved you don't get a chance to lay it out, is lay it out and I'll be glad to look at it and respond if so inclined.
You asked and I told you, you guys never give us the chance. Don't ask a question and then call the answer a grievance.

Or, don't bother, but don't say you never get the chance to do so,
I did not say I never get the chance, I said you never give us the chance. I could make a post to no one, but if that was what I wanted I would not be on a debate site now would I?

I mean it's an internet forum where anyone can post any topic they like.
Yes, but its also a debate site where the purpose is to get others to consider and understand. Some positions cannot be expounded in a single post.

Saying you're somehow prohibited from doing so seems silly,
It is silly. A clear sign that I didn't say that. You suggested I make another thread. I asked what was wrong with this thread.

...just make the topic if it's interesting. 
No thanks. You're here arguing, that shows you already find it interesting. That you cannot commit to another thread (which you recommended) with the topic in which you've already shown an interest, is telling.

Thanks.