For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 353
#211
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
EtrnlVw says:

Maybe you should go back and read the answers again or consider the fact that materialists don't know what consciousness is,
You are the one who doesn't know what consciousness is, YOU. In fact, you could never produce a single legitimate reference that would support anything you say about consciousness.
Topic's author
#212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Why would you hold a belief in something if it was not superior to some other belief? (I have an answer to that question) Only because you don't know any better or because you don't like the consequences of believing the other (as you admit and I underlined).

Here you miss my point entirely. I am not stating that I would hold a belief knowing that there is a better belief, but that I don't assume my belief is the best (As I've said I'm not convinced there is a best). What would make a belief best? Some people want beliefs that provide answers, others want beliefs that are comforting or make them happy, some people want beliefs that are as accurate to reality as possible (I know I do). Which is objectively best and why?

Another point I have been making all along -> you can't make sense of best. Without a necessary being, there is no sufficient reason for your view being any better than mine, speaking of qualitative values. The word "superior" or "best" becomes meaningless. 

A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.  


You can't throw around terms like better unless there is a final, fixed measure of better - best. Do you have one? If not, then how do you know what you believe is right, or good, or ought to be the case? You plead ignorance.
I don't throw such terms around. I answered your question which references best. I haven't once claimed (nor will I) that one belief is better than another, I may say that something is better for me. I may give a subjective opinion that includes what I consider best, I won't claim it is objectively true. My question to you is can you show there is an objective 'best' in terms of beliefs? If a reason I should presuppose god is to have a way of identifying the objective 'best' or 'good' then can you demonstrate that such exists?

I can show there must be an objective, true belief to make sense of belief. You are in a quandary as to which belief is true. You say you can't say one is superior to another because your worldview is based on subjective opinions. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of the superior belief.

I can give you reasonable and logical evidence that God exists, but what kind of evidence would ever suffice for someone who does not believe in God? You will keep going to your default worldview presuppositions that any evidence I give can be dismissed via science. Science must have an explanation. 

Matthew 13:57-58 (NASB)
57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.”58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.


People can always find a way to dismiss God, even if He provided a miracle in their sight. ("Science must have the explanation")

You have not demonstrated the ability to reason on why I SHOULD believe you. 
What claims have I made? When have I suggested you should believe me? I am asking questions offering alternative views and asking how you can show them to be inaccurate.
You have made claims that you cannot know which belief is superior or best. Why would I ever want to believe what you believed on those grounds? (the blind leading the blind) You have made claims that you of ignorant of one belief being better than another. It does not make me want to sign up for what you believe. And science is always on the verge of supplying the answers, yet never does.

You have many. Maybe you do not understand them. Many, many people do not realize their worldview bias. No one is neutral. If you don't presuppose God then you presuppose some other beginning. You build on those beginnings from a worldview that excludes God as the, or the likely, explanation.
This is a false dichotomy  (and a fairly arrogant one at that). I know my world views, I don't presuppose anything. I haven't and don't, claim to know how the universe began, I don't claim a god is impossible or improbable, I don't claim that a god is necessary or likely. I haven't supposed what (if anything) was before this universe. I fail to see why I must presuppose any of these things rather than remaining with the default position of 'I don't know' it's an honest position that makes sense with the evidence available to us.
No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too. 
Topic's author
#213
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Sure it makes a difference when it was written
Unless you want to argue it is unreasonable to expect a perfect being (all knowing, all powerful, etc) to choose a conduit of communication that will stand the test of time, then my point stands: the Bible is not the work of a perfect being. 


He chose human beings whom He made in His image and likeness to communicate through. That was His choice. He provided them with a first-hand experience of Himself and He allowed them to communicate Himself through this experience. He told them of things that would happen in the future, and they wrote down His communication with Him. Thus there was a record. Many false prophets also claimed an experience with God and He told the true prophets how they would be able to separate truth from a lie. 

Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

So, the original works represented God's truth. These works were without error in their original state. They were inspired by God's Spirit and without error. They have been handed down from generation to generation through copies that have had spelling errors in them, yet the doctrines are in no way changed. If something was found in a later manuscript that was not found in an earlier one then the omission is recorded on the pages of our current copy. It is not like this information is hidden from our understanding. 

If you did not believe God back then there is no reason to believe you will believe Him today. Jesus made this point about His miracles as an attestation of Himself and the prophets. 

Matthew 13:16-18 (NASB)
16 But blessed are your
eyes,
because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Luke 16:31
But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Jesus rose from the dead, as is testified, and as is reasonable to believe, and they still did/do not believe. I tried to engage you in prophecy, and you will not be persuaded. Therefore, what is left? Go your own way and if you are wrong then you will be separated from God for eternity. That is the choice you make knowing that if you are wrong there are consequences. 



Beaming a message to humans and leaving it in their safekeeping with no apparent oversight is a completely absurd route for the alleged creator of the universe to rely upon. If you, I, or any competent human, given the same power and knoweldge, would not rely on a multi-millennial game of telephone to convey crucial information to mankind.
There are safeguards that you will not consider. Is prophecy reasonable with the history we have available to us? I say your view is not reasonable, or logical. Show me where in the entire NT and from early historical extra-biblical writings there is evidence of your contrived conspiracy theory of prophecy being written AFTER the fact/event because there is no evidence internally, never a mention of an already destroyed temple or ritual system of worship. 

God chose to give us a revelation of Himself which He left in human hands. If they will not believe that this revelation has everything you need to believe and trust then why would He show you another means? He wants you to trust His word. Life is a test and a choice. That choice is what separates many from the love of God. They choose to deny His existences, as made clear by Hebrews 11:6. As I have said a thousand times, what is the more reasonable and more sensible to believe?  Is it chance happenstance or a personal Creator? For those who say chance happenstance, I say there is no reason or sense in chance happenstance. That worldview is inconsistent from its very start. If you want to believe it then go ahead. It's no skin
of
my back.


Also, I just want to point out that you argued against contradictions, ignorance, and deterioration of the message (all of which are indisputable) and made no mention of the other 6 things that should not exist in the communications of a perfect being. I could concede ignorance and contradiction, the inability to know what the original authors actually wrote (much less what they actually meant) in the Bible and still have plenty of reasons to reject the Bible as the work of a perfect being. 


I have said many times that the apparent contradictions have logical explanations and I have pointed others to web pages in which many of these supposed contradictions have been addressed.

What is ignorant about the Bible? It was written primarily to an ancient people but it does concern us today. 

What about the message has deteriorated? The message of salvation is the same today as it was back then. What doctrine has changed?

A perfect God chose to use human beings to communicate to other human beings about Himself. Will you trust His message or will you be like Adam who rejected His command? That is the gist of the problem. 
#214
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

"A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.  "

You mean it pacifies your fear of reality, your fear of death, your fear of the end.

"No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too. "

The non-existence of gods has no discernible impact on my worldview, does the non-existence of Goblins affect your world view in any way?

Topic's author
#215
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

"A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.  "

You mean it pacifies your fear of reality, your fear of death, your fear of the end.
The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.

The other thing that is noteworthy is that God's existence and revelation mean we can know as certain what He has revealed. What do you know about origins or death that is certain to you? You assume that when you die there is nothing. You assume that the universe happened a particular way, but you don't know for the reason that you don't have what is necessary for certainty.  




"No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too. "

The non-existence of gods has no discernible impact on my worldview, does the non-existence of Goblins affect your world view in any way? 


Sure it has an impact. Without God, you negate a lot of things you take for granted, like morality. Morality becomes meaningless unless there is a fixed, final standard. The question becomes why your standard should be the one I accept? Without God, there is no ultimate purpose. Without God, there is no certainty to origins. Without God, you react to your environment as your genes dictate. Why should the way my genes dictate correspond with how yours operate? If we are just material, biological, electrochemical reactions why should I care about the way you function or your survival? If survival of the fittest means we cannot both survive because we are competing for a food source then see you later!
#216
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.
I have no fairy tale hope for an afterlife that pacifies your fears, I don't despair of anything except man's inhumanity to man and the rest of the planet, I can look back on my life and be happy and proud. You seem to think that you are so important to the big scheme of things that it would be a waste to the big scheme of things if you didn't go on to become immortal, hubris much?
The other thing that is noteworthy is that God's existence and revelation mean we can know as certain what He has revealed.
You can believe what bronze/iron age primitive  ignorant superstitious savages imagined but you can't know anything about what the god they created revealed, you can have a fair idea what the bronze/iron age savages claim their man made god revealed, after all he lived in their imaginations they can have him reveal whatever they want.

What do you know about origins or death that is certain to you? You assume that when you die there is nothing. You assume that the universe happened a particular way, but you don't know for the reason that you don't have what is necessary for certainty.  

I don't know anything about origins and neither do you. 3billion yrs of death has proved that it is final, Your frightened fairy tales are pathetic to a grown up. I don't assume anything about the universe I leave that nonsense for the ignorant godists and your certainty is based entirely on the imaginations of bronze/iron age primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages. Good luck, it won't change anything you'll still have reality to deny to pacify your absurd fears.
BTW your morality considers infanticide and genocide as morally righteous, mine considers them atrocities and abominations. I'll stick with my far superior morality.
#217
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.
On the contrary, at the very least I can look back on all the amazing things I've seen, learned and experienced in this life and all it has to offer. You on the other hand have squandered your precious time embracing ancient myths and superstitions written by goat herders centuries ago who had no concept of reason or rationale and relied entirely on fantasy and magical thinking for answers. You've learned nothing and will soon look back on a wasted life pursuing lies and deceit.


#218
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw

I'm not asserting anything less than what you are. You ask me a question, you will get an answer  (not assertion) from a Theistic point of view. Just like you will assert consciousness is a product of the brain, I'm not just asserting it I'm giving you explanations. I've explained what consciousness is, where it originated, how the soul operates through the body and brain and how the brain and body functions work with our soul inhabiting it. You've offered no argument that I am aware of, and if you did I answered it. I'm not asserting anything, and it's not something I make up, this knowledge has been around well before you and I and I have reasons and experience for my beliefs.
And your evidence for this tripe is your imagination, wow, I'm impressed by your imagination but none of what you assert can be proven true because it exists only in your imagination.
Does Jesus and Moses fly around the god worlds with you?
Topic's author
#219
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.
On the contrary, at the very least I can look back on all the amazing things I've seen, learned and experienced in this life and all it has to offer. You on the other hand have squandered your precious time embracing ancient myths and superstitions written by goat herders centuries ago who had no concept of reason or rationale and relied entirely on fantasy and magical thinking for answers. You've learned nothing and will soon look back on a wasted life pursuing lies and deceit.

I'm not denying your amazing life. I'm saying you have no hope for a future. You believe when you are dead you are dead and nothing matters. There is no justice for all the wrongs you have suffered or for the wrongs you have done to others. Someone could be a most despised person like Hitler and when they die all their past sins and injustices are wiped away - no accounting for the evil. There is no justice in such a worldview. 

Here we go with this goat herding mentality. Because you do not believe in God you do not believe in the supernatural, that God could display His power and providence to these people. That is the gist of the criticism. Because you choose to ignore the evidence you think there is none. My opinion is how pathetically unbelievers avoid the discussion of prophecy. It shows their lack of understanding, lack of reasoning, of the issue, from what I have witnessed. The Preterist position of prophecy seems to be a subject that is taboo to them. They avoid the discussion because they have always heard of the futurist view of prophecy and understand the many problems of it, how the promises made are not fulfilled by such a view. Most of them are addressed with reason and logic within the Preterist view.  

Instead, a discussion on prophecy becomes a display of their private beef and anger issues about God. They call Him and those who believe in Him liars, and irrational, yet they never address this issue. They turn every discussion into their private beef against God and those who believe in Him. Their talking points are the same old regurgitated opinions of atheistic web pages.  

They ask for evidence and when some evidence is presented they turn the discussion into a tangent instead of engaging on the topic at hand.  

Topic's author
#220
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.
I have no fairy tale hope for an afterlife that pacifies your fears, I don't despair of anything except man's inhumanity to man and the rest of the planet, I can look back on my life and be happy and proud. You seem to think that you are so important to the big scheme of things that it would be a waste to the big scheme of things if you didn't go on to become immortal, hubris much?



The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

My fears are alieved and answered by the love, life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ who justifies the believer before the judgments of God!

Romans 8:1-3 
Deliverance from Bondage
8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

The other thing that is noteworthy is that God's existence and revelation mean we can know as certain what He has revealed.
You can believe what bronze/iron age primitive  ignorant superstitious savages imagined but you can't know anything about what the god they created revealed, you can have a fair idea what the bronze/iron age savages claim their man made god revealed, after all he lived in their imaginations they can have him reveal whatever they want.

Oh yes, dumb, ignorant, primitive, bronze age goat herders! Same old irrelevant talking points!


What do you know about origins or death that is certain to you? You assume that when you die there is nothing. You assume that the universe happened a particular way, but you don't know for the reason that you don't have what is necessary for certainty.  

I don't know anything about origins and neither do you. 3billion yrs of death has proved that it is final, Your frightened fairy tales are pathetic to a grown up. I don't assume anything about the universe I leave that nonsense for the ignorant godists and your certainty is based entirely on the imaginations of bronze/iron age primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages. Good luck, it won't change anything you'll still have reality to deny to pacify your absurd fears.
BTW your morality considers infanticide and genocide as morally righteous, mine considers them atrocities and abominations. I'll stick with my far superior morality.
Right, you know nothing about origins, yet you dismiss what you don't know as untrue. How logical is that?

Furthermore, your worldview assumes that because you don't know, no one can know. It does not have what is necessary for certainty because it relies on subjective limited human opinion. The Christian worldview does, providing it is true. God has said what is the case, and from the Scriptures, it is said God does not lie. 

Whatever the worldview, it still tries to account for death and justice. Without God, death means nothing, and justice is something that ultimately means nothing either. Why does death upset you so much if it is meaningless? You decry 3 billion years of death and suffering that means nothing without God. You are just a biological accident that means nothing. So quit trying to make such a big deal of death. It just, once again, shows the total inconsistency and futility of your worldview. 

I do not deny reality. I understand the injustice and wrong because my worldview has a means of explaining it. 

As for infanticide and genocide, God never takes an INNOCENT human life without restoring it. That is my belief based on Scripture. God told the Israelites to eliminate the people from the land because they were EVIL and they would corrupt the special relationship God established with these people. Because they were not obedient that is precisely what we read happening in future pages of the OT.

So God has a reason for the taking of life.
1) Punishment for evil.
2) To prevent corruption of God's special people by these cultures that lived on the land because of their evil. These people would not let God's people take the land without killing them or subjecting and polluting them to their evil ways.

We witness that minority groups and multicultural groups change a culture, even in our times with their special interests. I'm not saying this influence is always a bad thing, just that it can happen. In ANE times it was a bad thing in relation to God's people. God wanted to teach these covenant people His holiness and purity yet they were always being corrupted by the subcultures they conquered yet did not expel. The Israelites were influenced by other points of view.  

#221
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm saying you have no hope for a future
That isn't even remotely true, my future is fine, thank you very much.

There is no justice in such a worldview.
You're talking about your world view where someone like Hitler could have just accepted Jesus with his dying words and *poof* all is forgiven. I agree there is no justice in your worldview.

Because you do not believe in God you do not believe in the supernatural
I have no reason to believe in that which has never been shown to exist. And most likely, we could probably find a great deal of concepts people have conjured about the supernatural that you don't believe. That would be a wash then.

God could display His power and providence to these people
So, why can't God do that now? You said yourself there is no justice. God appears to be failing again.

Because you choose to ignore the evidence you think there is none.
I never ignore evidence, but you need to actually produce evidence, which you have failed to do thus far.

My opinion is how pathetically unbelievers avoid the discussion of prophecy
That's because prophecy has never been shown to be valid.

Instead, a discussion on prophecy becomes a display of their private beef and anger issues about God. They call Him and those who believe in Him liars, and irrational, yet they never address this issue.
Not true, the reason is simple, prophecy is baloney. You just haven't figured that out yet.


Topic's author
#222
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
I'm saying you have no hope for a future
That isn't even remotely true, my future is fine, thank you very much.

I'm talking about what happens after you DIE.

There is no justice in such a worldview.
You're talking about your world view where someone like Hitler could have just accepted Jesus with his dying words and *poof* all is forgiven. I agree there is no justice in your worldview.
The difference between Hitler and you is the level of your sin, and any sin is separation from God. If Jesus paid the price for our sin then even the worst of people can be saved by a true trust and faith in Jesus and His merit. From what I see is that the most ruthless people have seared their minds towards God. Thus, their moral compass is so relative that anything becomes possible in their rejection of Him. 


Because you do not believe in God you do not believe in the supernatural
I have no reason to believe in that which has never been shown to exist. And most likely, we could probably find a great deal of concepts people have conjured about the supernatural that you don't believe. That would be a wash then.
That is the difference between us. I see every reason to believe, even though I have never seen Him. 

Instead of conjuring up God you conjure up Nature, with a capital N. 


God could display His power and providence to these people
So, why can't God do that now? You said yourself there is no justice. God appears to be failing again.
God has given us everything we need to reconcile to Him. Through His providence, He gives humanity some leeway to choose how they will live their lives. He shows them what hell life can be when humans try to live outside of an understanding of God. Some of the worst social injustice and outright slaughter has come during the 20th-century - the bloodiest to date, in which a good chunk of humanity rejected God for human socialism and left-wing ideology. 

– Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
– Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)
– Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
– Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
– Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
– Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
– Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
– Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1,600,000 (purges and concentration camps)
– Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
– Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
– Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
– Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
– Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
– Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
– Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
– Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
– Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
– Mullah Omar – Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
– Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
– Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
– Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
– Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
= Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000


If you look to leftist socialists states you will find a stranglehold on power and a ruthless regime that controls its people. That is what you have to look forward to in the USA if the Democrats gain power in the mid-terms, IMO. I think it will lead to the death of your Republic. When humanity forgets God, anything goes; anything can be passed off as good, with sinister results. 

Because you choose to ignore the evidence you think there is none.
I never ignore evidence, but you need to actually produce evidence, which you have failed to do thus far.
Sure you have. You failed to engage. You did what those who are closed to God do so well, you obstruct and misrepresent, IMO.


My opinion is how pathetically unbelievers avoid the discussion of prophecy
That's because prophecy has never been shown to be valid.
Sure it has. I pointed out legitimate historical facts that NOT ONE OF YOU challenged, except SkepticalOne. He never challenged the facts themselves but made the claim that the prophecies were written after the event in question. I'm still waiting for early historical evidence to back up his claims. Instead, it comes from 17th-20th-century liberal higher critics enlarge.
 

Instead, a discussion on prophecy becomes a display of their private beef and anger issues about God. They call Him and those who believe in Him liars, and irrational, yet they never address this issue.
Not true, the reason is simple, prophecy is baloney. You just haven't figured that out yet.


Dispute the facts of post 182  and 191 then. You just ignored them. I'm still waiting for the challenge to be accepted. You guys are all hot air. 
#223
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
That's a long list of people committed to the infanticide and genocide morality as demanded by your god, you and your god must be ecstatically proud of them
Topic's author
#224
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
That's a long list of people committed to the infanticide and genocide morality as demanded by your god, you and your god must be ecstatically proud of them
Are you Bulproof masquerading as disgusted? 

#225
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
I'm talking about what happens after you DIE.
Nothing happens.

The difference between Hitler and you is the level of your sin
I have no sins.

If Jesus paid the price for our sin
According to the story, Jesus was captured by the Romans and crucified, which has nothing to do with paying for sins. He was a criminal of the state and was convicted.

even the worst of people can be saved by a true trust and faith in Jesus and His merit
Hence, no accountability and no justice in your worldview.

From what I see is that the most ruthless people have seared their minds towards God.
No, you don't see that at all, you can't read peoples minds. Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that everything he did to the Jews was for Jesus.

I see every reason to believe, even though I have never seen Him. 
There's a word for that, it's called "Delusion". You have never provided a single valid reason to believe in God. None whatsoever. Most of what you say is either not true or a fabrication, hence you're entire belief system is built on falsehoods.

Instead of conjuring up God you conjure up Nature
You keep proving my point, that is another falsehood. I don't conjure up Nature, it is right in front of all of us every day of our lives, you see and are forced to deal with it like everyone else, unlike any God. So, you reject reality in favor of fantasy. That's delusion.

God has given us everything we need to reconcile to Him
You can't reconcile with something you claim to have never seen. Another falsehood.

He shows them what hell life can be when humans try to live outside of an understanding of God.
More falsehoods. Something you've never seen cannot show you something.

Some of the worst social injustice and outright slaughter has come during the 20th-century - the bloodiest to date, in which a good chunk of humanity rejected God for human socialism and left-wing ideology. 
You're either extremely ignorant or are just outright lying now.

You keep showing me your entire belief system is a bed of lies.

That is what you have to look forward to in the USA if the Democrats gain power in the mid-terms, IMO. I think it will lead to the death of your Republic.
The White House has an insane lunatic as a leader, which is the person the religious right elected because they are all insane lunatics who will help bring the world to destruction. This is what we are looking forward to now.

You did what those who are closed to God do so well, you obstruct and misrepresent.
Says the guy who does nothing but offer falsehoods and deceit.

the prophecies were written after the event in question
Yes, they were, but you still haven't figured that out yet. The reason for that is becoming obvious, your belief system is built on lies, falsehoods and deceit, which is all you seem to be peddling.


#226
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
To begin, I would like to apologise for the delay in this reply, work has been exceptionally demanding of my time.

Another point I have been making all along -> you can't make sense of best. Without a necessary being, there is no sufficient reason for your view being any better than mine, speaking of qualitative values. The word "superior" or "best" becomes meaningless. 

A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.  

I can very well make sense of best. I simply don't assume an objective best. Can you in any way show that an objective best must exist? As for your comments on a 'true belief' I have to disagree, a true belief would be a belief that was in accordance with reality, no other trait would be necessary for it to be true. It needn't answer questions, it needn't make one comfortable. There are many things I consider better than others, yet the criteria by which I decide which is best isn't objective, it's subjective. I can without a doubt say that ice cream is better than anchovies, but only in a subjective frame. I dislike anchovies and very much like ice cream. There is an example of a subjective best (and why it is best subjectively). Can you show an objective best and why it is best objectively?

I can show there must be an objective, true belief to make sense of belief. You are in a quandary as to which belief is true. You say you can't say one is superior to another because your worldview is based on subjective opinions. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of the superior belief.
No, you can point out a belief you claim to be superior, but so far you haven't shown how we can confirm an objective 'best' or 'superior' You have stated certain traits necessary for a 'true belief' can you show any of those are objectively best in a belief? Just as importantly, can you show that your belief possesses all of them? Your belief asserts an intellect created the universe, can you show that this is accurate (my current belief asserts I don't know, considering I lack the means to verify anything about the possibility of there being anything or what traits it may possess if there is anything beyond this universe, that belief seems fairly accurate to me).

I can give you reasonable and logical evidence that God exists, but what kind of evidence would ever suffice for someone who does not believe in God? You will keep going to your default worldview presuppositions that any evidence I give can be dismissed via science. Science must have an explanation.
No. This is a strawman, it totally misrepresents me. My position has nothing to do with dismissing your claims of evidence on the grounds of science, but in confirming that they can be proven to support your case.

You have made claims that you cannot know which belief is superior or best. Why would I ever want to believe what you believed on those grounds? (the blind leading the blind) You have made claims that you of ignorant of one belief being better than another. It does not make me want to sign up for what you believe. And science is always on the verge of supplying the answers, yet never does.
There is one of the primary differences in our world view. My position isn't built on what I want, it's not a belief I possess because it makes me happy, comfortable or provides answers I like. My belief is held because as far as I am aware it is the only position I can take given the facts and not presupposing (and thus biasing) god or not-god. This again kind of verges off into the realms of science, which is odd, since I've not mentioned science.

It seems your position currently hinges on the ability to show that 'best' or 'superior' are objective. If you can then we have something very interesting, if not, then your position is just you throwing out a belief that supports your subjective best (it may still be that even if you can show that there is an objective best, but you'd be a step closer to making this whole 'making sense of best' argument meaningful.

No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too.

You seem to misunderstand the word presuppositional. I never began with the presupposition that there is no adequate reason for gods existence. I began with the position that it's unknown if there is adequate reason for gods existence. I haven't much left that position, my only real shift is that I don't have adequate reason for the existence of any god or creator entity. This isn't a presupposition, this is a conclusion made after much discussion and thought. I haven't been shown a single thing that would determine if a god does or must exist.

Two people are about to open a door, they've never seen the door before or been on the other side of it. When asked what's on the other side of the door one of them answers 'I don't know', the other answers 'A sofa and two chairs' which one of them holds a presupposition?
Topic's author
#227
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
I'm talking about what happens after you DIE.
Nothing happens.
Per you worldview bias. 

The difference between Hitler and you is the level of your sin
I have no sins.
Sin:
1a: an offense against
religious
or moral law

b
: an action that is or is felt to be highly
reprehensibleit's
a sin to waste food

c
: an often serious
shortcoming 
:
 

2a: transgression of the law of God
b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

What you are saying is that you have never wronged anyone. Yeah, sure.


If Jesus paid the price for our sin
According to the story, Jesus was captured by the Romans and crucified, which has nothing to do with paying for sins. He was a criminal of the state and was convicted.
This just shows your ignorance of biblical teaching.
Jesus came to an OT people (John 1:11-12). He came to initiate a new covenant. The New Covenant is always contrasted with the Old Covenant in the NT. The New Covenant is a type of the Old Covenant. In the OC, a wrongful action was atoned for by an animal sacrifice to cover the penalty of sin. In the NC a human being - Jesus Christ is our penalty offering under this covenant.


even the worst of people can be saved by a true trust and faith in Jesus and His merit
Hence, no accountability and no justice in your worldview. 

Again, that statement shows your ignorance of biblical teaching. Jesus was our substitute, just like an animal sacrifice was a substitute in the OT. It was either the animal sacrifice or the person was held accountable for their own actions. The NC is the same. It is either Jesus' sacrifice which meets all the righteous requirements of God, or you stand before Him on your own merit. God's justice is met in Jesus. 

From what I see is that the most ruthless people have seared their minds towards God.
No, you don't see that at all, you can't read peoples minds. Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that everything he did to the Jews was for Jesus.
Yes, I do. Who are you to tell me what I think? Are you the mind police?

Hitler used Mein Kampf to manipulate his people. The Jesus he believed in was not the NT Jesus. He also has many references to social Darwinism, which he used. He was also influenced by the writings of Neitzche. If you want to know what someone believes look at what/who influences them. It is a key lesson in life. Hitler did what he did to gain power and initiate his Arian race. 

I see every reason to believe, even though I have never seen Him. 
There's a word for that, it's called "Delusion". You have never provided a single valid reason to believe in God. None whatsoever. Most of what you say is either not true or a fabrication, hence you're entire belief system is built on falsehoods. 
Ah yes, the Dawkins Christian delusion syndrome repetition!

You lie. I have presented many factual statements that no one challenged me on as to their factuality. Prophecy is one line of evidence that gives credence to the truthfulness of Scripture. Who can predict the future with such accuracy? I know of no human being, unless inspired and told by God. 

These are not vague prophecies. Thus, the unbeliever has to discredit them by asserting they were written after the fact.


Instead of conjuring up God you conjure up Nature
You keep proving my point, that is another falsehood. I don't conjure up Nature, it is right in front of all of us every day of our lives, you see and are forced to deal with it like everyone else, unlike any God. So, you reject reality in favor of fantasy. That's delusion. 
Sure you do. You look to the NATURAL world for all your answers. 

Delusion is thinking that conscious mindful being and origins of the universe can come from blind chance happenstance. 


God has given us everything we need to reconcile to Him
You can't reconcile with something you claim to have never seen. Another falsehood.
Why not. I don't see you, yet I am communicating with you mindfully. Is that a falsehood?


He shows them what hell life can be when humans try to live outside of an understanding of God.
More falsehoods. Something you've never seen cannot show you something. 
I'm talking of Someone, not something. You are pedaling BS. I could explain something to you without ever seeing you. It is your false conjecture, not mine. 


Some of the worst social injustice and outright slaughter has come during the 20th-century - the bloodiest to date, in which a good chunk of humanity rejected God for human socialism and left-wing ideology. 
You're either extremely ignorant or are just outright lying now.

You keep showing me your entire belief system is a bed of lies.

Ah yes, the ignorant trump card again, the one you guys play to smear others.

You will not engage in the discussion this thread is about. That is how bad your reasoning and lack of argument is. Look in the mirror before making accusations. 
#228
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
I'm not asserting anything less than what you are. You ask me a question, you will get an answer  (not assertion) from a Theistic point of view. Just like you will assert consciousness is a product of the brain, I'm not just asserting it I'm giving you explanations. I've explained what consciousness is, where it originated, how the soul operates through the body and brain and how the brain and body functions work with our soul inhabiting it. You've offered no argument that I am aware of, and if you did I answered it. I'm not asserting anything, and it's not something I make up, this knowledge has been around well before you and I and I have reasons and experience for my beliefs.
Firstly, I have never asserted consciousness is the product of the brain, I have questioned why you dismiss that position (you seem to be unclear in answering that), I ask why you dismiss the alternatives, your answers aren't very clear on how you're certain. I ask again, as I have before, what about these experiences couldn't be an inward journey rather than an outward one (you often state it is so, but you never explain why it must be so)?

I've given you several answers, that is why I'm getting bored at this point, you chop my full statements and explanations and then repeat the same thing I already answered. That is annoying, go back and read what I wrote about verifying.

The issue is that you're not answering what I'm asking. You keep saying that you corroborate your experiences with other sources such as religious texts and 'spiritual facts'. In the case of religious texts matching your experience I ask so what? Why does that make the conclusions true? We keep coming back to your dismissal of other possibilities and why you dismiss these (still never explained) experiences as a construct of the mind. You speak of going outwards rather than inwards, yet haven't presented any way you can verify that you're not simply going inwards. Also, what are these spiritual facts? You have thrown the word around yet never actually presented anything about spirituality that can be proven to be true. A hard case since you're trying to use 'spiritual facts' in an effort to prove spirituality.

I don't assert it, I've explained it and then asked you how it would be possible for someone to travel outside their own body and brain if consciousness was confined to brain activity. You have yet to give me a good reason or argument to accept your assertions. If a person is unconscious, brain dead and completely unaware of its surrounding, how can that persons soul travel outside the body and know exactly what everyone is doing? I say with common sense and common knowledge that it is only possible because of the soul, it exists independent of the human body, and the mind which you claim is generated by the brain. Did you not look at the link I supplied that has medical facts and testimonies about NDE's???

Never once made any claims about knowing where the consciousness comes from. I looked at the link and got a... Was it bing? search result for a TV show, of the episodes that I watched I heard nothing from anyone that no more supports consciousness leaving the body than it does hallucinations caused by massive amounts of DMT being released by brains going through such stressful situations. Notice not once have I heard reference to anyone having no brain activity. Can you point to any specific cases that couldn't have been hallucinations or restructuring of memory (a well studied and verified result of high stress situations)? I also ask again, can you present any case where someone was brain dead not in a vegetative state or that their heart has stopped, but that their brain is registering absolutely no activity, including in the brain stem? If you have such and it's verified by medical personnel then you've got a very interesting case, if not then how can you be sure how aware they are? They're non-responsive sure, but I doubt anyone can confirm exactly what's happening in the brain/body during this time (if they could this discussion wouldn't be happening).


#229
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Oh really now? so now the mind, which is created by the brain (according to you), is now able to travel freely outside a brain lol? wow, that is pretty incredible. Even after brain DEATH, somehow the mind can now have conscious experience. Why ASSUME that when there is a time-tested understanding of spirituality and the soul? this would be a good time to observe Occam's razor. The information is here and has been here, consciousness is an open question in science, it has been shown over countless testimonies and through religion that the soul exists as it is, independent of any brain, just like experiences and evidence show. So why take so many assumptions about the brain and mind when you don't really know? I also explained the nature of spirituality, and how it opposes the products of the mind and body, and you can observe your soul away from the body. Again, the mind is not an entity, it is a storage compartment......you've never even argued any of most of my responses!! if the materialists view were correct, then we wouldn't see what we do in fact see, that is the whole point.

Firstly, that's a strawman. I ask why you dismiss these positions, not once have I asserted them as true. Secondly, cite one case of brain death that someone have recovered from, not a vegetative state, a coma or lack of circulation, but actual brain death where the is no activity at all. Lastly, you've not presented anything at all that suggest that the consciousness does move outside of the body, only that some people perceive it as doing so. How can you be sure what they perceive is accurate? You keep stating that I haven't argued any of your points, but that's because A) I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm asking how you prove them (lack of counter argument doesn't make a claim true after all) and B) You haven't made any points that warrant an argument, you've presented assertions that the consciousness leaves the body never once presenting any evidence (remember we discussed evidence and how it must be shown to support the claim it is being used as evidence for) of this claim. You have presented evidence that people think they left their bodies and made assertions that their brains were dead, yet not once (after being asked more than once) have you shown a case where someone was confirmed brain dead and then came back. Got such a case? If not then have you got a case where someone can be demonstrated to have left their body and experienced something they had no way of experiencing otherwise (including relatives possibly discussing such things around their comatose/vegetative loved one?

Everything you know is a claim. However, my answers, I repeat answers aren't just empty claims. I can show you how it works with reason, common sense, evidence and arguments.....that is not just claims unjustified. At what point do you ever consider something an answer and not a claim? Now I can expand on those arguments but not until you concede or actually address my whole statements. Once you are satisfied or give me a good reason to reject a superior understanding we should move forward, I don't enjoy repeating myself unless you give me a good argument to what I supplied. Maybe you should go back and read the answers again or consider the fact that materialists don't know what consciousness is, and that would be due to the reality that the soul exists independent of the body.
True, everything I know is a claim, however it ceases to be an unfounded claim when a body of evidence exists to support it. You have no such body of evidence. You make assertions. Your claims aren't supported by anything you've presented (point out cases where people can be demonstrated to leave their bodies, rather than create situations in their mind). Your common sense only works if you dismiss the alternative explanations. You have a collection of assertions and claims and until you are willing to critically and reasonably walk through your own views, then you're just presenting hubris, conceit and empty assumptions. You may be right, but nothing you have presented suggests it.

Topic's author
#230
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
That is what you have to look forward to in the USA if the Democrats gain power in the mid-terms, IMO. I think it will lead to the death of your Republic.
The White House has an insane lunatic as a leader, which is the person the religious right elected because they are all insane lunatics who will help bring the world to destruction. This is what we are looking forward to now.

Yah, right. Funny how I sense a Democrat by what they believe a good majority of the time, which only goes to show that you can tell a lot about someone by what they believe and who influences them. This is not the thread for it, but you are controlled by a propaganda media that is fed by Democrat values. 

And I'm not even an American. 

You did what those who are closed to God do so well, you obstruct and misrepresent.
Says the guy who does nothing but offer falsehoods and deceit.
Oh yeah, right! The smear is on again. Anyone who doesn't think like you is false and deceitful. 

You never engaged in the argument, the topic of this thread. I have asked you repeatedly to test my OP. I have given you factual details that you have not disputed. (Check out Post 182 and 191) This must mean one of two things; you believe they are factual and can't dispute the claims or you are trolling with a specific agenda to smear Christian values and beliefs. 


the prophecies were written after the event in question
Yes, they were, but you still haven't figured that out yet. The reason for that is becoming obvious, your belief system is built on lies, falsehoods
and deceit, which is all you seem to be peddling. 

Prove it.

Engage or find someone else to slander with your claims they are liars, deceitful, ignorant and stupid.  

#231
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Per you worldview bias. 
Wrong, it's what is observed every single day when people die. Unless, you can show otherwise, then your worldview is another fabrication.

What you are saying is that you have never wronged anyone. Yeah, sure.
No, I'm saying sins are irrelevant, they have no authority in reality, I no more acknowledge sins than I do Leprechauns riding Unicorns. Why should I?

In the OC, a wrongful action was atoned for by an animal sacrifice to cover the penalty of sin. In the NC a human being - Jesus Christ is our penalty offering under this covenant.
Animal and human sacrifice, what an incredibly barbaric and disgusting religion.

It is either Jesus' sacrifice which meets all the righteous requirements of God, or you stand before Him on your own merit.
Of course, I stand on my own merit, I'm not a coward who can't take responsibility for his own actions. Yet, another barbaric ritual.

Hitler used Mein Kampf to manipulate his people.
Christians use the Bible to manipulate people such that it causes good people to do bad things, such as create fabrications.

If you want to know what someone believes look at what/who influences them.
Okay, Scriptures influences you, that tells me a whole lot.

You look to the NATURAL world for all your answers. 
You look at ancient myths and superstitions for your answers. At least Nature can be shown to be real, unlike your God.

I don't see you, yet I am communicating with you mindfully. Is that a falsehood? I could explain something to you without ever seeing you
Is that a joke? We're both real people. Duh.

Ah yes, the ignorant trump card again, the one you guys play to smear others.
Stop offering ignorance, then.
Topic's author
#232
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000

[1] To begin, I would like to apologise for the delay in this reply, work has been exceptionally demanding of my time.

Another point I have been making all along -> you can't make sense of best. Without a necessary being, there is no sufficient reason for your view being any better than mine, speaking of qualitative values. The word "superior" or "best" becomes meaningless. 

A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.  

[2] I can very well make sense of best. I simply don't assume an objective best. [3] Can you in any way show that an objective best must exist? [4] As for your comments on a 'true belief' I have to disagree, a true belief would be a belief that was in accordance with reality, no other trait would be necessary for it to be true. It needn't answer questions, it needn't make one comfortable. [5] There are many things I consider better than others, yet the criteria by which I decide which is best isn't objective, it's subjective. I can without a doubt say that ice cream is better than anchovies, but only in a subjective frame. I dislike anchovies and very much like ice cream. [6] There is an example of a subjective best (and why it is best subjectively). [7] Can you show an objective best and why it is best objectively?
[1] No problemo with the delay. 

[2] How can it be best if not objective? Best implies no better. 

[3] How do I show an objective best? By the impossibility of the contrary. If there is no objective best then which relative opinion is any BETTER than any other and why? Can you answer that? How would you know injustice unless you first knew what was just? So there has to be a standard above you. 

With any value, it has to be real, it has to be true to make sense of it. A = A. Good = Good. P = P is a logical law of identity. A thing is itself and not something else.

Good cannot both be good and not good at the same time and in the same way/manner. It defies logic. So, either you or me or both of us are wrong, but we both can't be right when we state opposites. Thus, you need an objective best to make sense of good or better. There must be a fixed reference point or best continually shifts. 


[4] With whose reality? Is reality only what you SEE?

[5] So, if your idea of best is different from my idea of best what IS the actual best? Is it yours by default, just because you LIKE it like you like ice-cream? "I like ice-cream" is an expression of preference. You confuse preference with values. Preference is a subjective standard/like or dislike. Good or bad is a question of qualitative values.

So, the laws of logic defy subjective morals.


Within the physical world, we can measure 'best.' The Olympics measures the speed of the fastest athletes and establishes the fastest times as best to date. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures has a STANDARD that all other weights and measures are pitied against for accuracy.  


How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?

[6] What you are doing is confusing a preference with a moral. It is not wrong to like ice-cream and like eating it; it's your choice that affects only you. If that is your preference, so be it, but it is wrong to like your neighbor to the point of eating him/her. It is wrong to force your neighbor, who doesn't like ice-cream to eat it just because you like it and think it is yummy. So, you confuse what is with what SHOULD be. 

[7] I can show you what is necessary for there to be an objective best, logically. Other than that, it is your choice on whether this leads you to that ultimate, objective best or not. Without such an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, eternal reference point you are left with anything masquerading in the place of God. 

Ideas have consequences and without any final, fixed grounding everything is subject to change. Best becomes meaningless for the very reason that "good" can mean anything. If morality is subjective then anything is possible:




Topic's author
#233
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000

I can show there must be an objective, true belief to make sense of belief. You are in a quandary as to which belief is true. You say you can't say one is superior to another because your worldview is based on subjective opinions. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of the superior belief.
No, you can point out a belief you claim to be superior, but so far you haven't shown how we can confirm an objective 'best' or 'superior' You have stated certain traits necessary for a 'true belief' can you show any of those are objectively best in a belief? Just as importantly, can you show that your belief possesses all of them? Your belief asserts an intellect created the universe, can you show that this is accurate (my current belief asserts I don't know, considering I lack the means to verify anything about the possibility of there being anything or what traits it may possess if there is anything beyond this universe, that belief seems fairly accurate to me).
I can point out a belief that is NECESSARY to make sense of morality and "good" or "best." Again, as Ravi Zacharias said, "A worldview is not built on one line of argument."  You can poke holes in one argument but when you take them all together and COMPARE them to your own worldview, maybe you will see the inconsistencies in your worldview. Ravi said in the same link (below) that any worldview (of a thinking human) is built on four question: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. There are three tests for truth: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance.  


Can your worldview meet these three tests? I say no.

It is not experientially relevant, because you were not there for origins, nor was anyone else. My worldview claims there was One who was. There are some things that only someone morally deficient could believe it is okay to do, like torturing innocent babies for fun. So if morals are subjective, like you suggest, then for someone who LIKES to torture innocent babies, that is okay. What is more, your system is not morally livable. As soon as an injustice is applied to you or your family it is no longer just subjectively wrong, it is objectively wrong.

Is your worldview logically consistent with its claims? No, because it borrows from my view when it objects to a wrong. It states that some things are wrong. How can that be in a morally delinquent universe that is indifferent to meaning and morals? How can two opposing moral values regarding the same thing both be true? 

With empirical adequacy, is what you see the same as what your belief says is true? You can't prove that it is. All you see corresponds with my Christian worldview. I see life coming from the living, morality coming from a personal moral Agent, love coming from the loving, logic and reason coming from a reasonable and logical Being. As an atheist or agnostic, you see life coming from inorganic matter, without reason or being.

Topic's author
#234
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
I can give you reasonable and logical evidence that God exists, but what kind of evidence would ever suffice for someone who does not believe in God? You will keep going to your default worldview presuppositions that any evidence I give can be dismissed via science. Science must have an explanation.
No. This is a strawman, it totally misrepresents me. My position has nothing to do with dismissing your claims of evidence on the grounds of science, but in confirming that they can be proven to support your case.
I have a list of factual claims in Posts 182 and 191. Show me they are not true. 


You have made claims that you cannot know which belief is superior or best. Why would I ever want to believe what you believed on those grounds? (the blind leading the blind) You have made claims that you of ignorant of one belief being better than another. It does not make me want to sign up for what you believe. And science is always on the verge of supplying the answers, yet never does.
There is one of the primary differences in our world view. My position isn't built on what I want, it's not a belief I possess because it makes me happy, comfortable or provides answers I like. My belief is held because as far as I am aware it is the only position I can take given the facts and not presupposing (and thus biasing) god or not-god. This again kind of verges off into the realms of science, which is odd, since I've not mentioned science.
Then argue against my factual claims and let's hear your argument for its logic and reason. 


 
It seems your position currently hinges on the ability to show that 'best' or 'superior' are objective. If you can then we have something very interesting, if not, then your position is just you throwing out a belief that supports your subjective best (it may still be that even if you can show that there is an objective best, but you'd be a step closer to making this whole 'making sense of best' argument meaningful.
How can best no be objective? If it is the best then there is no better. It must be objective.



No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too.

You seem to misunderstand the word presuppositional. I never began with the presupposition that there is no adequate reason for gods existence. I began with the position that it's unknown if there is adequate reason for gods existence. I haven't much left that position, my only real shift is that I don't have adequate reason for the existence of any god or creator entity. This isn't a presupposition, this is a conclusion made after much discussion and thought. I haven't been shown a single thing that would determine if a god does or must exist.
You have to start somewhere and with something. Those core beliefs are presuppositional by nature. It is whether or not they are justifiable or inconsistent that is the question. When you begin with the presupposition/position that God's existence is unknown and then use an atheistic belief system to channel your inquiry you are not being neutral. You are acting on the presuppositions of that atheistic belief system. 



Two people are about to open a door, they've never seen the door before or been on the other side of it. When asked what's on the other side of the door one of them answers 'I don't know', the other answers 'A sofa and two chairs' which one of them holds a presupposition?

This is not the biblical argument. The biblical argument is that Someone has been through the door and KNOWS what is on the other side. Then that Person tells us what is on the other side.  
Topic's author
#235
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
Per you worldview bias. 
Wrong, it's what is observed every single day when people die. Unless, you can show otherwise, then your worldview is another fabrication.
I can reason otherwise. You base it on what you can see, but there are many things that you can't see that are real too. 

Believe what you will. I am not dumb enough to believe I have the power to change your mind when. The saying goes: "Change a man against his will, he remains the same unchanged still."

What you are saying is that you have never wronged anyone. Yeah, sure.
No, I'm saying sins are irrelevant, they have no authority in reality, I no more acknowledge sins than I do Leprechauns riding Unicorns. Why should I?
If wrongs/sins are irrelevant, then there is no justice. How consistently can you live believing that?

In the OC, a wrongful action was atoned for by an animal sacrifice to cover the penalty of sin. In the NC a human being - Jesus Christ is our penalty offering under this covenant.
Animal and human sacrifice, what an incredibly barbaric and disgusting religion.
It is a life lesson. Wrongful action has consequences that are costly. It cost the Jews something very valuable (just like it cost God the Father someone very valuable) for the injustice. It made them realize what wrong/sin is like. 



It is either Jesus' sacrifice which meets all the righteous requirements of God, or you stand before Him on your own merit.
Of course, I stand on my own merit, I'm not a coward who can't take responsibility for his own actions. Yet, another barbaric ritual.
Then you will answer for your own downfalls eternally with others who feel the same way.


Hitler used Mein Kampf to manipulate his people.
Christians use the Bible to manipulate people such that it causes good people to do bad things, such as create fabrications.
You can choose, but you will have no excuse that you did not hear the message.

If you want to know what someone believes look at what/who influences them.
Okay, Scriptures influences you, that tells me a whole lot.
And for good reason too!


You look to the NATURAL world for all your answers. 
You look at ancient myths and superstitions for your answers. At least Nature can be shown to be real, unlike your God.
I'm not looking at a myth. You claim such but you don't even know God so how would you know? You place your own limited knowledge as your highest authority. If you are right then you have nothing to fear when you are dead. 


I don't see you, yet I am communicating with you mindfully. Is that a falsehood? I could explain something to you without ever seeing you
Is that a joke? We're both real people. Duh.
Are you real? I thought I was conversing with a make-believe person, and I'm winning!

You SUPPOSE God is not for real based on YOUR ignorance, then you try to include me in that ignorance. 

Ah yes, the ignorant trump card again, the one you guys play to smear others.
Stop offering ignorance, then.

Says the one who doesn't know God. 


#236
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?

What is your fixed, unchanging reference point?
Topic's author
#237
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?

What is your fixed, unchanging reference point?

Why do you ask? You already know. 

Someone who knows all things would be objective in His nature. 
#238
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So you have a make believe fixed, unchanging reference point. Even the omniscient reference point you believe in is not unchanging according to the book that invented it.
Topic's author
#239
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

So you have a make believe fixed, unchanging reference point. Even the omniscient reference point you believe in is not unchanging according to the book that invented it.
No, not make-believe.

How is He not unchanging? (this should be good!)
#240
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
[1] No problemo with the delay. 

[2] How can it be best if not objective? Best implies no better. 
This doesn't mean there must exist an objective best. Beauty is defined as a combination of qualities such as shape, colour, or form that pleases aesthetic senses, especially sight. Yet beauty is purely subjective. I have no evidence of 'best' actually existing, I have no reason to think that it does beyond human opinion. You certainly haven't presented evidence of it.

[3] How do I show an objective best? By the impossibility of the contrary. If there is no objective best then which relative opinion is any BETTER than any other and why? Can you answer that? How would you know injustice unless you first knew what was just? So there has to be a standard above you. 
So your argument is that we need an 'objective best' or else there is no objective justice? Fair enough, I'll pull that string, how do you know there is any justice beyond the systems we humans construct. I certainly haven't seen any sign of it elsewhere. 

With any value, it has to be real, it has to be true to make sense of it. A = A. Good = Good. P = P is a logical law of identity. A thing is itself and not something else.
Yet some things are subjective, their meaning varies with each of us. Beauty is such a concept, ultimately the question becomes, can you demonstrate that good, best, or just exist as more than concepts formed by humans? I certainly haven't seen any sign of them being anything else.