"Faith is the basis for my belief"

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 278
#151
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
They do so despite the foundation their core beliefs rests upon.
How? And what difference does it make, if they're doing it? Doesn't seem like making sense of origins is hurting their ability to act in this way. Now to your questions.
How? Because your origins, without a Creator, are traced to chance happenstance. That is not able to DO anything. Thus, you do not have the mechanism for the BB. You can only go back to the BB, not the cause of it. Chance is an abstract term or concept we use to speak of mathematical probability. Chance as the agent of origins is not a thing. It is no thing - nothing. 

What difference does it make? The difference it makes is whether you build the rest of your worldview on what is true or whether your foundation is suspect and has no visible means of supporting itself. Thus once the winds of testing come it comes crashing down because its foundation (that which everything else rests upon) is weak and faulty. 

Thus, you hurt yourself, perhaps unwittingly, in that you believe a lie.  

why does anything at all exist?
Don't know. 
Do you have a reason?

Again, to make sense of it God would be the necessary explanation. 

How does the universe begin, if you think it began?
All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.
You do not perceive of the difference it makes to your life. Agin, you live in ignorance while you mount your attack against God without sufficient justification. 

we can trace the universe back to that first cause, but no further. How does that make sense?
Don't know. Again, immaterial to my life. 
Unless you are accountable to God. Then it makes all the difference. 

Did the universe create itself, and how, why? 
Don't know. 
Again, self-creation is a self-refuting concept. Thus, if you believe the universe created itself you are not thinking logically. While it might not bother you that you are thinking illogically, or have no reason behind your belief system, I do not believe it is wise - a life unexamined. And you know what the opposite of wise is, right? 

How did conscious living beings come from non-conscious, nonliving matter? 
Don't know. 
Then don't rule out God. How can you argue against God when you don't know?

What knowledge are you speaking of?
How the universe started. 
Although you have reason for its beginning how do you KNOW it began the way you think (chance)? What is behind the BB is key? 

You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter? 
I don't have the compulsion to rape anyone. Weird, huh?
That is not the point, can you give sufficient reason why it is WRONG from your starting point, chance evolutionary processes? 

I also know a lot of non-rapists, and not just atheists. Hindus, Christians of many stripes...I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I doubt many of them would say "God said not to do it so I don't do it." Especially considering god never says in the bile NOT to do it, and in spots seems to condone doing it, provided it's not a hebrew.
Again, where did God condone rape? Make sure not to misintepreting Scripture? 

In an indifferent universe what is the standard for morality?
There is no standard and there never has been. How do I know? Morality shifts between societies both contemporaneous and in different times, At one time it was moral to beat your wife, and now it isn't. 
So, what is the true identity and correct thing to do, beat your wife or not beat your wife? Is always the present state the 'correct' thing to do? Or was beating your wife always wrong? Again, logically the two extremes are opposites, thus both cannot be true. A=A. The identity of something is what it is. It can't logically be what it is and not what it is. 

Whose subjective opinion?
It's not one person. It's society. The one you live in determines it.
So society justifies doing something. If your society (usually that small oligarchy of leaders who issues the law, but it could be popular vote based on a bias) says, kill Jews or treat black people as inferior to Caucasians, that would make it right? Is that what you believe?  

Why should I believe it?
Well you don't want to go to jail, right?
Is jail the criterion? If a person can get away without going to jail, it would not be wrong, correct? 

What makes it wrong, not just what is preferred or not preferred? 

With such a crooked worldview, how can you say anything is wrong? Why not just admit that it is just something that you would refer to do or not to do? 

So, you can't say that torturing little children for fun is plain wrong for everyone? How then can you charge them with a wrong? OR, are you agreeing with me that there are universal wrongs?

Topic's author
#152
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0

What has been demonstrated is that people find a particular paradigm reasonable, but it is not from its starting of the chain of events or the ability for the apparatus (chance happenstance) to do so.

Chance is your master. 

The difference is your and my starting point - God or chance. 

...that does not mean a giant leap from a whale to a pig that can be traced through the fossil record.

Your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of life's most important questions.

Thus, you hide from God. 

In your case, a shaky foundation that you have no justification for. My belief is so much more reasonable and logicL than yours because of where I start. 


I've already corrected a number of these, but if you can't break yourself out of the script, I see no reason to continue, Peter. Its clear you're not absorbing what I'm saying.

Thats the problem with a faith-based epistemology: absolutely anything can be accepted with absolute certainty with absolutely no verifiable evidence. You've denied epistemological limits and, in the process, have sacrificed knowledge on the altar of belief. 

Thanks for the conversation! Perhaps, we can hash out the details on the debate mentioned earlier.



Topic's author
#153
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Let's see the proposition...
#154
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
No only one person, but around 40 different authors all centering on different aspects of the Messiah or the coming judgment of Israel.
You must be drawing from the OT with that number of authors. Given that Jesus wasn't mentioned by name in the OT, I'd say that's begging the question a bit. 
The Jewish Messiah is the focus of a lot of OT Scripture. It is most reasonable to believe that Messiah is Jesus. It is a logical inference supported by both OT and NT Scripture as well as historical accounts of people, places, events. There are over three hundred specific OT passages of prophecy regarding the Messiah that fit the NT narrative, such as where He would be born, His manner of death, the time of His coming, etc.


Let's see a *concise* proposition for this proposed debate, and we can go from there.
See Post 149. Would you be in agreement to that proposition? Here it is again with a little more included. We can wordsmith it to a more streamlined Introduction, or are you wanting a title by your statement?

Title: Prophecy is a reasonable evidence for the Biblical God.

Introduction
Many of those who oppose the Bible as God's word claim there is no evidence or little evidence to support that claim. This is not true. The evidence and logic is reasonable that counters such views. There are numerous lines of evidence Christians use to counter such charges. They are based on history, morality (see 1:22-10:45-minute mark onward, or the is/ought dilemma and fallacy), the internal unity and consistency of the Bible, the uniformity of nature (9-minute mark to 30-minute mark), the resurrection, or even regarding sound philosophy, such as chance is capable of explaining anything (as per R.C. Sproul starting @ 4:08-minutes), plus many, many more quandries. One of my favourite arguments is from prophecy. Propecy is the scope of this debate. It is hard to believe that countless hundreds of prophecies with precise information would all point to the Jewish Messiah as being Jesus. Prophecy centers on the time of God's judgment of Israel as spoken of in numerous passages in the OT that are warnings to Israel in her apostasy and idolatry. That judgment is AD 70. How could so many prophecies prove true? Not only this, but it is also what Jesus said of Himself that points to His identity as being God, God who takes on human form to serve a purpose, salvation and reconciliation. 

Here is the proposition:

"[A]lmost every NT writing has in its address some aspect of the Olivet Discourse prophecy. What is more, these NT prophecies concern an OT people and their Messiah.  OT Scripture is related to some aspects of these prophecies. Thus the prophecies of Mathew 24, Luke 21:10-36, and Mark  13 are an example that is confirmed by either the NT writings as the correct interpretation or by the history of the times because they all take place before or in AD 70. That is most reasonable and logical to believe.  

So, I believe every one of these prophecies of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled before or during AD70. I believe I can give the most reasonable, exegetical (and sometimes historical) support for that claim."

If one detailed aspect confirms the Bible as true, it is just another reason to believe more than this one aspect is true. The other aspects can be argued in additional debates, such as the moral argument for God, the internal consistency and unity of the Bible that points to Jesus (i.e., contained in typology in every OT writing), explaining existence apart from God, etc. While any one argument could be argued as not enough evidence the combination or accumulation of many, many arguments gives the Word credence. An analogy used is a bucket with a hole in it losing water. Now, if you place ten leaky buckets together (they fit inside each other) the leak is contained much better, even stopped.

"For example, some critics regard the cumulative-case approach to argumentation, frequently used by evidentialists, as akin to a series of leaky buckets. Antony Flew put the point most succinctly: “If one leaky bucket will not hold water there is no reason to think that ten can.”2"

"Richard Swinburne addresses the leaky-bucket objection head-on: “For clearly if you jam ten leaky buckets together in such a way that holes in the bottom of each bucket are squashed close to solid parts of the bottoms of neighbouring buckets, you will get a container that will hold water.”4"


I believe of the two positions on prophecy (as pointing to God as opposed to human origins), taking Matthew 24 and the related passages in Luke and Mark, as well a Revelation and other NT writings, the Christian view is the most reasonable and logical.

Goal: Showing which position is more reasonable to believe based on Scripture and history, not worldview bias? 

***

We can hash out the details but I will probably need about 12,000 to 15,000 characters to lay out my case, so it will be substantial. I would like the maximum number of days (two weeks) for each round. 


#155
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
One can't solve a mystery if one does not start at the proper starting place. 
The proper starting place is skepticism.
Okay, I am skeptical. Why do you have to start with skepticism?

You have to start somewhere. You have to trust something to build anything else upon. Is that starting point reasonable? Start with chance. Is that reasonable? Start with an eternal, necessary, omniscient, immutable, omnibenevolent being. Is that more reasonable? 

The understanding that we do not know and we should investigate. Do you believe that there is a diamond the size of my head at the core of Neptune? Can you say yes or no before we can investigate? 

What is necessary to know? Is chance necessary? How could you be sure of anything with chance?

As for your claim, it is outrageously silly. People see this was not the case. Empirically, your statement does not meet the criterion. If there was a diamond the size of neptune on your head I would see it by looking out my window. For it to be on your head your head would need to be bigger than it. The weight of such a diamond and your head, let alone the rest of your body, would not be supported by the earth. 

"Neptune is larger than Earth in volume, diameter, and mass. With an equatorial circumference of 96,129 miles, Neptune is 3.8647 times larger than the Earth."

The biblical God is not silly to believe in. Chance is. Subjective you as the determiner of truth is not reasonable. God is. You do not have what is necessary. God does. 
#156
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

What has been demonstrated is that people find a particular paradigm reasonable, but it is not from its starting of the chain of events or the ability for the apparatus (chance happenstance) to do so.

Chance is your master. 

The difference is your and my starting point - God or chance. 

...that does not mean a giant leap from a whale to a pig that can be traced through the fossil record.

Your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of life's most important questions.

Thus, you hide from God. 

In your case, a shaky foundation that you have no justification for. My belief is so much more reasonable and logicL than yours because of where I start. 
I've already corrected a number of these, but if you can't break yourself out of the script, I see no reason to continue, Peter. Its clear you're not absorbing what I'm saying.

Again, I am working from the presupposition of what you would have to believe by rejecting God. I do that with everyone who denies God. I question their starting point and how it can make sense of the universe, existence, morality, ultimately anything.

Quite the contrary, you can't break out of your script, you are ignoring justifying what you believe, Skep. I'm looking for you to explain things apart from God. You keep avoiding that justification or at least that what you believe is more reasonable than what I believe.


Thats the problem with a faith-based epistemology: absolutely anything can be accepted with absolute certainty with absolutely no verifiable evidence. You've denied epistemological limits and, in the process, have sacrificed knowledge on the altar of belief. 
Knowledge begins with first believing something. You do the same thing. It takes faith to believe what you do, the the biblical God is not real or justified. 

You keep saying, "I don't know" then hint that my belief is not justified.

#157
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Because your origins, without a Creator, are traced to chance happenstance. That is not able to DO anything. Thus, you do not have the mechanism for the BB. You can only go back to the BB, not the cause of it. 
Right. So....what then? I can't tell you what caused the big bang, and the net effect of that on how I live my day to day life is ___________________ . 

 The difference it makes is whether you build the rest of your worldview on what is true or whether your foundation is suspect and has no visible means of supporting itself. Thus once the winds of testing come it comes crashing down because its foundation (that which everything else rests upon) is weak and faulty. 
Sounds dramatic! Except you don't know that your 'worldview' is true either. Let's say I find out the big bang is caused by a gigantic crunch. How will this change anything in my tiny life sapn?

why does anything at all exist?
Don't know. 
Do you have a reason?

Again, to make sense of it God would be the necessary explanation. 
Do I have a reason anything at all exists? I already said no, when I said "I don't know." Why is your single version of god necessary?

How does the universe begin, if you think it began?
All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.
You do not perceive of the difference it makes to your life.
You can't say what the difference is either, so...no real difference, we can agree. 

Did the universe create itself, and how, why? 
Don't know. 
Again, self-creation is a self-refuting concept. Thus, if you believe the universe created itself you are not thinking logically. 
I didn't say that's what I think. I said I don't know. 

Then don't rule out God. How can you argue against God when you don't know?
I don't rule out supernatural agent out of hand, but I don't rule "in" anything that I can't support existing in a real way (not like SUperman or Thor exist, in a real way, like matter). I can argue against the character in the books with scientific evidence and the many, many logical and factual inconsistencies in the book. It's really pretty simple. 

What knowledge are you speaking of?
How the universe started. 
Although you have reason for its beginning how do you KNOW it began the way you think (chance)? What is behind the BB is key? 
I don't have a reason for its beginning, and this is where you are getting tripped up constantly: reason and cause are not the same thing. You say you make sense of the universe when what you mean is you assign it a different CAUSE. And I don't know it happened the way the evidence points to it happening, and I don't know why what's "behind the big bang" (whatever this means) would be the key to anything. I ask you again, what difference does it make TODAY, like what do you think people would do differently if the event right before the big bang (if that even makes sense since time starts here, there isn't a before) was suddenly available?

You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter? 
I don't have the compulsion to rape anyone. Weird, huh?
That is not the point, can you give sufficient reason why it is WRONG from your starting point, chance evolutionary processes? 
So you want me to explain why it's wrong to rape someone? Start with that it's against that person's will. 

Again, where did God condone rape? Make sure not to misintepreting Scripture? 
I guess Christians in general don't accept war brides were no t actually happy to be married to their captors, and sexual congress with them was against their will making it rape. And god said to take war brides. Anyway. 

Or was beating your wife always wrong? 
Now you might be confusing 'legal' with 'moral.' I don't think it was ever moral, but society hasn't always made it illegal. Sort of like another biblically sanctined move, the owning of other people like property: never moral, at one time legal. But the bible has laws about how to do it right. Is it ever MORAL to own another person, beat your wife or stone a homosexual in the street. That's the real question. No on all three for me, but your god compels all three, not to mention the slaughter of women and children if they aren't hebrew. 

Why should I believe it?
Well you don't want to go to jail, right?
Is jail the criterion? If a person can get away without going to jail, it would not be wrong, correct? 
That's not what you asked, you asked why YOU should believe rape is wrong, and I said you don't want to go to jail. That seems a decent deterrent without having to explain to you the concept of domain over one's own body, etc. And besides, you are doing all the Jesus stuff so you can get into heaven, but also to avoid hell, right? It seems like this sort of thinking, the carrot or the stick, is what you are basing your current moral decisions on. Given what's at stake, you potentially going out and raping a bunch of people then going to jail, if you suddenly stopped believing in god, it seemed the most prudent path to keep you from becoming a menace. 

So, you can't say that torturing little children for fun is plain wrong for everyone? 
Torturing little children for fun in plain wrong. What do you know, I CAN say it. 

OR, are you agreeing with me that there are universal wrongs?
When did you say there are 'universal wrongs' and how did you decide this?
#158
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Why do you have to start with skepticism?
Because I know of no other way to differentiate between claims which contradict one another but have equal standards (if not amounts) of evidence. You see it doesn't matter how much flawed or insufficient evidence you have. No amount of insufficient claims adds up tonone sufficient claim.
Start with chance. Is that reasonable? Start with an eternal, necessary, omniscient, immutable, omnibenevolent being. Is that more reasonable? 
Neither of those seems particularly reasonable to me because neither has been demonstrated. In fact I am not sure I believe in chance any more than I believe in any god(s).
Topic's author
#159
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Title: Prophecy is a reasonable evidence for the Biblical God.
This is a proposition. (paragraphs are not debate propositions)

I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.


#160
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Title: Prophecy is a reasonable evidence for the Biblical God.
This is a proposition. (paragraphs are not debate propositions)
The proposition was:

Prophecy is a reasonable evidence for the Biblical God.

What followed was the set up for the debate in the form of an introduction. It needs to be honed. I was giving you an example of what the introduction could look like. I would think it out more thoroughly before setting it in stone. 

I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.
The whole purpose or aim of highlighting reason is to contrast the two opposite positions against each other as to which gives better and more logical explanations. One side has better arguments that are better back up historically. One is both logical and more reasonable to believe than the opposite view. 

Since there are many proofs available  prophecy is just one aspect of the evidence. 

People on these threads keep making the charge that the Bible is myth or not a revelation from God. I want to take just one aspect of the evidence (prophecy) to show how reasonable it is to believe. I can only do this by contrasting it against a person who opposes that view as reasonable evidence. Since you say you no longer believe in the biblical God but you are somewhat familiar with the Christian worldview because you used to hold that view, you would be a good opponent to contrast the positions. 

You see, I believe all unfulfilled prophecy as having its fulfillment in AD 70.

All unfulfilled biblical prophecy has its fulfillment by AD70. 

That could be another heading for a debate. I like it. 

Jerusalem, and the temple, is key to understanding prophecy and the transition between the OT and NT. Is that reasonable to believe? I was originally going to challenge a Christian who holds to a futuristic view of prophecy (such as Dispensationalism, Millennialism, Amillennialism, etc) to showcase which view is more reasonable.  

Topic's author
#161
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.
The whole purpose or aim of highlighting reason is to contrast the two opposite positions against each other as to which gives better and more logical explanations.

The reason I dislike the use of "reasonable" is because it can fall on both sides of the debate. Someone can come to reasonable -and wrong- conclusions when they lack crucial information. For this reason, I consider my suggestions to be more precise and preferable. 

All unfulfilled biblical prophecy has its fulfillment by AD70. 

That could be another heading for a debate. I like it. 

Jerusalem, and the temple, is key to understanding prophecy and the transition between the OT and NT. Is that reasonable to believe? I was originally going to challenge a Christian who holds to a futuristic view of prophecy (such as Dispensationalism, Millennialism, Amillennialism, etc) to showcase which view is more reasonable.  

You should challenge a Christian on this proposition. Why would an atheist argue the proper way to interpret prophecy?  It holds no value for most non-believers.
#162
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Because your origins, without a Creator, are traced to chance happenstance. That is not able to DO anything. Thus, you do not have the mechanism for the BB. You can only go back to the BB, not the cause of it. 
Right. So....what then?
So, you are alive, but you can't make sense of why.  You make sense of all kinds of other things dating back to the BB, but your worldview is not sufficient to go into and explain the most fundamental and ultimate question of life. Yet you dismiss the biblical God. You ignore the only reasonable explanation without as yet sufficient reason to do so.  

I can't tell you what caused the big bang, and the net effect of that on how I live my day to day life is _not consistent with what my overall belief system rests upon. It borrows from one that is__ . 
So, inconsistency is a sign that what you believe is illogical. From chance happenstance, you would have to think that the universe is meaningless and purposeless, yet you conduct your life from the perspective of meaning and purpose. 

 The difference it makes is whether you build the rest of your worldview on what is true or whether your foundation is suspect and has no visible means of supporting itself. Thus once the winds of testing come it comes crashing down because its foundation (that which everything else rests upon) is weak and faulty. 
Sounds dramatic!
It is. It boils down to how do you know your worldview rests on what is real? That should concern you. Do you have what is necessary? You have no reasonable explanation when you start with something other than God.

Except you don't know that your 'worldview' is true either. Let's say I find out the big bang is caused by a gigantic crunch. How will this change anything in my tiny life sapn?
I have what is necessary to make sense of life and truth, provided God exists. I also have reasonable and logical evidence that points to His existence. You do not have what is reasonable. When you begin with chance happenstance, there is no reason to be had. The universe works in ways that it should not, if chance is your master. Uniformity of nature (natural laws) should not be sustainable.

I have what is necessary for truth to be and to be known.   


why does anything at all exist?
Don't know. 
Do you have a reason?

Again, to make sense of it God would be the necessary explanation. 
Do I have a reason anything at all exists? I already said no, when I said "I don't know." Why is your single version of god necessary?
You don't, but you are here, and you are having this discussion with me. You are not reasonable if you dismiss God. Your starting point is not reasonable if you dismiss God. You can go through life acting inconsistently with what you would have to believe with a chance happenstance universe. That is your choice.

Do you think that it does not matter? If God exists, it matters much. 

How does the universe begin, if you think it began?
All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.
You do not perceive of the difference it makes to your life.
You can't say what the difference is either, so...no real difference, we can agree.
Yes, I can say what the difference is. The difference is knowing your Creator. The difference is to find the meaning and purpose for which you were created. The difference is having reason as to having none.  

Did the universe create itself, and how, why? 
Don't know. 
Again, self-creation is a self-refuting concept. Thus, if you believe the universe created itself you are not thinking logically. 
I didn't say that's what I think. I said I don't know. 
You believe in the BB, right? 

Either the BB is self-creation, or something (Someone) is behind it. Either the universe is uncaused (thus eternal), or something (Someone) caused it. 

Then don't rule out God. How can you argue against God when you don't know?
I don't rule out supernatural agent out of hand, but I don't rule "in" anything that I can't support existing in a real way (not like SUperman or Thor exist, in a real way, like matter). I can argue against the character in the books with scientific evidence and the many, many logical and factual inconsistencies in the book. It's really pretty simple. 
Then what is your evidence for this supernatural being? You see, there is evidence for the biblical God existing. If you have no proof of any specific God, what makes you think the biblical God is not that God? Is there any better evidence for any other supernatural agent? I say no, and I am willing to argue that there is not. 

Go ahead and argue against the Bible if you want to. Let's see if my view or your view is more reasonable to believe. First, let's start with you. Is what you think reasonable? Is ignorance reasonable for believing anything? You have to start somewhere, correct? So, does where you start then determine where you finish? 

What knowledge are you speaking of?
How the universe started. 
Although you have reason for its beginning how do you KNOW it began the way you think (chance)? What is behind the BB is key? 
I don't have a reason for its beginning, and this is where you are getting tripped up constantly: reason and cause are not the same thing. You say you make sense of the universe when what you mean is you assign it a different CAUSE.
I thought the BB was the reason, not what was behind the BB. 

By assigning it a different cause (God) than blind, indifferent chance happenstance, I have a reason, and explanation, for what is behind the BB or the universe. I have what is necessary. My view is more plausible than yours. My opinion, providing the biblical God is, is far more reasonable than yours. Now, I have reasonable evidence for the existence of said God, both historical confirmation of the biblical Scriptures, which displays thousands of times, "God said," or "The Word of the Lord...," and philosophical my reasoning is more plausible than a view that starts with blind chance.   

And I don't know it happened the way the evidence points to it happening, and I don't know why what's "behind the big bang" (whatever this means) would be the key to anything.
That reason would have to be a mindful being, an intentional, purposeful being. We are continually finding reasons (and I would argue purpose) in the way the universe and nature works. There is no reason why we should in a chance universe. Can you give me a reason why we SHOULD find reasons like natural laws in a chance universe? Anything else besides God as the reason for it happening, and you are still pointing to origins from chance. 

I ask you again, what difference does it make TODAY, like what do you think people would do differently if the event right before the big bang (if that even makes sense since time starts here, there isn't a before) was suddenly available?
If God exists and that God is the biblical God, then it matters much. It makes a difference to your eternity and whether you are united with God or expelled from His presence and goodness. 

If you say there is nothing before the BB, no time, no matter, no space, then you propose self-creation, which is something coming into being from nothing. Is that reasonable to you? Next, the created order had a start, a time of beginning. The reason for the universe would have to be beyond the material realm or physical universe. It would have to be beyond our scope of time - timeless or eternal - thus uncaused and uncreated, self-existing, therefore not depending on anything for its existence. 

Since you denied self-creation earlier in this post, you must attribute the universe to something else. You infer that by your reasoning.  
#163
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter? 
I don't have the compulsion to rape anyone. Weird, huh?
That is not the point, can you give sufficient reason why it is WRONG from your starting point, chance evolutionary processes? 
So you want me to explain why it's wrong to rape someone? Start with that it's against that person's will. 
Looking at it from a chance evolutionary perspective, it is not against the will of the person doing the raping? What makes their will any more or less significant than the raped, in such a universe, or your opinion? Why should that person care as long as he/she can do it without negative consequences to themselves? It enhances their life to have more progeny to look after them and ensure the family line is continued. And how can it be wrong if your genes or biological processes determine what you do? The person is just giving his/her progeny a better chance of survival by the desire. The more the merrier. Such a person is just a product of evolution. Some rape, others don't. What is wrong with that? Evolution has no intent, no purpose, no meaning, no moral must. Things happen. 

Again, where did God condone rape? Make sure not to misintepreting Scripture? 
I guess Christians in general don't accept war brides were no t actually happy to be married to their captors, and sexual congress with them was against their will making it rape. And god said to take war brides. Anyway. 
In the ANE, what were the consequences of war on those women left alive? Those women and female children would have a hard time surviving. Marriage was an agreement to live together. Where is the rape in such a situation? And what the Israelites did contrary to God's provisions was not biblical. Loving your neighbour and looking out for their best interest does not include raping. 

Or was beating your wife always wrong? 
Now you might be confusing 'legal' with 'moral.' I don't think it was ever moral, but society hasn't always made it illegal. Sort of like another biblically sanctined move, the owning of other people like property: never moral, at one time legal. But the bible has laws about how to do it right. Is it ever MORAL to own another person, beat your wife or stone a homosexual in the street. That's the real question. No on all three for me, but your god compels all three, not to mention the slaughter of women and children if they aren't hebrew. 
You have said a lot in a small number of words about morality, slavery, stoning, and beating your wife. Let's unpack that somewhat.

Okay, to the specifics of wife-beating. Now, you don't think it is ever moral, based on what, your preference? Why is your preference any better than the person who prefers to beat his wife or the country that chooses to allow wife-beating? Or, do you have an objective, absolute standard that you can appeal to in determining right and wrong? IOW's do you have what is necessary for morality? If not, you are giving me a relative opinion, a preference, nothing more. How can that be better than another opposing preference? 

Second, I don't think there should be a difference between morality and legality. What is morally good should be defended with moral laws. It should be illegal to beat your innocent wife for fun/pleasure. It should be permitted to defend oneself with sufficient force against malicious attacks. 

Third, how can two opposing views held by two different societies both be right? Logically, one must be wrong or else the law of identity is contravened. 

As for biblical slavery, the type of servitude in the examples of Egypt and Hebrew 'slavery' is sharply contrasted. One was extremely cruel and looked upon the other as a chattel, something to be owned. Hebrew servitude is the kind of relationship you experience between an employer/employee. It was a way of paying off debt or earning a living. For Hebrews, being a servant for life was the option of the servant if he/she so desired to stay with the master of the household. Otherwise, it served the purpose of helping out those less fortunate. The Hebrew master had an obligation to treat the servant well, not as they had been treated in Egypt. Anything else went against God's mercy and grace. 

Foreign servants were to be treated with mercy because it was a reminder of God's grace in freeing Israel from harsh servitude. Although these were servants for life if the 'master' chose not to free them, it was meant to be a just relationship because the type of servitude in Egypt was unjust. 

The servant master relationship portrayed in the OT is highly symbolic of our relationship with God. We have been bought with a price (Christ's blood) and freed to be heirs with Him in the heavenly kingdom. 

Now, slavery in warfare was a different category. Prisoners of war was a type of reparation. 


Why should I believe it?
Well you don't want to go to jail, right?
Is jail the criterion? If a person can get away without going to jail, it would not be wrong, correct? 
That's not what you asked, you asked why YOU should believe rape is wrong, and I said you don't want to go to jail. That seems a decent deterrent without having to explain to you the concept of domain over one's own body, etc. And besides, you are doing all the Jesus stuff so you can get into heaven, but also to avoid hell, right?
So, you can find nothing wrong in the act of rape itself. It is just the consequences that bother you. You can't say it is wrong, just that you do not like the consequences is not something desirable to you. 

What stuff is that? It is by grace we are saved. What I do is nothing to boast about. It does not earn merit before God in saving me.  Salvtion is not synergistic. 

It seems like this sort of thinking, the carrot or the stick, is what you are basing your current moral decisions on.
I just argued it is what you base your behaviour on. The consequences of getting caught prevent you from raping, if jail is your deterrent. 

I base Christian behaviour on a changed life. I base right and wrong on a fixed absolute - God. God has said, you shall not kill (murder). There is an actual wrong, not just a subjective preference that has no fixed address. Right and wrong has a fixed identity, not a shifting standard of preference. 

Given what's at stake, you potentially going out and raping a bunch of people then going to jail, if you suddenly stopped believing in god, it seemed the most prudent path to keep you from becoming a menace. 
But what makes it morally wrong, not just preference, in such a case?

So, you can't say that torturing little children for fun is plain wrong for everyone? 
Torturing little children for fun in plain wrong. What do you know, I CAN say it. 
Good that you can, but how is this consistent with an amoral universe where there is no ultimate justice? What is wrong with someone who is biologically driven, a product of chance, to do such things, since if chance is our maker and evolution determines our functioning, why is that wrong? It just is in such a universe.

Second, is that objectively wrong (wrong for all), or is it just something you prefer not to do? You can say it but do you feel it is a universal truth? If it is objectively wrong then there are absolutes/universals. Some things are definitely wrong. How can that be in a chance universe?

Third, how do you get to an absolute/universal from temporary shifting subjective values?  What is your standard? Marauding hordes have tortured for fun. They seem not think it wrong. 

OR, are you agreeing with me that there are universal wrongs?
When did you say there are 'universal wrongs' and how did you decide this?
Based on the biblical God's revelation and the nature of such a God.

#164
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.
The whole purpose or aim of highlighting reason is to contrast the two opposite positions against each other as to which gives better and more logical explanations.

The reason I dislike the use of "reasonable" is because it can fall on both sides of the debate. Someone can come to reasonable -and wrong- conclusions when they lack crucial information. For this reason, I consider my suggestions to be more precise and preferable. 
I agree, Skep, you can have reasoned conclusions, that can be wrong, but are they more reasonable than the alternative? That is what has to be weighed. The whole purpose of "Prophecy is reasonable evidence for the Biblical God," is to contrast the two different thinking systems on prophecy as from God as to which is more reasonable and logical to believe based on what is available as evidence. The available crucial information is the Bible and historical records from the time. They, in part, should determine whether your dismissal of prophecy is justified as reasonable.

The evidence available favours one side over the other. 

First off, is it reasonable to believe the prophecies were written before or after the fact (the fact centers around the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70).

Second, is the number, diversity, and specificity something humans are capable of predicting or does that seem unlikely and better explained by God?  

Third, since the Bible claims to be His revelation, does prophetic truth (event, timeframe, specific details, as matched with external historical writings were possible) give us reason to trust other aspects spoken of? I claim, it is just one more confirmation that we can trust the Bible for what it reveals. 


All unfulfilled biblical prophecy has its fulfillment by AD70. 

That could be another heading for a debate. I like it. 

Jerusalem, and the temple, is key to understanding prophecy and the transition between the OT and NT. Is that reasonable to believe? I was originally going to challenge a Christian who holds to a futuristic view of prophecy (such as Dispensationalism, Millennialism, Amillennialism, etc) to showcase which view is more reasonable.  

You should challenge a Christian on this proposition. Why would an atheist argue the proper way to interpret prophecy?  It holds no value for most non-believers.
True enough. I just thought you might like the challenge. You did accept it twice before as a devil's advocate. 
Topic's author
#165
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I agree, Skep, you can have reasoned conclusions, that can be wrong, but are they more reasonable than the alternative? 
Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?

True enough. I just thought you might like the challenge. You did accept it twice before as a devil's advocate. 
I remember no one voting on the first one which kinda makes me think it's too tedious for potential voters to sort out or interest was limited.  Maybe, two Christians with a vested interest in the subject would be more interesting for all involved.
#166
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Why do you have to start with skepticism?
Because I know of no other way to differentiate between claims which contradict one another but have equal standards (if not amounts) of evidence. You see it doesn't matter how much flawed or insufficient evidence you have. No amount of insufficient claims adds up tonone sufficient claim.
You have to start with one of two propositions - God or chance. I believe other views eventually work into one of these two. 

I believe that God is the only reasonable explanation. Sure, you can go through all of life as a non-committal skeptic. That is your choice but it is not more reasonable than mine. Undermining your choice is no reason at all if chance is your maker or originator. Fine! You can be unreasoning.  

Start with chance. Is that reasonable? Start with an eternal, necessary, omniscient, immutable, omnibenevolent being. Is that more reasonable? 
Neither of those seems particularly reasonable to me because neither has been demonstrated. In fact I am not sure I believe in chance any more than I believe in any god(s).

Well, one has a reasoning mind, the other no reason at all. 

One provides a sufficient reason for life, existence, the universe. The other has no reason. 

What would you believe? Have you not already made up your mind regarding the biblcal God? So, how could anyone convince you otherwise? Would there not always be another what if? Is that not what a skeptic does? He doubts.  
#167
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
You have to start with one of two propositions - God or chance.
False dichotomy. Try again. I don't have to start with either of those propositions.
#168
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I agree, Skep, you can have reasoned conclusions, that can be wrong, but are they more reasonable than the alternative? 
Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?
Because you are dismissing what is necessary for truth. That is why you should care. Chance is not necessary or sufficient. It explains nothing. 

True enough. I just thought you might like the challenge. You did accept it twice before as a devil's advocate. 
I remember no one voting on the first one which kinda makes me think it's too tedious for potential voters to sort out or interest was limited.  Maybe, two Christians with a vested interest in the subject would be more interesting for all involved.

Okay, so is that a no? 

Do you agree that prophecy is reasonable to believe?
Topic's author
#169
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?
Because you are dismissing what is necessary for truth. That is why you should care. Chance is not necessary or sufficient. It explains nothing. 
Why is a god necessary for truth? Do you think there can be no truth if there were no gods? (this is a 'yes' or 'no' answer). No one that I know of appeals to chance as the basis for truth...or anything. Even assuming chance, truth isn't contingent on it. Conscious minds are necessary for something to be recognized as true... not chance. You're still tracking down a logical path which doesn't reach the conclusion you think it should. (Composition fallacy again methinks.)

Okay, so is that a no? 

Do you agree that prophecy is reasonable to believe?
That's a "no".

I think prophecy *can* be reasonable to believe under certain circumstances (such as with limited information). I personally don't find prophecy reasonable because I understand there are many ways prophecy can be 'fulfilled' without the need for a god or anything supernatural.
#170
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?
Because you are dismissing what is necessary for truth. That is why you should care. Chance is not necessary or sufficient. It explains nothing. 
Why is a god necessary for truth?
It is from where you start. Chance is not necessary for knowing truth. Chance is not a thing. It is not capable of anything, let along disclosing the truth.  You are not necessary. An omniscient, immutable Being who has revealed is necessary. 

Do you think there can be no truth if there were no gods? (this is a 'yes' or 'no' answer). No one that I know of appeals to chance as the basis for truth...or anything. Even assuming chance, truth isn't contingent on it. Conscious minds are necessary for something to be recognized as true... not chance. You're still tracking down a logical path which doesn't reach the conclusion you think it should. (Composition fallacy again methinks.)
No, you are forgetting the topic - origins. 

Who knows the truth about origins? 

Knowing the truth about origins is not possible unless God exists and has revealed. Throughout human history the speculation is still going on and strong.

Which conscious  mind(s)? Yours? Who are you referring to? You admitted you don't know.  So, who does? If they do, why don't you trust them as truthful? Remember, you admit that you do not know. 

Okay, so is that a no? 

Do you agree that prophecy is reasonable to believe?
That's a "no".

I think prophecy *can* be reasonable to believe under certain circumstances (such as with limited information). I personally don't find prophecy reasonable because I understand there are many ways prophecy can be 'fulfilled' without the need for a god or anything supernatural.

Okay. Thanks for considering it. 
Topic's author
#171
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
An omniscient, immutable Being who has revealed is necessary. 
Prove it.

Who knows the truth about origins? 

Knowing the truth about origins is not possible unless God exists and has revealed. Throughout human history the speculation is still going on and strong.

Which conscious  mind(s)? Yours? Who are you referring to? You admitted you don't know.  So, who does? If they do, why don't you trust them as truthful? Remember, you admit that you do not know. 

I  see no reason to accept you *know* anything about origins beyond anyone else. You have origin stories which cannot be shown true.  Plus, knowing origins has nothing to do with knowing reality as it is. It's a non sequitor.
#172
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
f you say there is nothing before the BB, no time, no matter, no space, then you propose self-creation, which is something coming into being from nothing. Is that reasonable to you? Next, the created order had a start, a time of beginning. The reason for the universe would have to be beyond the material realm or physical universe. It would have to be beyond our scope of time - timeless or eternal - thus uncaused and uncreated, self-existing, therefore not depending on anything for its existence. 

What if I say the universe is uncaused and uncreated and self existing and that the big bang necessarily follows a big crunch? What then? 

Good that you can, but how is this consistent with an amoral universe where there is no ultimate justice?
Why would the universe, the entire universe, care at all about the human concept of justice? And even if it does, I don't care. I'm living consistently with the law of the land and my own morality. Why do I need more justification than

By assigning it a different cause (God) than blind, indifferent chance happenstance, I have a reason, and explanation, for what is behind the BB or the universe.
Congratulations! Now just prove you're RIGHT. Because I can say "I assign the big bang the cause of Zeus, and it was his first lightning bolt!" and I have exactly the same thing you do, just a different cause. Bonus, my reason is older than your reason! Lightning has existed longer than the bible, where god first appears. 

That reason would have to be a mindful being, an intentional, purposeful being. We are continually finding reasons (and I would argue purpose) in the way the universe and nature works. There is no reason why we should in a chance universe. Can you give me a reason why we SHOULD find reasons like natural laws in a chance universe? Anything else besides God as the reason for it happening, and you are still pointing to origins from chance. 
Why does it HAVE to be, exactly? And to the question, can I tell you why we should find natural laws, no, I can't. I can tell you that we do, and that there's nothing in them that points to Jesus. Even if I grant supernatural thinking agent, you don't get any closer to bible god, you know this already. Calling them "laws" is a language issue, not a legal issue, and that doesn't require a law giver as I'm sure you think it does. 

You keep saying you have Jesus and therefore you know the truth. So let me ask: if I leave a room with a child and a glass of water in it, and come back to find the entire glass of water spilled on the floor, and the child says "I did that by accident," is it impossible for me to discern if that child's telling the truth, because I don't have Jesus? If you're in that situation, do you wait, look at the sky, say "Jesus, what's the truth here? Was it REALLY an accident, or did he do it on purpose?" I don't understand why Jesus would be necessary. 

I ignored the rest of your post because I've answered those questions from you many times before. More reasonable doesn't mean right, either, nor does it constitute proof. 
#173
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
An omniscient, immutable Being who has revealed is necessary. 
Prove it.
You come from a position of "I don't know."  You have demonstrated you do not have what is necessary to know. You can point to many people, scientists, who propose a reason for origins, but their opinions are conflicted. The origin of the universe is built on models that best fit the data available but there are many anomalies within these models. So, there is no surety as to what actually happened. 

For surety of origins, we are not necessary beings. We were not there. We assume that the present is the key to the past because that is our gauge to the distant past. We look at data and interpret it from the present (the past four hundred years). It is a relatively recent 'science.' Human history and records is a relatively short time frame in a supposed 14 billion year universe, if that is your paradigm you build from. 

What would be necessary? The being would have to be a personal being who was there and transcends the time, space, matter universe, who created the universe and understands it in all it aspects. If that being has revealed we can know. Now if that being was omniscient but changing could we then know? How would we be sure that being was not lying to us? Thus, that being would have to be immutable, without change. That being would have to be omnibenevolent or else there would be no guarantee that the being would lie. 

Who knows the truth about origins? 

Knowing the truth about origins is not possible unless God exists and has revealed. Throughout human history the speculation is still going on and strong.

Which conscious  mind(s)? Yours? Who are you referring to? You admitted you don't know.  So, who does? If they do, why don't you trust them as truthful? Remember, you admit that you do not know. 

I  see no reason to accept you *know* anything about origins beyond anyone else. You have origin stories which cannot be shown true.  Plus, knowing origins has nothing to do with knowing reality as it is. It's a non sequitor.

I have what is necessary to know. You do not. 

We both work from core presuppositions. Mine is able to make sense of origins. What we hear from yours is 'I don't know,' yet you pontificate on what is not the case.
What you call stories are historical narrative. These accounts can be justified and there is proof or evidence contained through the Bible that is reasonable and logical to believe. Prophecy is one of the verifications that makes sense, and as you have admitted, it is reasonable to believe. There are other roadblocks that your worldview does not have the means to get past. Philosophically, mine is justifiable, yours is not. You hide behind the guise of Pastafarianism, a non-sensical unverifiable satirical religious view. 

If you don't know origins you have no idea on what your worldview is built upon, reality or fables. 

"Once upon a time, a long, long, long, time ago..."
#174
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
f you say there is nothing before the BB, no time, no matter, no space, then you propose self-creation, which is something coming into being from nothing. Is that reasonable to you? Next, the created order had a start, a time of beginning. The reason for the universe would have to be beyond the material realm or physical universe. It would have to be beyond our scope of time - timeless or eternal - thus uncaused and uncreated, self-existing, therefore not depending on anything for its existence. 

What if I say the universe is uncaused and uncreated and self existing and that the big bang necessarily follows a big crunch? What then? 
Once again, you never answered my question. Do you believe self-creation is possible? Do you believe a non-existent thing can create itself? Do you believe that nothing can become something? If so, please demonstrate how. 

If you have zero and you add zero do you then have 1? You still have nothing. 

If you say the universe is eternal I ask how you get to the present? There are no less days before the present as there are after. Everything would be in the here and now (no time) yet we have seasons in which we measure and we see and trace most things to an origin for they have a beginning. How do you trace a cause back to eternaty? You have an infinite regression of causes. How would you get to the present cause from infinity? Not only this, but the evidence or paradigm that is currently the most popular (the BB) also goes against an eternal universe. What evidence do you have that gives your paradigm model credence? 

If the universe comes in and out of existence, what causes such a phenomenon? What is the agency to cause the crunch and additional BB's? If it comes in and out of existence there must be something else behind it to cause these fluctuating universes. What are those things or thing?

Good that you can, but how is this consistent with an amoral universe where there is no ultimate justice?
Why would the universe, the entire universe, care at all about the human concept of justice? And even if it does, I don't care. I'm living consistently with the law of the land and my own morality. Why do I need more justification than
That is just my point. The universe is impersonal. It does not care. Thus morality and meaning are just an illusion and facaude in the grand scheme. There is no scheme. You are living inconsistently to believe that things matter. The universe is indifferent to your existence or the existence of anything else. IT DOES NOT MATTER. 

You live from the perspective of my worldview in which existence does matter. Thus, you are inconsistent from where you would have to start. Somehow you smuggle meaning, value, and purpose into this universe devoid of such things. 

Next, what is justice? How do you account for justice for Hitler if the universe is all there is (i.e., no God)? To be just you must judge what is right and wrong and act accordingly. If there is no God, why is your subjective view any BETTER than the next person's subjective view? There is no adequate reason unless you can produce a fixed measure, a final reference -  the best so that we can compare good and better against. If there is no ideal how can you say something is better? Better in relation to what? Your own morality? What does that mean? Do that mean that what you call good is good? So, what happens if I live by the same principle? What if my good is the diametrical opposite of yours? Then what is the ACTUAL right, the actual good? Is it whoever is mightier than the other that decides? In such a case, then Hitler would be 'justified' in killing over six million Jews. Do you think he was? After all, he was just doing what he thought was right and good, same as you. If each person determines good and right by their little old selves we have a serious problem. Good or right can mean anything. It turns morality on its head and makes it anything but moral. The law of identity (A=A) is contravened. Meaning has a specific identity. Good = Good to you now becomes Good  = whatever. The identity is lost. So, once again, your worldview would be proven inadequate and inconsistent. 

Again, my worldview has what is necessary to make sense of morality, your does not. Fine, you say, who cares? When you or your family comes against grave injustice, will you still be indifferent? 


By assigning it a different cause (God) than blind, indifferent chance happenstance, I have a reason, and explanation, for what is behind the BB or the universe.
Congratulations!
Thank you!

Now just prove you're RIGHT. Because I can say "I assign the big bang the cause of Zeus, and it was his first lightning bolt!" and I have exactly the same thing you do, just a different cause. Bonus, my reason is older than your reason! Lightning has existed longer than the bible, where god first appears. 
I have what is necessary. You do not. So, you can't make sense of right. I can. My view is logical. Yours is not. I can reason why something must be the case. You can't. If that does not bother you, you are on your own. Go your own way. You are beyond reason in such things.

The evidence for Zeus does not measure up to the biblical evidence. The two are lightyears apart. Zeus is Greek mythology. The Bible never claims to be myth or fable. The Bible says the opposite. 

2 Peter 1:16 (NASB)
[ Eyewitnesses ] For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; 

nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.

and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

The proof I have is reasonable. It is logical to believe. I can make sense of existence, origins of the universe life, morality. You have not demonstrated you can. The Bible has a lot of external checks for it speaks of a history of a people. Prophecy is reasonable to believe as written before the events prophesied.

What is more reasonable, your belief or mine, 'a' being yours? 

a) I don't know.
b) Here is the proof and it is backed by these qualifiers...

Which is more justifiable? 

Not only that, your starting point, the core presuppositions everything else rest upon in a worldview that denies God is more unreasonable. 

That reason would have to be a mindful being, an intentional, purposeful being. We are continually finding reasons (and I would argue purpose) in the way the universe and nature works. There is no reason why we should in a chance universe. Can you give me a reason why we SHOULD find reasons like natural laws in a chance universe? Anything else besides God as the reason for it happening, and you are still pointing to origins from chance. 
Why does it HAVE to be, exactly?
Because you don't find reasons without personal, thinking, intelligent beings. 

And to the question, can I tell you why we should find natural laws, no, I can't.
Once again, your worldview provides insufficient in reasoning and making sense of such things. 

I can tell you that we do, and that there's nothing in them that points to Jesus. Even if I grant supernatural thinking agent, you don't get any closer to bible god, you know this already.
That is because, once again, you are ignorant of the biblical God and the evidence. There are many proofs that point to Jesus. The Bible is a collection of writings, written over a period of at least 1500 years, all focused on God and Jesus. There is a unified theme throughout every writing. In almost every OT writing there is typology of Jesus. He is seen in the symbols and metaphors. In the physical history of a people Jesus is portrayed in typology. There is a parallel between the OT and the NT. One is physical in nature, the other is mirrored in spiritual truth. In almost every OT book there are prophecies of Him. For some reason, Christianity grows exponentially after His crucifixion and the reported resurrection. These disciples go to their deaths in excruciating ways because they will not renounce Him of His resurrection. For what, a lie? Do these people, these disciples, seem like they are liars from what they have written? Do their teachings seem dishonest?

First, granting a supernatural agent without that agents revealing of themself would still put you in the same camp, pure speculation, zero evidence of the actual Being. Of all the revelations of God in world religions, one exceeds all others in the evidences provided. 

Calling them "laws" is a language issue, not a legal issue, and that doesn't require a law giver as I'm sure you think it does. 
You say it does not require a lawgiver. Back that up. Don't just assert it. Give me your reasoning for the statement.

If no lawgiver, then what is the agency given to the existence of these 'laws of nature?' How do they come about outside of something or Someone causing them? Do you think 'chance' is a sufficient reason for them? We discover these laws. We do not invent them. They operate whether we believe in them or not. The laws are able to be expressed in a concise formula and they express information, intelligence. I continue to ask you, what is chance able to do? How does 'chance' sustain these laws, the consistency involved that makes them functional? There is no reason why chance either would or could. 

What is chance? What is it able to do? People keep giving it human or personal attributes.
#175
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

You keep saying you have Jesus and therefore you know the truth. So let me ask: if I leave a room with a child and a glass of water in it, and come back to find the entire glass of water spilled on the floor, and the child says "I did that by accident," is it impossible for me to discern if that child's telling the truth, because I don't have Jesus?
When you came into the room and see the water on the floor, you look for what is the agency for that happening. You look for clues as to what caused the spilt water. You reason that either the child or some other human being must have been the cause of the spilt water, unless there is evidence of an earthquake or other cause. It is just what is reasonable to believe. To connect Jesus to the spilt water is not logical, except in His permissible will allowing the occurrence.  

That paragraph is a ridiculous piece or irrationality that does not connect and tie into Jesus. Knowing the truth about what? I have what is necessary for the truth about existence, about origins, about life's ultimate questions - meaning, value, purpose. The Bible is either true or it is false. Jesus either existed or He did not. He is either God incarnate or He is not. Based on the evidence contained in the Bible and what is necessary philosophically, my belief can and does make sense of my existence, the existence of the universe, the requirements for morality. Yours does not. Now, you are free to believe the irrationality of your worldview, cloaked in ignorance, but once you charge mine with the same irrationality I object and challenge you on your ASSUMPTIONS. You see, I can justify what I believe, you cannot. But your ignorance does not seem to bother you. Ignorance is bliss, so they say. Your worldview lacks wisdom. You have some knowledge but when you do not apply wisdom to knowledge all hell breaks loose. What is the opposite of wisdom? 

If you're in that situation, do you wait, look at the sky, say "Jesus, what's the truth here? Was it REALLY an accident, or did he do it on purpose?" I don't understand why Jesus would be necessary. 
No, I use my reason to deduct what is the most reasonable explanation, and I have another in the room that gives what they claim is first hand account of what happened. It is reasonable to believe unless someone else comes into the room and discloses they dapped in while I was absent and knocked over the water and just went to the kitchen to get a mop or towel to soak up the water. They point to a video camera and explain that it is all recorded. I go and look and see for myself what happened. Then that reason supersedes the first explanation from the child. 

I ignored the rest of your post because I've answered those questions from you many times before. More reasonable doesn't mean right, either, nor does it constitute proof. 
More justified reasons equal more plausibility. More reason, rightly discerned, means an informed decision.  Not only this, what is necessary? Show that 'chance' is necessary. Give your explanation why it is more reasonable? You can't because it is not. Yet you choose to belief this or some other absurdity once you jettison God as the necessary reason. Chance has no agency, no ability to do anything. Chance is a term you call the unexplainable. When you have no reasonable explanation you chalk it up to chance or some other quack reason. 

#176
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Once again, you never answered my question. Do you believe self-creation is possible? Do you believe a non-existent thing can create itself? Do you believe that nothing can become something? If so, please demonstrate how. 
I don't know is the answer to these. Though I struggle to figure out a 'non'existent' something. You either occupy space and time or you don't, that's what existence is. 

f you say the universe is eternal I ask how you get to the present? 
This and the whole paragraph it leads into is beyond obtuse. The current presentation of the cosmos, including time, started at the big bang, per a preponderance of evidence. The matter that it's made of might be eternal, for all I know. The laws of conservation would sort of point in this direction. 

If the universe comes in and out of existence, what causes such a phenomenon? 
Don't know. I'm saying it's possible based on the laws of conservation and gravity. Some scholars agree, some haven't made up their minds, some disagree. In any case, I DON't CARE enough about this to do independent research on it, nor am I qualified to do so. I read the books I'm intrigued by. 

 The universe is indifferent to your existence or the existence of anything else. IT DOES NOT MATTER. 
Agree! To the universe my existence is less than immaterial. It only matters to me. I guess that makes me inconsistent with the universe, but that changes literally nothing, anywhere. Now my turn for a question you've skipped three times: if Jesus were proven not to have existed, and the lack of a supernatural deity were confirmed beyond question, would your first reaction be to go find someone to murder? A rape victim? A store to rob? I bet no. Why not though? There's no universal source of judgement! No moral center! Why not just pillage your way around town since there isn't a heaven to go to or a god to get mad about it?

. If there is no God, why is your subjective view any BETTER than the next person's subjective view?
Whichever causes less human suffering is better. Pretty simple. Keep bringing up Hitler though, I mean (a) god created him, (b) god planned for him to exterminate 6M jews (c) god made sure he was able to do it (D) he was not caught, (e) if Hitler was sincerely sorry and accepted jesus right before he died, he's going to be your cohabitant in heaven. Justice? The other thing you folks always miss is how big a boner you have for "mercy' and "grace," both of which are by definition departures from actual justice. 

 After all, he was just doing what he thought was right and good, same as you.
He was causing massive human suffering. Pretty easy to discern he's not good. 

When you or your family comes against grave injustice, will you still be indifferent? 
What's this have to do with morality, yours or mine? If someone is unjust toward my family, I will seek out proper and equal remediation. Not pray about it. 

 These disciples go to their deaths in excruciating ways because they will not renounce Him of His resurrection. For what, a lie?
So did the 9/11 hijackers. Did they do it for a lie? 

The rest of this stuff is mostly your usual "claim (bible) as evidence for truth of itself." It's never been compelling, because very other religoin claims exactly the same thing. You even admit the only reason you care so much about this one is because it's the one you like most. 

Topic's author
#177
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Prove it.
You come from a position of "I don't know."  You have demonstrated you do not have what is necessary to know. You can point to many people, scientists, who propose a reason for origins, but their opinions are conflicted. The origin of the universe is built on models that best fit the data available but there are many anomalies within these models. So, there is no surety as to what actually happened. 

For surety of origins, we are not necessary beings. We were not there. We assume that the present is the key to the past because that is our gauge to the distant past. We look at data and interpret it from the present (the past four hundred years). It is a relatively recent 'science.' Human history and records is a relatively short time frame in a supposed 14 billion year universe, if that is your paradigm you build from. 

What would be necessary? The being would have to be a personal being who was there and transcends the time, space, matter universe, who created the universe and understands it in all it aspects. If that being has revealed we can know. Now if that being was omniscient but changing could we then know? How would we be sure that being was not lying to us? Thus, that being would have to be immutable, without change. That being would have to be omnibenevolent or else there would be no guarantee that the being would lie. 

That's interesting. You're suggesting justified true beliefs (knowledge) must be built on an unjustified belief (faith).  In other words, what can be demonstrated is built on something that cannot be demonstrated.  

We both work from core presuppositions.
I assume we both presuppose logical absolutes. You go a step further and presuppose a god as the basis of the absolutes...which is unnecessary if we  presuppose logical absolutes. Isn't it entirely possible that some things just are without a reason why?
#178
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Once again, you never answered my question. Do you believe self-creation is possible? Do you believe a non-existent thing can create itself? Do you believe that nothing can become something? If so, please demonstrate how. 
I don't know is the answer to these. Though I struggle to figure out a 'non'existent' something. You either occupy space and time or you don't, that's what existence is.
So, although you are a reasoning being, your reasoning, through the causal tree, is traced back to irrelevancy. You struggle with non-existence, so I take it you do not believe self-creation is possible. Is that reasonable of me to believe? Would something or Someone have to have existed eternally (without ceasing, outside of time) and be beyond the physical universe to give sufficient reason to the existence of the universe? Or is the universe that thing? The evidence available does seem to speak of the universe having a beginning. So, is an eternal universe a more reasonable belief? Scientifically, an eternal universe is not well supported. 

f you say the universe is eternal I ask how you get to the present? 
This and the whole paragraph it leads into is beyond obtuse. The current presentation of the cosmos, including time, started at the big bang, per a preponderance of evidence. The matter that it's made of might be eternal, for all I know. The laws of conservation would sort of point in this direction. 
I agree, the universe is a time event. So you believe that energy is eternal, or is it matter, or something else? It just exists - no reason. It just acts. No reason. It acts in a way that sustains the universe. No reason. Whatever this SOMETHING is, it must transcend the universe. If this something is not living, a personal being with intellect, intelligence, mindfulness, intention, purpose, values, how do these things just happen? Do you have an explanation? How does life come from the non-living? How does consciousness come from the non-conscious? Where do you ever witness this happening? All I ever see is life coming from the living, consciousness coming from conscious beings. Explain how life and consciousness comes about from anything but other living, conscious beings. 

Next, if it is chance that is your maker, what ability does chance have to do anything? How is anything sustained by chance happenstance? 


If the universe comes in and out of existence, what causes such a phenomenon? 
Don't know. I'm saying it's possible based on the laws of conservation and gravity. Some scholars agree, some haven't made up their minds, some disagree. In any case, I DON't CARE enough about this to do independent research on it, nor am I qualified to do so. I read the books I'm intrigued by. 
What ability do the laws of gravity or conservation have to do anything and what do you attribute them to? If they are here by chance happenstance, how is that able to do anything? What is chance? Why do you give it such godlike status? 

You don't care is an excuse. Ignorance is bliss. Don't dismiss the biblical God unless you can give sufficient reason why He should not be believed. You don't even have what is reasonable once you reject God. If you want to be unreasonable, that is up to you. Sorry, I call it as I see it. (^8

I mock the worldview you hold in your lack of ability to explain such things, make sense of them, or give what is necessary to do so. You are in major denial. Deny, deny, deny. "I don't know, I don't know, I DON'T KNOW! I don't care, I don't care, I DON'T CARE!!! It DOESN'T bother me. Can't you tell?" 

 The universe is indifferent to your existence or the existence of anything else. IT DOES NOT MATTER. 
Agree! To the universe my existence is less than immaterial. It only matters to me. I guess that makes me inconsistent with the universe, but that changes literally nothing, anywhere. Now my turn for a question you've skipped three times: if Jesus were proven not to have existed, and the lack of a supernatural deity were confirmed beyond question, would your first reaction be to go find someone to murder? A rape victim? A store to rob? I bet no. Why not though? There's no universal source of judgement! No moral center! Why not just pillage your way around town since there isn't a heaven to go to or a god to get mad about it?
I would then be in the same boat you are in, probably acting inconsistently within the grand scheme. I would certainly be justified in my own mind if I did whatever I pleased with no regard for others if God were not real. I think I would definitely be more selfish than I am. God gives me a reason to act lovingly. I witness His example of love and selflessness in Jesus Christ, the extended hand of grace and mercy and I am compelled to tell others the good news in my roundabout way. Without God, there would be no ultimate accountability, no ultimate justice. If I could get away with such things what difference will it make? Nothing ultimately. 

Not only this, if evolution and my genes were what drove me then what I did would be out of my control. Everything would be predetermined by the make up and action of my DNA. 

When I examine history and those countries like Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, and other such godless regimes I see a rise in crimes against humanity, even mass genocides or democides in the name of atheism. Anything becomes possible. 

. If there is no God, why is your subjective view any BETTER than the next person's subjective view?
Whichever causes less human suffering is better. Pretty simple.
Better in whose mind - Hitlers? Whose subjective, relativistic mind are you using to determine better? What mind(s) is the determiner of better? Some people and societies do not believe that what causes less suffering is better for them. It is a matter of superiority. Wars are fought over such things. They consider themselves superior and better able to determine who lives and dies, and suffering is not their overriding factor, it is power. That is what is happening in the USA right now with the Democrat Party. Anyone who votes for them is not voting for what is better for society. Rioting is not better for society yet the Democrats promote it by their silence and complicity. They are behind the riots. Billionaires like George Soros support these radical leftist groups. They are not looking out for your best interests, only there own. Wake up, man!

Keep bringing up Hitler though, I mean (a) god created him, (b) god planned for him to exterminate 6M jews (c) god made sure he was able to do it (D) he was not caught, (e) if Hitler was sincerely sorry and accepted jesus right before he died, he's going to be your cohabitant in heaven.
God did not force Hitler to do evil, Hitler did it of his own will, God allowed it for a purpose. You don't understand the difference between God's permissive will and His sovereign will. 

“The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9) — yet some do perish. That is because God has given us a will of our own that He permits to function but will eventually be accountable to Him. He permits it for a time that good will come from it. How is that possible you say? When we see what humanity is capable of when they ignore God we seek a better way. That way is Christ. Some find Him and through belief in Him receive eternal life. That far exceeds any fleeting pleasures of of temporal existence here on earth. 

I would certainly be surprised if Hitler is in heaven but it is God's grace and our faith and repentance that justifies us. Hitler showed no signs of a repentant heart or trust and saving faith in Christ. 

Justice? The other thing you folks always miss is how big a boner you have for "mercy' and "grace," both of which are by definition departures from actual justice.
Again, this shows your ignorance of God's justice. Jesus Christ lives a righteous life on behalf of those who believe. Thus He does something we are incapable of doing. He meets God's righteous standards, we do not. We deserve punishment for we are guilty but Christ has willingly taken that punishment upon Himself. He dies in the place of the believer. Thus, God's standard is met, His justice is satisfied. The wrong has been punished adequately. 

So, you have a choice, you can mock Him and His standards of righteousness and ignore His grace in Christ offered to you and go your own way. Or you can turn to Him, repent, and receive His mercy. He gracefully sent His Son to meet His righteous requirements on behalf of those who will believe, those who will trust, those who will place their faith in Him.  

 After all, he was just doing what he thought was right and good, same as you.
He was causing massive human suffering. Pretty easy to discern he's not good.
It is easy only if you have an idea, a right standard, a final reference point. What is that for you? Is it your subjective reasoning? Is it someone else's? Tell me what your final measure is for 'Good?' You use the term easily enough. No justify that you have what is necessary for goodness. Where does goodness come from? How do you know you are not hurting someone by your assessment of good? After all, you reject what is necessary and give your esteemed view, your preference, your opinion, your feeling - unless you can point to what is necessary for goodness. 

Are you going to be silent on this too? Are you going to sing you drill sargent mantra, "I don't know and I don't care!"

When you or your family comes against grave injustice, will you still be indifferent? 
What's this have to do with morality, yours or mine? If someone is unjust toward my family, I will seek out proper and equal remediation. Not pray about it.
It has to do with objective morality, not just feelings or preference. If you have no fixed standard, no final reference point, all you have is feelings, likes, preferences. What makes those right? BUT, you are not consistent if you ignore God's justice for once you or your family is harmed then you do believe that some things are objectively and universally wrong. There is no, I believe this is good or this is bad. Then it becomes this is definitely bad. You no longer sit on the fence of moral relativism, of your subjective thought as the arbitrator of what is good and bad/evil. 

 These disciples go to their deaths in excruciating ways because they will not renounce Him of His resurrection. For what, a lie?
So did the 9/11 hijackers. Did they do it for a lie? 
Yes. Were they practicing "do to your neighbour as you would want done to you?" Were they obeying and consistent with the OT from which their religion points to, for Mohammed spoke of it often in the Qur'an? 

The rest of this stuff is mostly your usual "claim (bible) as evidence for truth of itself." It's never been compelling, because very other religoin claims exactly the same thing. You even admit the only reason you care so much about this one is because it's the one you like most. 
Test it. See if it rings true. If it does not, don't believe it. Why aren't you doing that? You keep decrying what I believe. Show that it is a false worldview if you can. I am willing to give reasons (and have) as to why it is true. Dispute these reasons. Make sense of things without God as the criteria. Instead, I will show that it is yours that does not meet the criteria of truth. I welcome you accepting the challenge. 
#179
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
 Scientifically, an eternal universe is not well supported. 
Right, but it's still better supported than invisible supernatural universe creating agent who shows up in a book from 2000 years ago and no where else. How? (A) The universe is observable and (b) the laws of conservation are tested and proven.

The rest of your post looks to me like questions I've already answered with "I don't know" and / or "the answers make no difference to how I live my life, at all." I'll go on not raping, not stealing and not murdering, somehow, while still being pretty sure there's no god watching me and keeping track of how often I jerk off. It's ironic that you mock my worldview because it doesn't 'make sense' of how life started, which it doesn't even attempt to do, as that information is totally immaterial to my life, but you think "magical invisible being did all of this" is somehow sensible. In any case, whatever it is that's keeping you from descending into a murder rampage, keep on believing it. Your testimony, I've heard it, it is completely banal. 

How many posts until you go full Qanon?

#180
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Prove it.
You come from a position of "I don't know."  You have demonstrated you do not have what is necessary to know. You can point to many people, scientists, who propose a reason for origins, but their opinions are conflicted. The origin of the universe is built on models that best fit the data available but there are many anomalies within these models. So, there is no surety as to what actually happened. 

For surety of origins, we are not necessary beings. We were not there. We assume that the present is the key to the past because that is our gauge to the distant past. We look at data and interpret it from the present (the past four hundred years). It is a relatively recent 'science.' Human history and records is a relatively short time frame in a supposed 14 billion year universe, if that is your paradigm you build from. 

What would be necessary? The being would have to be a personal being who was there and transcends the time, space, matter universe, who created the universe and understands it in all it aspects. If that being has revealed we can know. Now if that being was omniscient but changing could we then know? How would we be sure that being was not lying to us? Thus, that being would have to be immutable, without change. That being would have to be omnibenevolent or else there would be no guarantee that the being would lie. 

That's interesting. You're suggesting justified true beliefs (knowledge) must be built on an unjustified belief (faith).  In other words, what can be demonstrated is built on something that cannot be demonstrated.  
You ASSUME that rational or reasoning faith cannot be a justified true belief (knowledge). Says you. Why are you the arbitrator of what is knowledge? 

I continually argue that the Bible God is knowable and knowledge in Him is reasonable, what He says is justifiable. I gave you the opportunity to argue against this knowledge in the form of prophecy and how reasonable it is to believe. You declined. So, how can I demonstrate to you something you are not willing to explore or reason against?

You continually say, as does ludofl3x, I don't know, I don't care. Thus you have created the impass, not me. I am willing to discuss whether what I believe is reasonable and whether I have knowledge of such a God.

We both work from core presuppositions.
I assume we both presuppose logical absolutes. You go a step further and presuppose a god as the basis of the absolutes...which is unnecessary if we  presuppose logical absolutes. Isn't it entirely possible that some things just are without a reason why?

Yes, I do believe in logical absolutes. It is self-evident. You can't communicate unless you use the laws of logic. 

Logic reuires mindfulness. The laws of logic operate even if you do not exist. They still exist to me, and if I did not exist they would operate for some other person. None of us are necessary for the laws of logic, but a mindful being is. Which one?

If the laws are absolute, I would posit they are eternal too. Is it ever possible that the law of identity does not exist? Is a thing ever not itself? Is it ever possible that the law of contradiction does not exist? If so, then two opposing things at the same time could be equally valid. A cat could be no different than a dog. An actual cat could be an actual dog. Truth could be false. (How could something that is true ever be false?) So the laws of logic appear to be eternal truths yet they require a mind (or minds) for them to be meaningful.  Your mind does not give them meaning. They exist OUTSIDE of your mind and OUTSIDE of mine. Thus we are not necessary for their existent. Which mind are you going to appeal to as necessary for their existence?  

Thus, that necessary being must be God.