Delusion In Most Atheists?

Author: BrutalTruth

Posts

Total: 506
#181
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

Your theory would be alright if it was one or two or even a few predictions, but hundreds? Who do you know who can predict the future with certainty? 

Who said this man could predict the future? I certainly didn't. A man could give five hundred million accurate predictions, and simply be a man who staged five hundred million events to happen exactly when he said they would in the future. Only a fool believes that looks are never deceiving. If Preterists are really that gullible, then they have far more problems than the idea that they're delusional alone.
Which man? Are you speaking of Jesus?

The Bible contains many predictive texts that were written before the fact. Do you dispute this?

So your theory would be okay if you could show me even one person that you know or know of that can do that. Can you?

How do you stage the future?

How well do you know Preterism?

What we know that it is reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem, before the common era. The case can be made for the whole NT also before the fall of Jerusalem. In fact, I think it is the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence we have available.  



First, you would have to give good reasons that these authors wrote these manuscripts after the events in question. If you can't do that then you would have to show the predictions were inaccurate. Are your reasons good? 
Why would I need to do any of that, and why wold the predictions need to be inaccurate?

If you believed they were inaccurate you would need to show why and with good reason. If you believe they are accurate then the question again revolves around to who do you know who could make such accurate predictions years and in some cases hundreds of years before they come to pass. It is not just one prophet that does this, but many, the prophecies all centering on one Person and a specific time in history. Show me anyone who has done this that you know of. If you can't then it is an extraordinary accomplishment, to say the least.  
Topic's author
#182
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Which man? Are you speaking of Jesus?

Any man making any prediction that came true, including Jesus.

The Bible contains many predictive texts that were written before the fact. Do you dispute this? 
Nope.

So your theory would be okay if you could show me even one person that you know or know of that can do that. Can you?
Anyone could, so yes.

How do you stage the future?
Predict this football team will win the superbowl. Pay the quarterback to purposefully throw the game. That team wins. Suddenly they're a prophet who can predict the future(in the minds of very, very gullible people/idiots).

How well do you know Preterism?
About as well as I know any doctrine based on the Christian bible.

What we know that it is reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem, before the common era.
Even if that were reasonable, which it's not, it wouldn't matter in terms of proving divine prophecy, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Tell me, why is it reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem?
#183
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
What makes you think that your authority and judgments are more authoritative than its words? After all, you are basing your highest authority on a mere mortal, limited, finite mind - yours or someone else. Why is it the necessary mind in determining truth?

Because my mind is the only one I have, thus the only one relevant to me and what I believe.
That in no way makes it right in its judgments. Are you an authority on the Bible since you have read it so many times? 

Why is your mind necessary in determining whether it is true?
Why is your belief true to what is? 

Would you be willing to test it out?

May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter? 
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Authority on what matter? The Christian god?
Yes, since we are discussing the Bible as His word/revelation to humanity.

Do you believe that Josephus existed, based on his written accounts or not?
I believe a book says he existed. Much like a book says Jesus existed, or the Christian god exists.
So, will you accept that as evidence of his existence? Is it a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable to believe other writers like early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others verify his existence by mentioning his works?

How would you confirm the existence of an ancient historical person?
You can't.
Sure you can, or else nothing from ancient history can be known. Do you believe that nothing can be known? 

Do you have to see them to believe them?
Or smell them, taste them, touch them, or hear them. There are five empirical senses, not just one.
Okay, sure. Do you need one of these five to believe something?

And can you get to know someone from their biography or things based on what has been written about them?
If said writings are verified to be true, then perhaps. It depends on how thorough said writings are.
How about the most verified of ancient texts? The Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith. 

I see your argument as mute unless you want to deny the reasonableness of history.
There is nothing reasonable or unreasonable about history. History is one thing, and the recording of it is another. The truth is often lost to time, as the scribe can write whatever they want. Who could ever verify the truth of the words written by men whom have been dead for 2000 years?
History is the recording. [His Story - (^8]

It depends how carefully their message was preserved. With different copies and lots of them from different centuries and lots of them, you can verify and check to see how accurate the record has been preserved. 

Is that reasonable and logical to believe?


The biblical God does not go about trying to prove His existence to His creatures.
That much is painfully obvious, and quite ironic too, being that an omnipotent being could very easily prove such a thing.
You take Him on His word or you don't (Hebrews 11:6). But when you do He opens up so much more to you in confirming His truth. 

You either take Him as the highest authority or you place some authority above His.
I place no authority on magical invisible pink unicorns.
That is your assumption, not mine. 

The Big Bang or whatever you believe is magical too, isn't it - pretty incredulous to believe. Where does it all start in your opinion?

He interacts with humanity by singling out a specific people, and they write about Him.
How do you know this?
God confirms His existence in numerous ways - answers to prayer, His providence and how He protects the Christian, how He confirms His word, how we come to understand and love Him. In my coming to faith almost forty years ago, I continually was exposed to Christians and Christian teachings - coincident after coincident. 

How do you know your wife or your girlfriend? You spend time with them. With God, the first step is believing He exists and then trusting Him. If He exists then there is no greater authority. If you don't believe He exists how will you ever know Him? 
#184
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
The difference between you and Him is that He is a Spirit alone.
Actually, according to Scripture, he's not "A" spirit. He IS spirit(John 4:24). He is also love(1 John 4:16), light(1 John 1:5), and a consuming fire(Hebrews 12:29).
True! I should have said that or that He is a spiritual being, meaning He is not part of the physical realm. 


You are material and it can be argued spiritual. There is a part of you that does not seem to conform to the natural world if materialism is all there is.
Is there? I've never noticed it.
So do you believe all you are are a bio-chemical-electro reaction - a biological bag of atoms, so to speak?

By the way, are you an empiricist or do you believe in the immaterial also? 
It doesn't matter what I believe. I am unable to know that which I cannot empirically perceive/experience unless it can be known a priori, therefore any belief I have of that which can only be known a posteriori which I have not empirically perceived/experienced is delusion
The question is how you get a priori from a completely material universe. Is it a necessary truth?

In the pages of Scripture, there is a message, a revelation about/from a personal being claiming to be God. If this message is true, then we can know God in as much as He has revealed Himself. If the message is from God, then you would expect it to confirm what we know about reality through its words. Prophecy is one such confirmation.
As I've already explained, prophecy confirms nothing.
That is not true. It confirms many things. 

It was put in the Bible somehow. The question is what is reasonable and logical to believe based on the evidence available? The OT was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The OT predicts this fall. It predicts the collapse of the Jewish OT economy, the promised Messiah coming before this fall to a specific people that do not exist in covenant after the fall, judgment, a new covenant and a host of other things.

Another is the unity of the Bible and its central theme. The NT says it reveals Jesus Christ throughout the OT Scriptures. I can show the reasonableness of this on most pages of the OT. The OT Mosaic Covenant was a covenant with Israel. In Exodus 24:3 they agreed to the conditions of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28 gives the blessings of the covenant and the curses for disobeying the covenant. Every physical ordinance and the ritual requirements were a shadow or type of a more perfect reality, a spiritual one. We are told they all point to Jesus Christ, and this can be demonstrated. 
The fatal flaw in your belief here is that you are assuming that this bible of yours speaks factual  truth. You are assuming every word is absolutely true, and that everything it says happened, happened. Because of the fact that you are not 2000 years old, and have no time machine capable of traveling 2000 years back in time, this belief is unjustified, thus it is a delusion. In other words: No, it cannot be demonstrated. Not really. Only in your mind.

We all start with unprovable presuppositions, what our entire worldviews rest upon - those core/foundational starting points. How do they make sense of the world, the universe? There are only a number of foundational beliefs you can hold, such as 1) We are created by God/gods, 2) We come about by chance happenstance,  3) it is all an illusion. You could probably think of another one or two but how well do these presuppositional beliefs hold out? I claim only one can make sense of itself. 

Yes, I do original presuppose the Bible is true and is God's word. When I first started reading it that is how I held it to be - God speaking and revealing Himself to me. Yet from that belief, I have been able to make sense of origins, existence, morals, truth, and tie it into everything else.

How well are you able to do that with your starting point - that would be no God?

Why do you think it is me who is delusional and not you? 


As I said, the Christian belief is reasonable and reasonably justifiable. Testing other beliefs I have never found one that works. When you dig down to the foundation, the core belief, it rests on nothing. Not so with the God of the Bible. 

The descriptions of God revealed in the pages of Scripture are also reasonable in describing what God would be like, the greatest necessary Being. The Creator would need to understand His creation and what He has made. He would have to transcend it, and therefore the physical reality, and that reality would have to have a beginning. If He is all knowing, just, and wise, then He would demonstrate this in the pages therein. These attributes are just a smattering of what is revealed about God. We also learn of His character, His holiness, purity, and power. 
The Christian god is a murderous, misogynistic asshole who rapes, pillages, commits mass genocide, pitches his own children into a "lake of fire and brimstone" for sins as menial as lack of faith... If this god does exist, I certainly don't want to know him.
Here we go. This kind of thinking has been funneled into you by the culture you live in. How well do you understand ANE culture?

If you don't want to know Him you never will, as simple as that. 

#185
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

Then, I can go from there to determining how we make sense of anything, ultimately. Why should we in a chance happenstance universe? There is no reason. Why do we keep finding reason and why do we continue to make sense of a senseless universe? It makes no sense that we would. Why would we?
Lack of intelligent design does not equate to lack of sense. That makes no sense.
So the mindless, senseless universe has a sense to it? There is meaning that comes from the meaningless? You make meaning from the meaningless, then you die and everything is meaningless once again. 

Why do you find meaning in a meaningless universe? There is no reason. You materialize one. And what does it matter in the great scheme of things? Absolutely nothing from your starting point. Yet here you are making it matter. For no ultimate reason. What a despairing worldview.   



If I start to dismantle your worldview, to find out what makes it tick, what would I be left with that could make sense of anything? To make sense of origins, existence, morality, truth I claim God is necessary.   

Well, your claim is false.

How do you know?

That is your presumption and your welcome to it. 

As a secularist, a materialist, and probably a humanist, you would not have a personal creator of the universe, so there is no intent to it, no reason to it, no purpose or meaning to it, just plain blind indifferent, impersonal, random chance happenstance. Is that correct? If not, then please explain.



Topic's author
#186
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
That in no way makes it right in its judgments. Are you an authority on the Bible since you have read it so many times? 

Only the author of a book is an authority on that book.

Why is your mind necessary in determining whether it is true? 

Because the mind is what perceives evidence and proof, and interprets the truth it reveals.

Why is your belief true to what is? 
Belief has nothing to do with what truly is.

May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter? 
The Christian bible is literally the only supposed account of the Christian god. Therefore it is the only thing that can be an authority on it.

So, will you accept that as evidence of his existence? Is it a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable to believe other writers like early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others verify his existence by mentioning his works?
You're asking me if something is true simply because someone says it is? You aren't serious, are you? Of course not. How ridiculous a question.

Sure you can, or else nothing from ancient history can be known. Do you believe that nothing can be known? 
The only thing that can be known of ancient history is that someone somewhere wrote some text claiming to be factual accounts of historical events. Whether or not these accounts are factual cannot be verified, thus cannot be known.

Okay, sure. Do you need one of these five to believe something?
You need at least one of these five senses to know something a posteriori, therefore, since justifiable belief requires knowledge, the answer is: Yes. otherwise the belief is a delusion, even if the belief is true.

The Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith. 
That's like saying "evil is the greatest form of love." It makes absolutely no sense. A complete oxymoron. Faith, by its very definition, is completely unreasonable and illogical.

It depends how carefully their message was preserved. With different copies and lots of them from different centuries and lots of them, you can verify and check to see how accurate the record has been preserved. 

Is that reasonable and logical to believe?
Yes and no. Yes it is reasonable and logical to believe that the writings are all consistent with each other(if they are). No it is not reasonable and logical to believe that because something was written by a thousand different people, it must be true. That commits the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

You take Him on His word or you don't (Hebrews 11:6). But when you do He opens up so much more to you in confirming His truth. 
According to Christians, yes. Yet another claim that has yet to be proven.

That is your assumption, not mine. 
I never make assumptions.

The Big Bang or whatever you believe is magical too, isn't it - pretty incredulous to believe. Where does it all start in your opinion?
I don't claim that I know things that I have no knowledge of. I have no ability to know "where it all starts."

God confirms His existence in numerous ways - answers to prayer
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

His providence and how He protects the Christian
Unverified

how He confirms His word
He doesn't. In fact, his own bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.

how we come to understand and love Him
Delusion confirms nothing but that one is delusional.

How do you know your wife or your girlfriend? You spend time with them. With God, the first step is believing He exists and then trusting Him. If He exists then there is no greater authority. If you don't believe He exists how will you ever know Him?
I can't say I ever have trouble believing the tangible being that is my girlfriend exists. If this god wants me to know him, he's free to walk up to me and say hi. Otherwise I have no interest in knowing him.
Topic's author
#187
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
So do you believe all you are are a bio-chemical-electro reaction - a biological bag of atoms, so to speak?
Physically, yes.

The question is how you get a priori from a completely material universe. Is it a necessary truth?
That question really made no sense. Do you understand what knowledge a priori is?

That is not true. It confirms many things. 

It was put in the Bible somehow. The question is what is reasonable and logical to believe based on the evidence available? The OT was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The OT predicts this fall. It predicts the collapse of the Jewish OT economy, the promised Messiah coming before this fall to a specific people that do not exist in covenant after the fall, judgment, a new covenant and a host of other things.
That doesn't mean that this "prophet" knew it was going to happen, nor that this prophet didn't personally set it into motion. Therefore, prophecy coming true alone does not verify that the supposed prophet can see the future. Do you understand how knowledge verification works?

There are only a number of foundational beliefs you can hold, such as 1) We are created by God/gods, 2) We come about by chance happenstance,  3) it is all an illusion
Only a fool forms a belief of something they cannot know.

Yes, I do original presuppose the Bible is true and is God's word. When I first started reading it that is how I held it to be - God speaking and revealing Himself to me. Yet from that belief, I have been able to make sense of origins, existence, morals, truth, and tie it into everything else.
I could do the same thing with any fictional book. Lord of the Rings, for example. All I would need to do is convince myself that its words are factually true. In other words: Become delusional. I've always found it hilarious that Christians are just as quick to call someone who thinks leprechauns are stealing their lucky charms a raving madman as atheists are, but when it comes to their equally unproven god, they're perfectly fine with that particular form of madness.

Why do you think it is me who is delusional and not you?
Because I'm not the one claiming to know things I don't know.

Here we go. This kind of thinking has been funneled into you by the culture you live in.
This kind of thinking has been funneled into me by the reading of your bible. I could bury you with proof taken from your own bible. Want me to?

If you don't want to know Him you never will, as simple as that. 
I truly hope you're right. Knowing such a despicable monster would be very, very unpleasant.
#188
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
Which man? Are you speaking of Jesus?

Any man making any prediction that came true, including Jesus.
I'm not speaking of just one prophecy but a whole ocean load. 

The Bible contains many predictive texts that were written before the fact. Do you dispute this? 
Nope.

So your theory would be okay if you could show me even one person that you know or know of that can do that. Can you?
Anyone could, so yes.
Anyone? Then make five predictions concerning next week that is specific to me that will happen as you say. 


How do you stage the future?
Predict this football team will win the superbowl. Pay the quarterback to purposefully throw the game. That team wins. Suddenly they're a prophet who can predict the future(in the minds of very, very gullible people/idiots).
Now try doing that forty years down the road with complete accuracy. How about even predicting with complete accuracy who will win all hockey games for the week, starting Monday. Let's see if you have 100% accuracy. 

With the Bible, some prophecies are 1500 years in the future. Soon are 490 years. Some are around 40 years in the future. How could you predict where the Messiah would be born, how He would die when crucifixion was not even practiced, the specific lineage He would descend from, and around 300 hundred person specific predictions?

Then you have a specific time frame in which this would happen. The Messiah would come to a people who exist in a Mosaic Covenant relationship with God. That only existed until AD 70. All the curses of Deuteronomy 28 are specific to AD 70. The Revelation is specific to AD 70 and we can know with reasonable certainty the time of its writing. 

For you, all this is either coincidence or a fix. But how do you fix such events as to how Someone hundreds of years in the future will die, down to specific details? 

How well do you know Preterism?
About as well as I know any doctrine based on the Christian bible.
That tells me nothing. I know you have read the Bible many times, per your word. How well would you say you know it? 

What we know that it is reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem, before the common era.
Even if that were reasonable, which it's not, it wouldn't matter in terms of proving divine prophecy, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Tell me, why is it reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem?
The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated before, for one reason. Another is that the NT community refers to the Scriptures and quotes from them. Jewish tradition makes note of the Torah and Tanach. 

I mentioned some of the reasons above for the reasonableness of prophecy too. The OT constantly warns Israel to repent and turn away from foreign gods and idols. They refuse to do so. God sends many prophets to warn these covenant people of the covenant they agreed to (Exodus 24:3). They refuse to listen. God brings judgment on them, where He destroys their city and temple by the Babylonians. They are taken into captivity. Daniel pleas for his people. God tells them that He will return them to their land and from the issuing of the decree to rebuild their city and temple by Cyrus there would be a period of 490 years until He brings final judgment on them for returning to their old ways and forsaking Him. He promises that He will make a new covenant with not only Israel but also with the rest of the world that will be different from the Mosaic Covenant. He tells Daniel that the Anointed One will be cut off (killed) and then the end will come. Daniel 9:24-27 concerns six conditions that will be met before the temple and city are destroyed and the Mosaic Covenant age ends. 

AD 70 is the end of the Old Covenant age. No longer is there a temple and a priesthood to advocate for these people with God. No longer is there an animal sacrifice to make atonement for their sins, a requirement of the Mosaic Covenant (and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins for these people). One claiming to be their Messiah has come before this destruction. He has issued a new covenant with His blood sacrifice. He has met every righteous requirement of God and lived a perfect life on behalf of believers. The OT is a shadow or type or pattern of this Person - Jesus. He is found on almost every page of the OT and this can be demonstrated as such via the teaching of the NT. 

Take for instance the shadow of Jesus in Moses. Moses says in Deuteronomy 18:15

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him...18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 
  
We have the first Moses and the first Exodus, taking the people of God out of bondage and captivity to the Promised Land. You have the Second Moses (Jesus) taking His people out of spiritual bondage and captivity into the new Promised Land, the New Jerusalem, the heavenly country. You have the journey of the people to the Promised Land that takes forty years and their lack of faith that keeps them from the Promised Land because of their unbelief. You have the NT warning of another 40 years (Hebrews 3:7-19) and again, for a good portion of them, they fail to enter once again into the Promised Land. There are many, many comparisons and shadows I could list between Moses and Jesus that is more than coincidence.   
#189
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
I see you're another one of those useless people who rely on semantics to make a point.
Wow Keith. Another person pegging you dead to rights.
#190
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
That in no way makes it right in its judgments. Are you an authority on the Bible since you have read it so many times? 

Only the author of a book is an authority on that book.
If you are speaking of the Bible, there is some truth in that. (^8

Why is your mind necessary in determining whether it is true? 

Because the mind is what perceives evidence and proof, and interprets the truth it reveals.
That does not necessarily mean it arrives at truth. 

Why is your belief true to what is? 
Belief has nothing to do with what truly is.
Some belief does. If I believe that jumping from the top of the Empire State Building without a parachute will cause me no harm it is not a true belief. If I believe there is no way I will survive my belief is true to what is. Hitting the payment at that height will crush my body so severely there would be no chance of survival. 

So how do you know what is true? Are you saying you can't?

May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter? 
The Christian bible is literally the only supposed account of the Christian god. Therefore it is the only thing that can be an authority on it.
Very nice answer!

So, will you accept that as evidence of his existence? Is it a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable to believe other writers like early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others verify his existence by mentioning his works?
You're asking me if something is true simply because someone says it is? You aren't serious, are you? Of course not. How ridiculous a question.
If I tell you where I was born (Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia) and in what year (1956) and fax you my birth certificate, is there any reason to believe it? I'm saying it and I can give you reasons for believing it. 


Sure you can, or else nothing from ancient history can be known. Do you believe that nothing can be known? 
The only thing that can be known of ancient history is that someone somewhere wrote some text claiming to be factual accounts of historical events. Whether or not these accounts are factual cannot be verified, thus cannot be known.
There are many reasons and many verifications contained in the Bible that match other records from history. Would that make them reasonable to believe in these regards?

Okay, sure. Do you need one of these five to believe something?
You need at least one of these five senses to know something a posteriori, therefore, since justifiable belief requires knowledge, the answer is: Yes. otherwise the belief is a delusion, even if the belief is true.
So, are the laws of logic verifiable by one of the five senses? You can't see them, you can't touch them, you can't smell them, you can't hear them, you can't taste them. Do they exist? Are they necessary truths? 

The Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith. 
That's like saying "evil is the greatest form of love." It makes absolutely no sense. A complete oxymoron. Faith, by its very definition, is completely unreasonable and illogical.
It makes complete sense. Where did you ever derive that untruth from? You have faith. Do you know what faith is? You were not there for origins of the universe. You look at the data from the past in the present and ASSUME that what is present conditions were present then also. You INTERPRET the evidence. It does not come stamped 13.7 billion years old. It takes faith to believe it, especially when there are other views out there. 

There is a reasonable faith, a blind faith, and an unreasonable faith. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith for the reason that God is a reasoning and logical Being. 
#191
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

It depends how carefully their message was preserved. With different copies and lots of them from different centuries and lots of them, you can verify and check to see how accurate the record has been preserved. 

Is that reasonable and logical to believe?
Yes and no. Yes it is reasonable and logical to believe that the writings are all consistent with each other(if they are). No  it is not reasonable and logical to believe that because something was written by a thousand different people, it must be true. That commits the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

I'm not claiming it is ad 
populum
. I'm claiming there is evidence to believe the claims within these 66 different books and 44 different authors because of what is contained in these writings, their references to historical people, places, events, and the prophetic nature which come to pass. 

You take Him on His word or you don't (Hebrews 11:6). But when you do He opens up so much more to you in confirming His truth. 
According to Christians, yes. Yet another claim that has yet to be proven.
How can you KNOW Someone that you do not believe exists? You first have to believe they exist before you will ever know (have a close, intimate relationship) them.

That is your assumption, not mine. 
I never make assumptions.
Never? That is very rare, indeed.

The Big Bang or whatever you believe is magical too, isn't it - pretty incredulous to believe. Where does it all start in your opinion?
I don't claim that I know things that I have no knowledge of. I have no ability to know "where it all starts."
So you can't make sense of it then if you have no knowledge of it. It is not a subject you can speak on?


God confirms His existence in numerous ways - answers to prayer
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
I'm telling you what I have experienced. I have had prayers answered. Take it however you want to. 

His providence and how He protects the Christian
Unverified
To me, it is through experience, let alone His word.

how He confirms His word
He doesn't. In fact, his own bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
There are logical explanations for these alleged contradictions. There is a whole catalog of them answered.

how we come to understand and love Him
Delusion confirms nothing but that one is delusional.
More of the Dawkins BS. What he doesn't know he also calls a delusion. 

How do you know your wife or your girlfriend? You spend time with them. With God, the first step is believing He exists and then trusting Him. If He exists then there is no greater authority. If you don't believe He exists how will you ever know Him?
I can't say I ever have trouble believing the tangible being that is my girlfriend exists. If this god wants me to know him, he's free to walk up to me and say hi.
Otherwise
I have no interest in knowing him.
That last statement is very revealing. 

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

He is under no obligation to you but is gracious in giving His word. What you do with it is between Him and you. I'm sure you understand the message of salvation if you have read the Bible a number of times. The difference between the two of us is I believe the message, you do not. 
Topic's author
#192
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm rather tired of the "does god exist" argument, and "is foreknowledge possible" argument. I can't technically prove you wrong, since I can't prove that gods don't exist, nor can I prove that foreknowledge is impossible, and likewise you can't prove me wrong since you can't prove gods do exist, and you can't prove foreknowledge is possible. Speculation on either point is all that is possible, and I have no interest in proving either position impossible since I am sane enough to admit that I cannot know. I only claim just that: We cannot know.

I'm more interested in your claim that your god is benevolent. That's one I can utterly destroy your argument with. Let's debate that, shall we?
#193
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Banned, LOL
#194
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
We cannot know.

But, we CAN know, that is the whole point behind spirituality and the destiny of you as a soul. The difference is, the nature of what is being examined and understood and how we tap into that. It takes a little transcending the physical boundaries but this is what you were meant to do. I don't know why people force themselves to accept nothing about God is knowable, that is untrue. 
You might even know things about God you have never considered because you keep limiting your potential. Many things about God are commonsense, but you were created to experience the higher realms now or later. Unfortunately it will go at your own pace and acceptance which if not careful you could waste a lifetime of what you could already been working towards. 

Topic's author
#195
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
I have no reason at all to believe any of that is true. You claim we can know gods exist? Then prove it. If you're not going to prove it(you do hold the burden of proof), then I'm not interested.
#196
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
The Constitution allows me my religion. I don't have to prove it. Get over yourself. 
Topic's author
#197
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't care what you believe. If you want others to believe it, then prove it. If you don't care what others believe, then why are you on a debate site?
#198
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
No one is claiming that but you. 
Topic's author
#199
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Claiming what, exactly?
#200
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
You said it. I am at a debate site cause it's a free country. I am on the religion forum because I practice one. Idiot. 
#201
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
I have no reason at all to believe any of that is true.

What reason do you have to disbelieve it? can you give me a specific reason not to consider spirituality? as opposed to any other study?

You claim we can know gods exist? Then prove it. If you're not going to prove it(you do hold the burden of proof), then I'm not interested.

The information about God is there, I don't have to prove it, it is written through and through in all forms of spiritual insights. You just need to be open to consider knowledge from sources that correlate with the nature of God. There would be really nothing I could prove to you, but there is a world of facts and ideas that I could have you consider if you would just engage me for a little bit. 
Topic's author
#202
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I see. Well, allow me to respond to that.

The Constitution allows me my religion. I don't have to prove it. Get over yourself. 
No one was talking to you, idiot.
#203
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
Yes you were. No one has to prove their religion. Even if they like to debate. 
Topic's author
#204
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
What reason do you have to disbelieve it?

Your claims are not evidently true.

can you give me a specific reason not to consider spirituality? as opposed to any other study?
Of course not. To dismiss something without consideration is to be willfully ignorant.

The information about God is there, I don't have to prove it, it is written through and through in all forms of spiritual insights. You just need to be open to consider knowledge from sources that correlate with the nature of God. There would be really nothing I could prove to you, but there is a world of facts and ideas that I could have you consider if you would just engage me for a little bit. 
Written words prove nothing but that words have been written. It is what the words imply that can hold proof, and nothing within these texts proves anything. Only claims are made. This "world of facts" is nothing more than speculation.
Topic's author
#205
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Anyone who expects another to believe their claims needs to prove their claims. If you don't care what I believe, then you need not prove anything to me, nor need I care what you say. And no, no one was speaking to you, certainly not I.
#206
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
What reason do you have to disbelieve it?

Your claims are not evidently true.

To whom and why not? what have I claimed? what is evidently true to you that is outside the parameters of spirituality? how many claims does it take you to realize there may be something to consider?

can you give me a specific reason not to consider spirituality? as opposed to any other study?

Of course not. To dismiss something without consideration is to be willfully ignorant.

Excellent. Hopefully you will not do that.

The information about God is there, I don't have to prove it, it is written through and through in all forms of spiritual insights. You just need to be open to consider knowledge from sources that correlate with the nature of God. There would be really nothing I could prove to you, but there is a world of facts and ideas that I could have you consider if you would just engage me for a little bit.

Written words prove nothing but that words have been written. It is what the words imply that can hold proof, and nothing within these texts proves anything. Only claims are made. This "world of facts" is nothing more than speculation.

So none of what you have accepted has come through a source of written material? lol, come on dude, you can do better than this....at what point do you ever consider claims as something that reflects reality and something you have accepted? where do you get your information from?


Topic's author
#207
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
To whom and why not?

To anyone, because you have presented no valid evidence to support your claims, hence my use of the words "not evidently true."

what have I claimed?
That the Christian god exists.

 what is evidently true to you that is outside the parameters of spirituality?
Anything that has been proven to be true. For example, I have a penis.

how many claims does it take you to realize there may be something to consider?
No one is claiming that there is nothing to consider. It has been considered, and found to not be evidently true.

So none of what you have accepted has come through a source of written material?
I didn't say that. Read what I said again.

at what point do you ever consider claims as something that reflects reality and something you have accepted?
When said claims are proven true.

where do you get your information from?
The empirical observation and experience of reality.
#208
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
So do you believe all you are are a bio-chemical-electro reaction - a biological bag of atoms, so to speak?
Physically, yes.
So are you saying you are more than the physical? Your reply suggests more. 


The question is how you get a priori from a completely material universe. Is it a necessary truth?
That question really made no sense. Do you understand what knowledge a priori is?
A priori - from that which is before.

Before you existed, before living things existed, supposedly from a naturalist of a humanistic framework, devoid of God, all there would be is matter. How does matter produce something that is non-material, abstract in nature, non-physical, such as the laws of logic, or abstract thinking, living, conscious beings? The laws of logic exist independent of your mind, or mine. They don't require you to think them but without them, you could not make sense of anything. 


That is not true. It confirms many things. 

It was put in the Bible somehow. The question is what is reasonable and logical to believe based on the evidence available? The OT was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The OT predicts this fall. It predicts the collapse of the Jewish OT economy, the promised Messiah coming before this fall to a specific people that do not exist in covenant after the fall, judgment, a new covenant and a host of other things.
That doesn't mean that this "prophet" knew it was going to happen, nor that this prophet didn't personally set it into motion. Therefore, prophecy coming true alone does not verify that the supposed prophet can see the future. Do you understand how knowledge verification works?

If he was directed by God he knew it.

How can a prophet 100's of years removed set it into motion, and by a foreign power?

The prophet was only telling what he heard God say. 

for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Are you speaking of epistemology - how we know what we know? I understand that knowledge is a justifiably true belief and that the person has an adequate reason based on evidence. I know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. I know that the OT book of Daniel was written before the 1st-century. I know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that house the book of Isaiah is around 97% accurate in comparison to the earliest OT Jewish texts found, other than the Christian Bible. I know Isaiah and the other biblical (OT) manuscripts predate the 1st-century too. For some of the rest, where external history is not available, I have good reason to believe. It logically and reasonably makes sense. 

I use my subjective mind, my reason, and my five senses in conjunction with the biblical revelation (God's divine word and law) to interpret what I experience by the five senses filtering into my subjective abstract mind aided by the rational thought of Someone else. My thoughts are not independent of His but rely on His. External historical information is a source used in regards to the Bible which also correlates to the five senses and reason to arrive at knowledge. I look at the world and the universe in all its complexity, nature and the natural laws, the anthropic principle, the micro with the macro, meaning or purpose, and I reason it is not by chance happenstance for what can 'chance' do? Chance is not a thing. It is a word we give to describe the universe without a Mind behind it, the mathematical likelihood of something occurring. There is no intent behind it, no agency to it, no meaning to it. Without a mindful being responsible for the universe there is no sense to be made from it or why it remains constant. There is no reason why the future should resemble the past, why we have uniformity of nature by which we discover laws that govern nature and science. Chance gives no reason that we should be able to do science. Yet your worldview keeps coming up with all kinds of reason. Because of this, I say it is inconsistent. It also can't make ultimate sense of anything. It does not have the means. You have expressed you don't know in regards to origins. Besides being honest, I say your worldview does not have the means to know. It has to borrow from one that does if it wants to know. That is why it is inconsistent. That is why it can't ultimately make sense of itself.  

You had better explain what you mean by your question. 


There are only a number of foundational beliefs you can hold, such as 1) We are created by God/gods, 2) We come about by chance happenstance,  3) it is all an illusion
Only a fool forms a belief of something they cannot know.
How many of your beliefs are held on things you do not know? You have to presuppose some things are self-evident in to believe anything at all (like the laws of logic).

Before you tie a bungee cord around your ankle you have to believe that it is going to stop you from hitting the rocks below or you would be crazy to jump. You have not measured the cord, or tested it for stress fractures. You hope the person providing the service has taken due diligence before you sign the waver. You reason that because you have seen others use the same cord it must be adequate, but what happens if you are the first client of the day? Then you have to rely on past experience, that no one has died to date at this site or by negligence by these people offering the service.

#209
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth



Yes, I do original presuppose the Bible is true and is God's word. When I first started reading it that is how I held it to be - God speaking and revealing Himself to me. Yet from that belief, I have been able to make sense of origins, existence, morals, truth, and tie it into everything else.
I could do the same thing with any fictional book. Lord of the Rings, for example. All I would need to do is convince myself that its words are factually true. In other words: Become delusional. I've always found it hilarious that Christians are just as quick to call someone who thinks leprechauns are stealing their lucky charms a raving madman as atheists are, but when it comes to their equally unproven god, they're perfectly fine with that particular form of madness.
I do not believe you could. First, the author does not claim the accounts are true. He admits to it being a part of his imagination. Next, the locations match nothing that we know of or have ever known of. So, you would have just cause to believe a person accepting The Lord of the Rings as true is delusional.

Leprechauns are mythical creatures. The Bible makes no such claim to mythology. It flatly denies it. It states that the writers were eyewitnesses to the events and Person they describe. They attest to the FACT that a Person rose from the dead, an extraordinary claim that many of them go to their agonizing deaths believing. So you can't draw a good parallel between the evidence from one of the above to the Bible.   

Why do you think it is me who is delusional and not you?
Because I'm not the one claiming to know things I don't know.
It is your belief I do not know them. Personal experience, like an answered prayer, is something I can't verify other than describing what happened and how I believe it was answered, but as for the historicity of Jesus or biblical events, there are all kinds of facts verifying it. Prayers are a personal experience. They are subjective to me. So is my conversion. I can give details of what I experience in coming to faith, the number of people over a short period of time that made me question my disbelief, along with circumstance that made me question my existence, my dad's death, my car accident, the person I shared lodging with on my job, the acquaintances I kept meeting, the difference in their lives with their compassion and love for others.



Here we go. This kind of thinking has been funneled into you by the culture you live in.
This kind of thinking has been funneled into me by the reading of your bible. I could bury you with proof taken from your own bible. Want me to?
I'm not going to answer every one of your objections, it would take too long, and many others have given a good reason for what some perceive as contradictions, but name a couple if you want. If I can I will explain them. I've heard a lot of them.

If you don't want to know Him you never will, as simple as that. 
I truly hope you're right. Knowing such a despicable monster would be very, very unpleasant.

Then you have your wish (and you misunderstand and misrepresent Him). Knowledge of yourself is a knowledge of God also since the Bible tells us we are made in His image and likeness. The difference is we are marred by sin and rebellion and our minds, knowledge, and abilities are limited and finite. We are philosophical creatures. We can reflect, reason and manipulate our environments like no other creature on earth.

#210
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

I'm rather tired of the "does god exist" argument, and "is foreknowledge possible" argument. I can't technically prove you wrong, since I can't prove that gods don't exist, nor can I prove that foreknowledge is impossible, and likewise you can't prove me wrong since you can't prove gods do exist, and you can't prove foreknowledge is possible. Speculation on either point is all that is possible, and I have no interest in proving either position impossible since I am sane enough to admit that I cannot know. I only claim just that: We cannot know.
Probably because you have two debates to your credit and one deals with "Does God Exist?" and the other has similarities in discussing attributes of this God.


I'm more interested in your claim that your god is benevolent. That's one I can utterly destroy your argument with. Let's debate that, shall we?

I will send you a private email to hash out the details.