Calling out St Michael, CUT TO THE CHASE DEBATE!

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Calling out St Michael, CUT TO THE CHASE DEBATE!

St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.

I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.

NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?

1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!

 

[MOD MOVE: Moved to Atheist Vs Theist.  PLEASE PEOPLE MAKE SURE TO NEVER POST AN ATHEIST VS THEIST DEBATE IN THE FREETHINKERS FORUM!]

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Michael, the same

Quote:
Michael, the same is not true, and you know it! You know very well the distinction here, and I pointed it out to you. Normandy and the Holocaust do not need a god to intervene from above. The virgin birth does. We do not know "naturally" that a human female can beget a child without insemination by a human male.

They are different categories of objects, but the same methodology goes into supporting one and the other. They are, for the intents of our conversation, identical.

Quote:
Then why did you even bring up these human events, except as a smoke screen?

It is not a smoke screen. What am I screening? It is an analogy between our faith in ordinary truths and our faith in supernatural truths.

Quote:
And I fully agree - since the virgin birth is so much more extraordinary a claim than any human event, it requires extraordinary proof. You are yet to provide it. Squealing "faith" or "revelation" is not extraordinary proof.

A miracle is, by definition, an extraordinary proof in confirmation of the article of faith.

Quote:
Then don't take the discussion off track by bringing up non-miracles to support belief in your "miracle". If the method of finding truth or falsity for a human event is different than the method for finding truth or falsity about a miraculous event, it is useless for you to even mention human events.

That is precisely the point. The methodology does not differ in the aspect presented under the ANALOGY I presented between faith in the fact that Normandy occurred and the faith I have in the virgin birth of Christ.

Quote:
So now I think we are at the crux of the matter. "It could easily happen (in terms of absolute possibility) that God caused by miracle..." So at long last, the only argument for the truth of the virgin birth is your belief in god. God and "absolute possibility". Nothing else.

No, it is supported by the authority of miracles. The virgin birth is a miracle, but not one that I can as such verify, because I never experienced it. It is an article of faith. This article of faith can reasonably be believed in, like the Holocaust, because we have external evidence that support it. We have miracles being performed in the Catholic Church and by Christ which authenticate their claim to be of divine origin/God Himself and thus their article of faith worthy of belief. Thus, I can believe in the virgin birth because I find Christ and His Church trustworthy and clearly of divine origin due to the miracles He and His Church perform.

Quote:
There you go. His belief system does not even permit that he might be wrong. He is more sure of the virgin birth than 2 + 2 = 4. He admits that you must have infinite assent to the beliefs. And to believe in these things as more sure than 2 + 2 = 4 is "a theological virtue".

Very much so. I can have an infinite certitude in the fact that Christ was born of a virgin because God Himself reveals it. I could believe something different, but it would be irrational to do so. It's like saying I could believe that 2+2=5; yes, I could, but that is irrelevant. Or, in another case, can one admit that being and non-being are the same thing? In both cases, it would be contrary to right reason to hold the opposite position.

Quote:
Who cares what they believed in, "by far"? They were human beings who died. Would it be less of a tragedy if they didn't believe in your christ? How does my lack of belief insult their memories?

Good. You demonstrate my point clearly.

Quote:
Again, who cares? If they didn't believe in god, it would be ok? There were gypsies, homosexuals, and other non-jews/non-christians. Did these ones deserve to die?

I never claimed that they did.

Quote:
Ultimately, the number of christians who died in the 20th century in no way advances the truth of either the virgin birth or the resurrection. So get of your high horse. Fast.

I never claimed that they did. I made an ANALOGY.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Naked assertions are of no value in rational discourse. If you have a reason for your belief, why even use the word 'faith'? at all?

 

Reason is not incompatible with faith.

Yes, it is. Theistic faith is defined in contradistinction to reason. You can't have faith in a belief if you have reasons to hold to the belief!

Quote:

You are using differently meaning terms univocally.

No! My usage of reason refers to justifications for the belief itself not for the causes as to why a person holds to the belief.

However, I would like to bring up the fact that you are using equivocating colloquial usages of faith, which indicate trust or probability, with theistic faith, which is unjustified belief.

Quote:

Reason as opposed to faith has a different meaning from "reasons" in the sense of a "why." Reason in the first sense denotes the natural human ability to know from naturally known precepts.

Which has nothing to do with theistic faith. Glad you see that.

Quote:
The second sense of reasons merely indicates the "why" somebody holds a particular belief.

But this has nothing to do with the faith itself being justified. This would merely point to the causes behind why a person holds to his desire to believe. The Mormon has reasons for why he holds to his faith, so does the Scientologist. So does the protestant, the Jain, the Jew, the Muslim, and so on... none of these reasons for holding to the desire to believe is a justification for their beliefs.

So faith, again, is unjustified belief.

 

Quote:

I point out Christans have always held that the second is requisite in faith.

Theistic faith is unjustified belief. One might come to the belief because of parental inculcation, or through reading the bible, but none of these are justifications for holding to a supernatural claim.

That takes an unjustified leap. I've already pointed you to Luther and Kierkegaard on this, but you write them off because they are not catholics.

Quote:

Saint Peter in his first letter explicitly says that we should always be ready with reasons for our belief.

Problems abound

1) If ‘faith’ were another form of reason, as you’ve said, then why would you need to go and get reasons to hold to your faith?

2) As you should know, no reason can point to the supernatural in the first place, so why go off on a fool's errand?

Quote:

Likewise, Saint Augustine famously remarked that "no one believes in something without finding it worthy of belief."

Of course the believer finds the belief 'worthy', but none of this affirms that faith is anything other than unjustified belief.

You also leave out credo quia absurdum. That was one 'reason' why the belief was held to be 'worthy'

Quote:
Recall in our past encouters where I pointed out to you that faith is simply unjustified belief, and you responded by conceding that theistic faith begins with an assumption.

Quote:

No, I did not.

Yes, you did.

A few examples:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

 

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question.

But hey, why stop there?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?

You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?

What sort of faith is required for you to rip logic assunder like that?

Anyway, here are two cases where you openly state that you begin by assuming 'god' exists. You then, pathetically, try to state that while you ASSUME god exists, this is not 'properly begging the question.

Only problem is: begging the question is assuming what you seek to prove!


Oh, heck, why stop there?

 

You also write:

- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.

That's 3. But again, why stop there?

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Now you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION.

i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason.

That's four cases. Do I really need to go on?

Quote:

What I said was that faith "presumes" certain things which natural reason already knows which is far different from saying that it assumes things unjustifiedly.

Actually, I just proved this false above.

But, let's take a look at this desparate attempt to rewrite history. What you say here makes NO SENSE at all, Mike. There is no need to presume what is already known! That would be like renting a home you aleady owned. Knowledge would obviate the need to presume. You can't presume what you already know!

Second, theistic faith has nothing to do with naturalism in the first place. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural. Any 'grounds' you would have would be natural, which again, cannot point to their own antithesis.

So your claim here is obviously nonsensical - you commit two internal contradictions - you claim the need to presume what you already know, and you argue for 'grounds' for belief in what can never be grounded in belief.

I do hope you have the courage to respond to what I say here.

 

 
Quote:

Or, in another way, that truth in human knowledge is possible, as it clearly proposes truths for human beings to accept. But these are not things properly "assumed," as in fact faith itself likewise confirms the truth of these things which can be known naturally.

Again, if you know, you can't presume.

Quote:

So, for example, though we can know that God exists naturally speaking,

No we cannot. Naturally speaking. Nature cannot point to its very antithesis. 

Quote:

faith likewise proposes that we accept that God exists in order to prevent the error that inevitably comes into human reasoning.

Here again, you concede that faith is ungrounded, as it goes beyond what you can confirm by reason.

 But again, you'll prove utterly inable to follow the ramifications of your own words. 

Please, stop. You just keep refuting yourself.

Quote:
You refuted yourself here. Your failure to acknowledge this is not a refutation. All you could do was say 'well, it's an assumption, but it's not properly begging the question." But assuming what you seek to prove IS properly begging the question.

Quote:

I never said that faith presumed what it intended to prove (assumed its conclusions in its premises).

Wrong. You have in fact done so here as well.

You just don't seem able to follow

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:   No, it

StMichael wrote:
  No, it is supported by the authority of miracles. The virgin birth is a miracle, but not one that I can as such verify, because I never experienced it. It is an article of faith. This article of faith can reasonably be believed in, like the Holocaust, because we have external evidence that support it.

If you have a reason to hold to a belief, you don't need to hold to it on faith.

 

Quote:
Very much so. I can have an infinite certitude

Certitude? That's also unjustified. In fact, it's downright irrational. 

Quote:
 

in the fact that Christ was born of a virgin because God Himself reveals it.

And you take god's existence on faith.

Begging the question. 

 

By the way, you continue to equivocate the colloquial meaning of the word faith (probability) with theistic faith. Previously I thought it just an error from someone still learning the basics, but at this point, I have to question your honesty. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You do

StMichael wrote:
You do accept, however, on faith that the invasion of Normandy happened.

 

nope. no faith is required.

 

Rill 

Rill


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Juvenile Narcissist

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:

StMichael wrote:
You do accept, however, on faith that the invasion of Normandy happened.

 

nope. no faith is required.

 

Rill

Right.

 


Again and again, he's equivocating  on colloquial usages of faith, which equate faith with confidence, trust, or even probabilistlic belief, and theistic faith, which is unjustified belief in the supernatural.

Since he fancies himself such an old school theist, we should refer to it syllogistically as the fallacy of four terms 

Anyway the error is very silly It's like trying to prove that someone should sell you a Chinese Junk very cheap, since junk isn't worth much, or trying to prove that feathers emit light, since "feathers are light"!

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Again and

todangst wrote:


Again and again, he's equivocating  on colloquial usages of faith, which equate faith with confidence, trust, or even probabilistlic belief, and theistic faith, which is unjustified belief in the supernatural.

Since he fancies himself such an old school theist, we should refer to it syllogistically as the fallacy of four terms 

Anyway the error is very silly It's like trying to prove that someone should sell you a Chinese Junk very cheap, since junk isn't worth much, or trying to prove that feathers emit light, since "feathers are light"!

Great analogies!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Ninth,

StMichael wrote:
Ninth, there have been disputed incorruptibles, like Saint Francis Xavier and the like. But many others have never been so disputed and their particular mode of incorruption defies medical science.

 

And herein lies the rub, my friend.  This is the part that you refuse to accept as reality.  Prior to any one of the incorruptibles being properly disputed by science, you belief with such conviction that you would say you in-fact *know*.  Once scientific evidence comes along, you move down the list to the next body.  You are forever safe, because that list contains everything you believe to be a miracle, and it can be altered as new "miracles" occur.  No matter how many items you cross off, you or those who follow in your footsteps will inevitably scratch more lines on the pages.

 If you are that determined to believe, you're beyond discussion.

 

I wish you well. 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Todangst, You still

Todangst,
You still insist on defining that the terms of faith. Why? There is no reason why colloquial faith is not the same as theistic faith, other than the reason you say so. I do get to define the terms because I AND MY RELIGION ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE FAITH! Why do I need to keep telling you? You just don't get it! I can come back at you and tell you what to believe about your terms too. "Science" is an unjustified knowledge of natural occurences. Why are you conflating atheistic science with colloquial science?

Quote:

Yes, it is. Theistic faith is defined in contradistinction to reason. You can't have faith in a belief if you have reasons to hold to the belief!

It is not defined in contradiction to reason. It was defined as such by Luther and Kant and Kierkegaard, but I do not follow their teaching. I follow the teaching of Christianity and specifically the Catholic Church. They EXPLICITLY define our faith differently. There is no getting around it. You can't just make up your own terms, because they are not your claims, they are mine.

Quote:
However, I would like to bring up the fact that you are using equivocating colloquial usages of faith, which indicate trust or probability, with theistic faith, which is unjustified belief.

Christianity and Catholicism defines faith in the "colloquial" sense. Deal with it.

Quote:
But this has nothing to do with the faith itself being justified. This would merely point to the causes behind why a person holds to his desire to believe. The Mormon has reasons for why he holds to his faith, so does the Scientologist. So does the protestant, the Jain, the Jew, the Muslim, and so on... none of these reasons for holding to the desire to believe is a justification for their beliefs.

It is not a "desire" to believe any more than your knowledge of mathematical truth is defined by a wrenching of the gut.

Quote:
Theistic faith is unjustified belief. One might come to the belief because of parental inculcation, or through reading the bible, but none of these are justifications for holding to a supernatural claim.

That takes an unjustified leap. I've already pointed you to Luther and Kierkegaard on this, but you write them off because they are not catholics.

Yes, I do write of Luther, because he was a heretic. I know you don't of cours accept that he was, but it still remains that you are answering a position THAT NEITHER I NOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HOLDS!

Quote:
Problems abound

1) If ‘faith’ were another form of reason, as you’ve said, then why would you need to go and get reasons to hold to your faith?

To accept faith requires reasons, as it requires a reason to hold that 2+2=4. Our movement to the knowledge of faith rests on the authority of the one revealing. We move to assent to it by reason of the probable arguments for His authority. The faith itself cannot be rationally demonstrated, but this is something different from saying that it is not either reasonably held or assented to by reason of external displays of authority. It just cannot be proven with certainty from natural reason. But we do have reasons for holding what we hold.

Quote:
2) As you should know, no reason can point to the supernatural in the first place, so why go off on a fool's errand?

Yes it can. Your assertion is unfounded. The supernatural is related to the natural as cause to effect and hence something meaningful can be said of the supernatural by the via negativa, the via eminencia, and analogy.

Quote:
Of course the believer finds the belief 'worthy', but none of this affirms that faith is anything other than unjustified belief.

Yes it does. If the believer finds the belief to be worthy of belief, it is believed because it is reasonable to do so. Otherwise, it would be merely an absurd and entirely arbitrary choice.

Quote:

You also leave out credo quia absurdum. That was one 'reason' why the belief was held to be 'worthy'

No it wasn't. Which is why Tertullian was condemned as a heretic.

Quote:
Yes, you did.

A few examples:
[...]

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question.

You ought to have said that you do not accept the premise. Then we could have explained it better. It further is not begging the question because it does not assume what it intends to prove. First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds. Second, it assumes, and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid." This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist. Even if it were merely arbitrary assent, there would be no reason for it if it could be gained naturally.

Quote:

Anyway, here are two cases where you openly state that you begin by assuming 'god' exists. You then, pathetically, try to state that while you ASSUME god exists, this is not 'properly begging the question.

Only problem is: begging the question is assuming what you seek to prove!


Faith DOES NOT assume that God exists. Reason alone proves that God exists. Faith assumes the fact that reason has proven this. It can be a source of this knowledge, but only indirectly. Further, faith is NOT DEFINING THAT GOD EXISTS. Therefore, it does not beg the question, because it does not seek to prove that. It seeks to prove, for example, that this God that exists is Triune, or something of this nature.

Quote:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.

Don't see why it begs the question. If we are assuming that faith exists, which even you grant, it is only meaningful at all as being a belief in something that God has revealed. Otherwise, what does the phrase mean?

Quote:

Now you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION.

i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason.

Ignorance is not the reason we move beyond reason. We know from reason that we are ignorant of things that, absolutely speaking, can be known. We just know that we can't know them by our own power. Which is why we rely on revelation - faith - to understand these things.

Quote:
Second, theistic faith has nothing to do with naturalism in the first place. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural. Any 'grounds' you would have would be natural, which again, cannot point to their own antithesis.

Why cannot a natural thing point to its own antithesis? You take this as a principle, but I do not agree with it. Truth points toward falsity. Being to non-being. All privations point toward a plenum and all beings point to a privation.

Quote:

No we cannot. Naturally speaking. Nature cannot point to its very antithesis.

OK, why?

Quote:
Here again, you concede that faith is ungrounded, as it goes beyond what you can confirm by reason.

You can believe something in a reasonable manner, but that does not imply that the knowledge of that thing is certain. That is what faith is in a colloquial sense.

So, two main points:
First, why cannot nature point to its antithesis?
Even if it cannot, supernatural is not the non-natural; it is the above-natural.
Second, on what grounds do you divide "theistic" faith from "colloquial" faith?

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Most people here intertain

Most people here intertain you because they are deconstructionists.

If your claims were true they would be easy as easy to demonstrate and falsify with a microscope or as easy as writing a formula on a board.

They take the time to indudge you because they realize how deeply indoctrinated you are.

But the bottem line is that there is no such thing as a "spirit" or "spirits" knocking up girls nor does human flesh survive rigor mortis. Dress it up with all the myth and lies you want. If a billion people claimed they saw me fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, would you merely believe it because people claimed it happend.

Once again, you admited you had no evedence. You also said there is no point in disscussing this and I AGREE. So why are you still here trying to defend something you already admited you had no evidence for?

I know you dont like hearing this. You are frustrated because we see through the distractions and lies and see your myth for what it is.

I merely cut to the case and skip all the bull. Your religion hinges on those two claims being true AND YOU ADMITED YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

Fine, I agree you have no evidence for them. We wont have you arrested, we wont take your bible away from you. But we have no obligation to believe you based on your conveluted long winded elaborate posts that are nothing but a distraction to direct questions.

Again, you merely like the deity someone sold you as real. So you allow your brain to do anything it has to to cling to that myth and believe it as fact.

The birth and death of the supposed Jesus is nothing but myth. Just as absurd as believing that Apollo pulled the sun across the sky with a chariot and just as absurd as Peter Pan flying or getting 72 virgins in a fictional after life.

Burring your myth in elaborate posts wont change that. "It really happened" Shout that from the rooftops all you want till your face is blue it still wont change the fact it is a lie no matter how much you want it to be true.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most people here

Quote:
Most people here intertain you because they are deconstructionists.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term, "deconstruction."

Quote:
If your claims were true they would be easy as easy to demonstrate and falsify with a microscope or as easy as writing a formula on a board.

Why would they need to be falsified by a microscope or a formula on a chalkboard? That criteria of truth and falsity seems to eliminate a great deal of human knowledge, such as, for example, the criteria's justification itself.

Quote:
But the bottem line is that there is no such thing as a "spirit" or "spirits" knocking up girls nor does human flesh survive rigor mortis. Dress it up with all the myth and lies you want.

You still have no presented a clear reason why I should not believe this.

Quote:
If a billion people claimed they saw me fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, would you merely believe it because people claimed it happend.

I would find a billion people's testimony to be rather reliable. Thus, the probability that it was a true statement would go up and my belief in their statement would not be irrational.

Quote:
Once again, you admited you had no evedence. You also said there is no point in disscussing this and I AGREE. So why are you still here trying to defend something you already admited you had no evidence for?

I have NOT said that there is "no evidence" that Christ was born of a virgin. I have said that there is no human mechanism that exists to explain how the virgin birth HAPPENED. These are far different claims. The evidence for Christ's virgin birth is in His authority and His miracles. Likewise, the Catholic Church is surrounded by miracles in every age which confirm its authentic message. THIS is evidence.

Just dismissing it as a lie doesn't get you anywhere.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Most people here intertain you because they are deconstructionists.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term, "deconstruction."
Quote:
If your claims were true they would be easy as easy to demonstrate and falsify with a microscope or as easy as writing a formula on a board.
Why would they need to be falsified by a microscope or a formula on a chalkboard? That criteria of truth and falsity seems to eliminate a great deal of human knowledge, such as, for example, the criteria's justification itself.
Quote:
But the bottem line is that there is no such thing as a "spirit" or "spirits" knocking up girls nor does human flesh survive rigor mortis. Dress it up with all the myth and lies you want.
You still have no presented a clear reason why I should not believe this.
Quote:
If a billion people claimed they saw me fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, would you merely believe it because people claimed it happend.
I would find a billion people's testimony to be rather reliable. Thus, the probability that it was a true statement would go up and my belief in their statement would not be irrational.
Quote:
Once again, you admited you had no evedence. You also said there is no point in disscussing this and I AGREE. So why are you still here trying to defend something you already admited you had no evidence for?
I have NOT said that there is "no evidence" that Christ was born of a virgin. I have said that there is no human mechanism that exists to explain how the virgin birth HAPPENED. These are far different claims. The evidence for Christ's virgin birth is in His authority and His miracles. Likewise, the Catholic Church is surrounded by miracles in every age which confirm its authentic message. THIS is evidence. Just dismissing it as a lie doesn't get you anywhere. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Not my job to do your work for you. You made the claim.

You desperately want to believe in magic that you constantly try to shift the burdon to me.

It would be just as rediculous for you to try to prove that Allah doesnt exist if a Muslim said to you, "Prove that he doesnt".

Same crap, different religion. Once again, not fooled.

You think that claims of "miricles" only exist under your label? You really are delluded and dont even realize it. But fear not, you are in the same boat as Jews, Muslims and Scientologists.

"I WANT MY FICTION TO BE REALL"

You think your religion is that special? When you use the word "miricle" somehow magically it works when you say it and is not fiction when you say it.

You might as well believe I can fart a Lamborginni out of my ass because you are just as gullible as any other myth lover. You merely cheerlead for a different club. 

You already admitted you have no evidence for the magical claims of the alleged birth or death off the Jesus myth.

So it is YOU who needs to ask YOURSELF why you buy that crap without evidence. I have already rightly rejected it because it is absurd. Your argment should be with yourself, not me. 

So, if you want to end this thread and wallow in your fiction, be my guest. But if you continue then further posts should be focused on those two claims and not all the convoluted distractions you have been constantly presented. 

Stop trying to pass the buck and take responsibility for the claims you make. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Not my job to do

Quote:
Not my job to do your work for you. You made the claim.

You desperately want to believe in magic that you constantly try to shift the burdon to me.

I am shifting the burden to you because I have clearly shown that evidence does exist for my beliefs. YOU must show that these evidences are not sufficent. I can not prove the mechanism by which God effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Christ and His Church's authority. It's clear as day.

Quote:

It would be just as rediculous for you to try to prove that Allah doesnt exist if a Muslim said to you, "Prove that he doesnt".

I never asked you to disprove God. I asked you to disprove specific claims of evidence that I have presented. You just keep pretending that they don't exist.

Quote:
You think that claims of "miricles" only exist under your label? You really are delluded and dont even realize it. But fear not, you are in the same boat as Jews, Muslims and Scientologists.

I never claimed that miracles were exclusive to my religion. I said, however, that a miracle is a necessary and sufficent proof for the reasonableness of belief. Further, however, Muslims do not have miracles in the same way Christians and Jews do, because they disavow miracles as meaningful.

Quote:
You already admitted you have no evidence for the magical claims of the alleged birth or death off the Jesus myth.

No I did not. I said that there can be no repeatable test of the virgin birth. That is not the same as saying no evidence that the virgin birth happened exists. You need to understand the outline of the distinctions here.

OK, stop reading right here. Go back to the beginning of the post and read it again. You haven't been addressing what I say. I'm not doing it to be mean or trying to foist my beliefs on you. You just need to clearly understand what I am saying. I have said that I have evidence that Christ was born of a virgin. I cannot claim to show a mechanism by which it occurs, but I can support my belief that it happened. It is not rationally contradictory.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Not my job to do your work for you. You made the claim. You desperately want to believe in magic that you constantly try to shift the burdon to me.
I am shifting the burden to you because I have clearly shown that evidence does exist for my beliefs. YOU must show that these evidences are not sufficent. I can not prove the mechanism by which God effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Christ and His Church's authority. It's clear as day.
Quote:
It would be just as rediculous for you to try to prove that Allah doesnt exist if a Muslim said to you, "Prove that he doesnt".
I never asked you to disprove God. I asked you to disprove specific claims of evidence that I have presented. You just keep pretending that they don't exist.
Quote:
You think that claims of "miricles" only exist under your label? You really are delluded and dont even realize it. But fear not, you are in the same boat as Jews, Muslims and Scientologists.
I never claimed that miracles were exclusive to my religion. I said, however, that a miracle is a necessary and sufficent proof for the reasonableness of belief. Further, however, Muslims do not have miracles in the same way Christians and Jews do, because they disavow miracles as meaningful.
Quote:
You already admitted you have no evidence for the magical claims of the alleged birth or death off the Jesus myth.
No I did not. I said that there can be no repeatable test of the virgin birth. That is not the same as saying no evidence that the virgin birth happened exists. You need to understand the outline of the distinctions here. OK, stop reading right here. Go back to the beginning of the post and read it again. You haven't been addressing what I say. I'm not doing it to be mean or trying to foist my beliefs on you. You just need to clearly understand what I am saying. I have said that I have evidence that Christ was born of a virgin. I cannot claim to show a mechanism by which it occurs, but I can support my belief that it happened. It is not rationally contradictory. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Quote:
I have said that I have evidence that Christ was born of a virgin. I have said that I have evidence that Christ was born of a virgin. I cannot claim to show a mechanism by which it occurs, but I can support my belief that it happened. It is not rationally contradictory. It is not rationally contradictory.

You have evidence that people made that claim that people claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin. That is not the same as showing how it is possible, which in the second sentance YOU ADMIT HAVING NO EVIDENCE FOR!

Again, you need to ask yourself why you buy that magical superstition. Not me.

Just becase people claimed it doesnt make it true. Evidence of a claim is only evidence of a claim. Which makes replicating and falsification important to verifying the claim.

All you have done in this thread is say, "My evidence is that people claimed it".

And who is being mean to you? Not me? Did it ever occure to you that my bluntness and directness is to get you to think insted of simply buy myth simply because people in the past claimed the same myth you like today?

YOU ADMITED YOU HAD NO WAY TO VERYIFY THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT, 

I have already rightfully rejected it because it is an abusurd claim. Just because people wrote it in a book doesnt make it true. Just because people have a history of claiming it doesnt make it true. 

You are being intelectuall dishonest with yourself masking a claim of prior claims as being evedence that the event happened. 

There is no such thing as spirit sperm or spirit DNA anymore than a billion people claiming Peter Pan flying would be real.

You have fooled yourself into mistaking a claim as evidence. I ask for verification which is what proves the valitity of a claim. Merely claiming something doesnt make it true.

YOU HAVE NOTHING AS YOU HAVE ADMITED TO 

Quote:
I have said that I have evidence that Christ was born of a virgin. I cannot claim to show a mechanism by which it occurs, but I can support my belief that it happened. It is not rationally contradictory.

Dont get angrey at me for your own admission that you couldnt prove it.  

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You have evidence

Quote:
You have evidence that people made that claim that people claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin. That is not the same as showing how it is possible, which in the second sentance YOU ADMIT HAVING NO EVIDENCE FOR!

I have never admitted to not having evidence for my beliefs. I don't know why you keep repeating that.
And, my evidence was not merely that people claimed it. My position was that miracles showed forth the authority of Christ and His Church. The testiomony of the Apostles or anyone else is merely additional support for my position. If people claim Normandy happened, I have good grounds for believing them. Human testimony can and does suffice in many areas. For another example, if somebody tells me little Johnny picked his nose in class, and the teacher confirms this, I have good grounds for believing this. In fact, I can be fairly certain that said event actually occurred. It is a perfectly rational belief.

Quote:

Just becase people claimed it doesnt make it true. Evidence of a claim is only evidence of a claim. Which makes replicating and falsification important to verifying the claim.

No, it does not ensure the certainty that logical proof can give, but it gives us a reasonable certainty. Verifiability does not give any more certainty. I can drop the ball a million times and it falls every time. But that is no absolute guarantee that it will not fly up into the air when I drop it the 1,000,001th time. It gives me certainly a good and rational reason to believe this, but it is not certain, logically speaking.

Quote:
YOU ADMITED YOU HAD NO WAY TO VERYIFY THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

I have no way to TEST or VERIFY the MECHANISM of the virgin birth, or to REPLICATE it in a labratory. I am claiming that it can be verified indirectly.

Quote:
Just because people wrote it in a book doesnt make it true. Just because people have a history of claiming it doesnt make it true.

I never claimed it did.

Quote:
There is no such thing as spirit sperm or spirit DNA anymore than a billion people claiming Peter Pan flying would be real.

I never claimed there was spiritual sperm. Such would also be a contradiction, because what is spirit is not matter (and hence not a material object).

Quote:

You have fooled yourself into mistaking a claim as evidence. I ask for verification which is what proves the valitity of a claim. Merely claiming something doesnt make it true.

I never said that claiming something proved it was true. Reread my post again.

Quote:

YOU HAVE NOTHING AS YOU HAVE ADMITED TO

I have not said that at all.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
You have evidence that people made that claim that people claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin. That is not the same as showing how it is possible, which in the second sentance YOU ADMIT HAVING NO EVIDENCE FOR!
I have never admitted to not having evidence for my beliefs. I don't know why you keep repeating that. And, my evidence was not merely that people claimed it. My position was that miracles showed forth the authority of Christ and His Church. The testiomony of the Apostles or anyone else is merely additional support for my position. If people claim Normandy happened, I have good grounds for believing them. Human testimony can and does suffice in many areas. For another example, if somebody tells me little Johnny picked his nose in class, and the teacher confirms this, I have good grounds for believing this. In fact, I can be fairly certain that said event actually occurred. It is a perfectly rational belief.
Quote:
Just becase people claimed it doesnt make it true. Evidence of a claim is only evidence of a claim. Which makes replicating and falsification important to verifying the claim.
No, it does not ensure the certainty that logical proof can give, but it gives us a reasonable certainty. Verifiability does not give any more certainty. I can drop the ball a million times and it falls every time. But that is no absolute guarantee that it will not fly up into the air when I drop it the 1,000,001th time. It gives me certainly a good and rational reason to believe this, but it is not certain, logically speaking.
Quote:
YOU ADMITED YOU HAD NO WAY TO VERYIFY THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
I have no way to TEST or VERIFY the MECHANISM of the virgin birth, or to REPLICATE it in a labratory. I am claiming that it can be verified indirectly.
Quote:
Just because people wrote it in a book doesnt make it true. Just because people have a history of claiming it doesnt make it true.
I never claimed it did.
Quote:
There is no such thing as spirit sperm or spirit DNA anymore than a billion people claiming Peter Pan flying would be real.
I never claimed there was spiritual sperm. Such would also be a contradiction, because what is spirit is not matter (and hence not a material object).
Quote:
You have fooled yourself into mistaking a claim as evidence. I ask for verification which is what proves the valitity of a claim. Merely claiming something doesnt make it true.
I never said that claiming something proved it was true. Reread my post again.
Quote:
YOU HAVE NOTHING AS YOU HAVE ADMITED TO
I have not said that at all. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REPLICATE THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

YOU ADMITED TO THAT

You are fooling yourself into believing an absurd claim like that without any verification other than, "Other people claimed the virgin birth happened as well"

You are ignoring your own words and being intellectually dishonest.  You simply dont want to admit you have no evidence for the virgin birth. That is what you are doing here.

Keep fooling yourself. I myself dont buy absurd claims merely because a bunch of people said it was true.

YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REPLICATE THE VIRGIN BIRTH!

YOU LOSE!

It is a myth that you like and all the people you are trying to quote here and pass off as evidence. A bunch of delluded people patting each other on the back to support their fiction hardly impresses me.

AGAIN, without any way to replicate this claim you blindly buy it and believe it as fact. That is your problem and I cant help you excape your delusion if you dont want help.

But dont expect me to buy it. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Ok michael, simple exercise

Ok michael, simple exercise here:

 Four propositions follow.  I have borrowed syntax you have already used:

 

1.  "Jesus was born of a virgin"

I can not prove the mechanism by which God effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Christ and His Church's authority. It's clear as day.

 2.  "Mohammed rose to heaven on a horse"

I can not prove the mechanism by which Allah effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Mohammed and his Mosque's authority. It's clear as day.

3. "On September 21, 1995 an idol of Ganesh was observed to absorb a spoonful of milk"

I can not prove the mechanism by which Ganesh effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Ganesh and his Temple's authority. It's clear as day.

 4.  "Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has demonstrated supernatural powers such as levitation and becoming invisible".  

 I can not  prove the mechanism by which Fa effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happned, based on Falun Dafa and its XingXing's authority.

 

With the reasoning you have so far presented, all of these are true, more true, in fact, than 2 + 2 = 4.  

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Ok

zarathustra wrote:

Ok michael, simple exercise here:

Four propositions follow. I have borrowed syntax you have already used:

 

1. "Jesus was born of a virgin"

I can not prove the mechanism by which God effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Christ and His Church's authority. It's clear as day.

2. "Mohammed rose to heaven on a horse"

I can not prove the mechanism by which Allah effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Mohammed and his Mosque's authority. It's clear as day.

3. "On September 21, 1995 an idol of Ganesh was observed to absorb a spoonful of milk"

I can not prove the mechanism by which Ganesh effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happened, based on Ganesh and his Temple's authority. It's clear as day.

4. "Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has demonstrated supernatural powers such as levitation and becoming invisible".

I can not prove the mechanism by which Fa effects these miracles, as they are beyond human power, but I can show that these things happned, based on Falun Dafa and its XingXing's authority.

 

With the reasoning you have so far presented, all of these are true, more true, in fact, than 2 + 2 = 4.

 

THANK YOU!

St Micheal thinks he is special and is immune to this scrutiny. Somehow he is an ambeoba with magical powers to dodge a direct and obvious lack of evidence.

He is just like Charle Brown's teacher,

"Wah wah wah wah wah Jesus"

Muslims do it to,

"Wah wah wah wah wah, Allah"

"Wah wah wah wah wah Yahwey"

"Wah wah wah wah wah Vishnu"

He thinks he is doing things differently than those outside his sect of Christianity. He thinks he is doing things differently than non-Christian religions. He has fooled himself deeply.

I can only hope that he is brave enough to see what you rightly explained and what I have been pointing out all along.

Mask a delusion within a delusion, call it anything you want and it will still be a delusion. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The authority of Christ as

The authority of Christ as manifested by miracles. So, we see miracles performed by Christ's authority in the Church. Saints perform miracles. This gives proof that the Church has authority from God. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like the virgin birth.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The

StMichael wrote:
The authority of Christ as manifested by miracles. So, we see miracles performed by Christ's authority in the Church. Saints perform miracles. This gives proof that the Church has authority from God. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like the virgin birth. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

WRONG!

You nor your church have any authority by proxy of their belief or their claims or your belief or your claims.

Again, neither would a Cleric or a Mosque or any Muslim.

Do not make your fictional boss my boss because of your delusion. That is your myth, not mine. I dont buy absurd claims. You seem to like absurd claims.

But do use that circluar "my daddy said just because" and call your favorite club an "authority" of anything.

Yet another post where you want to avoid the birth claim and death claim of the allegid Jesus.

PROVE IT!

Unless you can prove it you are not an athority of lint anymore than a Muslim is your athority by their claims.

 STOP DODGING!

REPLICATE THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF THE JESUS CLAIM!

YOU CANT BECAUSE IT IS A MYTH, NOT A FACT! 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The authority of Christ and

The authority of Christ and His Church is authenticated by the miracles they perform. I have said this before. Just saying they have no authority is no argument.
I offer an example:

5:18. And behold, men brought in a bed a man who had the palsy: and they sought means to bring him in and to lay him before him.
Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem qui erat paralyticus et quaerebant eum inferre et ponere ante eum

5:19. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus.
Et non invenientes qua parte illum inferrent prae turba ascenderunt supra tectum per tegulas submiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Iesum

5:20. Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Quorum fidem ut vidit dixit homo remittuntur tibi peccata tua

5:21. And the scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying: Who is this who speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
Et coeperunt cogitare scribae et Pharisaei dicentes quis est hic qui loquitur blasphemias quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus

5:22. And when Jesus knew their thoughts, answering he said to them: What is it you think in your hearts?
Ut cognovit autem Iesus cogitationes eorum respondens dixit ad illos quid cogitatis in cordibus vestris

5:23. Which is easier to say: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise and walk?
Quid est facilius dicere dimittuntur tibi peccata an dicere surge et ambula

5:24. But that you may know that the Son of man hath the power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say to thee to: Arise, take up thy bed and go into thy house.
Ut autem sciatis quia Filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata ait paralytico tibi dico surge tolle lectum tuum et vade in domum tuam

5:25. And immediately rising up before them, he took up the bed on which he lay: and he went away to his own house, glorifying God.
Et confestim surgens coram illis tulit in quo iacebat et abiit in domum suam magnificans Deum

Thus, miracles are used to prove the authority of Revelation.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The

StMichael wrote:
The authority of Christ and His Church is authenticated by the miracles they perform. I have said this before. Just saying they have no authority is no argument. I offer an example: 5:18. And behold, men brought in a bed a man who had the palsy: and they sought means to bring him in and to lay him before him. Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem qui erat paralyticus et quaerebant eum inferre et ponere ante eum 5:19. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. Et non invenientes qua parte illum inferrent prae turba ascenderunt supra tectum per tegulas submiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Iesum 5:20. Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. Quorum fidem ut vidit dixit homo remittuntur tibi peccata tua 5:21. And the scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying: Who is this who speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Et coeperunt cogitare scribae et Pharisaei dicentes quis est hic qui loquitur blasphemias quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus 5:22. And when Jesus knew their thoughts, answering he said to them: What is it you think in your hearts? Ut cognovit autem Iesus cogitationes eorum respondens dixit ad illos quid cogitatis in cordibus vestris 5:23. Which is easier to say: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise and walk? Quid est facilius dicere dimittuntur tibi peccata an dicere surge et ambula 5:24. But that you may know that the Son of man hath the power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say to thee to: Arise, take up thy bed and go into thy house. Ut autem sciatis quia Filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata ait paralytico tibi dico surge tolle lectum tuum et vade in domum tuam 5:25. And immediately rising up before them, he took up the bed on which he lay: and he went away to his own house, glorifying God. Et confestim surgens coram illis tulit in quo iacebat et abiit in domum suam magnificans Deum Thus, miracles are used to prove the authority of Revelation. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

You are a broken record.

I could care less what you claim "miricles are used for".

AGAIN, stop projecting your fantacies on me. You nor your church are athorities of anything. You are just a bunch of people who baught a myth.

NOW, can you focus on the claims of the virgin birth and death of the Jesus claim, or your going to continue to dodge direct questions.

If you cant do that you are wasting your time and mine.

FOCUS!

CAN YOU REPLICATE AND FALSIFY THE VIRGIN BIRTH?

CAN YOU REPLICATE 3 DAY OLD DEAD FLESH COMMING BACK TO LIFE AFTER RIGOR MORTIS?

NO YOU CANT!

Your claims of "miricles" are irrellevent and no different than the magical "miricles" other religions claim. NO DIFFERENT!

You want these claims to be real because you like the idea of a magical Jesus. 

It's easy to justify magical claims by calling them "miricles" and in tern use that to justify your circular reasoning to protect your claims of Jesus, because you like it.

"My club members said. My god said. Miricles happen" Same crap different sky daddy club.

You are using a delusion to back up a delusion you like.

YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REPLICATE EITHER THE BIRTH OR DEATH OF THE ALLEGED JESUS!

YOU LOSE!

Get over it. You like believing that? Fine, but you are not going to fool me with "My miricles prove my claims of magic". 

You are no different and no less delusional than other religions that claim the same thing. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The

StMichael wrote:
The authority of Christ as manifested by miracles. So, we see miracles performed by Christ's authority in the Church. Saints perform miracles. This gives proof that the Church has authority from God. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like the virgin birth.

The authority of Allah as manifested by holy signs. So, we see holy signs performed by Allah's authority in the Muslim world. Prophets perform miracles. This gives proof that the Islam has authority from Allah. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like mohammed flying to heaven on a horse.

 I could do the same for a bunch of other religions, but I'm sure you get the point.  Perform that little exercise of word substitution with any of your "christ" arguments, and see how much sense it makes.  If you can't prove your argument right without using "christ", then your argument is no more sound than a muslim using "allah" in every argument.

 And you already know this.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Todangst,

StMichael wrote:
Todangst, You still insist on defining that the terms of faith. Why?

Mike, you still insist on lying that I am doing this, when I've shown otherwise? Why?

I've shown you, time and time again, how theology defines faith the way it does. I've shown you that YOU define faith as unjustified assumption, but you're unable to follow the ramifications of your own claims.

Quote:

There is no reason why colloquial faith is not the same as theistic faith, other than the reason you say so.

Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.

Quote:

I do get to define the terms because I AND MY RELIGION ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE FAITH!

Mike, I've been telling you this from my very first post to you !: that your own religion defines faith as unjustified belief!

Quote:

Why do I need to keep telling you?

Actually, I've been endlessly telling you the same thing. Odd that you now want to ignore that.

My point has always been that St. Paul himself affirms faith as unjustified belief. You do the same, but aren't able to follow the ramifications.

Quote:

You just don't get it!

Please, if you are going to talk to yourself on these boards, make it more clear, someone might think that you are actually talking to me here.

Quote:

I can come back at you and tell you what to believe about your terms too. "Science" is an unjustified knowledge of natural occurences.

And you'd be demonstratably wrong. Why the need to go to this childish tit for tat anyway?

Quote:

Why are you conflating atheistic science with colloquial science?

Why are you so desparate that you've come up with such nonsense?

Quote:
Yes, it is. Theistic faith is defined in contradistinction to reason. You can't have faith in a belief if you have reasons to hold to the belief!

Quote:

It is not defined in contradiction to reason.

Yes it is. You can't take something on theistic faith, if you have reasons to hold to it.

Quote:

It was defined as such by Luther and Kant and Kierkegaard, but I do not follow their teaching.

It was also defined by Paul. Who makes the same points.

That's where Luther gets his viewpoint.

Finally, your own definition agrees that faith begins with an assumption.

So your real problem is that you can't follow the ramifications of your own claims.

Quote:

I follow the teaching of Christianity and specifically the Catholic Church. They EXPLICITLY define our faith differently.

No, they do not. The bible speaks of faith in god's goodness (despite reasons to believe otherwise), such as that held by Job. This again is belief despite negating evidence (i.e. Job could certainly doubt that god was good in the story) But this faith can only take place where one knows god directly, so it only relates to the imaginary patriachs of the bible, like Job or Noe/Noah. If you try to use this as 'evidence' for faith as some form of knowing, you first have to beg the question that these stories represent reality in the first place!

Faith for real humans, in the real world, is merely question begging, as one only "knows' god in the first place through unjustified belief.

So any attempt to use this type of faith, the faith of Shadrack, Meshack, Abendigo, or Job, has no relation to theistic faith in the supernatural, because for you, you have to beg the question that any of this relates to a reality....

By the way, do you take these stories litearly? If you do, my condolences.

Quote:
However, I would like to bring up the fact that you are using equivocating colloquial usages of faith, which indicate trust or probability, with theistic faith, which is unjustified belief.

Quote:

Christianity and Catholicism defines faith in the "colloquial" sense. Deal with it.

No, they do not, and they cannot, because you can't use naturalistic terms like probability and experience in regards to the supernatural. If you could, you wouldn't be talking about faith in the first place.

Deal with that.

Quote:
But this has nothing to do with the faith itself being justified. This would merely point to the causes behind why a person holds to his desire to believe. The Mormon has reasons for why he holds to his faith, so does the Scientologist. So does the protestant, the Jain, the Jew, the Muslim, and so on... none of these reasons for holding to the desire to believe is a justification for their beliefs.

Quote:

It is not a "desire" to believe any more than your knowledge of mathematical truth is defined by a wrenching of the gut.

It is a desire to believe, a desire inculcated by society.

Quote:
Theistic faith is unjustified belief. One might come to the belief because of parental inculcation, or through reading the bible, but none of these are justifications for holding to a supernatural claim. That takes an unjustified leap. I've already pointed you to Luther and Kierkegaard on this, but you write them off because they are not catholics.

Quote:

Yes, I do write of Luther, because he was a heretic.

Ad hominem genetic fallacy.

Why not deal with his arguments, rather than just write him off by attacking his person?

Quote:

I know you don't of cours accept that he was, but it still remains that you are answering a position THAT NEITHER I NOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HOLDS!

Incorrect, I've also given you points from Paul, and I've also cited Pope John Paul II and finally, I've given you arguments as to why faith cannot be a type of reason.

But you just ignore these points.

Oh, and one other tiny detail. I've also shown how your OWN STATEMENTS LEAD TO FAITH BEING UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF, BUT YOU STUDIOUSLY AVOID CITING WHERE I DO THIS. In fact, you don't even cut and paste them here - so I will have to repost them all.

Quote:
Problems abound 1) If ‘faith’ were another form of reason, as you’ve said, then why would you need to go and get reasons to hold to your faith?

Quote:

To accept faith requires reasons, as it requires a reason to hold that 2+2=4.

2+2=4 is held because it's a tautology.

Faith does not require reasons, if it did, you couldn't hold belief in the supernatural at all.

Quote:

Our movement to the knowledge of faith rests on the authority of the one revealing.

There is no knowledge in faith, it is an assumption. If faith brought knowledge, it would be a form of reason, and you'd have no need for the term at all.

You simply prove unable to grasp this.

Quote:

We move to assent to it by reason of the probable arguments for His authority.

Again, if this were so, why use the word faith at all? You'd have reasons for your belief.

Are you seeing the problem yet?

Quote:

The faith itself cannot be rationally demonstrated, but this is something different from saying that it is not either reasonably held or assented to by reason of external displays of authority.

You just keep missing the point... there is no way to justifiy a belief in the supernatural.

Oddly enough, YOU yourself recogznie this here:

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

 

I.e. you recognize that faith holds to beliefs that cannot be justified by natural human reason.

Which means that your belief is unjustified.

YOU JUST CAN'T FOLLOW THE RAMIFICATIONS OF YOUR OWN WORDS. 

How many times must I refute you with your own words before you concede to reality? 

Quote:

It just cannot be proven with certainty from natural reason. But we do have reasons for holding what we hold.

If you had reasons, then you wouldn't need faith.

You just don't see it, do you?

The reality is this: why would one hope for what one already sees?

Quote:
2) As you should know, no reason can point to the supernatural in the first place, so why go off on a fool's errand?

Quote:

Yes it can.

No, it cannot.

Quote:

Your assertion is unfounded.

Incorrect. Supernatural is defined as beyond nature. This means that the supernatural is defined negatively, sans any universe of discourse.

This means that the supernatural has no ontology. Ergo, there is no way that reason can grasp the supernatural.

Quote:

The supernatural is related to the natural as cause to effect

Stolen concept fallacy. Causality is a natural process. To be causal is to be lawful. To be lawful is to be natural. Part of nature.

The supernatural would be acuasal, magical... god would work through 'fiat'

Quote:

hence something meaningful can be said of the supernatural by the via negativa,

To speak meaningfully, via negativa, requires a universe of discourse. But the term 'supernatural' rules out any universe of discourse by definition.

And you can't make analogy from nature to its very antithesis.

Quote:
Of course the believer finds the belief 'worthy', but none of this affirms that faith is anything other than unjustified belief.

Quote:

Yes it does. If the believer finds the belief to be worthy of belief, it is believed because it is reasonable to do so.

So says the scientologist and the buddhist.

Quote:
Yes, you did. A few examples: [...] Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question.

Quote:

You ought to have said that you do not accept the premise.

You are begging the question. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking.

Quote:

Then we could have explained it better. It further is not begging the question because it does not assume what it intends to prove.

Yes it does.

Quote:

First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds.

It begins by arguing from ignorance and begging the question.

Quote:

Second, it assumes, and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

THIS BEGS THE QUESTION!

Quote:

This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist.

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG: IF YOU HAVE REASONS, YOU DON'T NEED FAITH!

IN OTHER WORDS, FAITH IS UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF. YOU YOURSELF SEE THAT IF IT WERE JUST LIKE REASON,THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR IT. YOU YOURSELF ADMIT THAT IT BEGINS AND ENDS WITH AN ASSUMPTION THAT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED!

YOU YOURSELF SAY THAT ITS NECESSARY TO BEG THE QUESTION IN ORDER TO HAVE FAITH!.

I'm going to love watching you try to dance away from this one, Mike.

Quote:

Even if it were merely arbitrary assent, there would be no reason for it if it could be gained naturally.

IF IT COULD, THEN WHY DO YOU USE FAITH AT ALL?

YOU JUST SAID FAITH MUST START OUT WITH AN ASSUMPTION, OR YOU CAN'T HAVE IT AT ALL. WELL, IF YOU CAN JUST JUSTIFY YOUR BELIEFS, WHY JUST BEG THE QUESTION THAT THEY ARE TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Do you see how you contradict yourself here?

DO YOU SEE HOW YOU YOURSELF, YET AGAIN, CONCEDE THAT FAITH IS MERELY ASSUMING, MERELY BEGGING THE QUESTION?

Quote:
Anyway, here are two cases where you openly state that you begin by assuming 'god' exists. You then, pathetically, try to state that while you ASSUME god exists, this is not 'properly begging the question. Only problem is: begging the question is assuming what you seek to prove!

Quote:

Faith DOES NOT assume that God exists. Reason alone proves that God exists.

THEN WHY USE FAITH AT ALL?

WHY EVEN BRING UP THE WORD?

WHY EVEN HAVE THE WORD?

WHY DO YOU, YOURSELF, ADMIT THAT FAITH BEGS THE QUESTION ABOVE, AND THAT THIS IS THE VERY REASON IT EXISTS, YET FORGET THAT YOU JUST SAID IT HERE?

Amazing Mike just amazing.

Quote:

Faith assumes the fact that reason has proven this.

AGAIN YOU SAY ASSUME! THIS MEANS THAT YOU AGREE THAT FAITH IS AN ASSUMPTION

IF REASON PROVES IT, WHY THE NEED TO ASSUME IT?

DO YOU SEE HOW OFTEN YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF?

Quote:

It can be a source of this knowledge, but only indirectly. Further, faith is NOT DEFINING THAT GOD EXISTS. Therefore, it does not beg the question, because it does not seek to prove that.

Sure it is.

YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST AGAIN: YOU START OUT ASSUMING SOME TRUTH, AND THAT A GOD GRANTS THIS TO YOU, WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU THINK YOU MEAN BY THAT, IF NOT YOUR 'GOD' AS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH?

Quote:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful. BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.

Quote:

Don't see why it begs the question.

You start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging!

Amazing you can't see this.

Anyway, I will have to repeat this entire part of my post, as you dishonestly clipped all the damaging parts away.

Quote:

If we are assuming that faith exists, which even you grant,

Now, you are being incredibly obtuse. The fact that faith exists does not mean that faith is 'right' in the assumptions it makes!

You youself conceded that faith exists because of the NEED TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION that there are truths that cannot be known.... how does this need to assume make the assumption true?

Answer: it can't and and it doesn't.

Quote:

Iit is only meaningful at all as being a belief in something that God has revealed.

And to assume god revealed anything, you beg the question of his existence, through a long chain of question begging that begins with the unjustified assumption that there are supernatural truths that cannot be known by reason.

The fact that you are ignorant only tells you that you don't know. To say anything else is to argue from ignorance. To work from ignorance to the existence of god is blatantly irrational. Unjustified.

Quote:
Now you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION. i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason.

Quote:

Ignorance is not the reason we move beyond reason. We know from reason that we are ignorant of things that, absolutely speaking, can be known. We just know that we can't know them by our own power.

You just contradicted yourself again.... you say that ignorance is not the reason, and then concede that ignorance is the reason... you concede that you don't know, that you have limits, but then you go on to argue from these limits that there must be something beyond them!

But all your ignorance can tell you is that you don't know... you can't go on to talk from ignorance, about what lies beyond your ignorance... but this is precisely what you do when you use 'Faith'

And these are your own words.

Quote:

Which is why we rely on revelation - faith - to understand these things.

YOU AGAIN HAVE CONCEDED THAT FAITH IS UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF.

If you can't know something by your own power, then you are speaking from ignorance.

Yet you go on to make a series of unjustified assumptions that give you a 'god' belief!

 

Quote:
Second, theistic faith has nothing to do with naturalism in the first place. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural. Any 'grounds' you would have would be natural, which again, cannot point to their own antithesis.

Quote:

Why cannot a natural thing point to its own antithesis?

How can any natural entity point to something without ontology?

 

Quote:

So, two main points: First, why cannot nature point to its antithesis?

I already explained this. How can one reason about something without an ontology?!

Quote:

Even if it cannot, supernatural is not the non-natural; it is the above-natural.

Can you point to above nature? If not, what do you even think you mean by that?

 

How is 'above natural' not 'not-natural"?

Quote:

Second, on what grounds do you divide "theistic" faith from "colloquial" faith? Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Again, I've already given you this

Colloquial usages refer to natural entities, - humans. Colloquial usages are actually just references to experience and probability.

These terms are not even from theology, they simply use the word 'faith' in a new sense.

For a theology student to rely on a dictionary definition of faith in a debate is just too embarrassing to consider any further.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

StMichael wrote:
The authority of Christ as manifested by miracles. So, we see miracles performed by Christ's authority in the Church. Saints perform miracles. This gives proof that the Church has authority from God. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like the virgin birth.

The authority of Allah as manifested by holy signs. So, we see holy signs performed by Allah's authority in the Muslim world. Prophets perform miracles. This gives proof that the Islam has authority from Allah. Thus, I can also believe in what it reveals, like mohammed flying to heaven on a horse.

I could do the same for a bunch of other religions, but I'm sure you get the point. Perform that little exercise of word substitution with any of your "christ" arguments, and see how much sense it makes. If you can't prove your argument right without using "christ", then your argument is no more sound than a muslim using "allah" in every argument.

And you already know this.

No, the scary part is that we gave this example over and over to demonstrate the self serving circular faulty logic he is using. He doesnt get the point.

He is using claims of magic to back up claims of magic as he says "indirectly".

People were once mass deluded that the heart did the thinking and not the brain. People once thought the earth was flat. All of them made superstitious claims to back up their claims on the heart and earth as well. We now know that those claims they used to back up those other claims were false.

Saying, "The authority of the church" is the same as the authority of the Mosque is the same as the authority of the Synogouge and all of it amounst to a bunch of experts in comic book claims who have learned how to fool people into buying the myth they bought.

Does it suprise me that he uses his favorite club to back up claims "miricles"? Nope, not at all. Self serving is all it is and only demonstrates how deluded he is. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian, he repeats the same

Brian, he repeats the same circular logic fallacy over and over, but simply refuses to concede to it.

 

todangst wrote:
Recall in our past encouters where I pointed out to you that faith is simply unjustified belief, and you responded by conceding that theistic faith begins with an assumption.

St. Michael wrote:

No, I did not.

Yes, you did.

A few examples:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

 

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine!

QED

But hey, why stop there?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?

You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?

What sort of faith is required for you to rip logic assunder like that? To assume is to beg the question.

Anyway, here are two cases where you openly state that you begin by assuming 'god' exists. You then, pathetically, try to state that while you ASSUME god exists, this is not 'properly begging the question.

Only problem is: begging the question is assuming what you seek to prove!

You also write:

- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.

You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth, as per your first claim above.

That's 3. But again, why stop there?

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Again, you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION.

i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.

That's four cases.

I'll add the latest cases from the last post when I get back later.

 

But you're dead in the water, Mike.

 

And I'll keep reposting this until you concede, or run off.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian, I see no room for

Brian, I see no room for discussion. You are not reading my arguments and you have no desire to engage in a discussion. If you want to have a discussion, read my posts.

As for zarathustra, who says

Quote:

I could do the same for a bunch of other religions, but I'm sure you get the point. Perform that little exercise of word substitution with any of your "christ" arguments, and see how much sense it makes. If you can't prove your argument right without using "christ", then your argument is no more sound than a muslim using "allah" in every argument.

Other religions do not have miracles in the same way Catholicism does. For example, Islam does not. They disavow miracles. Mohammed does so expressly in the Quran and in the Hadith. Miracles are not to convert unbelievers. One, in Islam, believes the Quran because of the fact that it is revealed and God says so. There is no proof necessary, nor can one ask for proof of Mohammed's claims. Judaism is a little different, but of course that is assumed by Christianity. None of the other major religions have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does.

Quote:

how theology defines faith the way it does

And I showed you that it does not. Martin Luther is of course not an authority for a Catholic. The Church does not teach it. It has no place in the discussion.

Quote:
I've shown you that YOU define faith as unjustified assumption, but you're unable to follow the ramifications of your own claims.

I have not done so. We can talk about this later in this post.

Quote:

Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.

I see no reason why they cannot. Miracles and prophecy are ordinary events. Likewise, ordinary things are used to point to God constantly, such as the words we are using. We use natural and human terms to refer to the supernatural. No contradiction.

Quote:

My point has always been that St. Paul himself affirms faith as unjustified belief.

We already discussed why Saint Paul does not. You just said that I was rationalizing my position. You have not shown that Saint Paul accepts your position. In fact, he expressly denies in multiple places. Of the many, here is one more:
"1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." From his letter to the Romans. Obviously, people can have clear knowledge of God from created things. In this way, he condemns the pagans for knowing that God exists, and yet worshipping idols, and for knowing His law, but yet not obeying it. I also refer you to his speech at the Areopagus in Acts.

Quote:

Finally, your own definition agrees that faith begins with an assumption.

Which it doesn't. We'll talk more later in the post specifically about this.

Quote:

No, they do not.

Just citing the Bible is not proof. We have different interpretations of Scripture. And I clearly disagree on these passages.

Quote:

The bible speaks of faith in god's goodness (despite reasons to believe otherwise), such as that held by Job. This again is belief despite negating evidence (i.e. Job could certainly doubt that god was good in the story)

That is a total and utter misinterpretation of the story. Job holds to faith in God because he knows of God's Providence. This is the interpretation, for example, in the commentary of Saint Thomas on Job. The book presents various arguments that are advanced to show that Providence is not real because it seems to impugn the just man, and Job counters each.

Quote:
But this faith can only take place where one knows god directly, so it only relates to the imaginary patriachs of the bible, like Job or Noe/Noah. If you try to use this as 'evidence' for faith as some form of knowing, you first have to beg the question that these stories represent reality in the first place!

It has nothing to do with assuming that these stories describe historical persons. Also, it does not depend on their direct knowledge of God. Job, for instance, has no such knowledge at least prior to the revelation at the end of the book.

Quote:
Faith for real humans, in the real world, is merely question begging, as one only "knows' god in the first place through unjustified belief.

The knowledge of God that faith presumes in that known by natural reason. We can see from the world around us that God exists. This is what Saint Paul most clearly says in Romans. Faith assumes this previous knowledge, but not unjustifiedly.

Quote:

you can't use naturalistic terms like probability and experience in regards to the supernatural. If you could, you wouldn't be talking about faith in the first place.

Still no reason offered as to why this is impossible. I'm waiting for an answer.

Quote:
It is a desire to believe, a desire inculcated by society.

No it is not. I have no desire to believe because of society. Nor do many Christians. Get off it. Even if we did, the desire proves nothing in terms of defining faith. Also, you are clearly wrong in defining faith as a desire to believe, using the term to describe itself.

Quote:

Ad hominem genetic fallacy.

Why not deal with his arguments, rather than just write him off by attacking his person?


I don't need to address his arguments with you because I do not accept them. If I accepted Luther's authority as defining my positon on faith, as a doctrine of the Church, then we might need to discuss him. Otherwise, he is irrelevant to why my concept of faith is irrational.

Quote:

I've also given you points from Paul, and I've also cited Pope John Paul II and finally, I've given you arguments as to why faith cannot be a type of reason.

I DID NOT IGNORE THEM! Stop saying that! I responded to each of your posts in a very long and detailed message, going through how each was false. Even with the JPII assertion, you still have YET to produce a SINGLE quote of the Pope saying what you claim. You paraphrased him from Fides et Ratio saying, and I quote, "Reason is faith's handmaiden, but the handmaiden is unable access faith's chamber" which however is not found anywhere in the text, nor are supporting quotes of this kind found. In fact, I quote Fides et Ratio explicitly where the Pope argues against you point of view. You can read it on my blog on this site. To quote a second time from the Pope, "22. In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature's reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20)."
Again, Luther is just plain not accepted. It's as if I wanted to argue against your concept of science by quoting from creationist definitons of scientific inquiry. You wouldn't accept it.

Quote:

Faith does not require reasons, if it did, you couldn't hold belief in the supernatural at all.

Absolutely and entirely false. Faith exists as a trust in the other. In God, to be specific. It is not a blind trust, but a reasonable trust. We know it is reasonable because God reveals Himself to us by reason and also reveals His supernatural authority to us by miracles.

You keep claiming that I hold to a statement of unjustified belief in the following:

Quote:

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

This is not a statement of what faith holds. This is an ontological statement about REALITY ITSELF. What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori. Put this in context with the rest of what I said:
Quote:

An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me.

First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid.

Second, God says, "Gee, it might be good if man knew this."

Third, God reveals this truth to man somehow; He sends a prophet, or sends His Son, or some like means.

Fourth, man receives this revelation.

Fifth, man believes in the revelation due to both [a] God's inward grace, and [b] God's external evidence of authority.

Sixth, man possesses supernatural truth.


Faith, as this account clearly shows, presumes no such thing. In fact, faith does not actually begin to exist until the third point. Only after that does man actually accept something as true from God.

Quote:

why would one hope for what one already sees?

We do not possess what faith knows. We know it by faith and we hope for it to be ours. We believe that we will be granted the Beatific Vision after death and we hope for it to come about.

Quote:

This means that the supernatural has no ontology. Ergo, there is no way that reason can grasp the supernatural.

Not true. The supernatural has an ontology. It is the source of this existence. It is not defined only negatively. You start off with these assumptions and have no reasoning to support them.

Quote:

Stolen concept fallacy. Causality is a natural process. To be causal is to be lawful. To be lawful is to be natural. Part of nature.

The supernatural would be acuasal, magical... god would work through 'fiat'


That is an unjustified assumption. Supernatural is not non-natural, as the opposite of nature. It is "above" nature as its cause. Hence, no contradiction.

Quote:

To speak meaningfully, via negativa, requires a universe of discourse. But the term 'supernatural' rules out any universe of discourse by definition.

You have yet to prove that assertion.

Quote:
And you can't make analogy from nature to its very antithesis.

Why not? Further, it is not the antithesis of nature. It is above nature. There is a clear distinction.

Quote:
So says the scientologist and the buddhist.

Yes, they find their beliefs reasonable, otherwise they would not believe them. I agree. However, I would argue that they are objectively wrong. But that has nothing to do with the truth of my arguments.

You from this point on just repeat the same argument over and over again, ignoring my posts.

Quote:

YOU START OUT ASSUMING SOME TRUTH, AND THAT A GOD GRANTS THIS TO YOU, WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU THINK YOU MEAN BY THAT, IF NOT YOUR 'GOD' AS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH?

I do not assume that the truth is true. Merely in an epistemological account, there must be X truth that exists, which God communicates to man. It says nothing about the truth or falsity of that precept. I am merely defining faith as an epistemological action. Faith itself does not begin until, as I said above, point three.

Quote:

You start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging!

There is no such argument from ignorance. The outline of how faith works makes no argument at all. It outlines how faith proceeds. Faith does not EXIST AT ALL until the third point. You need to read it before you claim these silly things.

For how I come to understand that there is knowledge beyond my natural capacity to know, that is a different issue. I come to know naturally that God exists, but I can never know what He is in Himself. He is utterly and totally beyond me in that respect, as I have no intuitive self-evident knowledge of God. Hence, this knowledge is beyond my power. The only way one could know this is by faith. And this is faith's purpose: to reveal knowledge not attainable naturally. There is no assumption of faith's part or argument from ignorance here.

Quote:

How can any natural entity point to something without ontology?

God has ontology. It exists in relation to created things. It is your burden of proof to show that He does not have an ontology.

Quote:

How is 'above natural' not 'not-natural"?

It is not the antithesis of nature, as you claim. It holds a relationship to nature.

Quote:

Colloquial usages refer to natural entities, - humans. Colloquial usages are actually just references to experience and probability.

Which is the way theology uses it.

Quote:

These terms are not even from theology, they simply use the word 'faith' in a new sense.

Yes they are. I'll even quote the most basic dictionary definition of faith in theology, from the Cathecism:
"[Faith] is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed."
We trust in what God has revealed because He provides reason to believe it, likewise from the CCC:
"What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived". So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit." Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".

Quote:

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?

Faith does not beg the question.

Faith, in a sense, presumes God's existence is already known by natural reason. It can prove it by the fact that it proves, for example, that God is three and one. So, if God is three and one, there must be a God of which this is predicated. Hence, faith clearly demonstrates that God exists as well. It is not, however, the principal way in which we know that God exists.

Quote:

because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

BEGGING. THE. QUESTION.

You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth, as per your first claim above.


I don't see how this begs the question. I don't prove anything by this, other than the fact that faith, if it proceeded from God, would of necessity be in conformity with reason. This is all I am proving. And then it is merely hypothetical. It never proves the existence of said divine truth, nor does it need to. It merely indicates the nature of faith is to believe a truth revealed by God, and, if it did this, the truth revealed by God must be in accordance with natural reason because God cannot contradict Himself. No contradiction or begging the question.

Quote:

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Again, you add ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE to BEGGING THE QUESTION.

i.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.


That is not the argument at all. We discover that we cannot know certain things, for example, about the nature of God naturally speaking. Hence, faith exists to reveal these things to man; for example, that God is three and one. We KNOW NATURALLY that these truths are beyond our power to know and that they exist. It is not begging the question. I do not merely state that we cannot know things and this proves that faith must exist.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Other

StMichael wrote:
Other religions do not have miracles in the same way Catholicism does. For example, Islam does not. They disavow miracles. Mohammed does so expressly in the Quran and in the Hadith. Miracles are not to convert unbelievers. One, in Islam, believes the Quran because of the fact that it is revealed and God says so. There is no proof necessary, nor can one ask for proof of Mohammed's claims. Judaism is a little different, but of course that is assumed by Christianity. None of the other major religions have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does.
 

 Way to skirt the issue, yet again.  You know full well my point here.  You would quibble on the semantics of "miracle" to avoid taking the problem head on.  Whether or not Islam regards it as a "miracle" by your narrow definition, mohammed's flight to heaven on a horse is no less incredible an event than the virgin birth, or the resurrection.  Your refutation of the fantastical claims of all other religions is to say those religions do not "have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does".  So your entire argument for the truth of your christian/catholic miracles is that they do "have the same concept of miracles that Christianity/Catholicism does".  And you consider this argument more solid than any for 2 + 2 = 4.  Michael, put down the cross and get a shovel.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Whether or not

Quote:
Whether or not Islam regards it as a "miracle" by your narrow definition, mohammed's flight to heaven on a horse is no less incredible an event than the virgin birth, or the resurrection.

No, not just a different concept of miracle, as if they used miracles in the same way we do.
The flight on the flying she-camel is unverifiable and there is no supernatural evidence by miracles for any of these claims. At all. They don't produce miracles. They do not claim to. Mohammed repudiated ever having to do so to verify his claims. He said he flew on a she-camel to Jerusalem and that was that. There was no more. He cursed those who would ask for evidence of his trip, either by substantiating his own authority from God, or by producing direct evidence of the trip. People asked him to prove he was a prophet of God by performing a miracle in God's name. Nothing, nada. Zip. He cursed them for it. On the other hand, Christianity supports its claims with evidence. You might dispute the evidence, but its there. Islam makes no such claim at all.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Whether or not Islam regards it as a "miracle" by your narrow definition, mohammed's flight to heaven on a horse is no less incredible an event than the virgin birth, or the resurrection.
No, not just a different concept of miracle, as if they used miracles in the same way we do. The flight on the flying she-camel is unverifiable and there is no supernatural evidence by miracles for any of these claims. At all. They don't produce miracles. They do not claim to. Mohammed repudiated ever having to do so to verify his claims. He said he flew on a she-camel to Jerusalem and that was that. There was no more. He cursed those who would ask for evidence of his trip, either by substantiating his own authority from God, or by producing direct evidence of the trip. People asked him to prove he was a prophet of God by performing a miracle in God's name. Nothing, nada. Zip. He cursed them for it. On the other hand, Christianity supports its claims with evidence. You might dispute the evidence, but its there. Islam makes no such claim at all. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

YOU ARE SO F-ING BLIND

You are no different than Bod.

"My daddy said because my book(incert name here) says"

You and Bod are peddlers of fiction. You BOTH like your beliefs so much that you will do anything inside your heads to replicate the chemicals in your brains that make you feel good when you think about it. FICTION IS FICTION

Bod believes in the same thing you do. An emaginary friend in the sky that someone sold you. The only difference is names and details but an emaginary sky daddy is the same by any name. Mask fiction with fiction YOU STILL HAVE FICTION.

NOW, since you have no intrest in replicating the claim of virgin birth or death of your claim of Jesus, I consider this thread dead.

Maybe you'd like to convince a Muslim his sky daddy is more real than your sky daddy. All I hear when I listen to either of you is Charley Brown's teacher.

He thinks he is special and you think you are special and to both of you I say, "NEITHER OF YOUR CLAIMS OF SUPER HEROS ARE SPECIAL"

Humans throughout history have made up stories and believed them to be fact and you are not doing anything differently than he is.

Donkeys dont talk, their is no "spirit sperm" human flesh doesnt dance the jig after rigor mortis. Bod isn't going to get rivers of milk and wine or 72 virgins and I cant fart a Lamborginni out of my ass. An absurd claim is an absurd claim even dressed in a tuxcedo it is still an ABSURD CLAIM! 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Michael.  Are you

Michael.  Are you listening?  No, no, no, put down the rosary and pay attention.  I will try to use small words this time so you can understand.  Once again, you know exactly what I am saying.  You are dodging by quibbling on the definition of "miracle", so as to say your religion's magic trick is real, but islam's (or anyone else's) is not.  Both the virgin birth and the flying horse story (which you have wrong in some details, but who cares?) require faith, and do not admit of falsification.  You say "Christianity supports its claims with evidence."  Think long and hard about that.  No, not hard enough.  Harder! Longer!   If the claims are "supported with evidence", they are open to revision based on new evidence (just as mentioned above, Normandy and the Holocaust can be revised or even repudiated with new evidence).  But as you have acknowledged, nothing, no new evidence would suffice to dislodge your beliefs.  Nada.  Zip.  As long as that is the view you take, it is worthless to say it is "supported with evidence".  To rely on evidence for support is to likewise be open to revision with new evidence.  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
YARN wrote: Guess what?

YARN wrote:

Guess what? I'm not going to argue this with you. Know why? You obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

WOW - You have to be the most immoderate moderator I have met yet. Smiling

And I love the performative contradiction - You say that you are not going to argue with me and then proceed to dissertate at length! I also get a kick out of how you run behind the apron strings of Wikipedia, but since you have apparently checked Wiki out please see the subsection titled Ad Hominem abusive / ad personam (it's the one that talks about belittling or insulting one's opponent - strange that you didn't cut and paste that one - also, notice that I am using this argument strategy above).

Want to know why that's not ad-hominem?

I have proof.

Check this out... Brian's own words:

Quote:

St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.

I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.

Do you see a "Therefore" in here? There isn't one.

Do you know what an enthymeme is? Are you aware of the fact that most logical arguments proceed without stating all of the "therefores" and "whereas" clauses? What matters is what is implicit in a given communicative context. If you don't get conversational implicature, I am afraid I won't be able to explain it to you here.

Brian's statements:

1) Brian suspects StM doesn't have the ability to focus.

2) Brian asserts that most theists use a lack of focus to dodge questions.

Did you see anywhere the conclusion that because StM and Theists don't focus, they are wrong? No. Because it's not there. The implied conclusion is that they are wrong AND they don't focus. This is not ad hominem.

Just so you can't say I quoted out of context, here's the rest of Brian's quote:

Quote:

NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?

1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!

See the word, "Therefore?" It's not there.

All that's here is two questions, and an admonishion to avoid dodging the questions. Nothing about dodging questions causing StM to be wrong.

 

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man&quotEye-wink consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

*******************

Brian is not replying to an argument, so right out of the gate, this cannot be true ad hominem.

You don't have to be responding to an argument to make an ad hominem attack. But I like how you are backpeddling here though. You now say it cannot be a "true" ad hominem attack. Are you willing grant that it is an ad hominem-like attack?

Brian has asked two questions, and speculated that StM cannot stick to a subject. This does not fall under the definition of ad hominem.

 

Now, here's why my statement about you is not ad hominem...

I submit that you do not have good reading comprehension skills. Here is my proof. Your own words:

Quote:

Let's take a look at some choice comments:

"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu

StM claims X

StM does not have the ability to focus

StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract

Therefore, StM's claim is wrong

Aha! You have read Brian's post, and yet, you did not comprehend that nowhere is there a statement that StM is wrong BECAUSE he can't focus. You proved your mistake by putting it in print.

So enough about the ad hominem, already. You're wrong. Admit it and we'll think more highly of you and possible take your arguments a little more seriously.

Even if I granted your panicky and meanspirited little tirade (which I don't) it is a perfect illustration of why I find this website so amusing. I have read only a few posts by StM, but he appears to be patient and polite. I find this site comforting because it lets me know that when theism finally passes away humanity will still be intolerant, hateful, and cruel. If you don't believe in God, that's fine. What I don't get is why, if you are so happy about being an atheist, that you have to go on a website that agonistically defines itself in terms of that which it purports to transcend.

 

 

 

Thank you Yarn.

This is so typical of beleivers of all labels

Skeptic "That is not true"

Believer " YOU HATE ME!"

St Micheal is acting like a child who's mommy told him he couldnt have candy in the checkout line.

Grow up St.

If someone is trying to help you get your head out of the sand dont accuse them of hating you. The reason we are blunt with you is because being nice hasnt worked.

Now, if you chose to continue to post here, dont complain about how we respond. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to post here. I'd like to think humans are capable of maturity.

You admited you couldnt replicate the virgin birth or death of Jesus. As I have said countless times:

FINE! Just dont expect us to buy it. This is not a hatefull rant on my part. It is an emotional reaction on your part because YOU are not used to people saying "prove it" or " you are full of crap".

You dont know me St. You have never met me. You could be the nicest person in the world disscussing other issues. I dont know. But the issue is not weither you or I are decent people. The subject of the thread is about the virgin birth and death of the Jesus Character.

You have continually made excuses calling them "miricles" acting as if no other religion used that word or had a word for the same thing. You have not provided any biological or medical evidence for such claims. I called you on it and you didnt like it.

Again, I cant help you understand unless you want help. If you are happy believing that an egg magically got fertilized by some invisable guy, I cant stop you. But as I said countless times, if you cant prove it, dont expect us to buy it.

Stop your whiny behaivor and poney up with the evidence. If you have none, we wont have you arrested or burnt at the stake. We dont hate you, we dont even know you. But we are not obligated to buy what you are selling without proof. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Both the virgin

Quote:
Both the virgin birth and the flying horse story (which you have wrong in some details, but who cares?) require faith, and do not admit of falsification.

They do not directly admit of falsification. However, Mohammed does not claim to produce any authority outside of his own say-so in the matter. Which is why Mohammed is wrong.
Read below before you respond.

Quote:
If the claims are "supported with evidence", they are open to revision based on new evidence (just as mentioned above, Normandy and the Holocaust can be revised or even repudiated with new evidence). [...] To rely on evidence for support is to likewise be open to revision with new evidence.

Here's the problem: faith requires evidence that can show it credible to move one to accept the authority of the one revealing, but the actual faith itself is beyond credulity. When you accept the premises on the strength of the probable evidence that miracles present, you are accepting the authority of God in revealing these things. As such, His authority in the matter and what He says carries with it an infinite credibility. It becomes a more certain knowledge than any other.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Both the virgin birth and the flying horse story (which you have wrong in some details, but who cares?) require faith, and do not admit of falsification.
They do not directly admit of falsification. However, Mohammed does not claim to produce any authority outside of his own say-so in the matter. Which is why Mohammed is wrong. Read below before you respond.
Quote:
If the claims are "supported with evidence", they are open to revision based on new evidence (just as mentioned above, Normandy and the Holocaust can be revised or even repudiated with new evidence). [...] To rely on evidence for support is to likewise be open to revision with new evidence.
Here's the problem: faith requires evidence that can show it credible to move one to accept the authority of the one revealing, but the actual faith itself is beyond credulity. When you accept the premises on the strength of the probable evidence that miracles present, you are accepting the authority of God in revealing these things. As such, His authority in the matter and what He says carries with it an infinite credibility. It becomes a more certain knowledge than any other. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 1) The writers of the Gospels provide no evidence besides their say so as well. This is why they are wrong as well. What's the difference again?

2) Thank you for admitting that man can do something God couldn't. Man provided God his infinite credibility. What proof do you have of God's infinite credibility? All I can see is a Bible written by man and the opinions of men that other men call saints. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Both the virgin birth and the flying horse story (which you have wrong in some details, but who cares?) require faith, and do not admit of falsification.
They do not directly admit of falsification. However, Mohammed does not claim to produce any authority outside of his own say-so in the matter. Which is why Mohammed is wrong. Read below before you respond.
Quote:
If the claims are "supported with evidence", they are open to revision based on new evidence (just as mentioned above, Normandy and the Holocaust can be revised or even repudiated with new evidence). [...] To rely on evidence for support is to likewise be open to revision with new evidence.
Here's the problem: faith requires evidence that can show it credible to move one to accept the authority of the one revealing, but the actual faith itself is beyond credulity. When you accept the premises on the strength of the probable evidence that miracles present, you are accepting the authority of God in revealing these things. As such, His authority in the matter and what He says carries with it an infinite credibility. It becomes a more certain knowledge than any other. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Faith allows you to believe absurdity. Your "faith" or any other.

Now once again, stop the distractions and replicate the virgin birth and death of the Jesus character.

You cant and you admited it and you know it. This other stuff is merely you emotionally clinging to your ego and has nothing to do with intelectuall honesty. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Mohammed does not claim to produce any authority outside of his own say-so in the matter. Which is why Mohammed is wrong.

That's pretty much how you cover your own claims, playa. You refuse to entertain that truth value of the virgin birth could ever be challenged, whether on your authority, or your pope's authority or jesus' authority or, I don't know, Dear Abby's authority. If mohammed is wrong for defleting any possible refutation by some unassailable authority, guess who else is wrong?

StMichael wrote:
Here's the problem: faith requires evidence that can show it credible to move one to accept the authority of the one revealing, but the actual faith itself is beyond credulity. When you accept the premises on the strength of the probable evidence that miracles present, you are accepting the authority of God in revealing these things. As such, His authority in the matter and what He says carries with it an infinite credibility. It becomes a more certain knowledge than any other.

Evidence. Say it Michael. E-VI-DENCE. Let it roll off your tongue and down your pants. We expect evidence for any claim. Yet even when we accept a claim based on evidence, we are prepared to deny that claim should new evidence come to light. So, if you say "faith requires evidence", you are saying "faith requires something which could later be shown to be false, based on new evidence". However you want to psychobabble your way to claiming the virgin birth is true, if your claim utilizes evidence, your claim is open to revision and refutation. If as you have already said, no amount of evidence would permit refutation of your belief, then evidence is negligible in its effect on your claim, and should not be mentioned in the first place. If evidence can't be used to disprove it, evidence can't be used to prove it. Very simple.

Peace brother.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1) The writers of

Quote:
1) The writers of the Gospels provide no evidence besides their say so as well. This is why they are wrong as well. What's the difference again?

Actually, the writers of the Gospels do provide more. Remember Saint Peter: "I have no silver or gold, but what I have I give. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and walk." Their miracles substantiated their claims. Likewise, their successors in the Church support this with miracles.

Quote:

2) Thank you for admitting that man can do something God couldn't. Man provided God his infinite credibility. What proof do you have of God's infinite credibility? All I can see is a Bible written by man and the opinions of men that other men call saints.

I don't understand what you mean by men doing something God cannot. Man did not give God infinite credibility. We know from natural reason that God exists and that His word, as coming from Truth itself, must be credible to an infinite degree. We wouldn't need Scripture or other people to tell us that.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
1) The writers of the Gospels provide no evidence besides their say so as well. This is why they are wrong as well. What's the difference again?
Actually, the writers of the Gospels do provide more. Remember Saint Peter: "I have no silver or gold, but what I have I give. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and walk." Their miracles substantiated their claims. Likewise, their successors in the Church support this with miracles.
Quote:
2) Thank you for admitting that man can do something God couldn't. Man provided God his infinite credibility. What proof do you have of God's infinite credibility? All I can see is a Bible written by man and the opinions of men that other men call saints.
I don't understand what you mean by men doing something God cannot. Man did not give God infinite credibility. We know from natural reason that God exists and that His word, as coming from Truth itself, must be credible to an infinite degree. We wouldn't need Scripture or other people to tell us that. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Jeeze, it is as plain as the nose on your face.

OF COURSE MAN CAN DO SOMETHING GOD CANNOT!

FICTION CANNOT CREATE ITSELF, MAN HAS TO CREATE IT! 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I have no idea what you mean

I have no idea what you mean that man can do that which God cannot. I never said anything that would indicate that.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I have no

StMichael wrote:
I have no idea what you mean that man can do that which God cannot. I never said anything that would indicate that. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

What did I mean? One can't give oneself credibility. Credibility can only be given by those that find the person or object credible.

In this case, God can't lend credibility to himself. The only ones who can give God credibility are those who believe in him - human beings. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Well!

zarathustra wrote:
Well! Looks like Brian went a little postal in this thread, but I'll admit I find it quite entertaining LOL! Michael & I are currently on the topic of miracles here, feel free to join us. But really quick, rergarding your distinction between "blind faith" and "reasonable faith": You illuminate this dichotomy by the moon of green cheese example. The thing about the green cheese moon belief is that it is falsifiable. There exists a means for determining whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. Yet you yourself acknowledge that the virgin birth and resurrection are not falsifiable. Of course, you cannot permit them to be falsifiable, because, then the god who authored them would be falsifiable, and the whole artifice would come crashing asunder. Therefore, not reasonable faith. Yarn is correct - you have remained polite. So far, my patience has matched yours...let's see if it lasts.

HE HE HE...I go postal like the cookie monster is a national security threat. I might get pissed at bullshit, but I'm not going on a killing spree over it. 

Look, it does piss me off that in 07 people still believe in Santa for adults. But my goal is not to put these people in ovens. Just to wake them up to a minimum point that they arnt basing common law on their sectarian views.

If you want to claim that I am a pitt bull shooter no holds barred to magical claims, I'd agree. But, my goal has never been to put a gun to someone's head and force them to give up what they believe. If you  can back it up, back it up. If you cant, I wont arrest you or burn you at the stake. I simply wont buy it, BUT, I also wont let you base our laws on unproven MYTH!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
God does give Himself

God does give Himself credibility by miracles. He says, I am credible. We say, prove it. He performs miracles. He now has credibility.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
That would only make sense

That would only make sense if miracles were credible. And they're not.

 Back and forth you go:  Miracles are credible because of god.  god is credible because of miracles.  And on and on.

Kids! Look at all those pretty little circles! 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Miracles are not credible

Miracles are not credible because of God. What makes you think that? That phrase makes no sense. Miracles prove God's credibility to us as being the author of nature, and hence able to intervene in a miraculous way.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God does give

Quote:
God does give Himself credibility by miracles. He says, I am credible. We say, prove it. He performs miracles. He now has credibility.

Then your next post......

Quote:
Miracles are not credible because of God. What makes you think that? That phrase makes no sense. Miracles prove God's credibility to us as being the author of nature, and hence able to intervene in a miraculous way.

You sound like a Star Trec computer battling Captain Kirk, "If Then"

Computer, "That does not compute"

Kirk, "But you just said"

Computer, "I know what I said"

Kirk, "Then how..."

Computer, " That does not compute...overload...SHUTTING DOWN!"

St Micheal, you are regergitating what you have been sold, nothing suprising that when you are called on something, you dodge it. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: God does

StMichael wrote:
God does give Himself credibility by miracles. He says, I am credible. We say, prove it. He performs miracles. He now has credibility. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 As others have said, the believer who buys into the miracle gives God credibility, God does not give it to himself.

But since the head fisher of men has buried his hook deep into your brain, I doubt if you'll see it. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael,  It is not

StMichael, 

It is not plain to me, through reason of any kind, that a first mover must exist.  God's existence is not plain to me.  So either I'm missing something (but you've said it so many time, that can't be it), I'm intellectually deficient (a possibility, but that would mean the rest of us arguing with Mikey are as well, which makes it less likely that all of us are deficient), or something is wrong with the argument presented.  

 I see no reason to accept the stories of the Bible, including the miracles, to be true without some extra-Biblical evidence.  I'd be willing to admit that many of the people were real, some of the events happened, most of the cities were real, and that some of the ideas have merit.  But I see no reason to believe that any of the so-called miracles actually happened.  Why should I?

People die for all sorts of ideas, many of them utter BS.  The fact that many people may have died for Christianity means nothing more than they believed it. People die for Islam quite often, but this doesn't make Islam true, now does it?  The authority or trust-wortiness of the eye-witnesses is insufficient because I see no reason to trust the source over others.  I am not convinced, and the fact that you are convinced by it but not other similar faiths demonstrates a bias.  You may have striven for truth, philosophical argument, etc in order to back up or support your belief, but I haven't seen that you have done so successfully. 

Miracles cannot lend credibility if they cannot be verified themselves. People writing stuff down doesn't prove they happened.  For example;

Yesterday I was walking down the street and a man was in a wheel-chair, asking for money.  i said to him taht i had no money to give him, but in The Flying Spaghetti Monster's name, get up and walk.  The man swiftly got up, ran in a little circle, then ran down the street weeping tears of joy.  Do you believe me?

And Lanciano?  I'll leave that as it's been said.  I have nothing new to add to that issue.

Your historical argument is lacking, your philosophy out-dated and simplistic, and you are blind to logical fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.  I only hope that you will recognize this some day and realize that you can have faith, but said belief is truly unsupported by evidence.

I'm not saying you are incorrect, I'm saying that your argument is insufficient to convince me that you are correct.

 Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote:   Your

ShaunPhilly wrote:
 

Your historical argument is lacking, your philosophy out-dated and simplistic, and you are blind to logical fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading. I only hope that you will recognize this some day and realize that you can have faith, but said belief is truly unsupported by evidence.

 

I've made it abundantly clear that Mike is arguing from ignorance, special pleading, and guitly of circular fallacy. He's  unable to follow these ramifications from his claims.

I invite everyone to just keep reinforcing these points. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Let's stick to the heart of

Let's stick to the heart of the discussion, Mike.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
I've shown you that YOU define faith as unjustified assumption, but you're unable to follow the ramifications of your own claims.

I have not done so.

Yes, you have.

Let's review:

A few examples:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!

Pretty funny! 

More:

 http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?

You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?

More here:

- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth, as per your first claim above.

Here's another example:

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Again, you argue from ignorance and beg the question. I.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.

Here a fifth example:

St. Michael wrote:

First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds.

Second, it assumes,

It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes.

QED 

Quote:
 

and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."


This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist.



Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.


Here's a sixth:

St. Michael wrote:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.


And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.

Quote:
Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.

Quote:

I see no reason why they cannot.

Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason.

This is tautological.

Quote:
We already discussed why Saint Paul does not.

Except that he does. I want to focus on your words, but I will make one exception here. Your mistake is that you are refusing to look at passages where paul clearly speaks directly on faith itself:

Hebrews

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This faith is unjustified, it is groundless. But Paul argues that this faith then allows the believer to interpret the world thusly:


11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


So the point Paul is making here is that faith begins with an assumption - it's unjustified - no evidence seen. But if one holds to it, and comes to rely on it as a trust, then this trust will be rewarded:

For example: (just to grab one of them)

11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.


Now, for you, this process is entirely unjustified.

 

Quote:
In fact, he expressly denies in multiple places.

Odd that you'd run off to other books in order to avoid the passages in front of you.

Quote:

Of the many, here is one more: "1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.

This need not be taken as a denial, if one accepts the Hebrews 11 account.

Again, read the above points.

Quote:

1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

Invisible things - i.e. not seen through the eye of reason, but taken on faith. Again, read the above

Anyway, this is all moot, I want to stick to your own words.

Quote:
Faith does not require reasons, if it did, you couldn't hold belief in the supernatural at all.

Quote:

Absolutely and entirely false.

So you assert, yet again. However, the problem here is that this is a ramificaiton of your own claims, that follow, now:

Quote:

You keep claiming that I hold to a statement of unjustified belief in the following:

Quote:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Quote:

This is not a statement of what faith holds. This is an ontological statement about REALITY ITSELF.

Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.

You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity. Yet you beg the question of a particular truth: the existence of Truth, and of a Divine Aid that allows you access to Truth.

This is where you argue from ignorance, and beg the question of a god.

Your explication of theological 'faith' rests upon this 'ontology', ergo you have conceded that your faith begs the question.

QED

Quote:

What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori.

But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason.

This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce.

Q E D

Quote:

Put this in context with the rest of what I said:

An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid. Second, God says, "Gee, it might be good if man knew this."

You've just highlighed yet again how you do in fact beg the question. You argue from ignorance for particular facts beyond reason, including a divine aid, which is god. You move from arguing from ignorance and begging the question of a divine aid, to actually speaking of this divine aid, 'god'.

QED Again.

Quote:

Faith, as this account clearly shows, presumes no such thing. In fact, faith does not actually begin to exist until the third point.

To say that is to again beg the question!

Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3!

Your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!

So your attempt to run away from the problem in this way is just bizzare.

.

Quote:
The supernatural has an ontology. It is the source of this existence.

So you assert. But that's not an argument for the supernatural having an ontology, Mike. To provide such an argument, you need to provide the ontology.

Whether we say the supernatural is non nature, or above nature, the supernatural is defined contra-nature, ergo it is devoid of any universe of discourse, it can only be described negatively. Your attempts to ASSERT otherwise are empty, unless you can show how they differ meaningfully.

What is 'above' nature, and how does it differ from 'not nature'?

Quote:

It is not defined only negatively.

Really? Then demonstrate.

Your problem here is that 'supernatural' is a broken concept. You can't refer to anything without giving it an identity, characteristics, an hence, a nature.

To exist is to exist as something, to have an identity, to have a nature.

So this is why theology can only procede rationally in a negative manner.

I do hope you recognize these basic points of ontology, otherwise, further discourse is pointless.

Quote:
Causality is a natural process. To be causal is to be lawful. To be lawful is to be natural. Part of nature. The supernatural would be acuasal, magical... god would work through 'fiat'

Quote:

That is an unjustified assumption.

No, it's definitional. If you disagree, give an argument.

Quote:

Supernatural is not non-natural, as the opposite of nature. It is "above" nature as its cause. Hence, no contradiction.

So you assert.

But you failed to show how the terms differ. Can you show how 'above' leads to any difference than ' non'?

If not, you've made a distinction without any difference.

Quote:
To speak meaningfully, via negativa, requires a universe of discourse. But the term 'supernatural' rules out any universe of discourse by definition.

Quote:

You have yet to prove that assertion.

What assertion? To speak meaningfully requires that an 'entity' have identity. To have identity is to exist as something, to have characteristics. This is basic ontology. Explain how you can describe an entity devoid of any characteristics, or withdraw your claim.

How can you speak of something without any positive traits at all? This is all basic ontology.

As for the supernatural ruling out a universe of discourse, this follows definitionally. Saying that the supernatural is merely "above' nature is no different from saying it is "not nature", as both terms are 'contra-nature'

If you disagree, then show how 'above' differs from "non"... don't just assert that it differs, demonstrate it.

Quote:
And you can't make analogy from nature to its very antithesis.

Quote:

Why not?

How can you refer to something without an ontology?

Quote:

Further, it is not the antithesis of nature. It is above nature. There is a clear distinction.

So you keep asserting. If there is a clear distinction why not make it, rather than just keep asserting that there is one?

Quote:

God has ontology.

Yet 'god' is defined via negativa, without any universe of discourse. So how can you have an ontology?

And how can anyTHING have an ontology and not be natural?

Quote:
How is 'above natural' not 'not-natural"?

Quote:

It is not the antithesis of nature, as you claim. It holds a relationship to nature.

HOW IS ABOVE NATURAL NOT NON NATURAL?

 

Quote:
Colloquial usages refer to natural entities, - humans. Colloquial usages are actually just references to experience and probability.

Quote:

Which is the way theology uses it.

Even your own theology doesn't use it that way. You start out by arguing from ignorance and begging the question, and then fail to even grasp this...

You just aren't able to follow the ramifications of your own words.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The believer accepts the

The believer accepts the miracle, but that has nothing to do with making God credible. God's miracle itself is the grounds for credibility. The believer does not just make it up out of thin air.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The

StMichael wrote:
The believer accepts the miracle,

By begging the question of god's existence, and the existence of miracles, and then from arguing from ignorance that event X is a miracle.

Can you please at least commit a new logical fallacy? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.