Food for freethought [Kill Em With Kindness]

Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Food for freethought [Kill Em With Kindness]

I originally posted this on your sister site, freethinkingteens.com out of ignorance.  I think it may be better suited for you guys.  I hope you enjoy.

 

As I'm sure many of you know, the Jewish people annually celebrate the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and have done so for about 3500 years now.  The Passover holiday is to commemorate the story told in Exodus Chapter 12, where God sent a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt.  God gave the people a way to get out of this horrible fate by telling them to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and rub its blood above their doorposts.  Do this, He said, and the destroyer will "Passover" your house. Now, Christians like myself will tell you that this Passover lamb was a "type" of Christ, meaning something in the Old Testament that eerily reminds us of the story of Jesus.  John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."  The Book of Revelation calls Jesus "a Lamb that appeared to have been slain."  Just as the Passover lamb's blood protected all inside a house from the destroyer, so also does the blood of the Lamb of God protect all under it from the coming fiery judgment. But this is elementary.  I'm sure you've heard such things before, and, because you may not believe the stories of the Bible have a foundation in the real world, you have become quite tired of hearing about it.  What I want to talk about is the Passover feast itself, the one that has been celebrated for 3500 years by a people that rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah foretold in their Scriptures. On the 14th day of the first month on the Jewish calendar, (which tends to be May on our calendars, theirs is based off of lunar cycles so it fluctuates) the Passover is celebrated.  Aside from eating the Passover lamb, who's bones are not to be broken, they also will sit down and eat specific, traditional foods that teach things from the story in Exodus 12.  For example, they'll eat a very hot horse-radish ground with beet juice to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, then quickly eat sweet apples to take away the bitterness to symbolize the release from slavery.   While many aspects of the Passover celebration directly correlate to the story of Christ, (the bitterness, in the above, would symbolize the bitterness of the death of Christ on the cross, and the sweetness would be the sweetness of the resurrection) I won't go into all of those.  I'll instead skip ahead to the fourth step in the Jewish Passover feast (also called the seder) which is called the Yachatz.  During the Yachatz, three pieces of unleavened bread are put before the celebrants.  These pieces of unleavened bread are traditionally baked on pans with indentions and ripples on them, which gives the bread an appearance of having stripes and holes in it.  As the prophet Isaiah says in Chapter 52, "He was to be pierced for our transgressions...and by His stripes we are healed." So, they put these three pieces of striped and pierced unleavened bread in a linen basket they call the "Echad" and set it in the middle of the table.  This word "Echad" is used also in the Hebrew Old Testament.  It means "one" or "unity" in the Hebrew (Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is Echad&quotEye-wink  It's important to note that Jewish people are strict unitarians; they do not believe God is Triune. Now, the Yachatz proceeds as follows:  the father, or head of the household, takes the middle piece of bread out of the Echad.  He takes hold of the bread, which is called the Afikomen, and breaks it.  He then wraps it in linen and hides it away.  The children in the house then search for the Afikomen and when they find it they return it to their father.  The children don't just give it to him though, the father pays a ransom to get the Afikomen back, which is typically gifts or money or the like.  Everyone at the feast then eats a piece of the Afikomen. On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed, as He and His disciples ate what we call the Last Supper, they weren't just eating any old meal, they were celebrating the Passover.  When Jesus picked up the piece of bread and said, "Take, eat, this is My body broken for you," He was breaking the Afikomen.   The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ.  They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you.  It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world.  You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections.  Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself.  If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free. 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:in

Chriswithac wrote:
in Acts 9:22 that the apostle Paul was able to "prove" that Jesus is the Christ.  I don't want to be so arrogant as to put myself on the level of the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, but this tells me that it is possible to "prove" the truth of Christianity; not to simply give "compelling evidences" that leave room for doubt.

Do you know who wrote Acts 9:22?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:I'll

Chriswithac wrote:

I'll paraphrase.  The God of the Bible gives me, as a Christian, a rational foundation for logic; God gave it to us.  You, as an atheist, have no foundation for logic that is compatable with your own worldview.  You have to pull it out of the sky, call it something that magically "just is", and in a sense, deify it.  The Bible calls this "worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator." 

I'm not going to play games with you.  Show me that your worldview can give a rational account for the existence of logic, then you can use logic to try and prove your worldview.  Until you can do that, none of your arguments even have feet to stand on.  It's like you're arguing against the existence of air while breathing air to spit your arguments out.

I pray that my God will give you understanding.

How can a being that your holy book claims is not bound by the rules of logic have given you a rational foundation for anything?

As far as worshipping creation over creator, why aren't you worshipping Paul? He played a large part in building the Christ you worship.

"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


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
God did.

God wrote Acts 9.  Quote the Bible where it says God is illogical.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The God of the Bible

Quote:
The God of the Bible gives me, as a Christian, a rational foundation for logic
Why not the God of the Quran? Or Odin or Zeus?

The God of the Quran presumably created the Universe, with logic in it. Ergo he must be real, because logic is real.

And other ancient deities also created the universe with logic in it. Ergo they are real too.

What makes the God of the Bible any truer than any other?

The variation of the ontological argument that you are using presupposes only "a creator-God", not any specific one. There are more creator-God's than your version of the Christian God who are equally valid from your argument.

So how can you descredit any of them, of you think this argument is valid?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God wrote Acts 9

Quote:
God wrote Acts 9
aawww. How sweet. Do you really believe that? I mean quite literally? What innocence. Like a little child.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm not starting by

I'm not starting by believing in Zeus or Allah, I'm starting with Jehovah.  I do this because there are no irreconcilable internal contradictions in the Christian worldview, like there are in those other religions.  But I'm not dealing with Muslims and Zeusites, I'm dealing with athiests right now; I'll worry about Muslims and flying spaghetti monster worshippers when they come knocking at my door.  So why don't you focus on accounting for logic like I've politely asked?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:I'll

Chriswithac wrote:

I'll paraphrase.  The God of the Bible gives me, as a Christian, a rational foundation for logic; God gave it to us.

How is that rational ?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:I do this

Chriswithac wrote:
I do this because there are no irreconcilable internal contradictions in the Christian worldview

Have you read the bible ?


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
God, who is logical, gives

God, who is logical, gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

As opposed to the athiest position:

Nothing gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

Which is rational?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:God, who

Chriswithac wrote:

God, who is logical, gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

This is not rational. You're just saying "god did it", which is pulling stuff out of the sky, which is what you accused us of doing.

Chriswithac wrote:
As opposed to the athiest position:

Nothing gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

Which is rational?

If you want a definition of "logic" without the word "god" in it, just open a dictionary.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God, who is logical,

Quote:

God, who is logical, gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

As opposed to the athiest position:

Nothing gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

Which is rational?

*emphasis added*

You are presupposing that logic is given. Only sentient entities gives things.

So you are presupposing God in your question.

You are addresing atheists with that question, so you can't presuppose God in your question and expect an answer.

I'm not going to presuppose God to arrive at the conclution that God exists.

That's cirkular, and then I won't have proven God.

Here's my answer:

"Nothing gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic."

Now let's remove the presupposition: "Nothing gives us logic... Therefore"

Which leaves us with:

we have logic

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
This conversation just keeps

This conversation just keeps getting more and more hilariously ridiculous.  Serious, I almost spewed soda from my nose laughing so hard.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
LOL

LOL I agree; tears are running down my face!

i haven't laugh this much in a while


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:As opposed

Chriswithac wrote:

As opposed to the athiest position:

Nothing gives us logic. 

 

Atheism is not a position of "nothing".

Atheism is simply the absence of the belief of a god (whatever that is)

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:God, who

Chriswithac wrote:

God, who is logical, gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

As opposed to the athiest position:

Nothing gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

Which is rational?

If God were logical, he'd operate logically. Which of the miracles/divine mass murderings in either testament were logical?

The other view goes something more like this - Humans see things operating in an orderly manner. From these observations come the laws of logic.

Which is more rational? God plopping something down from nothing or humans extrapolating from observed data?

You are a funny guy. Keep us laughing.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Chris, what if god was us?.

Chris, what if god was us?. Buddha and Jesus etc said they and all was god, so why not you? I am an atheist fan of a jesus, but not the jesus, of saul paul, nor xainity, nor any form of idol worship. Atheism is the "saving good word", as all is one ....

What if god was one of us? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W42BCZ6Csfk

Alan Watts, world religion scholar wrote:

"The religion of Jesus was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and,  "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God." [ you and all are christ too, 100% god too ]

"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out." ~ Alan Watts *

Nietzsche's The Antichrist, by Travis J. Denneson .... and SEE Part 4 , IV. The Buddhistic Jesus?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/travis_denneson/antichrist.html

 


 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:God, who

Chriswithac wrote:

God, who is logical, gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

As opposed to the athiest position:

Nothing gives us logic.  Therefore we have logic.

Which is rational?

Where did you god get this logic?

Did logic exist before your god had it?

If so why would we need a god for it?

If not then how can you be certain of anything about the nature of god? 

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:I'm not an

Chriswithac wrote:

I'm not an intellectual.  I have no formal training in logic, epistimology, or philosophy and I'm just a college freshman.  However, the Bible records in Acts 9:22 that the apostle Paul was able to "prove" that Jesus is the Christ.  I don't want to be so arrogant as to put myself on the level of the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, but this tells me that it is possible to "prove" the truth of Christianity; not to simply give "compelling evidences" that leave room for doubt. 

If you have no formal training in logic or epistemology, do you believe you are equipped to seriously consider the question of the fundamental nature of logic? Let alone carry on an informed debate. I'm not trying to be insulting, truly. But would you try to build a house without training as a carpenter? Would you attempt to build a bridge without knowledge of mechanical physics? Would you argue rocket design with Robert Goddard without some knowledge of chemistry, physics, and engineering?

Consider your viewpoint with an outsider's perspective. You claim the Bible is true simply because the Bible claims to be true. Do you see how an outsider might consider this a faulty argument? Further, do you see how any argument based on Biblical texts might be seen as faulty?

 

Quote:

So why do I appeal to the Bible?  Within the Christian worldview, God provides the basis for a coherent and consistent universe.  From my worldview, God made it that way and that's why I'm able to make sense of things like logic, the uniformity of nature, an objective morality, and everything else.  I'm able to give a consistent, rational account for these things, Jehovah graciously gave them to us when He made the universe.  That's why I say God is the basis for logic.

I understand your argument, which is the argument-for-ignorance: "Everything is as it is because God made it that way."

I'm going out on a limb here, and assuming you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old. In that light, I'd like you to explain a few things about God for me.

The closest galaxy (Andromeda) to us is over 2 million light years away. That means that light from that galaxy would take over 2 millions years to reach us. If the universe is only a few thousand years old (strict Biblical interpretation, I'm told), how did this light reach us? Did God create the light in-transit, as if the universe were older than it is? This is an important question, because it helps define the kind of God you believe in. Either your God is a trickster God, who would lead you to believe things that are not true (that the universe is older than it is), or the universe is really older than you believe. (Again, I'm making assumptions about your belief.)

We have detected objects 13 billion light-years away. That means that either the universe really is 13 billion years old, or God wishes us to believe the universe is 13 billion years old, or God is trying to catch us unbelievers with a trick that is obvious to true believers. Or, perhaps, we merely don't understand things like the speed of light and cosmic distances.

So, which am I to believe? An ancient universe, a trickster God, or a failed understanding of the laws of physics? Or is it something else entirely?

Quote:

Now, given your atheistic world and life view, how are you able to account for logic?  Because the universe has proven itself to be this way, you say?  How are you able to account for this subjective concept of "proofs", given your athiestic presuppositions?  If things are "provable" that implies that the universe is a consistent and uniform place.  Why should the universe be uniform if it's "guided" by unguided chaos?  What's to say anything that is today will be tommorow?  Induction?  I understand some of your philosophers have had a problem with that also.

Absolutely some philosophers have issues with induction. Just because something is so, doesn't mean it will be so tomorrow. As a universal tool, induction is flawed. In specific, well-defined cases, however, induction is a very powerful tool.

First, "proofs" are not subjective. You are projecting your own interpretation based on your view of atheism, which appears to be flawed.

You are correct in your conclusion that the universe seems to be a consistent and uniform place. Your conclusion that it is ruled by chaos, however, is incorrect. "Chaos" is a mathematical concept (in the sense we're using here). It is a property of a stochastic process, and is not itself necessarily a fundamental feature of the universe per se. Chances are, "chaos" is an emergent, and not basic, property of the universe.

One of the interesting things about information science is the demonstration of emergent chaos from simple sets of interdependent rules. What is even more interesting is the emergent third-level order from the second-level chaos. Starting from simple rule sets, a system may result in mathematical chaos; however, from this chaos, a more-complex stochastic order emerges, forming complex structures with unexpected complex interactions with each other. Funny thing is, these rulesets don't have to be particularly well-crafted for expression of these emergent properties.

This is very similar to what we see in the universe. So far, though our knowledge is far from complete, the fundamental rules of the universe are surprisingly simple. There seem to be only a few of these rules, and a search is on to find the unifying (hopefully-simple) ruleset.

Now, if our understanding of logic is based entirely on the consistency and coherency of this fundamental ruleset, what you are arguing really isn't about logic. You are arguing that God is necessary for the creation of the universe. This is exactly the same argument-from-ignorance used by theists for thousands of years.

Quote:

Belief in Jehovah and in His Holy Scriptures gives me a solid basis for understanding the universe around me.  Athiesm fails because it provides no such basis for you to use logic at all, even though you're quite good at using it.  Athiesm therefore cannot be true because it invalidates the very thing you know very well to be valid.  Christianity does not invalidate it for me, it establishes it. 

So, if I don't appeal to the Bible and believe in God, logic breaks down because I no longer have a basis for it.  Comments are welcome, and I hope that makes sense.

As I explained, atheism doesn't invalidate logic. Your misunderstanding of the atheistic worldview (hint: there isn't one, except inasmuch as it doesn't include God) has led to some false assumptions about how atheist scientists view the universe. You are simply trying to imagine that our understanding of logic is the exact opposite of your understanding of logic. However, that isn't so.

For homework, please read Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason, and write an essay explaining the necessity (or lack thereof) of God in relation to logic from a Kantian perspective.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:God wrote

Chriswithac wrote:

God wrote Acts 9.

Did he also write "The Lord of the Rings"?  What about Acts 8?
Quote:
Quote the Bible where it says God is illogical.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" - John 3:16

 

Ok, why the bullshit 'believeth' game?  I know, I'm going to do something, then make sure there is no evidence of what I did, then tell people to believe that I did it!  In god's case, he sent himself to sacrifice himself to himself to satisfy his own wrath as the only possible means of forgiving the more gullible of us for being decendents of a woman litterally made of a rib who ate a magical fruit off a forbidden tree at the advice of a talking snake with legs.  Did I mention that god set up the whole incident in the magical fairy garden of happiness in the first place by making people prone to temptation then sticking a forbidden tree (or two) smack dab in the middle?  Yep, sound logical to me...

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
You're really just papering

You're really just papering over the question and not answering it.  How do you, as an athiest, rationally give an account for logic, objective morality, linguistic coherency, and the uniformity of nature?  I'm accusing you of saying these things just magically exist, which is something that should not comport with your atheism because you deny the supernatural by necessity.

Saying these things exist by supernatural means does comport with my Christianity, however, so I don't have the same problem you do.  The Bible teaches that in Jehovah we live and move and have our being.

The solution for you is to just start presupposing God more consistently, since you're already doing it every time you open your mouth and use His system of coherent language or His reasoning ability. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Chris, can you define god

Chris, can you define god without your bible? Why do you insist you are not god, is it just because you don't know everything and are in awe, as we all are? Why presume the "force" is a conscious all knowing one? Isn't it also an error to call god a he?

"In the end, religion is a personal expression of belief and used to justify actions." ~ rrs daedalus


So true, actions and wishful beliefs. Christianity, as the jesus of saul's invention, is a religion of clever separatism idol worship. It's flat out primitive and wrong.

We are the eyes of god, all existence, the cosmos, looking at itself  ... cool Carl Sagan muzed ....

"I have not come to bring peace (appeasement) but a sword" .... Idol worship is the enemy to heal this day ....

 


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:I'm

Chriswithac wrote:

I'm accusing you of saying these things just magically exist,

Atheists tend not to believe in magic.

Quote:
which is something that should not comport with your atheism because you deny the supernatural by necessity.

More nonsense.  Atheists LACK A BELIEF in the supernatural because there is no evidence for it, and also because the term is inherently undefinable.

Quote:
Saying these things exist by supernatural means does comport with my Christianity, however, so I don't have the same problem you do.

Perhaps not.  You only have the task of providing the evidence and definition for that which is supernatural.  Go!

Quote:
The Bible teaches that in Jehovah we live and move and have our being.

The bible also teaches that eating yeast is a sin.  You on the Atkins diet over there?

Quote:
The solution for you is to just start presupposing God more consistently, since you're already doing it every time you open your mouth and use His system of coherent language or His reasoning ability.

This is so ridiculous that my only response is to ask a mod to move this to the Atheist vs. Theist board, so that I can mock your avatar.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Actually it has been answer before

Logic (at least human logic we shall use here), linguistic coherency and objetive morality are all due to evolution of life on this planet, a natural explanation of how our species and all species evolved the moment life began, no god required in this explanation at all. The Uniformity of nature, well show where miracles actually happened....outside of the bible please, since you can't use the bible to prove the bible. God itself is a magical being in the bible, that does all these things that defy the laws of nature. So do please explain how god is not supernatural per se?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
RRS saves!  Thanks ...The

RRS saves!  Thanks ...

The clever greedy ego maniacs have always created false memes to pacify and enslave the weak, who then emulate them.  

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Also on the god subject

The uniformity of nature would mean that you have to explain how miracles occur, the uniformity of nature shows there are no miracles, if there is something that defies what we know of the laws of nature, there is a natural explanation, even though we may not be able to explain it at the moment.

The Uniformity of nature takes god out of the equation, not put him in it, as miracles defy the uniformity of nature as we know it. With this said, you say you use hte bible as your logic, but you haven't answer the contradiction and illogical choices of god. For god to come as a human to sacrifice himself to himself so that he can forgive humans for being created flawed, as well as the whole garden of eden portion of it all. With that said the whole killing of Jobs children to prove his faith in god to which the Satan questioned Jobs faith....again not really logical for what god did, well not a loving type of god anyways.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponders

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:God wrote

Chriswithac wrote:

God wrote Acts 9.

Who told you that?

And what is "god"?

Also, I forgot the obvious because it is such an elementary question; do you have any evidence for this thing you call god?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:You're

Chriswithac wrote:

You're really just papering over the question and not answering it.  How do you, as an athiest, rationally give an account for logic, objective morality, linguistic coherency, and the uniformity of nature?  I'm accusing you of saying these things just magically exist, which is something that should not comport with your atheism because you deny the supernatural by necessity.

Logic is basically a guideline for determining relevance.  We don't need a god to give us that, free thinking humans figured out what constitutes a relevant piece of evidence or argument.

  As for objective morals:  I've yet to claim that such a thing exists.  It looks to me like morals evolve with society.  In ancient Greece, defective\weak babies were discarded.  This seems quite horrific to me, but to the cultures that did it, it made perfect sense.  If you want to argue that god gives us objective morals, then why not explain why so many of the bible's commandments are irrelevant today.  Why do we not execute people for working on the sabath (friday, saturday, sunday)?  Why is it mostly xians who are anti choice, yet the bible has verses with orders to kill women "with child" and rip them open and slash the babies?

  Please define "magically".

Quote:
The solution for you is to just start presupposing God more consistently, since you're already doing it every time you open your mouth and use His system of coherent language or His reasoning ability. 

Presupposing god?  Wtf?  You're the one in this thread who's been using circular reasoning.

 

 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:You're

Chriswithac wrote:

You're really just papering over the question and not answering it.  How do you, as an athiest, rationally give an account for logic, objective morality, linguistic coherency, and the uniformity of nature?  I'm accusing you of saying these things just magically exist, which is something that should not comport with your atheism because you deny the supernatural by necessity.

Saying these things exist by supernatural means does comport with my Christianity, however, so I don't have the same problem you do.  The Bible teaches that in Jehovah we live and move and have our being.

The solution for you is to just start presupposing God more consistently, since you're already doing it every time you open your mouth and use His system of coherent language or His reasoning ability. 

Let's try this again, with different words. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly.

You labor under the belief that logic is inexplicable without God. This is the exact same argument used by Christians to try to "prove" God by pointing at life: "You can't explain life without God, can you?" When in fact, God is definitely not necessary to explain life. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it false.

The laws of the universe exist, and are easily expressed via mathematics. This seems unlikely, until you realize that the reason mathematics works is because it was derived by observing the universe. Symbolic manipulation of data is possible simply because it is an abstraction of the actual physical universe.

Consider 1+1. It will always equal 2. (It might equal 10 if you are using a base 2 numeric system, but that's still equal to decimal 2, so no silly representational tricks from you math geeks out there.) This isn't because it's made up; it's because one thing plus another thing will always be two things.

The same with mathematical relationships in physics. Whether it's the way the force of gravity exerted by an object decreases as the square of the distance from that object, or the fact that e=mc^2, our mathematics works because it is a abstracted from the physical world.

Note how we derived mathematics: by working with real-world things. Whether it was stones used for simple math, or the geometric figures used by Pythagoras, our math was derived from real things. So it shouldn't surprise you that math is able to represent real things.

Same with logic. It was derived from real things -- and from real, observed relationships between things. So it shouldn't surprise you that logic is able to represent the relationships between real things.

What you are claiming is that a rainbow is a miracle, because it is intangible. Then when someone comes along and explains that, no, a rainbow is the differential refraction of sunlight via the lensing of water droplets. You seem to be replying, "Nuh-uh, God did it." Your denial doesn't make the original claim false, nor your claim true. It merely indicates that you are not equipped to engage in this discussion.

Seriously, if you're  going to continue this, you'll need to do two things: first, you'll have to argue there is a flaw in the reasoning presented above for the validity of logic. Remember, this is a really, really simplified explanation, so I may have some more sophisticated rebuttals to your argument, which you will then need to counter in a more sophisticated fashion. After that, you may present your logic that God can explain logic, and I will have a chance to rebut.

But until you can establish that logic is not possibly derived from a purely-natural universe, your argument that God explains logic is invalid, as the existence of God has not been established.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Latin,This is more than just

Latin,

This is more than just an argument from causation.  I'm not so much asking for the cause for logic, morality, etc as I'm asking for an account of these things.  What sustains them?  What validates them?  Why should they and do they exist at all?  Saying evolution does this is a very blanket assertion and I'd like to hear more from you on how and why evolution would accomplish this.

Magus,

Your critique of the TAG is very weak largely because I don't think you're representing it fairly as you pick it apart, and you aren't providing an answer to it.  I'll repeat it:  "My worldview, the Christian worldview, makes sense of the fundamentals of human experience.  The athiestic worldview, (I should say, as Nigel pointed out, 'worldviews that are athiestic in nature' rather than just 'the athiestic worldview'.  The later is a simplification, but I don't think it's an invalid one) is unable to make sense of the fundamentals of human experience.  The trancendental argument therefore, based off of this illustration, demonstrates that God is trancendentally necessary to the universe in which we find ourselves."

Hazindu,

I'm not asking for a definition of logic, I'm asking for a rational account of it from your athiestic perspective. 

If good is just what the vast majority of society approves of, you'll encounter a number of problems that would ultimately render ethics arbitrary.  Let's go back to Sparta, when they threw their unfit babies off of cliffs.  As the Spartan society started to change, I imagine it did so (I'm not sure on the history of this, just speculating) by means of certian Spartans expressing moral indignation about throwing their children off the cliff.  Now, when these individuals did so, they were going agianst the society.  So, under your defintion of morality, that good is just what the society at large approves of, what these men did in attempting to reform that society was wrong or evil by definition. 

This expands to more modern illustrations also.  If cultural relativism is true, what Martin Luther King Jr did to reform a racist culture was evil, because the culture had decided discrimination agaisnt blacks was good.  Moreover, what you're doing to reform a Christian culture is also evil by definition, because we, the culture at large, have decided to believe in the God of the Bible.

Now I reject cultural relativism, I think it makes nonsense of ethics and I hope you agree from my illustrations.  Good is something cultures must try to conform to, not something cultures themselves define.

"Magic", as I'm using it, is something supernatural and unexplainable that you're accepting uncritically and without rational basis.

Before you ask, my rational basis for belief in God is that He made me, loved me, saved me, and, according to His word, He asks me for belief in Him and obedience to Him as an expression of my own love and gratitude to Him.  The issue isn't that I don't have a good reason for a belief in God, because the Bible is full of them.  The issue is that you simply reject that reason, regardless of it's individual merit.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote: Before

Chriswithac wrote:
Before you ask, my rational basis for belief in God is that He made me, loved me, saved me, and, according to His word, He asks me for belief in Him and obedience to Him as an expression of my own love and gratitude to Him.  The issue isn't that I don't have a good reason for a belief in God, because the Bible is full of them.  The issue is that you simply reject that reason, regardless of it's individual merit.
No, the issue is that you are accusing us of "arbitrarily" accepting reason, only to then give us the most arbitrary explanation possible yourself. You've pulled "God" out of thin air, because as I have shown you, you are basing your God-belief on a presupposition, and thus, on circular argument. "God exists because he says he does".

Now, I just say reason exists, and stop there. I don't say: "reason exists because reason exists because reason exists because..."

Do I know why reason exists?

Well maybe the question is irrelevant.

Maybe the question ought to be: "why not?"

Now, just to point out the invalidity of your argument, I will now give you a perfectly valid reason why reason exists.

My invisible friend Thumbor exists because he says he does: He gave me, and everyone else, reason. This, according to you, is an irefutable argument.

So I suggest you start getting good with Thumbor, because I can tell you, he's told me that people being Christians really annoys him, so he intends to have them suspended for all eternity in a pepetual state of being just about to sneeze, and then not be able to do it, all while listening to that "Ma-na-ma-man-da-da-da-da-da" song from Sesame Street. Unless you get on his good side before you die.

Mind you, everyone else gets to do what they wan't and be who they are. He's particularly fond of Scientologists, for some reason, not that they are right, because he's told me they aren't, but he's just got this thing for the movies "Grease" and "Cocktail", so he wants to party with Tom Cruise and John Travolta in the afterlife (I know, gay... But hey, he's the creator of reason, so you can't really question his motives).

Now, Thumbor giving me all these detailed describtions of all sorts of weird sounding things might be a little hard to believe, but remember, that he exists, because he is the creator of reason, so he must be real. How else could you account for reason?

And he is the creator of reason, because he's told me that he is, and you must understand he's also told me that he never lies, so it must be the truth.

And he has told me this, because he is real you see, because he's told me that he is, and remember, he's told me that he never lies, so he must be real.

All of these argument are irrefutable as you can see, so I can't understand how you can continue to be a Christian after you have heard this. I mean, don't you hate it when you are just about to sneeze, and then can't do it? Then repent, it's not too late.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Magus,Your

Chriswithac wrote:

Magus,

Your critique of the TAG is very weak largely because I don't think you're representing it fairly as you pick it apart, and you aren't providing an answer to it.  I'll repeat it:  "My worldview, the Christian worldview, makes sense of the fundamentals of human experience.  The athiestic worldview, (I should say, as Nigel pointed out, 'worldviews that are athiestic in nature' rather than just 'the athiestic worldview'.  The later is a simplification, but I don't think it's an invalid one) is unable to make sense of the fundamentals of human experience.  The trancendental argument therefore, based off of this illustration, demonstrates that God is trancendentally necessary to the universe in which we find ourselves."

The transcendental argument is particularly weak, as it is essentially a restatement of the strong anthropic principle, which has been fairly demolished in recent years by the discovery that many combinations of physical laws result in stable features within a universe, and also by the "evolutionary universe" concepts put forth by folks like Lee Smolin and other physicists studying things like quantum gravity.

TAG is an argument a priori, which is itself a logically-invalid proof. The only defence mountable is the internal consistency of the argument, which is acheived (as Nikolij and others have pointed out several times) by circular reasoning. As a proof for a specific God, it also fails, especially as the God of the Christian Bible has Himself violated the very laws which make the universe consistent, rendering logic useless.

A better God might be Spinoza's God, the pantheistic God of the natural universe. This provides the consistency of your argument ("God did it; God always does it" ) with no logical inconsistencies whatsoever, side-stepping the whole nastiness of God impregnating a young woman out of wedlock and becoming His own Son, and the wealth of other stories in the Bible that bugger logic.

This also avoids the points that you have been studiously ignoring, such as the "fossil light" we see from objects billions of light-years away, which gives lie to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. So, a better explanation using your same argument comes to a more rational (though still tenuous) conclusion: God is the universe (pantheism).

Quote:

I'm not asking for a definition of logic, I'm asking for a rational account of it from your athiestic perspective. 

Given. Logic works because the universe is fundamentally logical. Why is it logical? Because the relatively few simple relationships between objects and energies are interdependent, forming a stochastic system. Pull a string here, a marionette raises his hand there. Everything is tied together with simple rules.

Logic is our symbolism derived from observation of those rules at work.

Your assumption that there is either God or chaos is a false dichotomy. This is not chaos. This is merely the rules defined by the physical nature of the universe at work.

Now, if you are honest in your desire for debate, how about addressing these issues? I have demonstrated how logic can exist in a world without God. I have answered your question several times, and have received no adequate response.

Quote:

Before you ask, my rational basis for belief in God is that He made me, loved me, saved me, and, according to His word, He asks me for belief in Him and obedience to Him as an expression of my own love and gratitude to Him.  The issue isn't that I don't have a good reason for a belief in God, because the Bible is full of them.  The issue is that you simply reject that reason, regardless of it's individual merit.

None of those are good reasons to believe in God. Not one. Especially weak is the argument that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true (which is implicit in your overall argument). Every one of your arguments begs the question (How do I know God exists? Because He made me.), which is one of the most transperant of fallacies. The same is true of the TAG -- it presupposes the existence of God, without offering a proof of His existence.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:I'm not

Chriswithac wrote:

I'm not asking for a definition of logic, I'm asking for a rational account of it from your athiestic perspective.

You may not be asking for a definition, but you may want to take a minute and look one up anyway.  Anyhow, to answer your question in simple terms: logic is the result of observation.

Quote:
If good is just what the vast majority of society approves of, you'll encounter a number of problems that would ultimately render ethics arbitrary.  Let's go back to Sparta, when they threw their unfit babies off of cliffs.  As the Spartan society started to change, I imagine it did so (I'm not sure on the history of this, just speculating) by means of certian Spartans expressing moral indignation about throwing their children off the cliff.  Now, when these individuals did so, they were going agianst the society.  So, under your defintion of morality, that good is just what the society at large approves of, what these men did in attempting to reform that society was wrong or evil by definition. 

This expands to more modern illustrations also.  If cultural relativism is true, what Martin Luther King Jr did to reform a racist culture was evil, because the culture had decided discrimination agaisnt blacks was good.  Moreover, what you're doing to reform a Christian culture is also evil by definition, because we, the culture at large, have decided to believe in the God of the Bible.

Subjectivity doesn't necessarily equal arbitrary.  Morals evolve with the needs of society.  Good and evil are relative terms.  In Sparta, the first few to object to baby binning may well have been greeted with fear and\or disgust.  I don't think those who apposed were evil, because evil is subjective and their actions were good (also subjective) to my point of view.

Quote:
Now I reject cultural relativism, I think it makes nonsense of ethics and I hope you agree from my illustrations.  Good is something cultures must try to conform to, not something cultures themselves define.
No, I don't agree with you.  Cultures must determine what suits their needs.  Now, I asked you a question about objective morals I think you should answer.

Quote:
If you want to argue that god gives us objective morals, then why not explain why so many of the bible's commandments are irrelevant today.  Why do we not execute people for working on the sabath (friday, saturday, sunday)?  Why is it mostly xians who are anti choice, yet the bible has verses with orders to kill women "with child" and rip them open and slash the babies?

Quote:
"Magic", as I'm using it, is something supernatural and unexplainable that you're accepting uncritically and without rational basis.
I don't believe in anything outside of nature.

Quote:
Before you ask, my rational basis for belief in God is that He made me, loved me, saved me, and, according to His word, He asks me for belief in Him and obedience to Him as an expression of my own love and gratitude to Him.  The issue isn't that I don't have a good reason for a belief in God, because the Bible is full of them.  The issue is that you simply reject that reason, regardless of it's individual merit.
So, you believe in god because the bible said to, and you know the bible is credible because god said so?  You believe in the authority of the bible because it gets its authority from god?  Untill you prove that either the bible is the authoritative word of god, or that god is real, your argument is circular and illogical.

 

edit: I'll get my / quotes right one of these days...

{fixed aiia}

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Why is everyone still

Why is everyone still dickering over this?  I've already explained it.

Reason exists because there is no alternative.  Axioms are self evident truths about reality.  There are only a few of them, the simplest being the axiom of existence.  For a thing to contemplate its existence, it must exist.  It is impossible to conceive of a nonexistent thing acting, for that would necessitate existence.  Contemplation is an act.  Since I have contemplated my existence, there is no alternative save my own existence.

We can then say that a thing that exists cannot also not exist.  This is a correlary to the axiom of identity, and equally self evident.  Again, if I do not exist, then I cannot exist to contemplate whether I can exist and not exist simultaneously.

Finally, there is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.  A thing cannot half exist.  Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that the states "true" and "false" exist simply by assigning them to existence and nonexistence, which must be discreet states because there is no alternative.

When we start thinking from there, we realize that "true" and "false" are simply designations for "existing as described."  Descriptions, or more precisely, mental categorizations, exist with certainty -- again, because there is no alternative.  By contemplating my existence, I have formed a mental box for it.  It has identity (existence) and I have formed a concept of that identity.

The only boundary to the self evident nature of logic are the assumptions of uniformity and the refutation of the "brain in a vat" scenario.  In both of these cases, a little critical thinking goes a long way.  If the universe is not uniform, then knowledge is impossible.   Likewise, if we are a brain in a vat, and reality is a complete illusion, then for all intents and purposes, the illusion is real, and both of these objections to the self evidence of logic fail.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Reason

Hambydammit wrote:

Reason exists because there is no alternative.  Axioms are self evident truths about reality. 

right on

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Nigel,I'm not arguing that

Nigel,

I'm not arguing that the Bible is true because it says it's true, that's a terrible argument.  I'm trying to argue that the Bible is true because if it isn't true, then nothing is true at all. 

Of course, I'm not a great debater or a world class logician, so if I've failed to demonstrate this, I consider it a personal failure rather than a failure of the trancendental argument.  It's a very old argument after all.  It's implicit in the writings of Moses and other bibilcal writers, and rather explicit in the writings of the apostle Paul.  Augustine used it, and more reciently the late pastor and philosopher Greg Bahnsen used it to great effect.

You're a very intelligent man, but I don't think you're fully grasping the extent of what I'm saying.  "Logic works because the universe is fundamentally logical" is begging the question.  You tried to respond without just defining logic again, but that's all you did.  Why should the universe be interdependent or a system of any kind?  No matter how simple the rules are, and I don't think they're at all simple, how do you account for these rules?

How do you account for observation, while we're on the subject?  Why should matter be interacting with other matter, and why should one bit of matter derive meaning from another bit of matter?

Since you're trying to answer my questions, it would be rude to refuse you.  Spinoza's pantheistic god suffers a fatal flaw, it was invented by Spinoza, and we know that.  Jehovah has revealed Himself as God through His Bible and through Jesus Christ.  You don't know this to be false, but we know Spinoza's god is false because he made it up.  The same goes for Thumbor. 

Why does distant starlight not disprove God?  Because I can rationalize it away from within my worldview.  I can say "The speed of light isn't necessaraly constant throughout the universe, therefore time is not necessaraly constant, therefore those stars could actually be 6000 'years' away."  Is this true?  I don't know, I'm not a scientist, I'm a Christian theology student.  Either way, God's faithfulness is not contingent on my ability to understand the universe He's created.  They may find out next year that the earth really is only about 10,000 years old, you don't know that.  God demands repentance now, not when all the evidence is in.

All of the reasons I gave are good reasons to believe in God, under the assumption that they're true.  Change your presupposition and they become good reasons, it's as simple as that.

Hazindu,

"Subjectivity doesn't necessarily equal arbitrary.  Morals evolve with the needs of society.  Good and evil are relative terms.  In Sparta, the first few to object to baby binning may well have been greeted with fear and\or disgust.  I don't think those who apposed were evil, because evil is subjective and their actions were good (also subjective) to my point of view."

The reason why you think this is because you're appealing to an objective morality, even though you're calling it your subjective point of view.  If morality is determined by what the individual approves, as I think you're alluding, you must realize that no one can make a moral judgement that's wrong, unless if he happens to misunderstand himself as he makes it.  I can justify doing whatever I want if that's true; if it invokes your approval, do it, because that's what good is. 

Such a system makes nonsense out of ethics and anything becomes justifiable.  There's something intrinsically wrong with killing people, raping people, exploiting people, etc.  Societies and individuals must conform to this standard, not the other way around.

Hamby,

There are fundamental problems in saying "I think, therefore I am."  "I think" does not account for the "I am", can someone think himself into sentience?  Nor does "I am" necessarally follow "I think".  You can't rule out the possibility of self deception.  The only reason Descartes' skepticism managed to start with even this, I think, is because he himself was a Christian and therefore had a true foundation for knowledge.  "God is, therefore I am" or as the Proverb says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
There you have it - just

There you have it - just refuse what you know about reality and God makes sense.

Though rational is in the word rationalize - not all rationalization is rational.

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Nigel,I'm

Chriswithac wrote:

Nigel,

I'm not arguing that the Bible is true because it says it's true, that's a terrible argument.  I'm trying to argue that the Bible is true because if it isn't true, then nothing is true at all. 


 

your special pleading here, your saying that ONLY the bible can be true, but you ignore all other faiths, and facts of truth, plus you ignore all the mistakes and falsehoods in the bible, basically your saying the bible is true because your bible says it's true, and that it was revealed to man by god. However Muslims say that the Koran was revealed to Mohammad, why can't this  be true?

Chriswithac wrote:

Since you're trying to answer my questions, it would be rude to refuse you.  Spinoza's pantheistic god suffers a fatal flaw, it was invented by Spinoza, and we know that.  Jehovah has revealed Himself as God through His Bible and through Jesus Christ.  You don't know this to be false, but we know Spinoza's god is false because he made it up.  The same goes for Thumbor. 

Again your god is no more created than Spinoza's god, except that some of the writers and of course the church claims it was revealed, but there is ZERO evidence of this. Spinoza's god has the problem that we cannot prove it to be true or false at all, because there is technically no evidence of it, however the Christian god does have a description, and description of events that are attributed to god as well he has attributes given to him by those who wrote the bible, much like a character in a book, which we can access if those event could have occurred (sorry miracles take away your uniformity of nature argument) or his description and attributes (sorry god is not logical at all given the fact of jesus and whole sacrificing himself to himself to forgive humans)

Chriswithac wrote:

Why does distant starlight not disprove God?  Because I can rationalize it away from within my worldview.  I can say "The speed of light isn't necessarily constant throughout the universe, therefore time is not necessarily constant, therefore those stars could actually be 6000 'years' away."  Is this true?  I don't know, I'm not a scientist, I'm a Christian theology student.  Either way, God's faithfulness is not contingent on my ability to understand the universe He's created.  They may find out next year that the earth really is only about 10,000 years old, you don't know that.  God demands repentance now, not when all the evidence is in.

Again your ignoring TONS and TONS of evidence that says otherwise, something theists LOVE to do, ignore the facts and play with word but never face the truth. The evidence is in however your god does not exist. The evidence is in the lies of the bible, the moon has it's own light? No the moon reflects light....apparently god didn't know this. Donkeys and snakes speak? Nope they neither have the vocal cords nor the jaw to do this. I could keep on going but you see the point....then again you don't see all the evidence that contradicts everything you said so I am not really expecting you to comprehend this.

All of the reasons I gave are good reasons to believe in God, under the assumption that they're true.  Change your presupposition and they become good reasons, it's as simple as that.

Chriswithac wrote:

The reason why you think this is because you're appealing to an objective morality, even though you're calling it your subjective point of view.  If morality is determined by what the individual approves, as I think you're alluding, you must realize that no one can make a moral judgment that's wrong, unless if he happens to misunderstand himself as he makes it.  I can justify doing whatever I want if that's true; if it invokes your approval, do it, because that's what good is. 

Such a system makes nonsense out of ethics and anything becomes justifiable.  There's something intrinsically wrong with killing people, raping people, exploiting people, etc.  Societies and individuals must conform to this standard, not the other way around.

Only really applies to those of the same tribe really, ESPECIALLY in the bible. Thou shalt not kill really applies to Thou shalt not kill another Jew, because in the OT the Jews kill, pillage, rape and exploit people left right and centre. morals really apply to oneself and to the society you live in. Hence why in the past it was far easier for massacres to occur, heck even in modern times it is easier for a society to kill off those outside of their society (holocaust, the Armenian massacre, the massive starvation deaths of Ukrainians, Hutus killing Tutsi, Christan's vs Muslims, Jews vs Palestinians etc, etc, etc)

Chriswithac wrote:

Hamby,

There are fundamental problems in saying "I think, therefore I am."  "I think" does not account for the "I am", can someone think himself into sentience?  Nor does "I am" necessarily follow "I think".  You can't rule out the possibility of self deception.  The only reason Descartes' skepticism managed to start with even this, I think, is because he himself was a Christian and therefore had a true foundation for knowledge.  "God is, therefore I am" or as the Proverb says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."

 

I will let Hamby deal with this one.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"I think" does not

Quote:
"I think" does not account for the "I am", can someone think himself into sentience?

Dude... man... lay off the ganjah, ok?  This is very, very simple.  Thinking about one's existence doesn't cause existence.  It recognizes it.

Quote:
Nor does "I am" necessarally follow "I think".

Yes, it does.  Do you know what identity is?  Do you know that anything that has a property must exist?  "That which thinks" is by definition and by philosophical necessity equivalent to "that which exists," not because of the the content of the statement, "that which thinks," but because the statement describes a positive quality.

Quote:
You can't rule out the possibility of self deception.

For anyone still reading this thread, I would like you to notice the level of mental gymnastics that an indoctrinated mind is willing to jump through just to save a concept.

I guess there is the possibility that this person is just genuinely insane, but for anybody with half a grasp on reality, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that anything which can deceive itself must exist in order to do the deceiving.  Duh.

Quote:
The only reason Descartes' skepticism managed to start with even this, I think, is because he himself was a Christian and therefore had a true foundation for knowledge.

Have you read Descartes?  Descartes' treatise ended with god, after he took a few wrong turns near Albuquerque.  He began with skepticism to see if anything might be self-evident.  Do you comprehend those words?  Self-evident means evident without the need for anything else.  Anything else includes god, since god, as I have clearly demonstrated numerous times, is not self evident.  (I think it was in another thread.  Do some digging.  You'll find it.)

Quote:
"God is, therefore I am" or as the Proverb says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."

The Mungle pilgriffs far awoy
Religeorge too thee worled.
Sam fells on the waysock-side
And somforbe on a gurled,
With all her faulty bagnose!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hey Chris, "I am what I am",

  Damn friggin word g-o-d .... sheezz    

Hey Chris, "I am what I am", I am nature, but what is all nature, and so how the heck can some imaginative concept of "immaterial as supernatural" even be a logical daydream, to then worship? The ancient bible is written by we humans, and is both right and wrong.

This is why I've  been using the word, "separatism", of wrong thinking, in my resent posts, as another way to say all is ONE, as says our highest understanding of reality, which is our present science, which oddly enough echos much ancient intuitive wisdom, as we now have "thermodynamics", and QM science.

Yes Chris, god is the reason, but god is simply existence, where as your religious god is a separatist concept of "wrong thinking" (of zero evidence), which is a definition of the devil. You Chris, and yours, are under Satan's dogma spell, as story buddha jesus scolded peter.

     i god , just as you, just as every thing of existence, yeah even our imagination.  

           *               

                                      *                                                           


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow!!!

Chriswithac wrote:
I'm not arguing that the Bible is true because it says it's true, that's a terrible argument. I'm trying to argue that the Bible is true because if it isn't true, then nothing is true at all.

So, you think that's a good argument? Oh....you're being serious. Why is it a good argument? Did you provide evidence?

Chriswithac wrote:
No matter how simple the rules are, and I don't think they're at all simple, how do you account for these rules?

No, you didn’t. My answer to that would be, I don't. Why do we have to account for them? I know that 2+2=4. I know this because I can think. How do I know I can think? Well, because I am thinking. There are an infinite number of possible explanations for this. Logic could be inherent within our universe. There could be an ultimate Creator, but then the Creator would be subject to the same line of questioning as our universe. How could the Creator have existed forever? How can the Creator be instantly logical?

Chriswithac wrote:
Spinoza's pantheistic god suffers a fatal flaw, it was invented by Spinoza, and we know that. Jehovah has revealed Himself as God through His Bible and through Jesus Christ. You don't know this to be false, but we know Spinoza's god is false because he made it up. The same goes for Thumbor.

Circular logic, non sequitur, aaaaahhhhh.

Chriswithac wrote:
Spinoza's pantheistic god suffers a fatal flaw, it was invented by Spinoza........Spinoza's God is false because he made it up.

Why do you debate with us at all then? Obviously, since you know you're right, you know that everything we say is false. Are you just trying to convert us?

Chriswithac wrote:
The speed of light isn't necessaraly constant throughout the universe, therefore time is not necessaraly constant,

This argument has been debunked so many times, I can't even keep track of it. Sure, God makes all the light reach Earth in 6,000 years while allowing the devil to fool scientists by inputing characteristics into the light that makes it seem like it traveled over a much longer distance over a much longer period of time.

Chriswithac wrote:
They may find out next year that the earth really is only about 10,000 years old, you don't know that.

Yes, I might wake up tomorrow and discover that I'm a two-foot tall leprechaun, I'm on Neptune, and I'm about to be eaten by giant pink spiders. Suggesting a hypothetical to ignore reality is not a valid debate point.

"I think God exists."

"Well, what if scientists find out next month that he doesn't?! You don't know! Ha, owned!"

Chriswithac wrote:
God demands repentance now, not when all the evidence is in.

So....you're telling me I have to repent...now? Sure, there's no evidence that God exists, but, gulp, I don't want to go to hell. Oh, I don't know what to do. Somebody help me!  Gasp, Holy Ghost is that you? I heard his voice! (inside my head of course) Oh, praise Jesus!

Chriswithac wrote:
All of the reasons I gave are good reasons to believe in God, under the assumption that they're true

Well, then, you can have good reason to believe in anything!

Chriswithac wrote:
Change your presupposition and they become good reasons, it's as simple as that.

What we, or I, really want to do is not start with any assumptions at all. When discussing a topic that I really don't understand (which is most topics), I always start with an open-mind and a moderate position. I want to make as few assumptions as possible. Every argument I analyze stands solely on its intellectual merit, evidence and reason.

Chriswithac wrote:
The reason why you think this is because you're appealing to an objective morality,

You mean a subjective morality?

Chriswithac wrote:
I can justify doing whatever I want if that's true; if it invokes your approval,

Well, why don’t atheists just go out and do it? First of all, we have things called laws and accepted rules of society. Second of all, if we really followed the standards of morality shown in the Bible, we’d all be stoning each other to death. Third, we can observe that each religion has different rules of morality when they were written by different people; they each tailored their religions to their own interpretation of morality. Thus, the Old Testament supports slavery, but stones blasphemers. It doesn’t condemn polygamy, but condemns homosexuality. The Book of Mormon, being written in American in the 1800s, claims that God sometimes inflicted infidels with a curse of black skin.

"21-...For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint, wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22-And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23-And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed, for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done." 2 Nephi 5:21-23

Scientology, being written by a science fiction writer who wanted to get rich, is complete bull****.

Furthermore, the evidence doesn’t fit your assertion. Instead, on simple standards of “morality”: divorce rates, crime rate, etc., atheists are shown to have similar, or, frequently, even better statistics than Christians. I will try to find the specific research that I am referring to. 

Chriswithac wrote:
There's something intrinsically wrong with killing people, raping people, exploiting people, etc. Societies and individuals must conform to this standard,

I agree with you on this. Society must conform to certain inherent rights that humans should have. However, I believe that religion then conforms to society, not the other way around.

Chriswithac wrote:
There are fundamental problems in saying "I think, therefore I am."

You ignored the most important explanation in support of this quote. Why, why, why, why, why? Do you not know it or are you consciously ignoring it? If I don’t exist, I can’t think. How can I think if you don’t exist? Similarly, if I think, how can I not exist? Therefore, if I think, then I must exist.

Chriswithac wrote:
You can’t rule out the possibility of self deception.

You’re suggesting that I can deceive myself into believing that I exist? But, the only way that could occur, the implication, is if I didn’t exist. How can deceive myself into believing I exist if, in that context, I don’t even exist to begin with?!?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the  response,

Thanks for the  response, Chris. I really do appreciate your honest effort to explain your position.

Chriswithac wrote:

I'm not arguing that the Bible is true because it says it's true, that's a terrible argument.  I'm trying to argue that the Bible is true because if it isn't true, then nothing is true at all. 

This argument is based on the a priori assumption that God exists. Assume for the moment that God doesn't exist. Now, try to imagine what you can consider true. Do you consider the things you observe to be true? If you see your professor of divinity at the podium in lecture hall, can you believe you are in class, and that another human is saying words? If those words seem to parse, and these parsed words introduce you to new concepts, can you believe your professor is communicating with you?

Discerning something as true is based on observation. How do I account for observation? I don't, beyond the simple fact that I receive data from my senses, and my mind processes that data. As a whole, we understand much of that process.

Quote:

Of course, I'm not a great debater or a world class logician, so if I've failed to demonstrate this, I consider it a personal failure rather than a failure of the trancendental argument.  It's a very old argument after all.  It's implicit in the writings of Moses and other bibilcal writers, and rather explicit in the writings of the apostle Paul.  Augustine used it, and more reciently the late pastor and philosopher Greg Bahnsen used it to great effect.

The TAG is a rhetorical trick, and a rather transparent one at that. It starts with the false dichotomy, "Either God exists, or the universe makes no sense," and then uses this assumption to prove the existence of God. Circular reasoning from a false dichotomy: two logical fallacies in one. And though Greg Bahnsen might've used it to great effect, it remains an unsound argument.

Quote:

Why should the universe be interdependent or a system of any kind?  No matter how simple the rules are, and I don't think they're at all simple, how do you account for these rules?

How do you account for observation, while we're on the subject?  Why should matter be interacting with other matter, and why should one bit of matter derive meaning from another bit of matter?

Logic can be intrinsic to God, but can't be intrinsic to the universe? It seems you believe logic must be driven by intent. If so, why do you make that assumption? In any case, logic is not dependent on intent or intelligence. Logic is a tool of intelligence.

How do I account for the rules of the universe? I don't. We're still in the process of working out what those rules are. Perhaps along the way we'll discover the process by which they came about. This may be happening right now, through the fields of quantum mechanics, or information theory, or quantum gravity (perhaps through the specific inquiry into the hypothesis of gravity loops).

But even if we never discover the process through which specific rulesets are applied to our universe, why should we assume "God did it?" And even if we assume "God did it," why should we suppose it was the Christian God, when there are other, more-logical Gods?

However, saying, "It works because of God," is no answer at all. If we were to use that answer every time a theist tried to explain away a mystery, we'd never have created telescopes or cured diseases or discovered mathematics.

In any case, how do you account for God?

Quote:

Spinoza's pantheistic god suffers a fatal flaw, it was invented by Spinoza, and we know that.  Jehovah has revealed Himself as God through His Bible and through Jesus Christ.  You don't know this to be false, but we know Spinoza's god is false because he made it up.  The same goes for Thumbor. 

As mentioned before, this is special pleading.

What distinguishes a revelatory God from a made-up God? How can you be sure the Bible isn't just a made-up text, an amalgam of earlier beliefs absorbed by specific groups in the Middle East? How can you be sure that Spinoza made up his God, rather than discovering Him? As I pointed out, Spinoza's God would provide the same explaination for a logical universe as the Christian God, without the contradictions between the Bible and observed reality. So Spinoza's God fulfils the requirements of TAG, without introducing new inconsistencies.

From a purely-logical standpoint, a pantheistic God provides exactly the same explanatory power as the Christian God, but avoids the problems of the Christian God.

Quote:

Why does distant starlight not disprove God?  Because I can rationalize it away from within my worldview.  I can say "The speed of light isn't necessaraly constant throughout the universe, therefore time is not necessaraly constant, therefore those stars could actually be 6000 'years' away."  Is this true?  I don't know, I'm not a scientist, I'm a Christian theology student.  Either way, God's faithfulness is not contingent on my ability to understand the universe He's created.  They may find out next year that the earth really is only about 10,000 years old, you don't know that.  God demands repentance now, not when all the evidence is in.

These are the sorts of problems I mean.

The cognative dissonance between observed reality and your belief in a Christian God causes you to rationalize your position, rather than confront observed reality. What's the use of God giving you logic, if you are so willing to abandon it?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There's something

Quote:
There's something intrinsically wrong with killing people, raping people, exploiting people, etc.  Societies and individuals must conform to this standard, not the other way around.
I agree that these things are wrong, but for a different reason than you.  These things are wrong because they don't serve our society.  Societies have adapted to shun these things because these things have proven harmful or at least non prosperous except for exploiting people which is what religion is mostly about.  Just because a set of ethics serves us doesn't mean it is devine or absolute or any other word you want to use to imply it comes from god.

 

...and, for the third time:

Quote:
If you want to argue that god gives us objective morals, then why not explain why so many of the bible's commandments are irrelevant today.  Why do we not execute people for working on the sabath (friday, saturday, sunday)?  Why is it mostly xians who are anti choice, yet the bible has verses with orders to kill women "with child" and rip them open and slash the babies?  Why do we not stone to death brides who are not virgins on their wedding night?

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote: All of

Chriswithac wrote:
All of the reasons I gave are good reasons to believe in God, under the assumption that they're true.  Change your presupposition and they become good reasons, it's as simple as that.
Ahahaha!!!

Absolutely brilliant. This is my new sig...

Listen Chris, imagine I told you I had a spaceship, and when you asked me to prove it, I'd say: "Well I went to the moon yesterday, and Saturn the day before. Those are my reasons. How could I have done that if I didn't have a spaceship?":

I wrote:
All of the reasons I gave are good reasons to believe in my having a spaceship, under the assumption that they're true.  Change your presupposition and they become good reasons, it's as simple as that.
You see? And since you are not under the assumption that I went to the moon and Saturn, there's no good reasons for my having a spaceship.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I agree that these

Quote:
I agree that these things are wrong, but for a different reason than you.  These things are wrong because they don't serve our society.  Societies have adapted to shun these things because these things have proven harmful or at least non prosperous except for exploiting people which is what religion is mostly about.  Just because a set of ethics serves us doesn't mean it is devine or absolute or any other word you want to use to imply it comes from god.

There's an even better reason why they're wrong.  Societies don't always know what's best for themselves, and aren't really reliable gauges of what regular Joe Schmoe instinctively understands as right and wrong.  The Hundred Flowers Campaign, or the Great Leap Forward, as examples from the history of China, were not particularly good ideas, and inflicted great harm on a great many people, even though "society" thought of them, in the strictest sense.

Actually, morality is something innate to us as individuals, and there's good evolutionary reasons for it.  There are three basic principles involved:

1) Nonzero sum reciprocal altruism -- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, essentially.  Individuals do better in an entire society where people are good to each other on average.  This is selection pressure on individuals, and led us to have a literal instinct towards being generous and kind.  This is the evolutionary basis for what we call "conscience."

2) Kin selection -- technically a subcategory of natural selection, kin selection is the principle that any offspring or closely related individuals to me carry a large percentage of the same genes as me.  It is in the interest of the genes to produce generous behavior towards close relatives.  This is why we value our family above others.

3) The evolutionary equivalent of the anthropic principle -- (I don't know if there's a name for it.)  Essentially, any creature which arbitrarily killed members of its own kind would be selected against and die.  It's simple math.  In nature, whenever a creature kills its own kind, there is always a reason for it.  It's never just random, at least from the point of view of a gene.  In other words, the only creatures that can survive are those that have some sort of internal governance that keeps them from arbitrarily killing their own kind.  In humans, this extends to more behaviors because we have a more complex social structure, but it's the same basic idea.

If you think about it, all animals have "morality" in a loose sense.  Bees don't let any females besides the queen lay eggs.  Ants work diligently, not eating the food they're carrying back to the nest, instead giving it up to the queen.  Dolphins protect members of their own pod from sharks.  All over the animal kingdom, we see groups of the same species living together by unspoken rules.  This is the same as humanity, only we've gotten complex enough that our instincts don't cover all the bases, so we have to write down things that aren't as obvious.  That's why we have laws, etc.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Magus,Your

Chriswithac wrote:

Magus,

Your critique of the TAG is very weak largely because I don't think you're representing it fairly as you pick it apart, and you aren't providing an answer to it. I'll repeat it:  "My worldview, the Christian worldview, makes sense of the fundamentals of human experience.  The athiestic worldview, (I should say, as Nigel pointed out, 'worldviews that are athiestic in nature' rather than just 'the athiestic worldview'.  The later is a simplification, but I don't think it's an invalid one) is unable to make sense of the fundamentals of human experience.  The trancendental argument therefore, based off of this illustration, demonstrates that God is trancendentally necessary to the universe in which we find ourselves."

You are assuming there is a problem to begin with and your solution doesn't actually solve the problem you state exists. 

I will repeat my first couple of questions because you never answered them.

Where did you god get this logic?

Did logic exist before your god had it?

If so why would we need a god for it?

If not then how can you be certain of anything about the nature of god? 

From the article:

todangst in http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag wrote:

The Christian "solution" for the insufficiency of the assumption of the Uniformity of nature is "God told me (via the biblical revelation) that he promises to uphold the general uniformity and intelligibility of nature."

In doing this the Christian believes he has at once justified induction (because our inferences will be made against a universe that will act uniformly) AND avoided the essential problem of induction because their conclusion about the Uniformity Of Nature is not based upon induction; but upon revelation. They have a "third way" of knowledge, unacknowledged in our world view, which "solves" such epistemological problems.

But...even accepting this as true for the sake of argument.... they don't solve it! They've just slipped the problem back a step. The Christian has simply predicated the Uniformity Of Nature on the Uniformity Of (a) God (who will purportedly uphold the uniformity of nature). You ain't gonna have any uniformity of nature if the God upholding it isn't uniform Himself. So we can ask the same question to the Christian about the foundation for their belief in the uniformity of God: Leaving aside, for a moment, the insurmountable ontological problems with the 'god' term, on what non-question-begging grounds can you justify your expectation that God will keep his promise, or that God will be as he is tomorrow as he was yesterday?" You run into the same meta-problems that follow from using the uniformity of nature argument!*

On the same argument used by the presupper, the conclusion is inescapable: they can't do so. They ARE appealing to induction whether they refuse to acknowledge it or not.

Recap

TAGers cannot explain how TAG actually works. They merely assert a dilemma based on a misunderstanding of the problem of induction, without even offering a proof that the dilemma exists. TAGers reveal a poor grasp of the basics of logic, metaphysics. TAG advocates fail to recognize the slew of concealed presuppositions that the transcendental argument ultimately relies upon. It does so in that it presents god to be the foundation for logical process and yet must employ the exact opposite view of using the axioms of logic in order to confirm its position.

On the other hand, non-believers need only presuppose these axioms when employing the use of logical process and therefore God as a presupposition is unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Why does

Chriswithac wrote:
Why does distant starlight not disprove God?  Because I can rationalize it away from within my worldview.  I can say "The speed of light isn't necessaraly constant throughout the universe, therefore time is not necessaraly constant, therefore those stars could actually be 6000 'years' away."

Interesting... please elaborate on how old you think the Earth is, and how old the universe is. While you're at it, please describe the "method" you used to estimate those ages. Because when I read your quote up there, it seems like you rendered any knowledge impossible with your rationalization.

Chriswithac wrote:
Is this true?  I don't know, I'm not a scientist, I'm a Christian theology student.

I mean this with the utmost concern. Stop giving whatever place of "learning" you're attending your money. It is obviously doing you a massive disservice regarding (although in your worldview ultimately unimportant) topics such as critical thinking, knowledge, facts, evidence and science. Whatever "degree" you might get out of it is as valid as a "degree" in tooth fairyology or any other dogmatic application of fantasy as fact.