|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Misconceptions of Atheists
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 13:51 |
 Back to the basics. First cause. Here’s a sound refutation of God exists because there had to be a first cause. Not my writing. A primary argument for God’s existence is the “uncaused cause” argument. It’s an extremely popular argument that is often introduced in introductory courses in philosophy. It’s an argument proposed by theologian Thomas Aquinas that goes like this: Everything that exists has a cause. The chain of causality cannot go on indefinitely; there is a first cause. We may call this first cause “God.” One needn’t evaluate any of the premises to find the weakness of this argument. We might assume that the argument is completely sound, and conclude that God is the first cause of the universe’s existence. We might also omit the “So, who caused God?” argument and avoid the problem of infinite regress. Let’s just suppose that, indeed, God exists as the first cause. The most glaring weakness in Aquinas’s argument here is the surprisingly underwhelming result. One can agree with everything in this argument (though it’s unrecommended that you do), and end up saying, “OK, God is the uncaused cause of the universe. And?” This argument fails to properly define the typical characteristics of God as described in the Bible. All it does is — to put it crudely — name the “first uncaused cause.” So, even if we accept the conclusion, we haven’t yet received arguments for the existence of an omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God. So, Aquinas is basically saying, “The universe has a cause. But causality cannot regress infinitely. The universe must have a first cause. But I have no idea what that really is. Oh well, let’s just call it ‘God’.”>> So… Looks like I’ll be reposting part of a longer article I posted months ago that refutes the above post by an atheist. Here is an excerpt from a (much) longer article found here: www.gotquestions.org From gotquestions.org: An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given). These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 4:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). www.gotquestions.org |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 14:04 |
You’re talking about the theory of evolution here, right? The theory that atheistic and pantheistic (really the same thing) scientists flood their brainwashed followers with, right? You know, the theory that’s increasingly being exposed as the biggest fraud in science in the last 200 years due to advancements on the cellular and genetic levels. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 14:45 |
No problem. We agree.>> zorroloco is no longer an atheist, praise God! <<It’s just that most believers don’t subscribe to that open ended notion of god. They may not envision an old bearded dude on a throne, but they tend to anthropomorphize>> Not really. God is a Spirit. Everyone familiar with the Holy Bible knows that. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was *made flesh* to teach and interact with humans and ultimately to save them. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3, 14) <<and make ‘the unknown first cause’ into a conscious creator with intent, moral will and somehow imbuing us with a mystical immortal soul.>> Yeah, all that’s true. But one step at a time. You’re a believer now, praise God! <<It’s this idea I argue against. Not yours. I agree with you.>> Praise God! <<I just suggest, as a friend, that using the term God, to speak of the first cause is bound to cause endless confusion.>> Don’t back away now, my friend! If it makes you more comfortable, refer to the First Cause as “I AM” - ‘cause that’s how God referred to Himself! “And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:14) “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 14:52 |
Totally agree! “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:8-11) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 19:58 |
This is a mistake I think atheists often make - they base their view of Christianity on fallible Christians instead of on Christianity’s source text, the New Testament. Why it’s a mistake to base your opinion of Christianity on a Christian: • Christians are fallible like every human being. Even the Apostle Paul, who encountered the Resurrected Christ and wrote most of the New Testament, struggled to do what was right. “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” (Romans 7:18-19) .• You don’t know how long they’ve been a Christian, how far along they are in the sanctification process and how seriously they take their faith. Do they read the Holy Bible daily? Do they pray daily? Do they listen to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ or to a works-based gospel? etc. • You don’t know what they were like before they became a Christian. You don’t know how broken they were, what trials, pain and suffering they experienced - in short, you don’t know from where they started their walk and journey with the Lord. God’s Holy Spirit indwells every believer the moment he or she accepts and believes in Jesus Christ and in His Resurrection, and that new believer is immediately made righteous in God’s eyes because all of his or her sins have been forgiven. But the work God’s Holy Spirit does to transform a believer from the inside out is not instantaneous. The process of sanctification (making a believer more like Christ) is gradual and dependent to a large extent on how much and how often the new believer communes with God through Bible reading, prayer and fellowship with other believers. If an atheist (or anyone) wants to know if Christianity is true, go to the source. Read the New Testament. Don’t rely on other people to form your opinion of Christianity. God speaks throughout the Holy Bible but most directly and frequently in the Gospels. The Gospel of John is a great place to start 📖 👍👍 God loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. Go to God directly. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 21:09 |
Thread on the reliability of the Gospels: m.gameknot.com Thread on the Holy Bible’s trustworthiness: m.gameknot.com I haven’t posted in these threads as much as I should - too busy arguing with atheists lol |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 09:52 |
If there were a divine being, she would be... divine. In other words, forgiving, generous, loving and concerned only about her creations.>> And how is that different from Jesus Christ, aside from the gender? Jesus Christ said He was the representation (in human form) of God the Father, who is Spirit (not some old guy with a white beard - that’s how He’s depicted in paintings because you can’t paint a Spirit.) “Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.” (John 14:8-11) <<The only arbiter of ‘good’ would be treating creation with love and respect. The only sin would be harmful behavior towards others.>> Loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself - those, Jesus said, are the two greatest commandments upon which hang all the law and prophets. You know why loving God is essential? Because you can’t love your neighbor as yourself on your own - your sin nature, your selfish nature prevents it. But by loving God, you are able to love others in the way God desires - not out of selfish or impure motives, but out of love. “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5) And no one can love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and no one can truly love their neighbor as themselves, which is why they need a Saviour (Jesus Christ.) God did not give the Law with the expectation man can keep it. He gave the Law to (as Pastor Joseph Prince says) bring man to the end of himself so he realizes his need for a Saviour. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:24-26) <<There is no god.>> Who said this only yesterday? <<I’ve told you, I’ll accept god as unknown first cause. No problem. We agree.>> <<But if there were, the best and only way to show worship would be kindness.>> Do you do that? How many atheists do you know who do that on a consistent basis - and not just when times are good, but when times are bad as well? <<Therefore, it doesn’t matter if god were to exist or not - our behavior shouldn’t change.>> Our behavior changes when we accept and believe in Jesus Christ and in His Resurrection because God’s Holy Spirit indwells us and begins to change our hearts - from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh. “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” (1 Corinthians 6:19) “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:25) “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel 36:26) - Prophecy of the New Covenant! ✝️👍👍 <<Kindness should be our religion.>> And how well do atheists fulfill it? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 13:01 |
What I’m trying to say is: we should strive to live our best life regardless if there is a god or not.>> Ok. And how are you defining someone living his or her best life? Does helping other people enter into your definition? <<Any God worthy of the capital G wouldn’t give a rip about anything but how we live in regards to our bodies, others, and the ecosystem we belong to>> Ok. So how does one love their neighbor as themselves? How does one break free from destructive addictions? How is a human being, born with a selfish nature and a sin nature, supposed to treat other people well in good *and* bad times and fulfill the law of Christ by bearing one another’s burdens? <<(some will say I have NO idea what God would care about. I agree. And neither do they. So we are all left to our own best guess).>> Wrong. What God cares about was revealed in the Holy Bible - first through the Law, then through the Prophets and then through Jesus Christ, who was God in the flesh. The easiest way to learn the character of God and what He cares about is to read the Gospels. <<If some feel the idea of a supreme being helps them along their path, I’ve no issues with that, even as I disagree.>> Gee, how nice of you not to have issues with what other people believe. As far as your disagreeing with it, not everyone is living a carefree life with little to no responsibilities. The fact you can’t understand or move off yourself long enough to realize some people are living very difficult and challenging lives and God is a tremendous resource to them is emblematic of the selfish nature of atheists. <<Some will even cleave to the idea of a personally involved, anthropomorphized god who hears and answers prayers. I find it strange, but still I dont mind at all.>> Again, very nice of you not to mind what other people believe. And the reason you find it strange is because you can’t move off yourself long enough to realize some people are living very difficult lives with tremendous burdens and responsibilities. They need help from God, and God hears their prayers and delivers. <<If a particular doctrine, cult, sect, denomination or spiritual path helps some along life’s difficult highway, that's cool too,>> How nice of you to be cool with another person’s decisions and beliefs. <<although, even with those i care deeply for, I cannot help but wonder why.>> Because not everyone is living a carefree life with little to no responsibilities. Some people have responsibilities to their children, to employers, to elderly parents and so on. <>It’s only when zealots try to impose religious dogma on our communities that I get my hackles up.>> Have an example of this? <<Otherwise, it’s all in good fun.>> What’s all in good fun? Attacking and trolling believers? (which, to your credit, you did much more often in the past.) You said in the past that trolling - deliberately upsetting and angering someone - puts a smile on your face. Do you still feel that way? <<For me, acting well, trying to be a positive member of my communities, help others is enough reward in itself.>> Do you think you act well on the Internet? How do you help others? To what extent do you help others? I don’t expect an answer to those questions but ask them of yourself. In my experience, atheists talk a good game but the way they live their lives is far short of what they profess. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 14:24 |
bobspringett said: <Any 'Divine Creator' I could imagine would NOT be God.> Bob, zorroloco asked you for evidence of a divine creator and you appeared to answer a completely different question. There is plenty of evidence for God. See here: m.gameknot.com And here: m.gameknot.com The fact that human beings cannot fully comprehend God does not mean there is no evidence for His existence or that He has not revealed His character through the Law, then Prophets, then, most directly, in Jesus Christ. The disciples of Jesus Christ also clearly talked about God’s nature and character. The fact you appear not to know this is stunning. <<The mere fact that such a proof could encompass the subject would be proof in itself that the subject is NOT God.>> No one’s talking about proof, Bob. zorroloco asked for evidence that God exists. Evidence and proof are not the same things, Bob. And no one asked for you to “encompass the subject.” You’re answering a question that was never asked. <<As the Athanasian Creed says "The Father incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible... but there are not three incomprehensibles, but one." That's incomprehensible squared.>> Yes, the totality of God is indeed incomprehensible. But evidence exists for God and God revealed His character through the Law, Prophets and Jesus Christ. To equate “God cannot be comprehended” to “We don’t know (and cannot know) anything about God” is ludicrous. <<Your challenge is a bit like 'Write a number too big to be written.'>> No it isn’t, Bob. zorroloco asked for evidence God exists and you’re taking this wacky all-or-nothing approach where if someone cannot fully understand, comprehend and explain God, then he or she knows nothing about God. It’s not at all Biblical, and it’s frankly pretty silly. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 14:27 |
Really? Your claim is there is no evidence for God? I didn’t ask for proof, which we all agree is impossible. If you truly believe in a God for which there is no evidence, please explain how that works.>> 👏 👏 👏 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 17:06 |
Compare what I said... "The mere fact that such a proof could encompass the subject would be proof in itself that the subject is NOT God." against how you report it... <Your claim is there is no evidence for God?> The main point of difference is that I said any 'proof' would by definition fall short of 'proving' the Incomprehensible. Yet you magically read this as 'no evidence for' God.>> Bob, I agree with zorroloco here. He asked you for evidence of God’s existence and you changed his question to one where he asked you for “proof” that “could encompass the subject” of God. He asked you for no such thing, Bob. And I think the reason you changed his question and are now playing word games is you refuse to say what you believe - whether it’s because you don’t know what you believe or you’re ashamed of what you believe is a coin flip. But your verbal smoke and mirrors is fooling no one. <<Here in Australia, when police do that to a statement it is called 'verballing'. A suspect might say "I know nothing about that.", but it appears in the Record of Interview as "Yeah, I dun it and it's a fair rap.">> Bob, you’re absolutely off-the-rails here and fooling no one. <<Please, Zorro, don't impute words to me that I didn't say.>> That’s what you did to zorroloco, Bob. Good grief. <<Stay honest.>> Physician, heal thyself. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 17:19 |
Do you have evidence for God?>> While you’re at it, try to get bobspringett to answer these questions: • Do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or was that symbolic? • Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin or was that symbolic? • Do you believe in the miracles of Jesus Christ or were those symbolic? • Do you believe Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was a sacrificial death to atone for the sins of mankind? • How do you define a Christian? • How can you be a “mature Christian” (as you repeatedly claim) and not know who or what God is or what you believe (as you also claimed.) • How does your wacky interpretation of Genesis 1 fit with Genesis 2? How do you reconcile them? How did sin enter the world? • As an evolutionist, how can you also believe humans were created in the image of God? I’ve asked him these questions and he won’t/can’t answer them. Maybe you’ll have better luck. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 17:26 |
To use your cop analogy, it’s as if the cop asked you, “were you at ABC liquor store at 9:34pm on Sept 23rd?” And you respond, “I most certainly wasn’t at ABC on Sept 22nd!”>> Or… Cop: Did you rob the bank at West and Broad streets yesterday morning? bobspringett: I don’t know how the bank’s stock was manipulated and certainly didn’t profit off the manipulation. I don’t even own stock in that bank! Cop: But are you saying you didn’t rob the bank? bobspringett: Stop putting words in my mouth! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Nov-21, 20:21 |
But I take it that you require evidence of something that can be described, at least metaphorically, as self-aware, intelligent and purposeful. Here is a starter:- We exist. Not just materially, but as personalities who have concepts such as ethics, which are beyond the mere indicative mood of physical phenomena. That is not to invoke the old chestnut of "Morality depends on a moral God as its basis." I'm talking here about meta-morality, the very concept of 'Morality' itself. his includes concepts such as 'justice', which simply doesn't exist in observable nature except in connection with self-aware, purposeful and intelligent (to some degree) living beings.>> I have a question for you, Bob? May I call you Bob? Since you believe in the theory of evolution, how does this “meta-morality” develop via evolutionary means? And I think you’re *mostly* right that it doesn’t exist in observable nature (i.e. non humans) so how did it arise via evolution? And why are you ascribing it to God? Are you suggesting God let the theory of evolution play out ‘til baboons appeared and then was like, “Ok, that’s enough of that. Time to let Me have a crack at this creating stuff. Random mutations and natural selection hit the showers - God’s taking over!” Because you’ve said in the past that you think humans were created in the image of God and you *also* believe in the theory of evolution. I don’t quite see how you square that circle unless your position is that God a/k/a the Big Guy, a/k/a El Supremo let the theory of evolution play out for animals but then took over when it came to humans. Is that what you believe? <<Rather than anticipate possible responses, I await your specific insights.>> This should be an interesting conversation. I take it you don’t think “meta morality” exists in the animal world. You oughta check YouTube for some pretty amazing examples of animals exhibiting self-sacrificial love and loyalty that is quite uncommon among today’s humans. Is there an example of “justice” in the animal world? Didn’t you see Jaws 4 when the grandson of the shark in Jaws 1 went after Brody’s family ‘cause Brody killed his grandpa? That’s a shark with a long memory dishing out justice Great White style 👨🏼 🦈 💦 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 06:25 |
Let’s, if you’re amenable, leave specific religious tenets aside and really focus on god.>> Why are those mutually exclusive? And why do you want to exclude “specific religious tenets?” So you can ignore all the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? <<A working definition, attributes and characteristics,>> All in the Holy Bible. <<and of course, ultimately, existence or non-existence of a supreme being.>> The Resurrection of Jesus Christ authenticates the truth of Christianity and the existence of God. <<We should be able to work it out to everyone’s satisfaction in a few hours....jk>> You won’t work anything out to everyone’s satisfaction. Some people are lost and will stay lost by their own choosing. That’s a sad fact. <<But I think it’ll be more productive if we leave specific religious teachings out.>> It’ll be more productive for you because all of the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ has convinced more than a few open-minded atheists and you can’t refute it. Remember when you tried and failed? Good times 👍👍 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 06:32 |
But rather to establish if there are sufficient grounds to posit a supreme being. Not being able to disprove a waltzing Plutonian yam in no way supports it’s existence>> There sure are sufficient grounds. Examine the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with an open mind. m.gameknot.com Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...” www.allaboutthejourney.org |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 06:39 |
stalhandske said: <<Another key point! The difference between believers and atheists is precisely this assessment.>> Not really. The difference between believers and atheists is believers took the time to examine the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and atheists didn’t. And believers had an open mind while examining the evidence while atheists’ minds are closed. And atheists’ minds are closed for a variety of reasons, but I think pride and a misconception of God are probably the main reasons. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 06:46 |
Exactly. And they, like everyone else, will answer to Him one day, whether they like it or not. And if their sins aren’t forgiven, they won’t like it. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 07:09 |
I love when you presume to know what believers think lol But it’s obvious here you’re trolling. Your trolling used to be more subtle. What happened? <<God exists>> Yes! <<for them in their beliefs.>> You almost had it! But then you went added those words. <<God is a myth for those of us who find sufficient meaningful interactions here in the corporal plane.>> You think believers don’t have meaningful interactions? I’d wager they have more meaningful interactions than atheists if by “meaningful interactions” you mean positively impacting other people. <<Everyone wins 😘>> Maybe in the short term. Not in the long term. But some people will stay lost by their own choosing. That’s free will for you. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 07:18 |
That’s not really consensus... just one way of looking at it. God don’t care!>> Really? You don’t believe God exists and yet you know all about Him. The arrogance is staggering. <<I’m considering joining the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. God, if she exists, hates hate, dogma, religion and so-called ‘sacred texts.’>> So you don’t believe God exists and yet you know what God likes and doesn’t like. And, in your view, God is indifferent except that God hates certain things. Do you know what indifferent means? <<We know what God wants because she created cannabis to bring us Jah love. It’s obvious.>> It all comes back to drugs for you. How many groceries could you have bought for a homeless family with the money you spend every week on drugs? Getting high is obviously more important to you than helping other people. Selfish as hell. Like most atheists. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 07:21 |
the fact that: <you can't rule out an unknowable God> and the opinion whether there are <sufficient grounds to posit a supreme being> >> stalhandske, those “two most recent key points” have been known for centuries, if not longer. Why are you acting like your club just invented the wheel? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 07:36 |
False. There’s eyewitness testimony for the Resurrected Christ. That, and a lot of other evidence, is much more than circumstantial. <<good enough for those who NEED to believe. Glaringly insufficient for logical thinkers.>> You mean like these logical thinkers? Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...” www.allaboutthejourney.org <<It ALL breaks down to “we don’t understand, therefore God.” God of the gaps. Utter bullshit.>> Sounds like you’re getting angry. Did I harsh your mellow? Am I a buzzkill? <<And thats just god. Forget about all the multitude of silly myths, religions, cults, sects and believers with their specific creation myths. No evidence.>> Check the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Smarter atheists than you have examined it and became Christians because of it. But they had an open mind. <<Wishful thinking and a willful desire to embrace primitive dogma. God is barely possible. All religions are utter BS.>> Those statements sound pretty dogmatic. And not at all based in reality. <<Silly. But, if it helps them to give meaning to their lives, cool. I don’t care what they believe.>> Obviously - that’s why you spend so much time on here arguing against it lol. You haven’t used that “the Bible was written by ignorant goat herders” line in a while. Did you put that out to pasture? That was one of your more colorful falsehoods. <<As long as they treat their religion like a penis. It’s fine to have one. Glad it brings you joy. Don’t wave it around and shove it in people’s faces.>> Wow. Crude and angry. Did you spill your bong? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 07:46 |
Maniac lunatic nutters. Religion is dangerous!!>> You’ve been watching too many movies on the Lifetime channel. Take a break from the hate and go for a walk. Have some of those “meaningful interactions” with other people you’re always talking about. People don’t just exist online. They’re in the real world too. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 08:29 |
I’m talking about the churches like Westboro Baptist Hate Mongers and such.>> The Westboro Baptist Church is essentially comprised of one family. The reason it gets so much play in the press is because atheists like to use it to smear churches and believers. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 09:40 |
You’re making the same mistake Bob made - the all-or-nothing approach where we either know everything about God or we know nothing about God. God has revealed His character through the Law, the Prophets, and, most directly, in Jesus Christ. We can certainly know about God (and more importantly know God) without knowing everything about Him. <<Therefore, any attempt to understand is doomed to fail.>> To fully understand and comprehend God? Sure, that’s not possible. To know about God (His character, what He values) and to know God? Definitely possible. <<Therefore, all religions, which are feeble attempts to understand the non understandable, are doomed to be wrong.>> You’re drawing faulty and false conclusions from a faulty and false all-or-nothing premise. <<Ergo, all religion is wrong or God is NOT incomprehensible. And therefore no god at all. QED>> See above. You think you’ve disproven the existence of God? You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are. <<No god or gods. All religions are incorrect. Any attempts to understand god are doomed b/c god ain’t here,>> For someone who doesn’t believe in God, you sure spend a lot of time talking about Him. God is living rent free in your head. Ask yourself why that is. If you really didn’t believe God exists, you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to convince yourself He doesn’t exist. <<and if she were, she’d be so far beyond our ken as to make any attempts as futile as a gnat trying to tie my shoe by using string theory.>> Sure, no one can fully comprehend God. That’s hardly surprising. But you’re again using Bob’s faulty all-or-nothing way of thinking - that if we cannot fully comprehend, understand and grasp God, then God must not exist. Do you use that standard for anything else? I bet you don’t fully understand physics. Does physics not exist? I bet you don’t fully understand how cars work. Do cars not exist? <<And therefore, finally, our best course is to ignore god completely and live life fully.>> So we’re supposed to ignore an entity that you don’t think exists? Huh? How’s that working for you? Shall we tally how many posts you’ve made about God in the last 48 hours? And you’re back on this “live life fully” kick, as though believers don’t already do that. How do atheists live life fully? By endlessly arguing against an entity they don’t think exists? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 09:54 |
Math reflects the real world because mathematicians used the real world to discover/invent mathematics.>> What?! You think mathematical equations that govern how the universe works didn’t exist until man invented them? What?! Huh?! Oh I see. You did something very cute in that sentence - you wrote “discover/invent” as if those words are synonyms. They ain’t, pardner! We can agree humans “discovered” mathematical equations that govern how the universe works. But they didn’t “invent” them. That’s like a guy walking in the desert who finds a watch and says, “Look at this great watch I discovered/invented!” <<Math that doesn’t describe the world usefully is ‘wrong’ and dispensed with.>> Ok. <<Ergo, what math remains to us describes the universe well.>> Ok. You’re a big fan of the word “ergo.” Do you think it lends gravitas to your musings? <<To the extent we don’t understand why math works, that’s just a God of the Gaps argument - we don’t understand, therefore God.>> We’re not talking about “why math works.” We’re talking about specific and simplistic mathematical equations that govern how the universe works and that existed long before man discovered them. <<In effect, this argument is like saying, look how great language is gor communication! That could only happen if God exists.>> No, it isn’t. Language doesn’t govern how anything in the universe operates. Math does. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 12:30 |
Keep em coming. F---k Politics>> Now you’re talkin’ sister! youtu.be 🤗 🤗 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 12:41 |
Those horrid disposable plastic dental floss holders I see all over as litter. Do you really need more plastic to avoid using your fingers???>> How ‘bout those blue face diapers that are all over the landscape and in landfills and oceans? What if you went to a store and forgot your mask - would you pick up a used face diaper off the street and put it on? Or would you instead put other people’s lives at risk by going maskless? 🤔 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Nov-21, 21:05 |
I think the Fiat Lux tournament was a great idea. Please, do set up another one. What about a theme tournament this time? I would suggest testing the Scotch opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4>> If any of you FIAT LUX III hombres want a butt kicking, include me in the tourney. I beat stalhandske in four moves! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Nov-21, 09:25 |
<<Arguing w religious fanatics>> If you’re referring to me, and we both know you are, I’m not a fanatic nor do I think discussions, debates and arguments about God and Christianity are a bad idea. They only become a bad idea when one of the parties (that’d be you) relies on repeating silly mantras and making evidence-free claims over and over and over again. And even when your claims are shown to be false (such as there’s no evidence for God’s existence,) you exit the debate, wait a while and then start making the same evidence-free claims all over again. |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
