Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 551
  1. #181
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If the Bible were true, the existence of God would be undeniable. If the Bible was "God's Word", I doubt you would have to tell/prove it to me, it would be self evident.
    I referenced this comment of yours in my comments to PGA in another thread...and simply want to acknowledge to you that I did. This is a line of commentary I have used in debate with theists often...although your wording here quoted is exceptional.

    My post is the last post in:

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...474#post557474

  2. #182
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I see you failed to answer my questions yet once again, Belthazor. I put them there as a consideration for you. How well does Christianity justify its claims?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If the Bible were true, the existence of God would be undeniable. If the Bible was "God's Word", I doubt you would have to tell/prove it to me, it would be self evident.
    God's existence is undeniable for millions.

    The Christian worldview does not see humanity as robots. That is not the way God created you. You have a volition, a will. You can deny anything.
    "As a man thinks, so he is." (Proverbs 23:7)

    My observation is when people are fed something long enough they often tend to believe it. We live in a society that for the most part thinks secularly. You think in secular terms.

    My advice to take or leave: Test your worldview truth claims. See how well it makes sense of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But to answer your question, some predictions/prophesy in the Bible could be true, I have not said otherwise.
    Would this mean that all references in the Koran have to be false? Surely it can have "truths" in it as well and still be incorrect?
    Not all references to the Qu'ran, no. Every worldview borrows some aspects of truth from the real.

    The question comes with its views of exclusivity. That is where it departs from the authentic. Both Judaism and Islam deny who Jesus Christ is. Therefore either they are right, or Christianity is right. Either Jesus was who He claimed to be in the NT writings or He was not. Logically He can't be both who He said He was and not who He said He was. One thing is logically certain; someone has it wrong. That is the premise you have to work on to think logically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Also, predicting a city in the middle east in that time would be destroyed is not much of a prediction.
    Belthazor predicts Palestinians will have their own "state" in this century". If it happens am I brilliant or a Prophet?
    What of prophesy in the Bible that has not come true
    When in this century will they have their state? What will that state encompass? How long will it last?

    You don't realize the significance of Jerusalems destruction and what it meant to the Jewish people under the covenant. If you took the time to read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 you would understand that when God brought foreign armies against His covenant people He was bringing judgment upon them. The destruction of their temple would be the most horrific event in the history of their nation. Their complete way of life, the whole economy they lived under would be changed forever. Their way of life revolved around keeping the covenant they had with God. He said He would protect them and keep them safe as long as they obeyed His commands (Deuteronomy 28:1-14).

    So when you read through the list of curses in Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards, you see the calamity spoken of there is being exercised by God in A.D. 67-70 with the surrounding and destruction of the city. In the Olivet Discourse, there are many references to the curses of the covenant.

    Luke 21:20-24 (NASB)
    20 [1] “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 [2] and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    [3] Matthew 24:28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

    [4] Matthew 24:7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

    Fulfillment:

    [1] Deuteronomy 28:16; Deuteronomy 28:20; Deuteronomy 28:25; Deuteronomy 28:45-46; Deuteronomy 28:52; Deuteronomy 28:55; Deuteronomy 28:57

    [2] Deuteronomy 28:32; Deuteronomy 28:36; Deuteronomy 28:41;

    [3] Deuteronomy 28:45-46

    [4] Deuteronomy 28:47-48

    ***

    The Book of Revelation is John's account of the Olivet Discourse. See how Deuteronomy 28:59 applies in the book regarding plagues: https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...egin=73&end=73

    Seven-fold judgments written of in Revelation are applications of the curses of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26:

    Leviticus 26:18
    If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

    Leviticus 26:21
    ‘If then, you act with hostility against Me and are unwilling to obey Me, I will increase the plague on you seven times according to your sins.

    Leviticus 26:24
    then I will act with hostility against you; and I, even I, will strike you seven times for your sins.

    Leviticus 26:28
    then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins.

    Revelation 5:1
    [ The Book with Seven Seals ] I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals.

    Revelation 6:1
    [ The First Seal—Rider on White Horse ] Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, “Come.”

    Revelation 8:1
    [ The Seventh Seal—the Trumpets ] When the Lamb broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

    Revelation 16:1
    Then I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.


    ***

    I could go on and select verse after verse of the Olivet Discourse and show its fulfillment in history and with regards to some instances at a later date in the NT writings themselves. For example, Jesus told His disciples that they would preach the gospel to the ends of the (known) world - the world they understood - then the end would come. (The end of what? The end of the age/old covenant age)

    Matthew 24:14
    14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. (also Matthew 28:18-20 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”)

    Romans 1:8
    First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

    Romans 10:18
    But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.”

    The gospel preached in all the world again in Colossians:

    Colossians 1:6, 23
    which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;....23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

    We read in Acts of the missionary journeys of the apostles into different regions of the world they knew at that time, the Roman Empire or fourth kingdom spoken of in Daniel 2:40-43.

    So, when you, Belthazor, claim you can prophesy by "predicting a city in the middle east in that time would be destroyed" you are overly simplifying. Scripture is very detailed about prophecy.

    [QUOTE=PGA2]I don't think anyone is capable of making an entirely "free will" decision because every decision is built upon a worldview that influences how we look at the world. You are not neutral in what you believe. You have baggage you take with you when you look at the three religious beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Not at all what I meant.

    The INFORMATION must be available, what you do with it does not affect your free will at all.....
    The Bible charges that humanity suppresses the truth of God because they PREFER to do what is wrong. It is easier to set God aside and ignore what they know deep-down in their inner-being to be true. In this way THEY become the master of their fate for a while (they think they control their fate); they call the shots, they become little gods in deciding what is right and wrong for the brief time they are on earth.

    Romans 1:18-26 (NASB)
    Unbelief and Its Consequences
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
    24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions...
    28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,...
    32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    So, the information is available to each one of us, per the Bible. Believe it or don't. We not only have the universe itself as a revelation of God, but we also have His written disclosure to humanity!

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    From the time Adam chose 'his' way, he was not receptive to God's ways. Thus, God testifies to humanity that they cannot solve their problems without His guidance and He put barrier in the way so that man can realize it by the evil present when man decides.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If I were to take this as true:
    God knew before he created Adam that he would "fall". Why bother? God knew for absolute CERTAIN most humans would not be Christian by 2018.
    Yes, God knew what Adam would do. An all-knowing Being knows all things.

    Why bother you ask; to save some for a relationship with Him. By His grace, His message through His written Word/revelation is available to humanity. His message of His existence has always been available by what has been made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    He would have known for CERTAIN, that he would still "have" to kill almost all life on the planet in the Noah/Great Flood FOR NOTHING!! Why flood the planet and kill people in such a gruesome way. knowing they would still "sin"? (And what of the other life that was senselessly killed for nothing?).
    Oh wait, only land animals would affect mostly. Ocean life was probably mostly ok..
    Though, there is no evidence left of this massive happening.
    He gave humans the same qualities He has; a will, volition, reason, the ability to love, the ability to create things by using their minds. Adam represented humanity in that He decided to do his own thing. We also choose to do our own thing, apart from God. Adam decided he would find out/know both good and evil. We inherit his nature. That is why Scripture tells us we need to be born again/anew. We need God's grace operating in our lives once again for we are dead to God relationly otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Adam had the morals of a child, and eating a piece of fruit is worthy of lifetime punishment? Really? (did you ever sneak a cigarette or alcohol from your parents?)
    God gave Adam a free will. Adam was not burdened/in bondage with all the baggage humanity has acquired living for so long without the guidance of God. Adam had a relationship with God in the Garden, that if he had continued in that relationship, he would have continued to learn from God of His goodness. Adam chose to disobey God's commands, even though God listed the consequences.

    The fruit represented a choice - live with God in His goodness, or live in a relative, subjective mindset where Adam decided for himself.

    The very reason God made humans in His image and likeness was so God would not have robots. He could have programmed the being to do precisely what He wanted, but He gave humans the ability to choose, in Adam. Since the Fall the lesson of history (His story) is that man when left to his own ability does evil continually. God, from the beginning, promised He would provide a better way (What is known as 'the golden chain of redemption' starts in Genesis 3:15). That promise meets its fulfillment in Jesus Christ - the Second Adam. He did what the first Adam was unable to do. In the Son becoming a man, a man (Jesus) lived in perfect obedience to God, thus, restoring what was lost in the Garden, eating of the tree of life and living forever. A man was responsible for sin entering the world, so, a Man was responsible for taking sin from the world (for all who believe in Him).

    God has given humanity an example of what man is capable of through history. He has shown humans what it is like to live life in their capacity without Him. He has shown humans by choosing a covenant people who agreed to do His will. They demonstrate to us that they do not have what it takes to be holy as He is holy. Speaking of what it takes - their works - notice that every religion but one requires its believers to work or earn merit with God. Christianity places the burden of 'works' on another. We are judged on Jesus' works!). They, judged on their accord, continually do evil. He showed them the cost of doing evil. It required the life be taken, yet He provided a scapegoat, a sacrifice that they were to lay their hands on to identify with it taking their place. But this sacrificial system, the taking of animal life, only COVERED their sins until the perfect, once for all sacrifice could be made. Their sacrifice of atonement had to be made every year, continually. That once for all sacrifice (Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 9:23-28) meets all God's righteous requirements. It pays the PENALTY for our sin, and it is pure and holy, satisfying the righteousness of God.

    So, when you come before God after you die physically, for judgment, either you answer for your sins on your merit, or you take the provision God has offered by His Son to atone for those sins (His merit). It is by faith in His sacrifice that saves us from the wrath of God. That is the Good News of the Gospel, which while we were still sinners Christ Jesus died for us, to present Himself as a Substitute in our place before God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What was the Devil doing in the Garden "of Eden anyway? I thought Evil/Devil could not be in the presence of God?
    Satan was there to offer humans, represented in Adam, another choice. In this way, Adam was free to choose God or reject God (Romans 5:12, 17).

    Evil is not in the presence of God in that evil does not share a loving relationship with God. God separates Himself from evil, even though He has permitted it for a time that GOOD will come from it.

    The good that comes from it is that people understand the evil they do and seek a means of escape from it. Some find that means that sets them free from evil; others do not.

    To my way of thinking (and I'm not positive of whether I'm right here), everlasting torment is living separated from the love of God for eternity in a place where everyone is selfish and self-centered and where evil is magnified far greater than it ever was on earth because of living without restraint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If I were skeptical of this claim:
    DNA shows that all humans did not come from one person.
    If Eve came from Adams rib, she would have XY chromosomes.
    You assume that when God made woman from the man that He did not change her composition in fundamental ways. News for you, women are not the same in physiology, let alone in their genetic make-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    DNA also shows humans share some common DNA with all other life on earth.
    We share common characteristic because we live in the same world, eat some of the same foods, share the same environment. The difference between humans and animals is that our minds are different than the animal brain. Your worldview believes it is because we have evolved from simple to complex. My worldview thinks that it is because God CREATED us DIFFERENT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Geology and the fossil record show life on earth starting simple and becoming more complex.
    The myth of the "common ancestor" being a biological ameba! The data does not come already interpreted. People do that by their worldview bias and confirmation bias. You build on one of two basic frameworks.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How does life arise from inorganic material?
    How does it acquire consciousness?
    How does something devoid of intellect, intent/will, without direction but random, sustain anything indefinitely?
    How well does your worldview make sense of morality?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again, if God created humans as you say, he did it from "nothing" and said consciousness also came from "nothing".
    Not nothing - from Himself; His Mind. That is something, just not the PHYSICAL universe. The physical universe originated from a SPIRITUAL Being. For us the physical comes first, then the spiritual. God IS Spirit. There is no beginning or end of God. He IS. That is why history for Him is the eternal present. He sees the end from the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Please show that "nothing" or a "state of nothing" can even exist. There is no known place in the universe that that is or has "nothing"....
    I'm not arguing that nothing can exist. I'm arguing that the physical has not always existed. I'm arguing that God materialized the physical from His Mind. I'm arguing that once (time) there was no universe. I'm not arguing that once there was no God. Eternity would hang outside of time.

    Time needs a beginning, or else you would never get to the present.

    Do you understand that last concept or would you like me to explain the thinking further?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I believe you missed post #145 sir.
    I will check it out.
    You can call me Pete, or Peter if you prefer.

    Peter

  3. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  4. #183
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    603
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    God's existence is undeniable for millions.
    Um, no.
    Undeniable can not mean that.

    ---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    We live in a society that for the most part thinks secularly. You think in secular terms.
    On this point Peter, I agree completely

    ---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not all references to the Qu'ran, no. Every worldview borrows some aspects of truth from the real.

    The question comes with its views of exclusivity. That is where it departs from the authentic. Both Judaism and Islam deny who Jesus Christ is. Therefore either they are right, or Christianity is right. Either Jesus was who He claimed to be in the NT writings or He was not. Logically He can't be both who He said He was and not who He said He was. One thing is logically certain; someone has it wrong.
    A point I have been trying to make as well

    ---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Satan was there to offer humans, represented in Adam, another choice. In this way, Adam was free to choose God or reject God (Romans 5:12, 17).
    Yes!
    AND God knew before he created man that if Satin Was in the Garden, Adam would "sin"!!!!!

    ---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    We share common characteristic because we live in the same world, eat some of the same foods, share the same environment. The difference between humans and animals is that our minds are different than the animal brain. Your worldview believes it is because we have evolved from simple to complex. My worldview thinks that it is because God CREATED us DIFFERENT.
    Not at ALL.
    DNA is why you have arms. Two instead of three or ?.
    It has everything to do with your physical nature. Every aspect.

    ---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm not arguing that nothing can exist. I'm arguing that the physical has not always existed. I'm arguing that God materialized the physical from His Mind. I'm arguing that once (time) there was no universe. I'm not arguing that once there was no God. Eternity would hang outside of time.

    Time needs a beginning, or else you would never get to the present.

    Do you understand that last concept or would you like me to explain the thinking further?

    You are quite "protective of your thoughts" (or however you said it)..........

    ---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    The myth of the "common ancestor" being a biological ameba! The data does not come already interpreted. People do that by their worldview bias and confirmation bias. You build on one of two basic frameworks.
    Huh....
    Geology has to be the least contested science out there.....

    ---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    I will check it out.
    You can call me Pete, or Peter if you prefer.

    Peter
    I look forward to response Peter

  5. #184
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Um, no.
    Undeniable can not mean that.

    ---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------



    On this point Peter, I agree completely

    ---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------



    A point I have been trying to make as well

    ---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------



    Yes!
    AND God knew before he created man that if Satin Was in the Garden, Adam would "sin"!!!!!

    ---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------



    Not at ALL.
    DNA is why you have arms. Two instead of three or ?.
    It has everything to do with your physical nature. Every aspect.

    ---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------




    You are quite "protective of your thoughts" (or however you said it)..........

    ---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------



    Huh....
    Geology has to be the least contested science out there.....

    ---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------



    I look forward to response Peter
    So, I take it you are finished objecting to the position I laid out on prophecy?
    Does that mean you see the logic behind it, you still hold that anyone can prophesy with 100% accuracy, you believe the prophecy was written after the fact, or you do not want to continue examining the proof/evidence?

    I'll finish my reply to 145 then back to this post, Belthazor.

    Peter

  6. #185
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    603
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, I take it you are finished objecting to the position I laid out on prophecy?
    Does that mean you see the logic behind it, you still hold that anyone can prophesy with 100% accuracy, you believe the prophecy was written after the fact, or you do not want to continue examining the proof/evidence?

    I'll finish my reply to 145 then back to this post, Belthazor.

    Peter
    Ok, let's see where that goes and we will get back to this.


    Those of us with long "Identities" are used to abbreviations, please feel free to address me as "Belt" or as you see fit.

    I hope your evening is going well peter
    B

  7. #186
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well, if it's gonna bother you this much, I will try to use different terminology ....

    How about, the more outlandish the claim, the easier it is discarded...
    Hmm.
    maybe, when the claim defies the "laws of reality as we experience daily" there needs to be a better reason to believe the person's claim than if they said they typed a message on a keyboard.

    I don't know...you are taking this point much more seriously than I meant it, I'm thinkin
    Ha, yes it is possible that I am.

    The reason though is that I suspect that we too often smuggle in biases when we try to do this. For example, when we say "outlandish" or "we experience daily" we are introducing confirmation or belief bias into the mix. Hence why I tend to lump that into the psychological factors affecting acceptance rather than the warrant. A middle schooler would have a hard time accepting economics since they differ from the laws of reality they encounter daily, but an adult wouldn't have that same issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Things that violate physical "laws" on a whim perhaps?
    I think that that might be an untenable position for the definition of supernatural in philosophic literature based on how we define physical laws. Physical laws are laws that apply within this universe presuming no external influence. Take a basic law of thermodynamics, that entropy tends to increase. That is a general law, but we create increasing order all the time as humans. It doesn't mean we really violate the law so much as it means the law's ceteris paribus conditions don't apply. The same would be argued for supernatural events. They don't violate physical laws so much as certain physical laws don't apply when supernatural causes are present. (If you think this is special pleading, I would note that this is true in mainline physics as well within multi-verse hypotheses, as well as some variants of quantum gravity iirc).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    You aren't going to try to take me to one of them "brain in a vat" arguments are you ?
    :-) Not that I know of. Rather I was going to highlight that human beings have a hard time accepting a lot of self-evident facts. So when we say that a truth would be undeniable we would need to remember that people think all kinds of normal, everyday things aren't undeniable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Let's try a stab at this type:

    All kinds of testimony of people being healed thru prayer. Cancer, diabetes, all kinds of diseases and such. But never one limb growing back?

    Or do you have a supernatural/defies physics type of example you like?
    I honestly don't have a lot of familiarity with the claims of healing through prayer so I wouldn't be prepared to defend it as a concept.

    To be fair, none of my apologetics really run towards the miracle type, so I am generally not as familiar. The exception might be a defense of the resurrection as the best explanation for the historicity of the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances. That argument is perhaps a bit much for this thread?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #187
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    No, meaning I want to change the subject.
    But why? You've confirmed that you'd respond that you believe Zeus doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Look...as far as I am concerned, a strong atheist is an individual who asserts that NO GODS exist...or asserts a "belief" that NO GODS exist.
    Then all I can tell you is that you might want to re-consider your position on the usage of the term, since the common usage now appears to be simply "lacking a belief in a deity or deities". Here's some references:
    https://www.define-atheism.com/
    https://www.canadianatheists.ca/profile/
    https://www.atheists.org/activism/re...about-atheism/
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism

    Further, regarding the etymology, I'd like to know what you think of define-atheism's explanation: https://www.define-atheism.com/etymology/

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you cannot go along with that...let's terminate this particular part of the conversation.
    Dude, I had just explained for you that my question allows for that. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you. Again: What's wrong with holding the strong atheistic belief that Zeus doesn't exist? Is it just a belief that Zeus or fairies for sure don't exist, or is that rationally justified? Where do we draw the line and why?
    These questions are simply focusing on a specific deity, and saying nothing of whether the person in question also denies any/all other deities. Feel free to assume the question is referring to a strong atheist in the sense you're used to: someone who denies any/all deities. The question is about the apparent acceptability of their denial of one specific deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Okay...give me an example of a "specific theistic claims which are perfectly acceptable to deny outright" and then prove it.
    Zeus is a specific theistic claim which appears to be perfectly acceptable to deny outright. You're proof that it is acceptable to deny Zeus, since even you stated you believe Zeus does not exist, but don't appear concerned about support for that position.

  9. #188
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    FUTUREBOY

    Zeus is a specific theistic claim which appears to be perfectly acceptable to deny outright. You're proof that it is acceptable to deny Zeus, since even you stated you believe Zeus does not exist, but don't appear concerned about support for that position.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    But why? You've confirmed that you'd respond that you believe Zeus doesn't exist.
    I did not. I defy you to find any post here where I said “I believe…” ANYTHING. It simply is not something I would say.

    Do keep in mind the significant difference between, “I do not believe Zeus exists” and “I believe Zeus does not exist.”

    One is a statement of “belief”…which I would not make.

    The second is a statement about a “belief” I do not share with others who may have it.

    Then all I can tell you is that you might want to re-consider your position on the usage of the term, since the common usage now appears to be simply "lacking a belief in a deity or deities". Here's some references:
    https://www.define-atheism.com/
    https://www.canadianatheists.ca/profile/
    https://www.atheists.org/activism/re...about-atheism/
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism
    None of these links worked for me, but I copy and pasted them.

    It was a waste. The first two are essentially the same source…and deals with the word “atheist” rather than “strong atheist” which is what we were discussing. The third does about the same thing.


    The last actually describes a “strong atheist” the way I do. “Strong atheism (sometimes equated with "theoretical atheism") makes an explicit statement against the existence of gods.”

    Strong atheism, in almost every description I’ve ever seen, (there might be one somewhere that has it wrong)…is the assertion that NO GODS EXIST.

    Further, regarding the etymology, I'd like to know what you think of define-atheism's explanation: https://www.define-atheism.com/etymology/
    It made many of the same points I made about not deriving as many atheists suggest from theism.

    Here is what I offer from the on-line etymological dictionary.

    atheist (n.)
    1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).


    Dude, I had just explained for you that my question allows for that. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you. Again: What's wrong with holding the strong atheistic belief that Zeus doesn't exist? Is it just a belief that Zeus or fairies for sure don't exist, or is that rationally justified? Where do we draw the line and why?
    Since strong atheism is the rejection of all and any gods…I fail to see how it can be used that way.





    These questions are simply focusing on a specific deity, and saying nothing of whether the person in question also denies any/all other deities. Feel free to assume the question is referring to a strong atheist in the sense you're used to: someone who denies any/all deities. The question is about the apparent acceptability of their denial of one specific deity.
    Feel free to use the word the way I and most of the sources we’ve used say it should be used; namely; to reject all and any gods.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism

  10. #189
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    603
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think that that might be an untenable position for the definition of supernatural in philosophic literature based on how we define physical laws.
    Don't think I was trying " for the definition of supernatural in philosophic literature ".
    We were discussing claims (and evidence) having a "weight" which I guess wasn't the best choice of words.

    Evidence has varying degrees of "believability"
    I think claims share their own version of this.

    Make any better sense?

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    :-) Not that I know of. Rather I was going to highlight that human beings have a hard time accepting a lot of self-evident facts. So when we say that a truth would be undeniable we would need to remember that people think all kinds of normal, everyday things aren't undeniable.
    Now if we were just talking about humans here, I would agree with you, but we are discussing humans AND God.

    The Omni being can certainly handle his existence being "undeniable"?
    Why would God not want it to be known for sure, he existed?

    Allowing that his existence be known for sure seems a given (if I read my bible correctly).....

  11. #190
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Evidence has varying degrees of "believability"
    I think claims share their own version of this.
    And that 'believability' seems based on two independent factors.

    I think someone who is heavily vested in the moon landing conspiracy is going to not believe evidence that we landed on the moon. Someone who is more neutral would.

    That believability is based on the individual's preconceptions, assumptions, and biases.

    The evidence though also has an independent source of whether it is believable, objective analysis. This depends on its nature a little bit, but from my specialty we can look at historical text and assign them a weight based on their independence, verifiability of claims, independent support, and contemporary context to event (amongst other things).

    If we take those parrallels to a claim, I'm not quite sure how they apply.

    The first one clearly applies nearly 1 to 1.

    But what kind of objective factors would we use to assess the weight of the claim "the sky is blue?" I'm having a hard time thinking of anything that doesn't fit into that first category of personal effects.

    Alternatively, perhaps it might help me understand if you were to talk through how you might assess the weight of two claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    The Omni being can certainly handle his existence being "undeniable"?
    Why would that be the case. Omnipotent, for example, doesn't mean the literal power to do anything. God is never said to be able to create a stone so heavy He can't lift it, or a married bachelor, or something of that sort. Rather, it has always been interpretted as the power to do anything that is feasible or possible.

    Given that humans are one part of that acceptance equation I'm not sure it is within the feasible or possible to make that happen and to allow us the free will to make the choice. Hell, we can't even get people to agree the earth is round or that there is a moon in the sky!
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  13. #191
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    603
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Alternatively, perhaps it might help me understand if you were to talk through how you might assess the weight of two claims?
    It appears you are saying that if:

    "I said I can flap my arms and fly up in the air"

    and also said,

    "I typed you a message"

    that you find both claims (at this point in that particular conversation) equally plausible/weighty/believable/likely/(insert whatever word you like)?

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would that be the case. Omnipotent, for example, doesn't mean the literal power to do anything. God is never said to be able to create a stone so heavy He can't lift it, or a married bachelor, or something of that sort. Rather, it has always been interpretted as the power to do anything that is feasible or possible.
    I don't think making your existence known (if you can create our universe) at all equates to making a "married bachelor"
    (which speaking of impossible, how can "God be three distinct individuals and one individual at the same time and how can he be "his" own son/dad at the same time)!

    But, you are saying it is NOT POSSIBLE for God to make himself undeniably known to any given person? (this would be a "tall" claim....or weighty....or implausible


    Aside:
    Can you tell me how choosing a particular religion is not special pleading, as they all (for this conversation, all is Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim) offer ancient text and personal revelation as their evidence? They all have the same warrant.

    ---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, I take it you are finished objecting to the position I laid out on prophecy?
    Does that mean you see the logic behind it, you still hold that anyone can prophesy with 100% accuracy, you believe the prophecy was written after the fact, or you do not want to continue examining the proof/evidence?

    I'll finish my reply to 145 then back to this post, Belthazor.

    Peter
    I had another thought Peter.

    You claim God chose "Jews" to spread his message yet you disagree with them at a very basic level (that Jesus IS God)??
    How can they be mistaken if they are chosen?

  14. #192
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It appears you are saying that if:

    "I said I can flap my arms and fly up in the air"

    and also said,

    "I typed you a message"

    that you find both claims (at this point in that particular conversation) equally plausible/weighty/believable/likely/(insert whatever word you like)?
    Not exactly. I'm saying that each claim is equal in the sense that they both posit a positive claim.

    Now, my warrant to accept those claims isn't the same. The evidence that I already possess about the possibility of one being impossible or at least unlikely is pretty strong. The reason I'm less likely to accept one of those claims over the other is based on the supporting evidence, not on something inherent to the nature of that claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I don't think making your existence known (if you can create our universe) at all equates to making a "married bachelor"
    But that isn't quite the claim you initially put forward. It wasn't just about making Himself known, it was about making people accept that knowledge.

    And given our predilection for some group of us denying the patently obvious, I'm not sure why that is a feasible outcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    (which speaking of impossible, how can "God be three distinct individuals and one individual at the same time and how can he be "his" own son/dad at the same time)!
    Well, again without getting too far off topic, I don't think this quite fits the criteria of logically contradictary, even if it is hard to fully comprehend (as are many things we accept as true all the time btw). If God is three distinct persons (individuals is a different word with different meaning) in one being, that doesn't fit to logical impossiblity since person =/= being.

    Take this, admittedly, imperfect analogy. A triangle is one shape. A single shape made up of three distinct sides and three distinct angles. But it is still one shape.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    But, you are saying it is NOT POSSIBLE for God to make himself undeniably known to any given person?
    And maintain their free will? I'm not sure really. We would need to understand what you mean by undeniable here. But, again, that isn't what you initially brought forward. It wasn't that God hadn't made Himself known to a person, it was that God hadn't made himself undeniably known to all people.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Aside:
    Can you tell me how choosing a particular religion is not special pleading, as they all (for this conversation, all is Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim) offer ancient text and personal revelation as their evidence? They all have the same warrant.
    The answer lies in your last sentence. They do not all have the same warrant. Just because a text is ancient does not mean it is automatically equivilant to any other ancient text right? We can apply critical analysis and historiography to those texts to evaluate the relative merit of their truth claims, right? We can evaluate archeological or independent sources for verification of those claims as well.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #193
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    I'm following the interaction between you two...and enjoying it.

    Here is something I would like to interject that I see as being significant to parts of that conversation.

    I suggest the following thought for consideration. I invite agreement, disagreement, or simply discussion. Although I consider it to be so...and will be defending that it is...I am not asserting that here...just suggesting it for the sake of discussion.


    I suggest that it is impossible to use science, math, reason, or logic to establish any of the following four things:

    1) There is a GOD or are gods.

    2) It is more likely that there is a GOD or are gods...than that there are no gods.

    3) There are no gods.

    4) It is more likely that there are no gods...than that there is at least one.

    I suggest by extension...that any statement that a GOD or gods exist; do not exist; or that either is more likely than the other...is arrived at via something other than science, math, reason, or logic.

  16. #194
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    603
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I'm following the interaction between you two...and enjoying it.
    I appreciate the comment
    You have some interesting points yourself!

    Squatch is a formidable opponent to be sure. I have yet to take overcome his arguments completely in our disagreements, but I enjoy talking with him.
    However, maybe this is "the" thread he falls

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I suggest by extension...that any statement that a GOD or gods exist; do not exist; or that either is more likely than the other...is arrived at via something other than science, math, reason, or logic.
    I generally agree with you here, though I never thought of it this way before.
    I have been more along the lines of:
    given what is in the Bible, God's existence would be undeniable. What form that would take would be up to God (with all the "Omni's").

    ---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly. I'm saying that each claim is equal in the sense that they both posit a positive claim.

    Now, my warrant to accept those claims isn't the same. The evidence that I already possess about the possibility of one being impossible or at least unlikely is pretty strong. The reason I'm less likely to accept one of those claims over the other is based on the supporting evidence, not on something inherent to the nature of that claim.
    I'm good with this. Sounds to me like what I have been trying to say...

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that isn't quite the claim you initially put forward. It wasn't just about making Himself known, it was about making people accept that knowledge.
    I don't remember ever making that claim let alone in this thread. If you can point me to it, I will retract.

    I believe I said:
    If the Christian God existed according to the Bible, his existence would be undeniable.

    People could still choose to fallow or not, but they would definitely know who they were fallowing existed.....

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, again without getting too far off topic, I don't think this quite fits the criteria of logically contradictary, even if it is hard to fully comprehend (as are many things we accept as true all the time btw). If God is three distinct persons (individuals is a different word with different meaning) in one being, that doesn't fit to logical impossiblity since person =/= being.
    Since we are discussing theistic beliefs and being "rational" I find the question to be pertinent. I quote the "rational" because that is the Op's position, I would not say being a theist is irrational per se.

    Please define for me the difference you are referring to between person and individual? I just want to be on the same page here.

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And maintain their free will? I'm not sure really.
    How does correct/true knowledge negatively affect one's free will?

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The answer lies in your last sentence. They do not all have the same warrant. Just because a text is ancient does not mean it is automatically equivilant to any other ancient text right? We can apply critical analysis and historiography to those texts to evaluate the relative merit of their truth claims, right? We can evaluate archeological or independent sources for verification of those claims as well.
    I did not say "any" ancient text. I said all three religions use ancient text as "evidence", and they certainly do.

    Are you saying the Koran and Judaism's texts don't contain any of the same kinds of references found in the Bible?

    Do you believe Jews are the "chosen people"?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 24th, 2018 at 05:45 PM.

  17. #195
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I appreciate the comment
    You have some interesting points yourself!

    Squatch is a formidable opponent to be sure. I have yet to take overcome his arguments completely in our disagreements, but I enjoy talking with him.
    However, maybe this is "the" thread he falls

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------



    I generally agree with you here, though I never thought of it this way before.
    I have been more along the lines of:
    given what is in the Bible, God's existence would be undeniable. What form that would take would be up to God (with all the "Omni's").[COLOR="Silver"]

    The "omni's" are the problem with the the god of the Bible...or at least, with the god of the Bible that Christians have come up with. To their credit, Jews avoid this problem by pretty much leaving lots of the omni's out of the equation. Most of the primitive religions were clever enough to avoid that also.

    Christianity has, unfortunately, made it a highlight.

  18. #196
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I suggest that it is impossible to use science, math, reason, or logic to establish any of the following four things:

    1) There is a GOD or are gods.
    I appreciate the input. I'd be interested if you could elaborate on this point a bit more. Why do you think it would be impossible to use logic to establish the existence of (or at least probable existence of) God or gods?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I appreciate the comment
    You have some interesting points yourself!

    Squatch is a formidable opponent to be sure. I have yet to take overcome his arguments completely in our disagreements, but I enjoy talking with him.
    However, maybe this is "the" thread he falls
    Ha, I apprecite the kind comments. It would be hard to be "the" thread since it certainly wouldn't be the first where I've come around (you can ask Ibelsd about his schooling of me on constitutional structure). I am definitely enjoying the conversation as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I'm good with this. Sounds to me like what I have been trying to say...[
    I think we are largely on the same page. I'm just trying to err on the side of clarity so that we don't run afoul of misunderstanding later.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I don't remember ever making that claim let alone in this thread. If you can point me to it, I will retract.

    I believe I said:
    If the Christian God existed according to the Bible, his existence would be undeniable.

    Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by that sentence then. You don't see "making His existence undeniable" as having the same meaning as "people would need to accept that He exists?"

    Just to clarify. I am reading your claim as saying that if God exits, He would be able to make his existence known such that no person could deny that He exists. We can definitely set aside whether or not they follow His commands, etc. but there would be debate about His existence in your mind.

    Is that a valid interpretation?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Please define for me the difference you are referring to between person and individual? I just want to be on the same page here.
    Well in common every day english we use the words interchangably. However, that is a relatively recent blurring of the distinction. We don't need to go back far to find that the two words had vastly different meanings (which is part of the reason so many people were up in arms and fundamentally misunderstood the Citizens United ruling). Person derives from the word persona, and in English, has traditionally referred to the rational faculties and relationship with others. Person derives (partly it is an old Indo-European concept) from a latin word meaning "to sound through." It refers to how your factulties or intellect or essence is presented or relayed to others. Individual has almost exclusively been used (and it is still demanded by some grammarians) to convey indivisiblity (a cognate) or "separateness from another."
    http://taylormarshall.com/2013/06/sh...or-person.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    How does correct/true knowledge negatively affect one's free will?
    It's status as true wouldn't be any issue as far as I can see, rather its status as "undeniable" would be problematic to whether or not we have free will. If a rock were truly unmovable, do I really have an ability to move it? If not, in what sense do I have free will on whether to believe that information?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I did not say "any" ancient text. I said all three religions use ancient text as "evidence", and they certainly do.
    Ok, I don't think that particularly affects my answer however. All three religions use specific texts as the basis for their claims. But those three texts do not have the same warrant for acceptance. Just as Herodotus' Histories, and the Epic of Gilgamesh are treated and evaluated and accepted differently, I don't see any reaons why the Koran, Torah, and Bible shouldn't be evaluated differently.

    Each of those three texts has different sets of objective evidences underlying their claims. We can compare, for example, the Koran's suspect arabic to the archeological finds noted in the old testament and the independent cooberations of the historian author of Luke in the book of Acts in the New Testament. Those comparisons would give us objective warrant to accept or reject certain work in favor of others.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The "omni's" are the problem with the the god of the Bible...or at least, with the god of the Bible that Christians have come up with.
    Perhaps, though in my experience those problems are generally the result of an incorrect understanding of what is claimed by the omnis.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #197
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I appreciate the input. I'd be interested if you could elaborate on this point a bit more. Why do you think it would be impossible to use logic to establish the existence of (or at least probable existence of) God or gods?
    The reason I did not actually assert it (but simply suggested it for the sake of discussion) is because there still is a bit of doubt. A very tiny bit, in my opinion...but a bit.

    The reason why I think (suspect) it is because I have put CONSIDERABLE effort myself into using logic and reason to establish the existence (conversely, the non-existence) of gods...and cannot even come close.

    I've also read and listened to others who claim to be able to do it...and have not found anything remotely persuasive that they can do it.

    An example would be Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of a god...which fail miserably. A further example would be the thousands of posts from atheists with whom I have discussed this issue on the Internet...who have tried to do the opposite...and come up just as short.

    One thing for certain...if a person can do it...my suspicion on the "impossibility" will instantly be proven wrong.

    If you would like to make an argument that "at least one god exists" or "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none do" using reason, logic, math or science...I love to hear it and discuss it.




    Perhaps, though in my experience those problems are generally the result of an incorrect understanding of what is claimed by the omnis.
    I agree...it might be.

    Claiming that a god cannot be a god because the god cannot do the definitionally impossible...is a poor argument. There is no way to make a four sided triangle or a square circle without first changing the definition.

  20. #198
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I'm curious. Here on ODN, God's abilities are commonly referred to as "God can do anything logically possible", but not the impossible. For instance, God can not make a married bachelor or a square circle. Do you agree?
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Yes, I do. God uses language to communicate to His creatures - humanity. Words have meaning that relates to a context in describing what is. So God could not logically contradict Himself and still communicate truth (it would not make sense), nor would He since He does not lie (another thing God cannot do). If you want to understand something truly for what it is then you have to 1) think God's thoughts after Him, or 2) have God reveal what is true on any given subject.

    Since He is omniscient and created all things, He understands them in every detail. We do not.
    ***

    "Yes, I do" in its fuller context, above.
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Yes, I do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then how can God be God, and also be his own son, and the holy spirit all be distinct individuals and also just one God?
    God is three Persons like you, and I are both HUMAN BEINGS, yet distinct persons. I am not you, and you are not me, yet we both constitute was is human. In the same way, God the Father is not God the Son, or God the Spirit. They represent what God is. They (the three) are the one true God, just like you and I are truly human and makeup one humanity. To talk about us as humans does not mean we are the same person. To speak of God as God does not necessarily mean God is one Person. It speaks of one's nature.
    The essence and nature of you and I is a human essence. The essence/nature of God is godly/divine.

    Our human natures are limited to our humanness in what we can do in comparison to God's nature (and ability), even though we, as humans, have been made in His likeness and image. That is to say; we can do things in a limited way that God can do, like reason, love, use our minds to create beauty, understand logical concepts, contemplate our existence, ask why, seek meaning, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Your statement is what I see as self-refuting. You are making a truth claim that you either know is true or it too falls into the category of ignorance. How do you know we all come from a position of ignorance? You just admitted you don't by stating you are in a position of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    While technically you could be right, the opposite would be "at least one human does not suffer from ignorance about our shared "reality" and I have never heard anyone successfully argue that. Even if you are correct about God existing at all, there are still many ??? that you may not know about "reality".
    We can know (certainty) only because/if God has revealed. All else is guesswork, and sometimes we get it right because we think His thoughts after Him. When we do that (think His thoughts after Him) we discover laws that He has put in place that makes the universe function in the way it does. We don't invent those laws, we discover them.

    The reason so many people have so many interpretations of Scripture is that quite often they misinterpret it by adding to it or subtracting from it (eisegesis). God has given us what we need to know to have a restored relationship with Him via His Word, Spirit, and Son. We understand when we exegete His Word.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I disagree. Jesus summed it up in two commandments - love God and love your neighbor/fellow human.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I was more referring to more along the lines of salvation and such.
    God, in the Messiah/sent One/Anointed One/Savior, has supplied everything needed to save us (Matthew 1:21). He will do it. For those who want to save themselves, how much righteousness is enough? He has met the righteous requirements we fail to live up to - the Law.

    Either we accept the gift He offers (righteousness fulfilled in the Son) or we try to earn what He requires by our methods and means.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Our outer shells, our physical bodies from non-living matter, yes. What about the intangibles, the things that make you distinctly you? If God created us, then life came from the living. Do you think your personality is just what your electro-chemical reactions produce? How does life come from something nonliving?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am not seeing any evidence of "intangibles".
    Are you suggesting that brain activity ("electro-chemical reactions") come from some place other than the brain? Like beamed to us through the airwaves. As in "your thoughts do not originate in your brain"?
    Either everything is physical, and everything can be shown to be so, or there are abstract, non-physical realities. So either you can grab hold of the laws of logic because those laws are in a place in your brain, or physically exist in the universe, or it is separate from your physical being, the physical universe, and thus non-physical.

    If you think it is in your brain, grab hold of the concept of twoness. Point to its location.

    Grab hold of the law of gravity or relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Regarding souls (intangible), I realize the Bible speaks of such things. Is there any other evidence?
    You are speaking of the Mind-Body Problem. Is all we are a physical brain/body, molecular changes in the brain, or is there an essence to us that is not physical?

    With morality is the physical senses all we rely on or is there, as Augustine and Plato (i.e., the Cave) argued, a Form, a prior knowledge that is not known by the senses alone?

    Some people have spoken about out of body experiences. Generally speaking, I don't accept them. Paul had one that I accept. I accept others in Scripture.

    If you think you are just a body, just a biological bag of atoms, what makes you the PERSON you are? If you are solely physical, you are determined by your genetics and have no free will, no ability to decide for yourself. You are mechanically programmed by chance reactions that ultimately have no meaning. What makes something bad/evil if that is all we are? What makes what Hitler did an evil if he was just doing what his genetic make-up determined he would do?

    Why would a person who thought this way argue that some things are DEFINITELY wrong? It points to how inconsistent such a worldview is.

    Twoness is the concept represented by an object plus another object. Grab hold of twoness. It is none physical although the demonstration of it is/could be physical.

    If the concept of 2+2=4 (mathematical laws expressed in equations) is true and has always been that way, and can be nothing else but equal to four, then it is a concept that is necessary since it does not depend on your mind or mine. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe it exists in an eternal Mind for it derives its meaning from mindfulness and is non-physical, intangible.

    So the question becomes: Can 2+2=4 ever be anything other than four? If it can, then what can it be? Can 2+2=5?
    So the concept is not physical in that it exists only because of your mind or my mind of any temporal mind thinking it.
    Mathematical laws are things we discover. They do not depend on any one of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Since God is perfect, pure and holy and He created man for a relationship, is one lie, or one theft, or one adultery, enough to prevent you from enjoying His presence?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Only if God wants it that way, as he makes ALL rules.
    Also, I don't get the "people are free of sin once they die and go to heaven (those that get in of course) and they won't sin ever again. Suddenly people are "prefect, morally"??
    Alright then, to use a human analogy, how can a judge be just, righteous, and good and not punish evil/wrongful action? Sin is evil. If a man who had brutally murdered someone came before a judge and the judge said, "I forgive you, just don't do it again" and ignored the law, would the righteous requirements of the law be met? The law deals with the penalty that prevents further wrongful action and looks for equal justice; for justice administered. If a person maliciously takes another person's life, what would be equivalent/equal justice?

    If you sin against an eternal being what would be the penalty of such action? Since it is God who we sin against, He determines the consequences as eternal - you will not enter into close, personal relationship with Him that He designed humanity to have.

    He has given a method of "atoning for" wrongful actions. It requires a life as the penalty since God is so holy and pure. The death is spiritual death, a separation from an intimate relationship. At physical death, we are judged by our wrongs.

    Does not the Creator have the right to do with His creation as He pleases (Romans 9:19-24)? He has chosen to let us know how serious to His Person evil is.

    Since God is love, He can meet the challenge of satisfying His anger over sin. He does this in two ways; He takes on humanity (Philippians 2:5-10) by becoming a Man to meet the righteous requirements of humans on their behalf. A human being brought sin into the world by disobedience (first Adam) and One restores relationship by His obedience (the Second Adam). He also voluntarily takes/suffers the penalty due to those who have sinned by dying the death they deserve. In this way God's righteousness is met and so is His justice.

    If I have taken a life and I am standing before a firing squad, and the law requires life for life, then someone volunteers their life in place of mine, the debt has been paid on my behalf because the law has been met - life for life!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Since God "walks thru time" like we "walk thru air" he knows what will happen, and goes back and forth thru time constantly making these things happen, it almost sounds like OCD???
    "Walking" metaphorically speaking, since God is Spirit. He uses physical attributes to communicate with His creatures - humanity. That is how we can relate.

    With Israel, God intervened in many tangible ways in showing His providence for His people, some of which as recorded. Since He is sovereign, there is nothing that happens that God is not in control of, but for the most part, He leaves humanity to see its gross evil by allowing for a time their sin to go unchecked.

    The difference between an atheist worldview and a Christian one is that there is justice. All evil that takes place is judged in His time. If He stopped every evil, we would be like robots, or we would be dead because of our sin. But evil is addressed in His time when we physically die.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Since you are sinning against an eternal Being who created humans to live with Him forever and sin has ruined that,
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. Had god not allowed the Devil to be in the garden of eden, sinning would not exist. Actually, I would like some one to show that sin does in fact exist and what "it" is in the first place.
    You presume that sin would not take place without the devil.

    The devil gave Adam another option. God gave Adam two options. Since human beings have a will to decide what makes you think they would not have chosen to disobey God anyway and take the fruit, regardless of the influence of the devil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    2. Adam and Eve mentally were children and God knew they would "eat the apple" when he put them in eden. Since knows all, he knew they would sin. there is NO question there at all! So God knew where we would end up before it happened and we go through it all anyway....???...
    Yes, God is sovereign; He allowed it.

    We are not told what kind of fruit it was, but regardless, the reason God allows/ed evil is that greater good will result from it. So, yes, God has a purpose for allowing evil. If God wanted a robot He could have created one, but how does that robotic being love of its volition? It doesn't. It is programmed. God wanted a creature that could love Him as He loved/s it and that by its desire.

    If Adam/Eve had "walked with God" longer they would have witnessed and learned more about His love and goodness. Perhaps they would have matured in their thinking. That did not happen. Adam was created as a man, and Eve, a woman (fully functional), so it is debatable on whether they had an adult mental capacity or that of a child.

    I understand you propose the childish reasoning argument and I agree both were very naive, as children are. None the less, the choice to act without learning more about God who they walked with in the Garden was theirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    2a. How about leave the Devil out of eden? Problem of sin solved, man never has to leave eden and always existed there with God! No need for the fallen to be stranded on earth till death/judgement.
    Simple answer: God allowed the devil to influence Adam and Eve for a purpose.

    God has/had a reason, a purpose, for evil, that good would come of it.

    You and I witness evil in this world every day. We see some acts that should not happen, yet they do. Sin is what happens when humans, and spirit beings like Satan, live outside the will of God - all hell breaks loose. We even see evil in ourselves and want rescue from it. Some of us yearn for an escape because we all fight for a better world (in how we perceive "better") and some realize we all are part of the problem (our relative ideas of better have no ultimate best to as a foundation to compare our ideas against without God). We want justice for wrongs against us and others. In your worldview (atheism) many injustices never get addressed. People can do incredible evil and die without receiving justice. Where is the justice in that?
    Many times there is none.

    Either way, you recognize that evil exists. When you deny God why does evil even matter, yet it does to you (judging by your condemnation of God in a future post)? When you deny God, you have to come up with another reason for evil. You spend a lot of time talking about good and evil on this forum site. If evil is just what your biological bag of atoms does, what makes that evil? My explanation: you were created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore you are somewhat aware of good and evil, no matter how much that has been marred by the Fall and humanity doing its own thing.

    The good that comes of evil is that while I should be held accountable for my sinful actions against God, God has shown His love in taking care of it. From God's love I learn love. In my opinion, the greatest lesson in what love is has been shown by God, in His Son, taking on humanity. In my opinion, the greatest definition of love is His selfless sacrifice on my behalf. Paul defines what love is:

    1 Corinthians 13
    Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    3. If God "can't be around sin, how could the Devil have even been in the garden of eden???
    By "around" or "in the presence" I use it metaphorically in that He will not have a close, loving relationship with a being who is impure. That would be to condone the sinful behavior and show it is acceptable. That being will want to dictate to God on what should be and what he/she is going to do. Sin must be addressed before we can restore the relationship lost in Eden. God gives the means by which restoration is accomplished. Humanity is rebellious because they want to do it their way and tell God how to be righteous and how to rule the universe (as they see it - everyone to their own opinion).

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, let's see where that goes and we will get back to this.


    Those of us with long "Identities" are used to abbreviations, please feel free to address me as "Belt" or as you see fit.

    I hope your evening is going well peter
    B
    Thank you, Belt! (^8

    So far, good!

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So, I take it you are finished objecting to the position I laid out on prophecy?
    Does that mean you see the logic behind it, you still hold that anyone can prophesy with 100% accuracy, you believe the prophecy was written after the fact, or you do not want to continue examining the proof/evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I had another thought Peter.

    You claim God chose "Jews" to spread his message yet you disagree with them at a very basic level (that Jesus IS God)??
    How can they be mistaken if they are chosen?
    God choses the Israelites/Jews to make Himself known to the world, yes. He illustrates through them that they cannot live up to His holy, pure, righteousness. They continue to break the laws He has set before them. He threatens to judge their rebellion if they do not change their ways. The continue to do as they desire. He sends prophets and teachers to them. They ignore the message. He sends His Son as the final measure, to warn them judgment is coming soon. They kill the Son. God brings His judgment upon all those who did not repent (A.D. 70).

    I'm just summing up what Jesus did in a parable (the parables spiritual tell truths regarding Israel and Jesus often gives His disciples insight into the parable after He has told it to the people of Israel):

    Matthew 21:33-46 (NASB)
    Parable of the Landowner
    33 “Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. 35 The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. 37 But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” 41 They *said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.”
    42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,
    ‘The stone which the builders rejected,
    This became the chief corner stone;
    This came about from the Lord,
    And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
    43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. 44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
    45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. 46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.


    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You claim God chose "Jews" to spread his message yet you disagree with them at a very basic level (that Jesus IS God)??
    How can they be mistaken if they are chosen?
    The key is that the blessings of the covenant they made with God was conditional upon their obedience. Since they continually looked towards other gods (man-made idols or images they conjure up in their minds) they did not see the spiritual aspect. They looked, and continue to look, for a purely physical fulfillment of Scripture. They looked/look for a conquering King, yet they ignored the suffering Servant aspect of the OT disclosure. The suffering Servant came first, to restore righteousness. Then, God brought the conquering King to administer justice for the disobedient.There is spiritual significance in the return of Jesus, the conquering King. He said He would come in the glory of His Father (Matthew 16:27-28). If you don't understand how the Father came in judgment you miss the significance of the return.

    Peter

  21. #199
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    603
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ha, I apprecite the kind comments. It would be hard to be "the" thread since it certainly wouldn't be the first where I've come around (you can ask Ibelsd about his schooling of me on constitutional structure). I am definitely enjoying the conversation as well.
    I said that "I" hadn't taken you down, not that you had never lost at all or are you suggesting I have

    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by that sentence then. You don't see "making His existence undeniable" as having the same meaning as "people would need to accept that He exists?"
    Actually no, I hadn't thought of it that way at all.
    I was more thinking no logical argument could be made against his existence as his existence was undeniable. There could be no question to his existence.

    ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well in common every day english we use the words interchangably. However, that is a relatively recent blurring of the distinction.
    Well, as I have said, I don't care to quibble over particular words, I'm an idea kinda guy. And my idea on this is the commonly used version these days.
    So, it doesn't matter to me, use either, use both, pick a new term. As long as I get the point across...
    (I realize you are just trying for accuracy in the verbage but I drive on the white lines at roundabouts cause I'm a rebel dude!)

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It's status as true wouldn't be any issue as far as I can see, rather its status as "undeniable" would be problematic to whether or not we have free will. If a rock were truly unmovable, do I really have an ability to move it? If not, in what sense do I have free will on whether to believe that information?
    Odd metaphor?
    If "you truly know" Where does free will even fit into the equation of belief?
    How much "weight" does freewill have anyway!!!
    (the humor in me sometimes takes over and I just could NOT resist that one)

    But seriously, you mean like if "I know for sure/truly/without doubt I'm alive but I deny that I'm alive?

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, I don't think that particularly affects my answer however. All three religions use specific texts as the basis for their claims. But those three texts do not have the same warrant for acceptance. Just as Herodotus' Histories, and the Epic of Gilgamesh are treated and evaluated and accepted differently, I don't see any reaons why the Koran, Torah, and Bible shouldn't be evaluated differently.
    I think it does.
    (Where is that Rabbi Dak when ya need him anyway....)

    They are all believed to be the word of God, and for the same kinds of reasons.

    ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Each of those three texts has different sets of objective evidences underlying their claims. We can compare, for example, the Koran's suspect arabic to the archeological finds noted in the old testament and the independent cooberations of the historian author of Luke in the book of Acts in the New Testament. Those comparisons would give us objective warrant to accept or reject certain work in favor of others.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting the Koran or Torah need agree with the NT to be correct?
    and
    What is "the Koran's suspect Arabic"??

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Perhaps, though in my experience those problems are generally the result of an incorrect understanding of what is claimed by the omnis.
    Well that is one of the things you and me is here to figure out pilgrim
    (Frank and anyone else too)
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 25th, 2018 at 05:21 PM.

  22. #200
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    [/COLOR]

    Well that is one of the things you and me is here to figure out pilgrim
    (Frank and anyone else too)
    The omni's...AND THE INTERPRETATIONS of the omni's...can be a problem. They certainly have that potential.

    But as I said, so long as the distinction of what is definitionally possible is not crossed...they can be handled. Even an omnipotent GOD cannot make a four sided triangle, if we define a triangle as a plane figure with three sides.

    Allow me to take this opportunity to suggest once again: One cannot establish "No gods exist" using reason, logic, science, or math. Neither can "At least one god exists" be established using those things. Nor can "It is more likely that at least one god exists" or "It is more likely that no gods exist."

    All that can be done in these matters is to blindly guess...OR...to guess and call the guess a "belief" and insist the guess is correct via a thing called "faith"...which in a sense is simply being stubborn about insisting that the guess is correct.

    If anyone thinks I am missing something here...please share it. I am willing to be informed.

 

 
Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •