February 24, 2009

False Religions

OK the picture has nothing to do with this post but I liked it, so up it went.

Some Atheists try to claim the validity of other religions and other books (as if they are even on an equal plane), so let me attempt to show you the difference.

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is contradictory to the Bible and claims cohesiveness. There is a fine example of law of non-contradiction right there.

Some quoted examples:

Joseph Smith: "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5).

Brigham Young: "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247; see also, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54, 219-220.)

Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Also, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

Which is in direct contradiction to the Bible. Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, 1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:6

Who do you trust Man or God?

Brigham Young: "I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)

Mormonism teaches that it is the true church, that God used to be a man that lives on a planet called Kolob, that he has a goddess wife, and that you have the potential of becoming a god. In the heavens, god and his goddess wife produced offspring. The first born was Jesus then we were all born as spirit children in heaven afterwards. We then inhabited human bodies at birth. Is that anything close to what the Bible says? Nope. False religion.

How about the Qur’an?

John Rhue said: "Koran is unchanged. It is the revelation. It can never be changed."

The Bible was penned by over 40 different authors, from 1500 B.C. to about A.D. 100, on three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).

The Qur’an, on the other hand, was written approximately 600 AD, nearly 300 years after the Bible was compiled in its current form. The Qur'an was written by individuals familiar with both the Bible and the Torah. (Something borrowed, something blue.......) but from what I understand the Qur'an was written after Muhammad's death. There were many versions floating around. The third Caliphate (Caliph Uthman) had all existing versions gathered and burned. He has his scholars rewrite the Qur’an to his liking. Then he distributed his new version. This is the version of the Qur’an that exists as the ‘original’ today. But he could of burned the wrong version and no one knows if the QUr'an is the correct version today. If it is not of God then it is of the Devil and we can all agree that Islam is demonic. Just click on the link that has the number of Islamic terrorist attacks on this blog to find out more. Plus the Qur’an claims to be the succession to the Bible. So, if the Bible is true the Qur’an is false and if the Bible is false then the Qur’an is false so it boils down to the Qur’an being false.

Besides the Bible being supernatural, the Bible has some 300 prophecies that came true that are provable by history. 135 prophecies came true in Daniel alone. From the beginning even as far back as Genesis 3:15 the Bible speaks of Jesus. Read Isaiah 53:1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born. Not the Qur’an or any other book in the world can prophecy even once like the Bible did 300 times and that is evidence that it was written by God.

CARM adds: "The Bible was penned by over 40 different authors, from 1500 B.C. to about A.D. 100, on three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13)."

It is quite obvious that these, as well as all other religions, do not compare to Christianity and the only Salvation we could have is through Christianity alone.

tinyurl.com/FalseReligions

72 comments:

  1. "Some Atheists claim the validity of other religions and other books [such as the Koran and Book of Mormon]"

    Oh come on, Dan. You want me to believe that the Book of Mormon and the Koran are false? That's ridiculous.

    Obviously, only the Bible is the false word of God. Leave Muhammad (blessed be his name) and Joseph Smith out of this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Damn, that was quick, Dan. Thanks, buddy.

    I'll have to revise my originally planned comment now, and remove all of the slander and insults...

    :)

    I'll be back later.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  3. Okay, the promised revision has been made. Here is the edited version of the post:

    Dan,

    --
    Stan



    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  4. From the Koran:

    And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. (The Women 4.101)

    You Dan, are the unbeliever of the Koran.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Besides the Bible being supernatural, the Bible has some 300 prophecies that came true that are provable by history. 135 prophecies came true in Daniel alone. From the beginning even as far back as Genesis 3:15 the Bible speaks of Jesus. Read Isaiah 53:1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born. Not the Qur’an or any other book in the world can prophecy even once like the Bible did 300 times and that is evidence that it was written by God.

    Check out the messiah truth site, especiallly the Counter-Missionary, Knowing Your Orchard, and Judaism's Answer sections.

    Contra Brown may be of use also.


    When it comes to "fulfilled prophecies", Dan, you've gotten ahead of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "comfortable footwear encourages moral decadence"

    What?

    What?

    I am I the only one to think that the cartoon atheist is sort of hot? Like Trent from Daria.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CC,

    Woah, I'd totally forgotten about Daria. Wow. Good memory.

    Dan,

    Some Atheists claim the validity of other religions and other books

    Are you saying that some atheists claim that other religious texts are valid in their claims (e.g. to be supernaturally inspired), or as valid as the Bible (i.e. they're all incorrect)?

    BTW - I think you're wasting your breath on the Mormons. I've already singled them out for special attention, and most atheists think their beliefs are even more patently absurd than yours! :P

    FBWY.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad you think you've found the one true religion, Dan, but you've done nothing to show your detractors that you're right about that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Frodo,

    Thanks for the frodology lesson. I concur with the "science" chart for Mormon belief threshold, funny stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wem,

    but you've done nothing to show your detractors that you're right about that.

    I would if that were my job. I am here to preach, not sell.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Besides that is what the "Reason why atheists are completely wrong" link is for to the right :) =>

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, quit hiding our biology books, Dan.
    I know they contradict the bible, but hey...

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Bible by it's own admission was written in the 1600s King James homo and King.(queen)
    Also your middle cross should be in the form of a tee like T
    Much more historically accurate.
    20,000 a year by the same method Doesn't make one person Special
    Hubba hubba

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The Bible was penned by over 40 different authors, from 1500 B.C. to about A.D. 100, on three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13)."

    So you use Scripture itself as a basis to prove its own authenticity??? How do you know "these men were moved by the Holy Spirit"?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Clos,

    So you use Scripture itself as a basis to prove its own authenticity???

    So do you use logic to prove logic?

    How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan,

    Whatever silly wordgames you play does not make it valid to prove to authenticity of scripture using scripture itself. If you recognize the validity of logic, you may not prove anything using itself.

    Now, do you YES or NO recognize the validity of logic?

    By the way, note that logic is not used to "prove logic".
    Logic is a human-defined closed mathematical system defined in its own terms. Reality can be used to validate logic. If reality changes, I guess logic might not apply to reality anymore, does it? I'd say that's only logical, isn't it? It seems not possible for anyone to know anything for absolutely 100% certain.

    If you claim 'God' (whatever is) makes the world obey to logic (which is absurd, unless we're living in God's computer simulation), then I suppose God is your reality. He might change it too, or God might change himself. Making yourself believe he will not is infinitely less valid than asserting natural reality won't change. You defined him almighty, remember? You yourself believe he'll change the laws of nature to make you live forever. Don't you?

    Whatever, now answer the question:
    Why do you use the scripture to validate itself?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Clos,

    So you use Scripture itself as a basis to prove its own authenticity???

    So do you use logic to prove logic?


    You don't its defended by retortion.

    Where as any use of the bible to claim the bible is just circular. But you know this already.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan:

         "Is circular wrong?"
         If you are trying to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, then setting premises that they do not accept is wrong. Circular reasoning takes the desired conclusion (with which we do not agree) as a premise.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pvblivs,

    Is not your viewpoint (worldview) circular? Please understand that all our worldviews are circular. Every worldview rests on assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan:

         Every worldview does indeed rest on assumptions. But, when I try to convince you of something, I do it on the basis of premises on which we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan,

    Circularity in argumentation is invalid. It does not prove anything.

    Muhammed says he's right because the Qur'an says so, however he's the only source. This is an invalid proof, because it's circular. Of course, he still might be right. He just hasn't proven anything.

    My worldview does not rest on circularity, but neither on omniscience. It has some assumptions which are quite natural, because I'm part of the universe.

    For instance, math (Euclidian geometry) is based on the axiom that all right angles are equal. If somehow we show that, f.i. due to space bending in gravitational fields, this axiom is invalid, we know that Euclidian geometry is not applicable for that particular domain.

    Something similar happened you know, when Einstein showed that Newton's laws of motion don't apply for very high velocities.

    So I have to adjust my worldview if my assumptions are shown to be broken. Of course, these assumptions are verifiable (falsifiable) against reality. You can easily check if right angles are all the same. Then you know Euclidian geometry is good for your domain.

    Not so with God. All assumptions about the existance of God(s), let alone His/Her/Their very nature, cannot be verified again and again. That's why there are so many views on Gods in the world.

    Of course, you will point out the alleged prophetical nature of the bible (which might prove supernatural origins, but not necessarily divinity). Well, the one time the bible is not really, really vague with its prophecy but just a bit vague when Jesus tells his disciples repeatedly that the Kingdom of God (i.e. judgement day) will come in their generation (Mark 8:39-9:1 and 13:24-33, Matthew 16:28 and 24:34, Luke 9:26-27).

    And well... you know that did not really happen, did it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Dan,

    You are not applying proper hermeneutics to Mormonism and Islam. It is easy to explain away obvious contradictions with hermeneutics. You taught me that...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pvblivs,

    But, when I try to convince you of something, I do it on the basis of premises on which we agree.

    The truth of the conclusion is not dependent on the truth of the premises though. So please tell me, how would you go about proving God doesn't exist to me? On what premises?


    Rhiggs,

    You are not applying proper hermeneutics to Mormonism and Islam.

    Cute, but I am using proper hermeneutics. The difference is the contradictions in the Bible, that you are alluding to, are merely perceived ones in commands or data and such. In the case of Mormonism and Islam they are absolute logical contradictions, (mutual opposites) and you cannot get around them. Thanks for the smile though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan writes...
    "The truth of the conclusion is not dependent on the truth of the premises though."

    Actually... Oh, never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "So do you use logic to prove logic?

    How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?"

    logic is a human construct based on observation of the physical world. We would not be able to derive mathematical proofs or discover physical law unless the universe was ordered. Anthropic principle. Doesn't mean there is a god, doesn't mean there is not a god. The question is more troublesome for you, Dan. First, you claim to know a god exists. How? Scripture. This comes down to the logical fallacy of argument from authority since you clearly haven't provided any convincing evidence that Jesus was actually on this earth, or that he was killed, and rose from the dead. Second, in a theistic universe, miracles can occur. Miracles being suspensions of otherwise immutable laws. Where is the predictability in this? If God so chose, water could start flowing uphill spontaneously. I merely say that there is no reason to think that physical law will change. According to your worldview, there is no such thing as a universal law because God could decide to break said law.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So please tell me, how would you go about proving God doesn't exist to me? On what premises?

    Dan, that's easy,

    (1) God is all-good
    (2) God says killing the innocent is evil
    (3) God kills first born sons in Egypt as one of the plagues

    Draw your own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan,

    "Cute, but I am using proper hermeneutics. The difference is the contradictions in the Bible, that you are alluding to, are merely perceived ones in commands or data and such. In the case of Mormonism and Islam they are absolute logical contradictions, (mutual opposites) and you cannot get around them. Thanks for the smile though.
    "


    I'm sure Mormons and Muslims disagree. But hey, you all sound equally silly to me. I'll leave the finer details to y'all...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan:

         You may not have noticed but I have never said that there is no god of any kind. It's because I don't know. Now, if you are talking about the god described in the bible, I would point out that the bible describes a meddler. That character is always saying "here I am." Well, I don't know about you, but I see no such meddler. Either he has gone off into hiding, was captured or killed, or he never was. However, your belief in the biblical god is so strong, that I doubt any possible evidence would convince you that he did not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @pvblivs

    "However, your belief in the biblical god is so strong, that I doubt any possible evidence would convince you that he did not exist."

    Just like no evidence would convince you that evolution is science?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Clos,

    Stupid me, here I thought Science was science.

    A True Scientist is Always Ready to Say ...

    "Eureka !!! —— I had It All WRONG !!!"

    Let me know if you find any.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Dan

    "Clos,

    Stupid me, here I thought Science was science.

    A True Scientist is Always Ready to Say ...

    "Eureka !!! —— I had It All WRONG !!!"

    Let me know if you find any."

    Stupid me, here I thought I was a scientist having a no nothing Christian telling me that evolution is false because it isn't in his Holy book. Why don't you pester the physicists to give up gravity since "science is science" and a "true scientist" is ready to give up a theory when it is wrong? Why won't they? Same reason biologists won't currently give up evolution: both theories accurately explain natural phenomena. Why don't you respond to my previous response?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Clos,

    Why don't you respond to my previous response?

    OK I will

    logic is a human construct based on observation of the physical world.

    Oops... Fine I will bite. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?

    According to your worldview, there is no such thing as a universal law because God could decide to break said law

    It's not based on God’s decree, God cannot break said law because of His unchanging character. Keep in mind that moral laws are derived from God’s unchanging character, not from arbitrary decree.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Clos,

    Also speaking of moral laws, I have an absolute standard for the value of human life, whereas according to your worldview, you are the one who has no basis for saying that raping babies would be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Clos,

    Also speaking of moral laws, I have an absolute standard for the value of human life, whereas according to your worldview, you are the one who has no basis for saying that raping babies would be wrong."

    Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....your God, the God of both the Old and New Testament was perfectly ok with sexual slavery. So saying that I wouldn't want some weirdo to stick his penis in the tiny orafice of my child is no basis?? I know of trials where priests have actually done this...but I digress. Dan, it is the materialist who recognizes that morality is based on human and animal concerns. I don't need to ask "Daddy" whether it is ok to rape a baby or not. If you need this, well, there is something defective in your brain. The God of the Bible is stupid, barbaric, and clumsy. Jesus cursed a fucking tree, that he is claimed to have designed because it wasn't baring fruit. He was hoping it would. Shouldn't he have used his omniscience...or just common sense based on living in that region for 30 some odd years? Morality is not, I repeat not found in the bible. You pick and choose the parts you want to follow and which to ignore. I would argue that your culture informs your choice of which bits to accept.

    You claim to have an "absolute value for human life". Let me ask you, are you for or against hESC research and therapy?

    "It's not based on God’s decree, God cannot break said law because of His unchanging character. Keep in mind that moral laws are derived from God’s unchanging character, not from arbitrary decree."

    Yeah, Dan, and it is this "unchanging character", that leads someone intelligent to throw your whole God notion into the garbage. Can God find the omnipotence to change his future mind? So you are saying that God is not omnipotent? He can't even change his "mind"! Not only is this a problem for you...but this negates free will, something that is necessary for both morality and judgement. If God is prescient, then free will is impossible, and therefore his judgement of our actions is absurd. "Check"

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Oops... Fine I will bite. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?"

    Depends on what you mean by "certain". There are different degrees of confidence we place in things based on experience. What does my "worldview" have to do with whether I am certain that 2+2=4? Presumably, we both agree on this. I base my view of the world on how my brain constructs it with my senses. This is as far as I am willing to go in my certainty of things. Yes, I will have varying degrees of confidence that the future will be similar to the past and present in regard to physical laws. I have no reason to think otherwise. I don't base my view of the world on anything tenuous. You do, and you will not admit this. Your view of the world is based on the existence of the God of Abraham and his son/himself. Where are they? What are they made of? These are simple questions, Dan. You claim God exists, so let's have your response.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan said:

    "It's not based on God’s decree, God cannot break said law because of His unchanging character. Keep in mind that moral laws are derived from God’s unchanging character, not from arbitrary decree."

    How do you know God's character is unchanging? He changed his mind about certain things between the old and new covenants. How do you account for this?


    Dan also said:

    "I have an absolute standard for the value of human life, whereas according to your worldview, you are the one who has no basis for saying that raping babies would be wrong."

    What specifically is your absolute standard and how did you come to the conclusion that it was your absolute standard?


    Dan parroted:

    "How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?"

    Why do you want to open this can of worms again? It has been answered many many times by many many people. You are either:

    a) ignoring the answers (Sye's tactic)

    b) don't understand the answers (most likely)

    c) disagree with the answers


    If you disagree with the answers thats fine, but you need to explain why. You can start by refuting Stephen Law's three. The floor is open...

    ...if you decline, stop asking the same tired question. It has been answered

    ReplyDelete
  37. Clos,

    There are different degrees of confidence we place in things based on experience.

    How do you account for anything with your worldview? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? These are simple questions, Clos

    Your view of the world is based on the existence of the God of Abraham and his son/himself. Where are they? What are they made of? These are simple questions, Dan. You claim God exists, so let's have your response.

    God is a nonphysical, incorporeal, ultimate mind.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rhiggs,

    He changed his mind about certain things between the old and new covenants.

    Do you see what you just did? God's character is unchanging and that has nothing to do with changing his mind not to destroy evil from the pleas of His follower. ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” Martin Luther

    If you disagree with the answers thats fine, but you need to explain why. It has been answered

    Not by you or even Stephen. The question is how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, for starters.

    Sye said: Stephen Law has NEVER given us his own account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, or on what basis he proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold.

    I'll leave it up to you all to determine why that is.


    Stephen's response was: The answer is obvious - it's because I am not sure I know the answer.

    So I guess that settles it?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "How do you account for anything with your worldview? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? These are simple questions, Clos"

    I have already told you. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know why there is something rather than nothing...but neither do you. You base your view of the world on a book written by stupid humans who were ignorant of science. How do you account for that?

    "God is a nonphysical, incorporeal, ultimate mind."

    Mind is an emergent property of neurons, which are made of matter. AI is an emergent property of computers, made of matter. What sense does "mind" make if it is nonphysical? How is a nonphysical mind different than nothing? If nonphysical, what is it? You still haven't answered the question. You have told me what it is not (non-physical) and something that doesn't make sense (non-physical mind).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Clos,

    I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know why there is something rather than nothing...but neither do you.

    I disagree I do know with certainty.

    Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    and something that doesn't make sense (non-physical mind)

    Thoughts are immaterial, emotions are immaterial, the mind is immaterial, none of them can be seen or observed, the lover experiencing the feelings of love to his loved one, they cannot be proven by science, only the lover can know that feeling that they are experiencing.

    They are all immaterial just like the laws of logic, yet we do not question their existence just because we do not see them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Thoughts are immaterial, emotions are immaterial, the mind is immaterial, none of them can be seen or observed, the lover experiencing the feelings of love to his loved one, they cannot be proven by science, only the lover can know that feeling that they are experiencing.

    They are all immaterial just like the laws of logic, yet we do not question their existence just because we do not see them."

    Each of these are manifestations of mind...which emerge from matter. fMRI is now being used to figure out which parts of the brain are active with various emotions. Physical, chemical, and/or electrical stimuli are sufficient to completely change brain states, personalities, etc. If mind is not a manifestation of matter, how could this be possible?

    "I disagree I do know with certainty.

    Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"

    Yet you call God just. How is it just for God to visit some and not others, and then punish those that he hasn't visited for not believing in him??? The more salient point is how could you distinguish between an actual visitation and mental disease?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Clos,

    Yet you call God just...

    Go fishing lately, I hear the herring is biting and good eats if salted.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Clos,

    fMRI is now being used to figure out which parts of the brain are active with various emotions. Physical, chemical, and/or electrical stimuli are sufficient to completely change brain states, personalities, etc. If mind is not a manifestation of matter, how could this be possible?

    I will answer with a quote: "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." ~ Douglas Wilson

    ReplyDelete
  44. Stephen's response was: The answer is obvious - it's because I am not sure I know the answer.

    So I guess that settles it?


    No, because he rightfully says just after that:
    "That does not establish that only Christian theism can accomodate logic, let alone establish that no atheist world view can. Which is what you claim you can prove."

    Look, in the Qur'an Mohammed tries to prove his book is divine by challenging all to make a chapter just like the one in the Qur'an. If not, it must be from Allah - God.

    Of course, no one else can because (1) Muslims will never admit someone did (just like Sye never admits other explanations) (2) it proves nothing (just like Sye's base for logic is not proven if Stephen can't give an alternative) and (3) it's an invalid question - there is no objective criterium to measure equalness with the Qur'an (just like Sye's universality and invariantness of logic is just his assumption)

    Nevertheless, all Muslims buy this like sweet cake. Just like you buy Sye's fallacies - because it suits you.

    I have, however, answered your 'simple' question about logic above, at February 26, 2009 1:36 AM. That's my world view.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

    Most probably, that's just the truth. Live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan said:

    "God's character is unchanging and that has nothing to do with changing his mind not to destroy evil from the pleas of His follower.

    Fine. That shows that God is not omniscient. An omniscient being would always make the right decisions and never have to change their mind.


    Dan also said:

    "Not by you or even Stephen. The question is how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, for starters.

    Sye said: Stephen Law has NEVER given us his own account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, or on what basis he proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold.

    I'll leave it up to you all to determine why that is.

    Stephen's response was: The answer is obvious - it's because I am not sure I know the answer.

    So I guess that settles it?


    That settles what exactly? If you are only interested in the opinions of individuals of how they can account for logic, then perhaps Stephen Law didn't answer the question. Lots of others have though, and you haven't addressed them. My personal opinion is that logic doesn't need to be accounted for. This is covered by Stephen Law's second account. That is my answer to your question. Please refute it or else stop asking the same tired question. You can only ignore it for so long. The floor is open...

    On the other hand, if you are interested in any possible way of accounting for logic, then you are being dishonest by refusing to consider the many opinions presented. Remember, your 'point' is that only a Christain worldview can account for logic, so you need to refute any opposing account regardless of whether it is held by a particular person or not. Ideally, you need a proof that would rule out any other account for logic. This you do not have. Your attempt to shift the goalposts by insisting that a particular account must be held to be considered does deflect attention from this glaring problem, but the problem remains nonetheless.

    Oh and also....What specifically is your absolute standard and how did you come to the conclusion that it was your absolute standard?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I will answer with a quote: "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." ~ Douglas Wilson"

    What a dismal view, obviously to disparage the atheistic position. Gloom and doom doesn't make something false. We are a collection of molecules. However, whether God exists or not, here we are, interacting. I certainly wouldn't call my life "chemical fizz". I'm happy to be here. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about how they view life. If Mr. Wilson can only find comfort and purpose in worshipping something invisible and completely indifferent, good for Mr. Wilson. I wouldn't waste my limited time worrying about what Jesus thinks, nor Zeus, nor Allah, nor fairies. I care what my wife thinks, what my friends and co-workers think...you know, real minds.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan,

    Maybe you should change the name of your blog to "Debunked by Atheists"

    ReplyDelete
  49. Clos,

    Do you believe that I am being debunked with certainty? How can you be certain about anything? Is your like just about probables and possibles?

    Are you absoluetly certain you love your wife?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan,

    Are you certain you are debunking atheists? Are you certain that you are alive? Are you certain you are reading this computer screen right now? Are you absolutely certain that someone calling themself clostridiophile is talking to you? If you love Sye so much, why don't you both rub oil on each other Ted Haggard style? His argument is stupid and childish and you are even more stupid for using this approach rather than actually addressing our arguments.

    Have you been debunked? Absolutely. I showed you earlier that the Bible is both for and against mysogeny. Which is it? Is god confused? Perhaps stupid humans, almost as stupid as yourself (I am certain of this, absolutely) wrote this book and you are dumb enough to base your entire life around it.

    Also, I am certain I love my wife...that is why I would never look down at her and tell her she has to submit to me.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Clos,

    Also, I am certain I love my wife...that is why I would never look down at her and tell her she has to submit to me.

    Are you absolutely certain that you love your wife, if so how do you account for such an absolute truth? Since you now believe that absolute truths exists, do you admit to the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be absolutely certain of them?

    Oh, and my wife loves God so much, she honors Him by following/honoring my dumb ass because He instructed her to. Now that is love and trust, evidenced yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Are you absolutely certain that you love your wife, if so how do you account for such an absolute truth? Since you now believe that absolute truths exists, do you admit to the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be absolutely certain of them?"

    What is the difference, Dan, between absolute truth and relative truth? Isn't truth just truth? Either some proposition is true or it isn't. How do I know that I love my wife? I have interacted with her for over a decade. I receive and process sense data and have found her more than favorable. No matter your "worldview" the observation still comes down to receiving and interpreting sense data. Religious or not, this is how one would account for having feelings for something or someone. For about the fifth time, Dan, (jesus, you are fucking senile) yeah, I do think it possible for a super duper sky daddy to reveal itself to us. However, I don't accept this in the form of documents written by people we just have to "trust". Their word is worth shit to me. Same with yours. If you told me that Jesus walked in and sat on your lap while you were taking a shit and told you that He loved you....I would chock this up to your obvious insanity. Question, what does me loving my wife have to do with a sky daddy sitting on the lap of a retard while he is dropping a monkey-tail?

    "Oh, and my wife loves God so much, she honors Him by following/honoring my dumb ass because He instructed her to. Now that is love and trust, evidenced yet again."

    Well, you got one part of this correct. Evidence? You claim that Jesus, his Father (who is also himself) and their Ghost half visited your wife and instructed her to obey an unemployed blogger? The evidence is where?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Where do I go to find the debunking of us?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Clos,

    You claim that Jesus, his Father (who is also himself) and their Ghost half visited your wife and instructed her to obey an unemployed blogger? The evidence is where?

    The evidence is The Bible and who said I was unemployed? I did retire to allow Patty to work. Do you consider housewives unemployed also? How about teachers I guess you consider them unemployed also? How considerate of you?

    I am a homeschooling Dad. The good fruit of my children are evidence of that good tree.

    Where do I go to find the debunking of us?

    Start with the Bible and then look around. That will do it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "The evidence is The Bible and who said I was unemployed? I did retire to allow Patty to work. Do you consider housewives unemployed also? How about teachers I guess you consider them unemployed also? How considerate of you?

    I am a homeschooling Dad. The good fruit of my children are evidence of that good tree."

    So you are unemployed, as in you do not have a paying job. That is what unemployed means.

    "Start with the Bible and then look around. That will do it."

    So why doesn't your blog just have a link to an online Bible. You claim that you are Debunking Atheists...I have seen numerous instances where we have debunked you, but not the other way around. You tell me to pick up a Bible and look around. That will not do. It is one of countless books written by humans, with alot of nonsense and immorality. Why don't you put the Bible down, and then look around?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Clos,

    So you are unemployed, as in you do not have a paying job. That is what unemployed means.

    I don't get paid money but I am rewarded in many other ways. I even have three jobs, 8 hours while my wife is gone and then the second sift begins when she gets home and my third shift is getting up with the baby at night. You better treat your wives nicely men, they have it hard trust me.

    I will settle for being labeled with being employed with a non-monetary pay period. :)

    ReplyDelete
  57. "I don't get paid money but I am rewarded in many other ways. I even have three jobs, 8 hours while my wife is gone and then the second sift begins when she gets home and my third shift is getting up with the baby at night. You better treat your wives nicely men, they have it hard trust me.

    I will settle for being labeled with being employed with a non-monetary pay period. :)"

    Jesus, its like pulling teeth. You are unemployed, its ok Dan, I think it is good that you both chose to have someone stay with the kids. I won't poke the soft spot anymore. I just think it is funny that you are so insecure that you have to foist the Bible's command for your wife to be submissive. I just don't treat my wife like a dog...I have a dog, and she is submissive. My wife is my partner, not my pet.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Clos,

    My wife is not my pet either, She is my partner. You are cracking me up. You still are suggesting something no matter the attempt of imperceptibly.

    So what if your wife wanted to buy a Hummer for herself? Hypothetically, what if she insisted on going out today to buy one? She is very insistent about it and understanding your objection she still wanted to go? Would she get a Hummer today? I just think with God's plan there are less arguments and more understanding. Of course I listen to my wife for her input, I value her opinion the most, but when it comes down to the direction of the family...I lead. So is your wife the captain of your ship? I just think it is funny that you are too insecure to be a man.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sad, Dan, you have this strange notion that one person has to be "in control" in a relationship. We don't see it that way. Actually, we both have very strong, independent personalities. But we work together. This bronze age, alpha male bullshit really shows insecurity. It takes security in oneself to recognize that the other person's opinions and desires are legitimate. You seem to think that a woman making decisions undermines you as a male. My wife is smart and talented and I value her opinion. I don't feel the need to remind her that I am "a man". She is quite familiar with my penis. You remind me of those bumper stickers, "Real men love Jesus". If just saying you are head of the house (which is probably utter shit) makes you feel like a man, so be it. A Y chromosome makes you a man, your brain decides what kind of person you are. Grow up you tard.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Clos,

    It takes security in oneself to recognize that the other person's opinions and desires are legitimate.

    By that response then I guess there would be a Hummer in your driveway then?

    She is the Captain of the ship, got it. Take it in any other situation how would it play out in your house. Your lovely wife wants to move to Iraq, or West Virginia, for some great job opportunities. You necessarily don't want to go and believes it's a bad idea. After hours of discussing it She insists, and believes its the right thing for your family. So do you go to the store to get some boxes?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan,

    And if I did would that mean that I am "not a man"? The situation you gave is so oversimplified as to not warrant any conclusion about my "manhood" or who is "in charge". If your wife went to the store and wanted to buy some napkins and you gave in, would this mean you were not a man? Afterall, those napkins were something she wanted. Ya gonna give in like a big pussy? I see who wears the pants! First of all, my wife is not a shopper. She doesn't wear much makeup, she doesn't wear jewelry, and she certainly isn't impulsive about cars. We decide as a couple. We are practical about money. If she came to me and asked for a Hummer, I would look at her like she is crazy and say, "We can't afford that and you know it". that doesn't imply that I am "in charge", nor that she is submissive. If I went to her and said, "You know what, I want a Hummer." Same response. We are equals, Dan, you don't seem to understand the notion that women are anything except inferior (even though your wife is apparently more capable of earning a living). Hey, know what, why don't you get your wife to come scold me...when she gets home from work that is.

    As for your question about moving so that my wife could have a dream job. I absolutely would (obviously, this is more complicated a question than you posed) if we could make everything work and I could find work in my field. She would do the same for me. We both want the other to be happy. In your case, you'd move since she is the only one with a job, so the decision isn't that difficult, even if she pretends that you are the big man that makes it ;>

    ReplyDelete
  62. Clos,

    I see who wears the pants! First of all, my wife is not a shopper. She doesn't wear much makeup, she doesn't wear jewelry,...

    Are you describing a dude? Oh I get it, so she is the one who wears the pants of the family literally then? :7) So fine there is zero leadership in your family. I hope that is working for you.

    In your case, you'd move since she is the only one with a job, so the decision isn't that difficult, even if she pretends that you are the big man that makes it ;>

    Good point. I quite my job so she could chase her dreams and it opened my eyes on how to be a better father for my children by homeschooling them. It was meant to be, like we were almost guided somehow, imagine that. Glory to God.

    Remember Ephesians 5:31 says "two shall be one flesh." and that is what my wife and I are. We are joined forever as one flesh complimenting each other in harmonious bliss.

    Incidentally, I am very much in touch with my feminine side for my current position. My only problem is that I think she is Hot!

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan:
    Stephen's response was: The answer is obvious - it's because I am not sure I know the answer.

    So I guess that settles it?


    Uh, no.

    here and here.


    Dan
    Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
    No. Care to explain how this is done? Can you give examples?

    Sye never did when I asked him.

    Besides, your hero Sye still has problems with his own "reasoning".

    ReplyDelete
  64. Reynold,

    Care to explain how this is done? Can you give examples?

    I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything, before I give a answer. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one, and I would just be wasting my time. Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answer?

    So do you believe there are laws of logic or not?

    ReplyDelete
  65. I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything, before I give a answer. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one, and I would just be wasting my time.
    Our brains have evolved for us to be able to think and to seek out patterns. Read some anthropology texts of the Fossil Homind section of the Talk Origins archive if you want justification and details.

    Basically, it's our thinking and perception abilities that have let us survive and "conquer" the other animals on this planet since we're physically slower and weaker and don't breed as well as most of them.

    You're just dodging. Answer my question.


    Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answer?
    The laws of logic have been figured out by man. Why do you insist that they need any "justification"? List the bible verses that lay them out if you think that your god "made" them.

    It's a thinking tool to help us make sense of the world, dan. Why do you think your god is needed, and why don't you address the problems with Sye's reasoning I brought up in my last post?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Reynold,

    I just said on another post that I admit I still am shaky on the ice. That is why, for now, I rely on brilliant minds (good skaters).

    Dr. Greg Bahnsen sure worded it nicely:

    Because of your rejection of God's revealed truth, you have "become vain in your reasonings" (Rom. 1:21). By means of your foolish perspective they end up "opposing yourself" (2 Tim. 2:25). You follow a conception of knowledge which does not deserve the name (1 Tim. 6:20). Your philosophy and presuppositions rob you of knowledge (Col. 2:3, 8), leaving you in ignorance (Eph. 4:17-18; Acts 17:23). I aim here to cast down your reasonings (2 Cor. 10:5) and to challenge you in the spirit of Paul: "Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor. 1:20).

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    I just said on another post that I admit I still am shaky on the ice. That is why, for now, I rely on brilliant minds (good skaters).

    You'd better find some "brilliant minds" who do more than just brainlessly throw bible verses around and actually try to back up their reasoning.

    Dr. Greg Bahnsen sure worded it nicely:

    Because of your rejection of God's revealed truth, you have "become vain in your reasonings" (Rom. 1:21). By means of your foolish perspective they end up "opposing yourself" (2 Tim. 2:25). You follow a conception of knowledge which does not deserve the name (1 Tim. 6:20). Your philosophy and presuppositions rob you of knowledge (Col. 2:3, 8), leaving you in ignorance (Eph. 4:17-18; Acts 17:23). I aim here to cast down your reasonings (2 Cor. 10:5) and to challenge you in the spirit of Paul: "Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor. 1:20).

    So all "Dr. Bahnsen" does is throw out a bunch of insulting bible verses without substantiating anything just as neither you nor Sye have done?

    One could look at their idiotic reasoning and turn right around and say the same thing to this Bahnsen guy.

    Gee, who would have guessed?

    ReplyDelete
  68. None of the sites or arguments I gave have been refuted, it seems. All people like Bahnsen do it seems is throw out assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>