I actually laughed out loud when the idiot spoke disparagingly about "idolizing a murderer". The hypocrisy of Christians is truly breathtaking at times. After all, their God, if it actually existed, would be the biggest mass murderer in history and they don't just idolise it, they exalt it, they consider it's genocidal nature "good". Those leftists he's all upset about are doing the exact same thing he does so what's his problem?
Never mind that, most of our Bible is written by former murderers: Moses, David and Paul. There is surely no reason for you to give up your rebellion against Creator God only to hang out with such willful sinners like them - and me. Unless of course you want to be free of real guilt and know real peace.
Beyond that, it always amazes me how you and other atheists take the side of people and in fact whole societies who offered their children as live burnt offerings, and then rage against Creator God for holding them, and Who will hold you accountable for your rebellion.
It amazes me that christians are willing to lie like Thesauros just did. The whole concept of the crimes allegedly committed by the people that were murdered in the name of your nonexistent god is wholly invented. There is no evidence of it. I do not believe that these people offered up their children as burnt offerings. I believe that was an excuse concocted when people first saw the moral problems of a "god" who would order murder. The priests decided that the victims, being dead, couldn't defend themselves.
It amazes me that people like PVboy, who can't even follow civilized rules of capitalization, will believe the stuff that they make up. Hate stupidifies, kids!
Never mind that, most of our Bible is written by former murderers: Moses, David and Paul.
Former murderers? Surely once you've murdered someone it's not actually possible to take it back - to become a former murderer? It's not like giving up smoking.
There is surely no reason for you to give up your rebellion against Creator God only to hang out with such willful sinners like them - and me.
To what rebellion are you referring? I simply do not agree with you on the question of whether your deity exists. However, I do agree that there is certainly no need for me to give up reason in favour of your irrational belief in a non-existent deity.
Unless of course you want to be free of real guilt and know real peace.
I haven't done anything to be guilty about and, as your God is imaginary, I can't very well feel guilty about so called "sin" when it's impossible to sin against that which does not exist.
Beyond that, it always amazes me how you and other atheists take the side of people and in fact whole societies who offered their children as live burnt offerings,
As pvblivs has already pointed out, there's no evidence that there were ever people who offered their children as "live burnt offerings". It's a lie, concocted by evil men to excuse their desire to commit acts of genocide for their own gain.
I also have to wonder where you've gotten the idea that I (or other atheists) have "taken the side" of these non existent child burners.
It's especially amusing as, should your worldview be true, they were only burning their children because it was all part of your God's plan. He then has them all slaughtered for doing exactly as He decreed.
and then rage against Creator God for holding them, and Who will hold you accountable for your rebellion.
There is no rage against a non-existent being on my part just as there is nothing to hold me accountable for my "rebellion" when I die. There is, however, plenty of scorn for those who believe in such a being and then choose to hold their fellow humans to a higher standard than they do their God. It seems it's perfectly fine to call a genocidal maniac "good" and "just" until someone says it about someone who isn't your genocidal maniac. Hypocrites.
Nevertheless, good luck on your journey.
Why would a Christian wish anybody luck? If their worldview was true then luck simply wouldn't enter into it. My "journey" would have been planned out long before I was born. The destination pre-determined by your God. There's nothing I can do to alter the journey, I can only do what your God has decreed I will do.
Like reason and logic, concepts like luck and freewill are antithetical to the Christian worldview.
From a comment of yours in an earlier post: Hardly by my argument. God revealed Himself to ALL MANKIND, so you're confused as to the point God revealed Himself. Scripture makes that point clear (Galatians 1:15, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13) as I knew God before I was even born. Right..."scripture" also talks about talking animals, scientific inaccuracies and mathematical blunders.
So we know that your holy book says that god "revealed" himself to everyone...what is the evidence that he actually did?
As for that "knowing god" even before you were born? Sorry, but if that was true, there would never have been the need for "the great commission" in the first place.
>>So we know that your holy book says that god "revealed" himself to everyone...what is the evidence that he actually did?
His revelations (Natural and special). If I revealed I have a lion in my garage, and I opened my garage door and you saw a lion, would you ask, "what is the evidence that he actually did have a lion?"
>> Sorry, but if that was true, there would never have been the need for "the great commission" in the first place.
I just meant that I was to fulfill my created intent from the very beginning. I should of said I was elected and God knew me, before I was even born, to avoid any confusion. I cannot recall what I actually knew at 3 months old. It is possible I knew of God, but I am foggy about those times. Are you claiming it is impossible?
Sure, I denied God for years growing up. But, when it was my time to acknowledge Him, He called me to do so. God used a kind couple to help me pause, and turn to Him, that much is true. God uses us as tools for His glory, this is true. Good point.
I just meant that I was to fulfill my created intent from the very beginning. I should of said I was elected and God knew me, before I was even born, to avoid any confusion. I cannot recall what I actually knew at 3 months old. It is possible I knew of God, but I am foggy about those times. Are you claiming it is impossible? At three months?? Pretty much, yeah. Talk to any developmental neurologist.
Is it my imagination or is Dan backtracking a little here?
>> Sorry, but if that was true, there would never have been the need for "the great commission" in the first place. Sure, I denied God for years growing up. But, when it was my time to acknowledge Him, He called me to do so. God used a kind couple to help me pause, and turn to Him, that much is true. God uses us as tools for His glory, this is true. Good point. So you didn't know god from the very beginning then?
Uh, what is your "created intent??
You need to think here:
--if babies aren't aware of god as you've implied then it's not actually true that everyone "knows" that god exists
--if you later on knew of god but just "denied him" growing up, then why was anyone necessary to "bring you to him"? If it was your "time" then couldn't "god" have just done it him/herself?
--why are you bothering with this blog? Shouldn't "god" be able to tell you when it's our "time" and you just post then? After all, you're the one who's always going on about how it's possible for "god" to have "revealed" things to us so that we may "know it's true".
--how does the using of people to "turn/convert/etc" other people to god contribute to his "glory"? It actually makes him look non-existent to me. If god exists, he should be able to do it himself, shouldn't he?
So we know that your holy book says that god "revealed" himself to everyone...what is the evidence that he actually did?
His revelations (Natural and special). Like the bible for "special revelation" for instance?
As for "natural revelation", what is there in nature that declares the xian god? In real life, the early creationists, when sent to college kept losing their faith. (See "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers). That's why Henry Morris started that whole "statement of faith" bullshit in the first place.
If I revealed I have a lion in my garage, and I opened my garage door and you saw a lion, would you ask, "what is the evidence that he actually did have a lion?" A proper analogy would be for you to open the garage door, see that it's empty, then I'd ask you for that evidence.
"His revelations (Natural and special). If I revealed I have a lion in my garage, and I opened my garage door and you saw a lion, would you ask, 'what is the evidence that he actually did have a lion?'" No, but you have not shown me a god. If you brought out some potted plants and said that was "natural revelation" of a lion in your garage, I would not be impressed. Potted plants do not a lion make; and the world we see does not a god make. You didn't "deny god" for years growing up. You didn't believe. No one believes in an all powerful being but denies it. That would be suicidal. You know that there was a time you did not believe. That does not mean that you still do not believe. It does mean that you are lying when you claim all believe.
When I speak of God, you know full well who I am talking about. I know you know God, and the truth He revealed Himself to you, by whatever means. You're lying if you say otherwise.You wouldn't be here at Debunking Atheists if you didn't know Him. Again, I call it self deception.
Dan: Kindly prove that unsupported assertion of yours. Think: Why would missionaries ever have been necessary in the first place if that "god has revealed himself to everyone" bullshit was true?
Missionaries are not necessary, that is your assumption. They are a command, but it's not like God needs us by any stretch of that imagination. I feel, like prayer, it is for our purpose and benefit. People need to feel needed, and that certainly is an avenue for that accomplishment.
Missionaries are not necessary, that is your assumption. They are a command, but it's not like God needs us by any stretch of that imagination. I feel, like prayer, it is for our purpose and benefit. People need to feel needed, and that certainly is an avenue for that accomplishment. You "feel"? Where is there any hint in the bible that god has people be the missionaries for people to "feel needed". That sure as hell is not the impression that the bible in general gives out. As you said: It's not like god needs us!
Besides, if god really cared about our "own good", why not use more effective messengers, such as angels, or himself?
The problem stands: If god were real and if we all "knew" about him, he'd not have to rely on human "missionaries"
I've already discussed this. Answer the question: Why, if god actually existed, would he rely on humans, instead of angels who would be far more reliable and would themselves be strong evidence of his existence?
You say that god uses human missionaries "for US"? How? Humans are fallible and are themselves evidence of nothing. Angels would be able to convert far more people. That strikes me as being better for us than padding our egos by having us do that work.
Again: The fact that this god being uses only humans and not his own biblical "messengers" is evidence that he doesn't exist.
No, humans like to feel included as part of a solution, but you know this. We need to feel needed. If you still lived in your parent's basement and your mom still did your laundry, you would feel less of a "man". We want to help, is the point. God allows our help, but not depends on it.
I know full well that you are talking about a character in a collection of stories written by people. I have no evidence that this character is any more real than Dr. Susan Calvin from several of Asimov's stories. You state that I would not be here if I did not believe your claims. That is not true. I am here because I do not believe your claims. There may be self-deception here. But I am not the one engaging in it.
>> You state that I would not be here if I did not believe your claims.
Nope. Liar! You know that is not what I said. I said you would not be here if you didn't know who God was. You do know who God is. That is evidence for my claim that Romans 1:18-23 is completely true. You do not rail against things that do not exists. "God" is a reality that you must deal with in your life. You cannot get away from it. Especially here. We the people, endowed by our Creator.
I don't believe your god exists. That is just a claim of yours. I do not believe that claim. In order for me to "know your god," I would have to believe it existed. Your god does not exist. But religious groups that use the idea of "god" as a "justification" for their harmful actions toward people do exist. If your god was not used to justify laws or actions, then I probably wouldn't be here. Now, Dan, stop lying.
The claim is NOT, at the moment, about believing if God exists or not. It is about whether you know God, the being we're discussing. You do. You know God, and all He entails. Otherwise, you could not be familiar enough to deny His existence in the first place. To deny Him, you first must KNOW who you're denying. True?
One cannot "know" something that does not exist. Nor can one "know" something he believes not to exist. Your claim is about believing your god exists. And all "are you certain? how can you be certain?" games will be taken as acknowledgement that you know you are lying. I wand evidence, not presuppositional-baloney games.
I will consider that to be a very rich Freudian slip. You certainly "wand" evidence alright. You create out of thin air an account of your reasoning. :7)
I can certainly understand why you would hate this apologetics. I could not stand having to look into a mirror and have no where else to go and cannot account for things. It must be frustrating to agonize inwardly trying to stay in denial. I just hope instead of kicking the dog, or me, you would reflect on such questions more. Seriously. After all, my goal is to get to know and love you for all eternity. I like you, and wish you to join me in glorifying God in Heaven.
What drugs are you on, Dan? What evidence do you have that "logic" is a reflection of the way biblegod thinks?
The very idea of "the trinity" for example, especially when jesus and god are talking to each other in the third person shows that the law of non-contradiction at least, has no relevance to him.
Are you saying before there was man the universe existed, and didn't exist, at the same time and the same way? Sounds silly. Yes, it is silly, because it's a strawman. All I'm saying is that man has been able to observe the universe running and has been able to make some generalized observations about how things work.
So laws of reality stands outside of mankind's mind. Great! Now how do you account for such laws? As you know, that Sye pointed out, in a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal laws because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.
I forgot who said this but "How can you make an appeal to science? Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, that its just random, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?
Giving those starting points: randomness, no God, no governance, you reject all of that. How are you making an appeal to science that has at its core the uniformity in nature and the principle of induction (tomorrow will be like today)? How are you appealing to science, when you believe the universe is only random. But in order to do science, you have to believe in the uniformity of nature and the rational ineligibility of the universe."
But we have been down these rabbit holes with you before, to no avail. My question is simply, is it viciously circular to employ your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning? Also, how do you believe you are immune from this question?
Why should we "account" for such laws? You do know that it's not like human-made laws...these are just descriptions of how nature works. No god is necessary for that. Especially given how inaccurate his so-called word (the bible) is in describing his creation!
As you know, that Sye pointed out, in a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal laws because it flows directly from the nature of God. No, you don't. Miracles and that shit completely toss that out the window. Miracles by definition are changes in the natural laws. Besides, what is the "nature of god"? Job shows us how capricious he is, why would you be upset at the idea that such a being does not exist?
Besides, why do you think you need some outside influence on nature to keep it's "laws" constant/uniform? You do know that besides the laws of logic, the second law of thermodynamics says that eventually everything will run down.
How are you appealing to science, when you believe the universe is only random. Uh, Dan...I had said that the universe does operate according to physical laws. Please stop putting words into my mouth. Maybe on a molecular scale things are pretty random...but you'd have to talk to a physicist about that.
My question is simply, is it viciously circular to employ your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning? Also, how do you believe you are immune from this question? Xians are no different. Everyone on this planet can only employ their senses and reasoning to validate their senses and reasoning.
Answer this: If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
>> Everyone on this planet can only employ their senses and reasoning to validate their senses and reasoning.
Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid? So you claim that fallacious reasoning is actually a valid form of reasoning? Srsly? You employ your senses and reasoning when you reason about the evidence of anything. Right? How do you KNOW they are valid? How would you know your reasoning is invalid? You reason that your reasoning is valid. You're employing your reasoning to validate your reasoning. THAT is viciously circular (fallacious). If I said "God, exists because God exists" would that be a valid argument? You haven't shown me your reasoning is valid. Illogical reasoning should be rejected I thought.
As Bahnsen said, "This is a transcendental issue, an issue that lies outside of the temporal, changing realm of sense experience."
Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid? So you claim that fallacious reasoning is actually a valid form of reasoning? Srsly? I just said that we are stuck using the actual tools we have. Kindly quit putting words into my mouth. If you want a philisophical debate, you may want to try a real philosopher.
One can use sound to help verify what one sees. In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses.
You might want to deal with the fact that xians, like everyone else, has the same set of tools that everyone else does. Their senses, and the brain that interprets what the senses pick up, and the ability to think.
You employ your senses and reasoning when you reason about the evidence of anything. Right? As do you. If you have anything outside of "senses and reasoning", please show us. Be advised that if you use "divine revelation" again, I will point out that the bible is part of that "divine revelation" and I will throw mistake after mistake from it on you.
You reason that your reasoning is valid. You're employing your reasoning to validate your reasoning. THAT is viciously circular (fallacious). If I said "God, exists because God exists" would that be a valid argument? You haven't shown me your reasoning is valid. Illogical reasoning should be rejected I thought. Senses are things that can be, and have been, confirmed. As I said earlier: One can use sound to help verify what one sees. In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses. If you talk with a neurologist of perhaps even a philosopher, as I said, you can get more detail.
If you actually want to learn something.
Even YOU have to admit that senses can be confirmed. Else: how are you reading this exchange?
So yes, just saying "god exists because god exists" is circular. Or a tautology. Whatever.
I note that you've not answered my question: If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
Yeah...Bahnsen said that gobbldygook because he seems to have realized that you people don't have actual evidence on your side, so he decided to go the "baffle them with bullshit" route.
As far as I'm concerned: All this running in circles bullshit you're doing is an admission that your side has nothing.
>>I just said that we are stuck using the actual tools we have.
How do you know even that? Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid?
>> If you want a philosophical debate, you may want to try a real philosopher.
I just wish you to reveal your account as to how you know your reasoning is valid. You can't, OK I can live with that.
>>You might want to deal with the fact that xians, like everyone else, has the same set of tools that everyone else does.
You mean you assume that? More like: You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING.
>> Be advised that if you use "divine revelation" again, I will point out that the bible is part of that "divine revelation" and I will throw mistake after mistake from it on you.
It does not matter if you have gripes and complaints about Scripture. Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>> In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses.
But certainly not without the infinite regress.
>>Even YOU have to admit that senses can be confirmed.
Yes, God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determinations and which have been validated through God’s revelation. How about you, same?
>> If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
Optical illusions are revealed too, as optical illusions.
Also, How do you know your conclusion of Bahnsen's "baffle them with bullshit" is valid?
>>As far as I'm concerned: All this running in circles bullshit you're doing is an admission that your side has nothing.
Speaking of relativist fallacy,...did you use your reasoning to verify your reasoning about this conclusion. If so, how do you know this?
Dan quoting me: I just said that we are stuck using the actual tools we have. How do you know even that? Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid? Would you care to show what other tools there are?
Be advised that if you use "divine revelation" again, I will point out that the bible is part of that "divine revelation" and I will throw mistake after mistake from it on you. It does not matter if you have gripes and complaints about Scripture. Uh, yes it does matter. If the "scripture" is shown to be wrong, then, as part of "divine revelation", the "Divine Revelation" itself is shown to be wrong and therefore not a basis to judge reality on.
Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? Irrelevent unless you can show that such a thing has happened. You keep asking that useless question without showing that such a thing has happened.
That's why I brought up biblical mistakes in the first place...to show that it has not.
And for Jesus himself...there's a lot more problems.
In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses. But certainly not without the infinite regress. Do you know what "infinite" means, Dan? Do we have "infinite" number of senses?
Speaking of relativist fallacy,...did you use your reasoning to verify your reasoning about this conclusion. If so, how do you know this? Wrong, Dan: The relativist fallacy is this: The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her
That's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that you have to use the same tools as everyone else does (senses, reasoning, etc) to make sense of the world).
How do you verify your reasoning Dan?
Or more importantly, how did you do it before the "divine revelation" that you claim to have which you say validates your reasoning: Yes, God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determinations and which have been validated through God’s revelation. How about you, same?
Hell...how do you know that the "revelation" you had was "divine" in the first place?
To put it another way: How would you see anything if you lost your eyes? Would god's "divine revelation" let you know what's out there? How's about if you lost your hearing as well?
If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean? Optical illusions are revealed too, as optical illusions. Uh, only after being told about it, or looking at it for a while. Thing is: At first, your eyes, just like everyone else's are fooled.
Also, How do you know your conclusion of Bahnsen's "baffle them with bullshit" is valid? Because all he said in that statement you quoted was evidence-free bullshit?
You can consider it as you like. What it is is a typo. I want evidence. "I can certainly understand why you would hate this apologetics." You mean you finally understand that I don't like being lied to? That I don't like the double-standard that you use? Then start being honest.
I actually laughed out loud when the idiot spoke disparagingly about "idolizing a murderer". The hypocrisy of Christians is truly breathtaking at times. After all, their God, if it actually existed, would be the biggest mass murderer in history and they don't just idolise it, they exalt it, they consider it's genocidal nature "good". Those leftists he's all upset about are doing the exact same thing he does so what's his problem?
ReplyDeleteNever mind that, most of our Bible is written by former murderers: Moses, David and Paul. There is surely no reason for you to give up your rebellion against Creator God only to hang out with such willful sinners like them - and me. Unless of course you want to be free of real guilt and know real peace.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, it always amazes me how you and other atheists take the side of people and in fact whole societies who offered their children as live burnt offerings, and then rage against Creator God for holding them, and Who will hold you accountable for your rebellion.
Nevertheless, good luck on your journey.
It amazes me that christians are willing to lie like Thesauros just did. The whole concept of the crimes allegedly committed by the people that were murdered in the name of your nonexistent god is wholly invented. There is no evidence of it. I do not believe that these people offered up their children as burnt offerings. I believe that was an excuse concocted when people first saw the moral problems of a "god" who would order murder. The priests decided that the victims, being dead, couldn't defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me that people like PVboy, who can't even follow civilized rules of capitalization, will believe the stuff that they make up. Hate stupidifies, kids!
DeleteYeah, I know...I've seen your blog and the comments you make here about atheists.
DeleteYay! Puddlebringer has turned up to demonstrate his abject failure at life!!
DeleteThesauros said...
ReplyDeleteNever mind that, most of our Bible is written by former murderers: Moses, David and Paul.
Former murderers? Surely once you've murdered someone it's not actually possible to take it back - to become a former murderer? It's not like giving up smoking.
There is surely no reason for you to give up your rebellion against Creator God only to hang out with such willful sinners like them - and me.
To what rebellion are you referring? I simply do not agree with you on the question of whether your deity exists. However, I do agree that there is certainly no need for me to give up reason in favour of your irrational belief in a non-existent deity.
Unless of course you want to be free of real guilt and know real peace.
I haven't done anything to be guilty about and, as your God is imaginary, I can't very well feel guilty about so called "sin" when it's impossible to sin against that which does not exist.
Beyond that, it always amazes me how you and other atheists take the side of people and in fact whole societies who offered their children as live burnt offerings,
As pvblivs has already pointed out, there's no evidence that there were ever people who offered their children as "live burnt offerings". It's a lie, concocted by evil men to excuse their desire to commit acts of genocide for their own gain.
I also have to wonder where you've gotten the idea that I (or other atheists) have "taken the side" of these non existent child burners.
It's especially amusing as, should your worldview be true, they were only burning their children because it was all part of your God's plan. He then has them all slaughtered for doing exactly as He decreed.
and then rage against Creator God for holding them, and Who will hold you accountable for your rebellion.
There is no rage against a non-existent being on my part just as there is nothing to hold me accountable for my "rebellion" when I die. There is, however, plenty of scorn for those who believe in such a being and then choose to hold their fellow humans to a higher standard than they do their God. It seems it's perfectly fine to call a genocidal maniac "good" and "just" until someone says it about someone who isn't your genocidal maniac. Hypocrites.
Nevertheless, good luck on your journey.
Why would a Christian wish anybody luck? If their worldview was true then luck simply wouldn't enter into it. My "journey" would have been planned out long before I was born. The destination pre-determined by your God. There's nothing I can do to alter the journey, I can only do what your God has decreed I will do.
Like reason and logic, concepts like luck and freewill are antithetical to the Christian worldview.
From a comment of yours in an earlier post:
ReplyDeleteHardly by my argument. God revealed Himself to ALL MANKIND, so you're confused as to the point God revealed Himself. Scripture makes that point clear (Galatians 1:15, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13) as I knew God before I was even born.
Right..."scripture" also talks about talking animals, scientific inaccuracies and mathematical blunders.
So we know that your holy book says that god "revealed" himself to everyone...what is the evidence that he actually did?
As for that "knowing god" even before you were born? Sorry, but if that was true, there would never have been the need for "the great commission" in the first place.
>>So we know that your holy book says that god "revealed" himself to everyone...what is the evidence that he actually did?
DeleteHis revelations (Natural and special). If I revealed I have a lion in my garage, and I opened my garage door and you saw a lion, would you ask, "what is the evidence that he actually did have a lion?"
>> Sorry, but if that was true, there would never have been the need for "the great commission" in the first place.
I just meant that I was to fulfill my created intent from the very beginning. I should of said I was elected and God knew me, before I was even born, to avoid any confusion. I cannot recall what I actually knew at 3 months old. It is possible I knew of God, but I am foggy about those times. Are you claiming it is impossible?
Sure, I denied God for years growing up. But, when it was my time to acknowledge Him, He called me to do so. God used a kind couple to help me pause, and turn to Him, that much is true. God uses us as tools for His glory, this is true. Good point.
I just meant that I was to fulfill my created intent from the very beginning. I should of said I was elected and God knew me, before I was even born, to avoid any confusion. I cannot recall what I actually knew at 3 months old. It is possible I knew of God, but I am foggy about those times. Are you claiming it is impossible?
DeleteAt three months?? Pretty much, yeah. Talk to any developmental neurologist.
Is it my imagination or is Dan backtracking a little here?
>> Sorry, but if that was true, there would never have been the need for "the great commission" in the first place.
Sure, I denied God for years growing up. But, when it was my time to acknowledge Him, He called me to do so. God used a kind couple to help me pause, and turn to Him, that much is true. God uses us as tools for His glory, this is true. Good point.
So you didn't know god from the very beginning then?
Uh, what is your "created intent??
You need to think here:
--if babies aren't aware of god as you've implied then it's not actually true that everyone "knows" that god exists
--if you later on knew of god but just "denied him" growing up, then why was anyone necessary to "bring you to him"? If it was your "time" then couldn't "god" have just done it him/herself?
--why are you bothering with this blog? Shouldn't "god" be able to tell you when it's our "time" and you just post then? After all, you're the one who's always going on about how it's possible for "god" to have "revealed" things to us so that we may "know it's true".
--how does the using of people to "turn/convert/etc" other people to god contribute to his "glory"? It actually makes him look non-existent to me. If god exists, he should be able to do it himself, shouldn't he?
Dan, quoting me:
DeleteSo we know that your holy book says that god "revealed" himself to everyone...what is the evidence that he actually did?
His revelations (Natural and special).
Like the bible for "special revelation" for instance?
As for "natural revelation", what is there in nature that declares the xian god? In real life, the early creationists, when sent to college kept losing their faith. (See "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers). That's why Henry Morris started that whole "statement of faith" bullshit in the first place.
If I revealed I have a lion in my garage, and I opened my garage door and you saw a lion, would you ask, "what is the evidence that he actually did have a lion?"
A proper analogy would be for you to open the garage door, see that it's empty, then I'd ask you for that evidence.
Remember: Your bible is not infallible.
"His revelations (Natural and special). If I revealed I have a lion in my garage, and I opened my garage door and you saw a lion, would you ask, 'what is the evidence that he actually did have a lion?'"
ReplyDeleteNo, but you have not shown me a god. If you brought out some potted plants and said that was "natural revelation" of a lion in your garage, I would not be impressed. Potted plants do not a lion make; and the world we see does not a god make.
You didn't "deny god" for years growing up. You didn't believe. No one believes in an all powerful being but denies it. That would be suicidal. You know that there was a time you did not believe. That does not mean that you still do not believe. It does mean that you are lying when you claim all believe.
When I speak of God, you know full well who I am talking about. I know you know God, and the truth He revealed Himself to you, by whatever means. You're lying if you say otherwise.You wouldn't be here at Debunking Atheists if you didn't know Him. Again, I call it self deception.
DeleteDan: Kindly prove that unsupported assertion of yours. Think: Why would missionaries ever have been necessary in the first place if that "god has revealed himself to everyone" bullshit was true?
DeleteMissionaries are not necessary, that is your assumption. They are a command, but it's not like God needs us by any stretch of that imagination. I feel, like prayer, it is for our purpose and benefit. People need to feel needed, and that certainly is an avenue for that accomplishment.
DeleteMissionaries are not necessary, that is your assumption. They are a command, but it's not like God needs us by any stretch of that imagination. I feel, like prayer, it is for our purpose and benefit. People need to feel needed, and that certainly is an avenue for that accomplishment.
DeleteYou "feel"? Where is there any hint in the bible that god has people be the missionaries for people to "feel needed". That sure as hell is not the impression that the bible in general gives out. As you said: It's not like god needs us!
Besides, if god really cared about our "own good", why not use more effective messengers, such as angels, or himself?
The problem stands: If god were real and if we all "knew" about him, he'd not have to rely on human "missionaries"
>> If god were real and if we all "knew" about him, he'd not have to rely on human "missionaries"
DeleteHe doesn't "rely on us", He actually allows us to participate in the missionary work. Again, for us, not Him.
I've already discussed this. Answer the question: Why, if god actually existed, would he rely on humans, instead of angels who would be far more reliable and would themselves be strong evidence of his existence?
DeleteYou say that god uses human missionaries "for US"? How? Humans are fallible and are themselves evidence of nothing. Angels would be able to convert far more people. That strikes me as being better for us than padding our egos by having us do that work.
Again: The fact that this god being uses only humans and not his own biblical "messengers" is evidence that he doesn't exist.
No, humans like to feel included as part of a solution, but you know this. We need to feel needed. If you still lived in your parent's basement and your mom still did your laundry, you would feel less of a "man". We want to help, is the point. God allows our help, but not depends on it.
DeleteI know full well that you are talking about a character in a collection of stories written by people. I have no evidence that this character is any more real than Dr. Susan Calvin from several of Asimov's stories.
ReplyDeleteYou state that I would not be here if I did not believe your claims. That is not true. I am here because I do not believe your claims. There may be self-deception here. But I am not the one engaging in it.
>> You state that I would not be here if I did not believe your claims.
DeleteNope. Liar! You know that is not what I said. I said you would not be here if you didn't know who God was. You do know who God is. That is evidence for my claim that Romans 1:18-23 is completely true. You do not rail against things that do not exists. "God" is a reality that you must deal with in your life. You cannot get away from it. Especially here. We the people, endowed by our Creator.
">> You state that I would not be here if I did not believe your claims.
DeleteNope. Liar! You know that is not what I said. I said you would not be here if you didn't know who God was."
Er, how is Pvbs lying if he's said what you then claim you said??
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe your god exists. That is just a claim of yours. I do not believe that claim. In order for me to "know your god," I would have to believe it existed.
Your god does not exist. But religious groups that use the idea of "god" as a "justification" for their harmful actions toward people do exist. If your god was not used to justify laws or actions, then I probably wouldn't be here.
Now, Dan, stop lying.
The claim is NOT, at the moment, about believing if God exists or not. It is about whether you know God, the being we're discussing. You do. You know God, and all He entails. Otherwise, you could not be familiar enough to deny His existence in the first place. To deny Him, you first must KNOW who you're denying. True?
DeleteBy the way, are you certain that God doesn't exist, as you just positively claimed? If so, how are you certain?
DeleteI'm certain your god doesn't exist, because such a being is a logical impossibility.
DeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteOne cannot "know" something that does not exist. Nor can one "know" something he believes not to exist. Your claim is about believing your god exists. And all "are you certain? how can you be certain?" games will be taken as acknowledgement that you know you are lying. I wand evidence, not presuppositional-baloney games.
I will consider that to be a very rich Freudian slip. You certainly "wand" evidence alright. You create out of thin air an account of your reasoning. :7)
DeleteI can certainly understand why you would hate this apologetics. I could not stand having to look into a mirror and have no where else to go and cannot account for things. It must be frustrating to agonize inwardly trying to stay in denial. I just hope instead of kicking the dog, or me, you would reflect on such questions more. Seriously. After all, my goal is to get to know and love you for all eternity. I like you, and wish you to join me in glorifying God in Heaven.
Dan...stop pretending that this circular reasoning of yours is the only way to "account" for anything.
DeleteLogic for example, was developed long before the xian religion was brought into greece.
Non-xians just have a different foundation or reasoning for things than you people do.
Logic developed? Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is absolute, the absolute laws of logic have always existed.
DeleteAre you saying before there was man the universe existed, and didn't exist, at the same time and the same way? Sounds silly.
What drugs are you on, Dan? What evidence do you have that "logic" is a reflection of the way biblegod thinks?
DeleteThe very idea of "the trinity" for example, especially when jesus and god are talking to each other in the third person shows that the law of non-contradiction at least, has no relevance to him.
Are you saying before there was man the universe existed, and didn't exist, at the same time and the same way? Sounds silly.
Yes, it is silly, because it's a strawman. All I'm saying is that man has been able to observe the universe running and has been able to make some generalized observations about how things work.
So laws of reality stands outside of mankind's mind. Great! Now how do you account for such laws? As you know, that Sye pointed out, in a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal laws because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.
DeleteI forgot who said this but "How can you make an appeal to science? Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, that its just random, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?
Giving those starting points: randomness, no God, no governance, you reject all of that. How are you making an appeal to science that has at its core the uniformity in nature and the principle of induction (tomorrow will be like today)? How are you appealing to science, when you believe the universe is only random. But in order to do science, you have to believe in the uniformity of nature and the rational ineligibility of the universe."
But we have been down these rabbit holes with you before, to no avail. My question is simply, is it viciously circular to employ your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning? Also, how do you believe you are immune from this question?
Why should we "account" for such laws? You do know that it's not like human-made laws...these are just descriptions of how nature works. No god is necessary for that. Especially given how inaccurate his so-called word (the bible) is in describing his creation!
DeleteAs you know, that Sye pointed out, in a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal laws because it flows directly from the nature of God.
No, you don't. Miracles and that shit completely toss that out the window. Miracles by definition are changes in the natural laws. Besides, what is the "nature of god"? Job shows us how capricious he is, why would you be upset at the idea that such a being does not exist?
Besides, why do you think you need some outside influence on nature to keep it's "laws" constant/uniform? You do know that besides the laws of logic, the second law of thermodynamics says that eventually everything will run down.
How are you appealing to science, when you believe the universe is only random.
Uh, Dan...I had said that the universe does operate according to physical laws. Please stop putting words into my mouth. Maybe on a molecular scale things are pretty random...but you'd have to talk to a physicist about that.
My question is simply, is it viciously circular to employ your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning? Also, how do you believe you are immune from this question?
Xians are no different. Everyone on this planet can only employ their senses and reasoning to validate their senses and reasoning.
Answer this: If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
>> Everyone on this planet can only employ their senses and reasoning to validate their senses and reasoning.
DeleteDid you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid? So you claim that fallacious reasoning is actually a valid form of reasoning? Srsly? You employ your senses and reasoning when you reason about the evidence of anything. Right? How do you KNOW they are valid? How would you know your reasoning is invalid? You reason that your reasoning is valid. You're employing your reasoning to validate your reasoning. THAT is viciously circular (fallacious). If I said "God, exists because God exists" would that be a valid argument? You haven't shown me your reasoning is valid. Illogical reasoning should be rejected I thought.
As Bahnsen said, "This is a transcendental issue, an issue that lies outside of the temporal, changing realm of sense experience."
Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid? So you claim that fallacious reasoning is actually a valid form of reasoning? Srsly?
DeleteI just said that we are stuck using the actual tools we have. Kindly quit putting words into my mouth. If you want a philisophical debate, you may want to try a real philosopher.
One can use sound to help verify what one sees. In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses.
You might want to deal with the fact that xians, like everyone else, has the same set of tools that everyone else does. Their senses, and the brain that interprets what the senses pick up, and the ability to think.
You employ your senses and reasoning when you reason about the evidence of anything. Right?
As do you. If you have anything outside of "senses and reasoning", please show us. Be advised that if you use "divine revelation" again, I will point out that the bible is part of that "divine revelation" and I will throw mistake after mistake from it on you.
You reason that your reasoning is valid. You're employing your reasoning to validate your reasoning. THAT is viciously circular (fallacious). If I said "God, exists because God exists" would that be a valid argument? You haven't shown me your reasoning is valid. Illogical reasoning should be rejected I thought.
Senses are things that can be, and have been, confirmed. As I said earlier: One can use sound to help verify what one sees. In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses. If you talk with a neurologist of perhaps even a philosopher, as I said, you can get more detail.
If you actually want to learn something.
Even YOU have to admit that senses can be confirmed. Else: how are you reading this exchange?
So yes, just saying "god exists because god exists" is circular. Or a tautology. Whatever.
I note that you've not answered my question: If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
Yeah...Bahnsen said that gobbldygook because he seems to have realized that you people don't have actual evidence on your side, so he decided to go the "baffle them with bullshit" route.
As far as I'm concerned: All this running in circles bullshit you're doing is an admission that your side has nothing.
>>I just said that we are stuck using the actual tools we have.
DeleteHow do you know even that? Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid?
>> If you want a philosophical debate, you may want to try a real philosopher.
I just wish you to reveal your account as to how you know your reasoning is valid. You can't, OK I can live with that.
>>You might want to deal with the fact that xians, like everyone else, has the same set of tools that everyone else does.
You mean you assume that? More like: You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING.
>> Be advised that if you use "divine revelation" again, I will point out that the bible is part of that "divine revelation" and I will throw mistake after mistake from it on you.
It does not matter if you have gripes and complaints about Scripture. Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>> In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses.
But certainly not without the infinite regress.
>>Even YOU have to admit that senses can be confirmed.
Yes, God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determinations and which have been validated through God’s revelation. How about you, same?
>> If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
Optical illusions are revealed too, as optical illusions.
Also, How do you know your conclusion of Bahnsen's "baffle them with bullshit" is valid?
>>As far as I'm concerned: All this running in circles bullshit you're doing is an admission that your side has nothing.
Speaking of relativist fallacy,...did you use your reasoning to verify your reasoning about this conclusion. If so, how do you know this?
Dan quoting me:
DeleteI just said that we are stuck using the actual tools we have.
How do you know even that? Did you use your reasoning to determine that? How would you KNOW it is valid?
Would you care to show what other tools there are?
Be advised that if you use "divine revelation" again, I will point out that the bible is part of that "divine revelation" and I will throw mistake after mistake from it on you.
It does not matter if you have gripes and complaints about Scripture.
Uh, yes it does matter. If the "scripture" is shown to be wrong, then, as part of "divine revelation", the "Divine Revelation" itself is shown to be wrong and therefore not a basis to judge reality on.
Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
Irrelevent unless you can show that such a thing has happened. You keep asking that useless question without showing that such a thing has happened.
That's why I brought up biblical mistakes in the first place...to show that it has not.
And for Jesus himself...there's a lot more problems.
In other words, one can use different senses to verify other senses.
But certainly not without the infinite regress.
Do you know what "infinite" means, Dan? Do we have "infinite" number of senses?
Speaking of relativist fallacy,...did you use your reasoning to verify your reasoning about this conclusion. If so, how do you know this?
Wrong, Dan: The relativist fallacy is this:
The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her
That's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that you have to use the same tools as everyone else does (senses, reasoning, etc) to make sense of the world).
How do you verify your reasoning Dan?
Or more importantly, how did you do it before the "divine revelation" that you claim to have which you say validates your reasoning:
Yes, God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determinations and which have been validated through God’s revelation. How about you, same?
Hell...how do you know that the "revelation" you had was "divine" in the first place?
To put it another way: How would you see anything if you lost your eyes? Would god's "divine revelation" let you know what's out there? How's about if you lost your hearing as well?
If "god" is the one who "validates" your senses, then what does the fact that people can fall for optical illusions mean?
Optical illusions are revealed too, as optical illusions.
Uh, only after being told about it, or looking at it for a while. Thing is: At first, your eyes, just like everyone else's are fooled.
Also, How do you know your conclusion of Bahnsen's "baffle them with bullshit" is valid?
Because all he said in that statement you quoted was evidence-free bullshit?
When it comes to philosophers, I prefer Stepehn Law over Bahnsen.
DeleteYou can consider it as you like. What it is is a typo. I want evidence.
ReplyDelete"I can certainly understand why you would hate this apologetics."
You mean you finally understand that I don't like being lied to? That I don't like the double-standard that you use? Then start being honest.