tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post4665610452826914637..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Man's Intellect D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger327125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78112072849506010022012-10-24T23:14:55.922-04:002012-10-24T23:14:55.922-04:00WELL, THIS IS IT FOR ME GUYS.
DAN, THIS THREAD IS...<i><br />WELL, THIS IS IT FOR ME GUYS.<br /><br />DAN, THIS THREAD IS HUMBLY RETURNED TO YOU. YOUR OPENING POST HAS BEEN PROVEN TRUE IN EVERY RESPECT.</i><br /><br />I decided not to go through and argue each point; since we had reached the point where you were no longer engaging with what I said, but simply repeating your assertions.<br /><br />You were not presenting facts; you were presenting assertions, and when facts in contradiction to them were presented, you either tried to dismiss them through your theories (For example, that the Earth does not represent a thermodynamically closed system.) or simply deleted them with no explanation (your thoroughly debunked Grand Canyon assertion, for example.)<br /><br />There is no arguing with blatant assertion; that is not the same as it being a convincing argument. imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-58768223758786082212012-10-24T23:05:17.534-04:002012-10-24T23:05:17.534-04:00Exactly, this lines up with scripture and what I s...<i>Exactly, this lines up with scripture and what I said previously, that doubt is the rule rather than the exception. It is expected for people to backslide for various reasons, but many come back to God later in their lives. So the fact that people backslide does not prove anything.</i><br /><br />And this is an example of you presenting an unfalsifiable assertion: If people convert, it means something. If they backslide, it means nothing. Heads, you win, tails, I lose.<br /><br />Scripture is sufficiently vague and contradictory that we can get Dan asserting that real Christians don't backslide, and you asserting that they do, from the same set of texts. This is why I don't trust the evidence of Scripture; because it can be used to prove anything.<br /><br /><i>Please site this "false" prophecy. Because every single one of them has been accounted for in depth by scholars (except the ones that are supposed to happen in the future, of course). </i><br /><br />This is not answering the question: If there were one, would you accept that the Bible was not inerrant?<br /><br /><i>That's nice you know ONE person who felt that way, but that is meaningless.</i><br /><br />I notice you took my saying "many" and turned it into "ONE". And that testimonies in favor of your side are evidence, but testimonies against your side are not. Welcome to the double-standard that are why people don't trust Christian apologists.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24822511474349985132012-10-24T23:02:49.176-04:002012-10-24T23:02:49.176-04:00DAN, THIS THREAD IS HUMBLY RETURNED TO YOU. YOUR O...<i>DAN, THIS THREAD IS HUMBLY RETURNED TO YOU. YOUR OPENING POST HAS BEEN PROVEN TRUE IN EVERY RESPECT. I BELIEVE YOU HANDLED SOME OF THE ISSUES HERE WRONGLY BUT I COMMEND YOU FOR A GOOD FACT THAT "YOU CAN'T CONVINCE AN ATHEIST BY FACTS ALONE</i><br />And that wins my "mirror, mirror award" nomination.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42781711502922766692012-10-24T22:59:00.967-04:002012-10-24T22:59:00.967-04:00Thanks for confirming that you rule out informatio...<i>Thanks for confirming that you rule out information based on a person's world view. </i><br /><br />I rule out sources that explicitly display their biases, including letting text and dogma overrule facts. They are a waste of time.<br /><br /><i> Being "quite possible" is not good enough.You can't argue from ignorance. We need to logically deduct from all the choices. </i><br /><br />I see no reason to believe taht one can deduce an optimal choice, given all the conflicting claims.<br /><br /><i> What are these "issues" that need fixing in the Torah? I doubt you even understand what the Torah is and how it relates to the New Testament. </i><br /><br />Your doubt would be misplaced. I am not relying on atheist conjecture, I am relying on what I have learned from rabbis and reading relevant text.<br /><br /><i> Refuting a conclusion before being presented the premises is quite dishonest.</i><br /><br />Perhaps, then, you should have concentrated on a single claim, instead of expecting to present a massive wall of text, and not be challenged on any points. imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-48936226751431623312012-10-24T22:25:47.332-04:002012-10-24T22:25:47.332-04:00I will only deal with some of the points in your m...I will only deal with some of the points in your <i>magnum opus</i> of a response; this thread is long enough already, and since you've already said this is your last response, I don't need to go into quite so much detail.<br /><br /><i>-All languages have been scientifically confirmed to have come from one language like the Bible said with the tower of babel. </i><br /><br />I would have to see a citation for this; my understanding has always been that there are relatively few language families, but there are distinct families.<br /><br />However, even if they did come from one ur-language, that does not argue in favor of the bible -- if humanity evolved in one place and spread from there, at around the time of the development of the ur-language, that's what you'd expect to see as well.<br /><br />This, by the way, is an example of what I mean about taking things as "evidence for God" -- when there are other explanations.<br /><br /><i>Saying something is considered invalid after analyzing and something completely ruled out before it can be determined if it is invalid or not are two different things.</i><br /><br />When the determination is "If this fact doesn't agree with our premise, we deny the fact" is ruling something out a priori. That's saying "We have our answer, any data that doesn't fit, we deny.<br /><br /><i>There's no way Creationists can rule out info because Creationists cannot win by being dishonest.</i><br /><br />In the long term, neither can evolutionists; since, believe me, there would be no way to make a bigger name for yourself in the scientific realm than coming up with a *disproof* of a major theory like evolution.<br /><br /><i>"God does not exist because science can't test him"</i><br /><br />Straw man, and one you use repeatedly. "God can't be proven to exist because he's an untestable hypothesis" is different.<br /><br /><i> before its even given a chance to be examined because evolutionists say "Its a religious agenda, ignore them"</i><br /><br />It's been given plenty of chances. It's failed them all.<br /><br /><i>We have to use the current scientific method to prove our evidence or it won't be excepted. </i><br /><br />Funny; the same is true of evolution; indeed, that's the method that was used to convince a creationist world that it was true in the first place.<br /><br /><i>The very antithesis of an unfettered search for truth occurs when scientists don intellectual blinkers and assert dogmatically that all conclusions must conform to “materialist” philosophy.</i><br /><br />No; the very antithesis of an unfettered search for truth occurs when people assert "If it doesn't agree with dogma X, it can't be true." Like AiG. Science offers a method to determine truth -- it's not science's fault that creationism can't offer a testable hypothesis.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-17874998818889645302012-10-24T19:54:06.067-04:002012-10-24T19:54:06.067-04:00Please read "Genetic Entropy" By Dr. San...<i>Please read "Genetic Entropy" By Dr. Sanford<br />http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/product-reviews/1599190028/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0</i><br />Jake, you've accused "atheists" in general of stopping their research when they come across something that agrees with their views. Here is an example of YOU doing that exact same thing.<br /><br />Why? Read <a href="http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/" rel="nofollow">this</a> (scroll down to <b>JOHN SANFORD’S GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME</b>)<br /><br /><i>The errors in Genetic Entropy [24]are so pervasive that it might take a whole new book to fully expose them [93]. I’ll break it down to the topics listed below:<br /><br />(1) Kimura’s Distribution of Mutations<br /><br />(2) Evidence for Beneficial Mutations<br /><br />(3) Gene Duplication<br /><br />(4) Natural Selection: What Sanford Claims<br /><br />(5) Natural Selection: What Studies Show<br /><br />(6) Evidence for Genomic Deterioration<br /><br />(7) Synergistic Epistasis and Other Theoretical Considerations<br /><br />(8) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of John Sanford<br /><br />These topics deal with the two broad areas of random mutations and natural selection. These are the twin pillars of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which Sanford refers to as the Primary Axiom.</i><br /><br />Read on....there's a lot there.<br /><br />Also there's another review <a href="http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.ca/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-i.html" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br /><br />By the way, that youtube video to Dawkins doesn't seem to work, but if it's referencing that "From A Frog to A Prince" 'interview', then you should know two things:<br />1) It was <a href="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/brownresponse.htm" rel="nofollow">edited</a><br /><br /><i><br />It was when I purchased a copy of the tape and viewed it that I came to a full understanding of just what a crude piece of propaganda it is, and wrote my article to that effect. Ms Brown has since kindly supplied me with a copy of her unedited tape of the interview with Prof Dawkins. It confirms that the question she posed and the question asked by the interpolated "interviewer" are essentially the same, but that only serves to confirm my suspicion that no matter how ignorant they may be, creationists are not stupid.<br /><br />Incidentally, the unedited tape also shows that Richard was becoming increasingly irritated as he began to suspect that he had been wasting his time talking to people whose interest in exploring scientific matters was, at best, minimal. It also shows, much more clearly than the final edited version, that his angry pause at the end was not a sudden reaction to a question he could not answer, but his reaction to having his suspicions that he had been played for a sucker, confirmed.</i><br /><br />2) Dawkins discusses information increase in his book <b>Unweaving the Rainbow</b> in a chapter called <i>The Genetic Book of the Dead</i> (if my memory is right)Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31439594713520409962012-10-24T19:24:09.777-04:002012-10-24T19:24:09.777-04:00Well, about that Lee Strobel fellow:
Lee Strobel ...Well, about that Lee Strobel fellow:<br /><i><br />Lee Strobel - Author of The Case for Christ (former atheist)<br />http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php</i><br /><br />You might want to read <a href="http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/earl-doherty-on-the-case-for-christ.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> and <a href="http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/taylor-carrs-review-of-the-case-for-christ.html" rel="nofollow">this</a><br /><br />I believe I've already mentioned two preachers (Dan Barker and Farrell Till who became atheists right?)<br /><br />Of course I'm writing this while pretending that it's ok for an atheist to use some atheist sources which Jake doesn't like. Never minding the fact that as a xian, he only uses xian sources.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-11221728158693081962012-10-24T19:17:11.694-04:002012-10-24T19:17:11.694-04:00Ok...why the constant, [b]constant[/b] all-caps? ...Ok...why the constant, [b]constant[/b] all-caps? Just how old are you anyway? Don't you know what all-caps represents in written communication?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-56595527178872130542012-10-24T18:10:21.854-04:002012-10-24T18:10:21.854-04:00Jake,
I cannot wait to meet and hug you someday, ...Jake,<br /><br />I cannot wait to meet and hug you someday, maybe even in this life. Blessings brother.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41703822117657451942012-10-24T05:38:53.425-04:002012-10-24T05:38:53.425-04:00MY THOUGHTS TO THIS DISCUSSION:
YOU HAVE TRULY TR...MY THOUGHTS TO THIS DISCUSSION:<br /><br />YOU HAVE TRULY TRAUMATIZED ME. I WAS OVERWHELMED BY YOUR STUBBORNNESS AND CREDULITY IN YOUR ATHEISTIC POSITION. IF SOMEONE HAD TO PRESENT THIS MUCH INFO AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, I WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED ABANDONING IT. THE REASON WHY I KNOW THE CONVERSATION IS OVER IS BECAUSE YOU RESORTED TO REPEATING THE SAME FIVE ARGUMENTS ATHEISTS USE WHEN THEY RUN OUT OF ANSWERS. YOUR ATHEISM IS NOT AN INTELLECTUAL CONCLUSION BUT RATHER A PERSONAL, EMOTIONAL CONCLUSION. EVEN IF EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG WERE 100% FACT WITH NO HOLES IN IT, IT STILL DOES NOT PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST, AT WORST IT WOULD SAY THAT GOD WAS A LITTLE SLOPPY IN CREATING THE UNIVERSE. SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE CONVINCE BECAUSE DEEP DOWN THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT SCIENCE AND LOGIC, ONLY THEIR PERSONAL AGENDA. (REYNOLD, THERE WAS NO HOPE FOR YOU FROM THE BEGINNING). AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED HERE. ITS QUOTE UNFORTUNATE THAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILL LATCH ONTO A THEORY LIKE EVOLUTION WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT, EVEN WHEN ITS CRUMBLING UNDER YOU. WHEN DECEPTION HAS BEEN EXPOSED, AND THE PERSON STILL HOLDS TO THE BELIEF, IT PROVES THE PERSON IS BEYOND HELP. I AM NO PSYCHIATRIST, SO I NEED TO BOW OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. YOU REQUIRE HELP THAT I AM NOT EXPERIENCED IN. YOUR INCREDULITY GOES BEYOND SIMPLE SKEPTICISM, ITS SOMETHING BIGGER THAN THAT. AND I NOR ANYONE ELSE CAN'T HELP YOU WITH THAT. ITS SAD THAT SUCH INTELLIGENCE WILL GO TO WAIST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW SOMETHING COMES FROM NOTHING, WHEN THERE IS SO MUCH MORE OUT THERE TO DISCOVER ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. SO IF YOU RESPOND TO THESE QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO BUT FOR THE SAKE OF MY JOB AND MY PROJECTS, I WON'T RESPOND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A WAIST OF TIME. YOU WOULD RESORT TO REPEATING WHAT I HAVE ALREADY REFUTED OR JUST KEEP REPEATING "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" OVER AND OVER. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE LIKE THIS, OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE JUST PASSED BY THIS POST WHEN I WAS ON THE INTERNET. I AM TRULY SORRY FOR WASTING YOUR TIME. I CAN NOW RETURN TO MY PROJECTS I PUT ON HOLD FOR THIS DISCUSSION AND YOU CAN GO BACK TO SEARCHING FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN FROM NOTHING.<br /><br />WELL, THIS IS IT FOR ME GUYS.<br /><br />DAN, THIS THREAD IS HUMBLY RETURNED TO YOU. YOUR OPENING POST HAS BEEN PROVEN TRUE IN EVERY RESPECT. I BELIEVE YOU HANDLED SOME OF THE ISSUES HERE WRONGLY BUT I COMMEND YOU FOR A GOOD FACT THAT "YOU CAN'T CONVINCE AN ATHEIST BY FACTS ALONE." IT TAKES MORE THAN THIS AND THAT THING IS THE HOLY SPIRIT TO BYPASS DECEPTION TO REACH THEIR HEARTS. ONLY THAT HOLY SPIRIT CAN REACH THEM. (I MAY TALK TO YOU AGAIN DAN TO DISCUSS SOME THINGS LATER) AND WITH THAT, I BOW TO IMNOTANDREI AND REYNOLD AND SAY GOOD BYE.<br /><br />THANKS FOR THIS VERY INFORMATIVE CONVERSATION. I HOPE YOU AND REYNOLD HAVE A GOOD LIFE. I REALLY MEAN IT ; )<br /><br />SINCERELY,<br /><br />JakeJake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-64645807890160753032012-10-24T05:36:59.839-04:002012-10-24T05:36:59.839-04:00IN A COLLEGE COURSE I TOOK, WE WERE TAUGHT THE PRI...IN A COLLEGE COURSE I TOOK, WE WERE TAUGHT THE PRINCIPLES OF “CULTURAL RELATIVISM”. THIS PHILOSOPHY MAINTAINS THAT THE TRUTHFULNESS OR “GOODNESS” OF ANY BEHAVIOR OR PRINCIPLE OF BELIEF IS ONLY DETERMINED WITHIN THE RELATIVE CONTEXT OF A PERSON’S CULTURE. THUS ALL SO-CALLED “TRUTHS” ARE NOT TRUTHS, BUT ONLY MATTERS OF BELIEF THAT EITHER WORK OR DON’T WORK WITHIN A GIVEN CULTURAL CONTEXT. THIS CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FAVORITE TENETS OF ATHEISTS IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD. THERE IS, HOWEVER, AN INHERENT FLAW IN THE ARGUMENT. IF ALL WOULD-BE TRUTHS ARE ONLY RELATIVE, THEN SO IS THE DOCTRINE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM. IT IS ONLY RELATIVELY TRUE, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS NOT A UNIVERSAL TRUTH. ATHEISM SUFFERS A SIMILAR FATAL FLAW. BY DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND OF CONTINUED CONSCIOUSNESS, IT DENIES THE MEANING OF THINGS AND THEREFORE ITS OWN MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE. ATHEISM COMMITS LOGICAL SUICIDE.<br /><br />GO AHEAD, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, NO ONE WILL TRY AND STOP YOU. CHRISTIANS ARE ONLY OBLIGATED TO WARN YOU. IF YOU CHOOSE TO REJECT IT, SO BE IT. IT DOESN'T HURT ME AT ALL. I HAVE COMPLETED MY TASK TO POINT YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IF YOU WANT TO HEAD OFF THE CLIFF, GO AHEAD. JUST KNOW, WHEN YOU FIND OUT YOU ARE WRONG, YOU WILL STAND BEFORE GOD WITH NO EXCUSE TO SAVE YOU. YOU NOW KNOW THE FACTS, WHEN SOMEONE REJECTS THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWN THEM, THERE IS LITTLE HOPE OF THEM CHANGING. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. ENJOY THIS LIFE YOU HAVE, FOR IT WILL BE ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER HAVE. ONCE YOU REACH THE END OF LIFE, ALL OF WHAT YOU KNOW GOES UP IN SMOKE AND ALL MEMORIES WILL BE FORGOTTEN FOREVER. (REMEMBER, LIFE CAN END AT ANY TIME. PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME, DIED IN CAR ACCIDENTS ON THE WAY HOME FROM WORK, OR MYSTERIOUS ILLNESSES WITH NO SYMPTOMS. SO PLANING A "PLEASURABLE" LIFE IS MEANINGLESS SINCE IT COULD END AT ANY MOMENT). YOU BECOMING WORM FOOD COULD BE JUST AROUND THE CORNER, BUT YOU WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL ITS TOO LATE. BUT I GUESS BETTING ON ATHEISM IS A BETTER CHOICE EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NO SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.<br /><br /><br />CONTINUEDJake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82055334712271886752012-10-24T05:35:52.220-04:002012-10-24T05:35:52.220-04:00--------------------------------------------------...--------------------------------------------------<br /><br />FINAL CONCLUSION: LAST COMMENTS FROM ME FOR GOOD <br /><br />THERE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL FLAW IN THE ARGUMENTS OF ATHEISTS. IF CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT CONTINUE BEYOND THIS MORTAL WORLD, THEN NOTHING THAT HAPPENS OR DOESN’T HAPPEN IN THIS LIFE WILL HAVE ANY PERMANENT EFFECT. WHETHER I AM HAPPY OR MISERABLE WILL NOT MATTER TO MYSELF IN THE END. I WILL NOT EXIST TO REMEMBER IT. ONLY MY CHILDREN AND THE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES I TOUCH WILL BE AFFECTED. THESE IN TURN WILL ALSO CEASE TO EXIST AND NOTHING THAT HAPPENS TO THEM WILL MATTER EITHER. WE CAN EXTEND THE REASONING FORWARD TO THE EVENTUAL DEMISE OF THE HUMAN RACE AND EVENTUALLY THE EXTINGUISHING OF LIFE ON THE EARTH. IT WILL NOT MATTER IN THE END WHETHER I WAS AN ATHEIST EITHER. ALL THE EFFORTS OF ATHEISTS TO ASSERT THEIR CAUSE ARE THEREFORE INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR BELIEFS. ATHEISM AND NIHILISM ARE INSEPARABLE. THE ONLY LOGICALLY CONSISTENT CONSEQUENCE OF NIHILISM IS APATHY. ATHEISTS WANT TO ELIMINATE MORAL LAWS SO THAT THEY CAN PURSUE PLEASURE WITHOUT LIMITATION, BUT THEY ACT AS THOUGH IT WILL MATTER IN THE END WHETHER THEY EXPERIENCE PLEASURE OR NOT.<br /><br />A MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS THIS. WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE? ATHEISM CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION. THE ATHEIST UNIVERSE IS A BLEAK, MEANINGLESS CHAOS, EXHIBITING ONLY TEMPORARY ORDER ON ITS INEVITABLE RUSH TO OBLIVION. IF ATHEISTS WERE HONEST, THEY WOULD BE SO DEPRESSED AT THE OUTLOOK OF THEIR OWN BELIEFS THAT THEY WOULD LOSE ALL INTEREST IN LIFE AND WOULD STARVE TO DEATH. I HAVE NEVER MET AN HONEST ATHEIST. MOST OR ALL OF THEM BORROW CONCEPTS OF EXISTENTIAL MEANING FROM THE WORLD OF RELIGION. THEY CLAIM TO LIVE FOR PLEASURE, AS THOUGH THAT HAD SOME INHERENT PURPOSE OR MEANING. THEY CLAIM TO LIVE FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR CHILDREN, OR THE HUMAN RACE, WILLFULLY FORGETTING THAT IN A GODLESS UNIVERSE HUMAN LIFE WILL ONE DAY BE EXTINGUISHED. THE FACT IS THAT FEW IF ANY ATHEISTS HAVE REALLY APPLIED LOGIC TO THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF BELIEFS. THEY USE LOGIC TO TEAR HOLES IN THE CLAIMS OF THE RELIGIOUS, YET FAIL TO SEE THE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR OWN CLAIMS. THEY STEAM AND FUME WITH ANGER AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS WORLD, AS THOUGH IT MATTERED ONE HILL OF BEANS WHAT A PERSON BELIEVED IN. THE FACT IS THAT MOST AND PERHAPS ALL ATHEISTS HOLD TO ATHEISM FOR ENTIRELY NEGATIVISTIC REASONS. THEY ARE ATHEISTS OUT OF REBELLION AGAINST RELIGION, NOT BECAUSE THEY REALLY BELIEVE IN THE TENETS OF ATHEISM. THIS CAN BE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. FOR SOME IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE OFFENDED OR ABUSED BY A RELIGIOUS PERSON OR PERSONS. FOR OTHERS IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCIPLINED FOR BAD BEHAVIOR BY RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES. OTHERS STILL SIMPLY WANT THE FREEDOM OF HEDONISTIC EXPRESSION WITHOUT GUILT. THE REASON THAT IF RELIGION IS DONE AWAY WITH, MORAL GUILT WILL DISAPPEAR AS WELL.<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-12677295644871851982012-10-24T05:34:18.837-04:002012-10-24T05:34:18.837-04:00ADDRESSING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT HELL AND THE DEVIL...ADDRESSING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT HELL AND THE DEVIL:<br /><br />The devil is not God's arch enemy, he is human's arch enemy. The devil can do nothing to God. The Bible indicates that God knew about everything and that the devil and his rebellion coinciding with the creation of earth was all part of a bigger plan. As I said before, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 2:23). The devil was not created evil, the devil became evil on his own by rebellion. The Bible indicates that this is part of the ability of free-will. The universe is like a cosmic court room. The devil has rights as well as humans. Since the devil deceived Adam and Eve, all humans deserve to join the devil in hell. If the devil is to be destroyed, it is legally obligated to destroy humans as well, (since all have broken the law of perfection), this is why humans are in a dilemma. Since God is loving and also cannot look on evil, he sent the only part of himself that can be used as sacrifice, which is Jesus, who justifies our sin just as if we never sinned. God has given humans a time to accept him and he will cut off the time and destroy the devil. The devil knows this and wants to send as many humans to hell as possible before this time is up. The devil WILL be destroyed, but for our sakes, God is holding off to allow as many humans as possible to choose God. Christians are urged to preach the Gospel around the world before this time is cut off. The plan of salvation seems to be related to humans having to basically fight for the kingdom of heaven like warriors (by avoiding immorality, fighting misconceptions about God, enduring suffering, etc).<br /><br />----------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24656159282212970642012-10-24T05:31:56.802-04:002012-10-24T05:31:56.802-04:00The fact of death makes the heaven and hell choice...The fact of death makes the heaven and hell choice real. The fact of the matter is that death leads to one place or the other. This is not unfair, its reality. Birth was technically "imposed" on you, and I bet you consider that a fact of life, so death is not only imposed but a fact of life. (I consider atheist belief of death leading to nothingness also a type of hell). If you think Hell is imposed, then what would be the "fair" alternative, since you technically don't want to go to heaven either? All God is doing is giving you a choice to join him in heaven or join the devil in hell. You will die, regardless of what you believe. Also, you presupposes an ultimate standard of justice and good when regarding a rapist not deserving to go to heaven. What basis do you have for saying a rapist doesn't deserve heaven? Is this not an appeal to your own subjective moral feelings and opinions? Why should your feelings be authoritative? God is the only true judge when it comes to who is allowed in heaven. A rapist and a lier are equal to God because sin is sin. No evil is better or worse than the other in regard to perfection at the level God requires. This is why forgiveness of sin (cleansing of ANY imperfection) is required to go to heaven. God says, "The wages of sin is death" (romans 6:23). God is all-power, but this does not mean that he can contradict his own character by imposing a choice that is up to us. If he made us choose him, he would not be good, because he can't force you to do something without violating your free-will. <br /><br /><br />-------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5907367496176632712012-10-24T05:29:34.500-04:002012-10-24T05:29:34.500-04:00Pascal does not mention God's nature as a FACT...Pascal does not mention God's nature as a FACTOR in wagering if God exists. God's nature does not affect God existing or not existing. Presupposing God's intentions or nature has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager being a false dichotomy. Opinions have no value here. Pascal nor any Christian is assuming anything about the nature of God, only the atheist is. Therefore the atheist claims that rely on conjecture is invalid and a strawman. This is why I say that atheists tend to use ANY tactic to make a claim seem irrational, invalid, or undesirable, by using untrue assumptive claims about God, the Bible or religion without researching if that is what it really says. If you don't research FACTS, that leaves your OPINIONS. If there is no basis for God's nature, you can make him be whatever you want to fit your strawman argument. Therefore, an argument for God's existence must be based on facts not assumptions, and God's nature does not affect his existing or not existing. <br /><br />---------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24061448701073940282012-10-24T05:26:57.215-04:002012-10-24T05:26:57.215-04:00(FINAL COMMENT ON PASCALS WAGER)
The only options...<br />(FINAL COMMENT ON PASCALS WAGER)<br /><br />The only options for Pascal's Wager (including your "other" options you feel should be included) are:<br /><br />1. Atheist option: Wager as if God does not exist (trust in empirical science, all religions are myth, live life until its over)<br />2. Deistic/Pantheist option: Wager as if God(s) does exist but is malevolent and/or uninvolved in life or is non-personal (All contrary to the Biblical God)<br />3. Agnostic option: Refuse to Wager either way until more evidence is proven for either side (until then, it follows the same concept for life as atheists).<br />4. Theistic option: Wager as if God exists (follow guidelines of Bible, believe with faith first then in evidence second)<br /><br />According to Pascal's Wager, number 2 is invalid because the most valid concept of God is of perfection and goodness, and number 3 not wagering is still a wager (because you are either for God or against God and being unsure is being against God). Therefore, 1, 2 and 3 are basically wagering as if God does not exist for whatever reason. Number 4 is the only option where you are actually wagering for God validly. Therefore, there is only TWO valid options in Pascal's Wager. There is no third option. Even if you were right, instead of two options, there would be only one option, which would be that all religions are equally valid and therefore equally false. You still have not given a valid third option. Choosing another religion from Christianity would be your own subjective choice and not based on logic. So any other "option" you can come up with would be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. <br /><br />-------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-46905150260824553702012-10-24T05:17:57.597-04:002012-10-24T05:17:57.597-04:00(Continued from last)
ATHEIST:God does not exist...(Continued from last)<br /><br /><br />ATHEIST:God does not exist and you have nothing to lose<br /><br />RESPONSE: Correct (and this requires no belief because this option is there by default, making this one of the TWO valid options)<br /><br />ATHEIST:Other possibilities:<br /><br />RESPONSE: Including every definition of god for an argument that is meant to prove only one god invalidates your "other possibilities". If you choose Christianity, the Bible says that God is not malevolent, not polytheistic, and the 3 monotheistic gods are conflicting in their nature and requirements. Other religions may have a malevolent god(s) but they may also not be benign. So choose ONE religion to fit your "possibilities". All religions can't be true and either all are false or one is true. There is only ONE logical explanation for reality.<br /> <br />ATHEIST:Malevolent god<br /><br />RESPONSE: Which god is malevolent if this is considered a valid option. (Remember, you can only choose one religion to apply this to).<br /><br />ATHEIST:Benign god<br /><br />RESPONSE: Which religion presents a god that is benign? There can only logically be one god, and god cannot be malevolent and benign at the same time. Therefore you must eliminate one of these 2 options as possible options.<br /> <br />ATHEIST:A polytheistic god of past or present (and there are hundreds of them and each one represents an independent outcome)<br /><br />RESPONSE: A polytheistic religion (which do not believe in a personal or creator god) is less valid than a monotheistic religion because their gods cannot be verified by any historical, archeological AND logical significance.<br /> <br />ATHEIST:Any one of the modern monotheistic gods (which is what YOUR atheist argument was based on)<br /><br />RESPONSE: By logical deduction, I must choose ONE religion out of the three monotheistic gods. Pascal's Wager is about using the most valid religion to wager for. If you don't agree that Christianity is the most valid religion, you would have to prove why another religion is equal or greater in validity than Christianity (which I would love to see you do using a historical, archeological and logical argument.) [Already refuted your "myth comparison" in a separate email so that argument doesn't count].<br /> <br />ATHEIST:The possibility that Allah, Jehovah, and “Christ” are all the same god; just interpreted differently by different people and that all have an equal probability of being the right choice if god exists because there are all one in the same.<br /><br />RESPONSE: I don't go with "possibility". Opinions are not valid here, especially if its relying on your eternal destiny. The three gods are not the same. They may be similar but under further examination, they speak of different methods of going to heaven and Allah and Jehovah deny Jesus as the son of God or the ONLY way to God. Therefore the God of the Bible is different from the other two gods.<br /> <br />ATHEIST:The possibility that Allah, Jehovah and “Christ” represent a triumvirate of divine power and share creation amongst the three of themselves. After all, when god “spoke” in genesis chapter1 he said “we” and “our” a lot!! Who was he talking to? Some say the archangel Michael but this is no more definitive then a claim that he was speaking to Allah!<br /><br />RESPONSE: I don't go with "possibility". Opinions are not valid here. This is conjecture about the three gods that MAY BE talking to each other. Don't make assumptions unless you do the research and can confirm such a theory. This option is the most invalid of them all.<br /><br />RESPONSE: CONCLUSION: Therefore, we come back to the original claim I made stating that Pascal's Wager is not a false dilemma. There can only be ONE god. Christianity is the most valid of all religions, therefore when you wager, you will be wagering for ONE god, the Christian God, giving you only TWO options (Christian God exists or ALL gods do not exist), making Pascal's Wager NOT a false dilemma. Proving the Christian God exists is another argument all together. <br /><br />[END OF EXERT]<br />---------------------<br /><br />(Continued)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-69687270137316787782012-10-24T05:13:13.443-04:002012-10-24T05:13:13.443-04:00PASCALS WAGER ARGUMENT:
This argument for Pascal&...<br />PASCALS WAGER ARGUMENT:<br /><br />This argument for Pascal's Wager, I repeat, is an appeal to self-interest, rather than proof for God. Logical deduction (using historical, archeological and logical significance) was necessary since only one religion could be used to wager for. Simply because other religions resemble Christianity does not mean that NONE are valid choices for the sake of the wager or that ALL are equal in validity (which you used to make Pascal's wager a false dilemma, and this is why your argument against Pascal's Wager fails). There is still one religion that is more reasonable than all the others. All religions may be somewhat similar because they are all distorted versions of ONE truth. There is only ONE logical explanation for reality. Therefore all options besides Christian God and No God at all, is still the only two valid options. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXERT FROM MY EMAIL FROM AN ATHEIST HE DEBATED WITH: (The atheist made a case and then I responded line by line. So my responses under that atheists sentences are a line by line refute)<br /><br /><br />-----------------2010<br /><br />Nice try with coming up with other options for Pascal's Wager. Unfortunately they are invalid because you try to include all religions in your options (or make all religions equal, which they are not). Pascal's wager deals with one religion to wager for, not all religions. Pascal focuses on logically deducting which religions are least valid in order to find ONE religion to wager for. (Note: This has nothing to do with evidence for God's existence, rather, which god to wager for). Remember, either all religions are false (Atheist option), or ONE religion is true (Theists option). Therefore, you must choose ONE religion to apply to Pascal's Wager.<br /><br />ATHEIST: Before I go further I want to elucidate what I am trying to tell you. I want to outline some of the possible outcomes of his wager and I will start with what he (Pascal) presupposed to begin with:<br /><br />RESPONSE: You fail to choose ONE god in order to wager. Since I mentioned that all religions can't be true and either all are false or one is true, this requires you to focus on one in order to validly present options to pascals wager. You can't wager to all gods because each has conflicting requirements. We both agree that all religions are not equal in validity (all religions can't be right). Even if you somehow proved all religions are equal, instead of two options, there would be only one option, which (according to your "myth comparisons") would be that all religions are equally valid and therefore equally false. You still haven't proven a third option. You can't include all religions at once and say that Pascal's wager is invalid. This is a false alternative fallacy. This type of reasoning would invalidate any argument. (And no, Christianity does not borrow from other religions, I completely refute your "myth comparisons" argument in a separate email).<br /><br />[Note: When I say that the Christian God is most valid, I am referring to this concept of God being the most rational and most likely to be true (if God existed) out of all other religions]<br /><br />ATHEIST:Pascal’s “wager”:<br />RESPONSE: Note, "wager" is singular, not plural. <br /><br />ATHEIST:God exists and if he does than you will receive infinite reward for believing or eternal damnation for not believing<br />RESPONSE: Correct. (But the word "belief" must be defined in order to understand Pascal's wager)<br /><br />ATHEIST:or<br />RESPONSE: "or" is used to link two alternatives, which means there is only two opposite options in play<br /><br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82505545272757303152012-10-24T05:08:23.528-04:002012-10-24T05:08:23.528-04:00(Continued from last)
-MERCY AND GRACE IS GIVEN T...(Continued from last)<br /><br />-MERCY AND GRACE IS GIVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE "SAVED" (HAVE FAITH IN JESUS, CONFESS THEIR SINS AND MAKE HIM THE "LORD" OR FOCUS, OF THEIR LIFE)<br />-THEREFORE, ONLY THOSE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR LORD, DON'T BELIEVE GOD EXISTS, AND DON'T CONFESS THEIR SINS WILL GO TO HELL<br /><br />-ANYTHING LESS THAN LOVE FOR GOD IS CONSIDERED REBELLION. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOOD OR BAD BEHAVIORS. YOU CAN MESS UP BUT YOU MUST CONFESS THE SIN TO GOD AND MOVE ON.<br />-GOD JUDGES THE HEART TO DETERMINE WHO IS TRULY SAVED OR NOT. THIS CRITERIA IS BASED ON THEIR CLOSENESS TO GOD. EVEN THE SMALLEST CLOSENESS TO GOD IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR HEAVEN<br />-TO BE CLOSE TO GOD IS TO READ HIS WORD, PRAY AND AVOID SIN.<br />-SIN IS ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIRE FOR PURITY AND FOR CLOSENESS TO GOD. (SIN CAN BE AS SMALL AS SELFISHNESS OR LACK OF FELLOWSHIP AMONG BELIEVERS, OR AS BIG AS MURDER. BUT THIS ONLY APPLIES TO A SAVED PERSON. AN UNSAVED PERSON CAN HAVE VERY GOOD TRAITS AND NOT QUALIFY FOR HEAVEN BECAUSE JESUS' DEATH ON THE CROSS IS NECESSARY TO MAKE YOU EXEMPT FROM HELL (ITS THAT SIMPLE) )<br />-A PERSON DOES NOT BECOME CLOSE TO GOD INSTANTLY BUT GRADUALLY INCREASES OVER TIME. THE SYMPTOMS OF CLOSENESS TO GOD IS INCREASED SELF-CONTROL, INCREASED LOVE FOR OTHERS AND AN OVERALL INCREASE IN WISDOM<br />-WHEN A PERSON IS NOT INCREASING IN CLOSENESS TO GOD, THEY ARE DECREASING AND SYMPTOMS ARE IRRITABILITY, LACK OF FOCUS, INCREASE DESIRE TO SIN AND A SENSE THAT GOD IS FAR AWAY <br />-SIN WILL FALL IN TO EVERYONE'S LIFE, INCLUDING DOUBTS AND FEARS, BUT THE ULTIMATE TEST IS IF YOU STICK WITH IT (I CALL LIFE, BOOTCAMP FOR HEAVEN, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES DISCIPLINE AND EMOTIONAL ENDURANCE)<br />-THEREFORE, A PERSON WHO IS SAVED, AND PURSUES PURITY AND CLOSENESS TO GOD IS CONSIDERED BOUND FOR HEAVEN AND EXAMPT FROM HELL<br /><br />-FOR THIS REASON, HELL IS A CHOICE BASED ON HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE. THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN IS DEATH, SO HELL IS ETERNAL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO REJECT GOD'S FREE GIFT OF SALVATION FROM HELL. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR ACCEPTING THE FREE GIFT OF SALVATION FOR ETERNAL LIFE AND HEAVEN, YOU GET ETERNAL REWARDS (NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE EARNED THEM OR DESERVED THEM, BUT RATHER BECAUSE GOD HAS MADE HUMANS FOR HIS PLEASURE).<br /><br />-THIS BRINGS IN FREE WILL. GOD CANNOT MAKE YOU CHOOSE HIM. BUT FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE HIM, THERE IS NO PURPOSE FOR THEM AFTER THEIR TIME FOR CHOICE IS UP ON EARTH.<br />-A TEST IS NOT A TEST IF IT CANNOT BE FAILED. AND FREE WILL MAKES GOD FAIR. SO FREE WILL IS PART OF A TEST THAT YOU CAN EITHER SUCCEED OR FAIL BASED ON WHAT YOU CHOOSE.<br /><br /><br />-ALL OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE YOU WORKING FOR AN UNATTAINABLE GOAL. JESUS HAS COME TO GIVE YOU THE GIFT, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PAST THE TEST OF FAITH.<br /><br />----------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37247732168161588752012-10-24T05:03:59.918-04:002012-10-24T05:03:59.918-04:00JAKE: What's more evil, a loving God who crea...JAKE: What's more evil, a loving God who created you for his pleasure, and wants you to endure this life with faith until the end where he rewards you with enteral life and forever happiness, or that you are a blind and arbitrary product of time and chance, a mere grab bag of atomic particles, existing for a brief and pointless time on a cold meaningless universe, with no purpose, no direction, no control and no destiny but final destruction, ceasing to exist entirely.<br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Two things: The latter is not "evil", it just is. And as to the former, I have long said that the only God I could accept is one who disavowed the existence of Hell. Not just for His chosen, but for everyone, because to do otherwise is to grant eternal punishment for finite sin, and I consider that more "evil" than simple material existence.<br /><br />RESPONSE: YOU HAVE A COMMON AND HUGE MISCONCEPTION ABOUT SIN, JUDGEMENT, REAL PURPOSE OF HELL, MERCY AND GRACE, FREE WILL, AND THE ENTIRE MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL.<br /><br />-HELL IS FOR THE DEVIL AND THE ANGLES THAT REBELLED, NOT HUMANS<br />-SIN IS NOT "BEING BAD" SIN IS A CONDITION OF THE SOUL (CALLED IMPERFECTION) THAT DOES NOT CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO OR DON'T DO<br />-JUDGMENT IS PART OF GODS "LAW OF PERFECTION" CALLED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. WHATEVER VIOLATES ONE, VIOLATES ALL AND REQUIRES DEATH (SPECIFICALLY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD)<br />-MERCY AND GRACE IS LINKED TO THE GOSPEL MESSAGE ABOUT JESUS' DEATH ON THE CROSS TO FUFILL THIS JUDGMENT OF SIN THAT REQUIRES HELL.<br /><br /><br />(rest is continued next)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-86956979402088198462012-10-24T04:53:24.250-04:002012-10-24T04:53:24.250-04:00(Continued from last)
TO PROVE I AM NOT JUST IGNO...(Continued from last)<br /><br />TO PROVE I AM NOT JUST IGNORING THE EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE CONTRADICTIONS, I WILL REFER TO A WEB SITE THAT HAD 101 CONTRADICTIONS OF THE BIBLE. WHEN I LOOKED AT ONE OF THOSE VERSES, SURE ENOUGH IT WAS SAYING ONE THING IN ONE PART OF THE BIBLE AND A SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY THING IN ANOTHER PART. AND THIS WASN'T LIKE THE NEW TESTAMENT'S SEEMING WORD CONTRADICTION WHICH ENDED UP BEING ABLE TO BE RESOLVED BY GOING TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. THIS WAS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM IN NUMBERS, SAYING ON NUMBER IN ONE PLACE AND A DIFFERENT NUMBER ABOUT THE SAME INCIDENT IN ANOTHER. HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT? I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE A RESOLUTION. BUT HOW IN THIS CASE? I MEAN, NUMBERS ARE JUST NUMBERS. COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT A SCRIBE ALONG THE WAY MADE AN ERROR BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET ENOUGH SLEEP? I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I WAS CONVINCED THAT AN ANSWER EXISTED THAT PROVED THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE. THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT RESOLVING THIS ISSUE WAS TO START LOOKING IN ALL THE DIFFERENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS. BUT THEY ALL HAD THE SAME ERROR… EXCEPT THE OLDEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION: THE DOUAY RHEIMS BIBLE. IN THAT VERSION, THE NUMBERS WERE THE SAME IN BOTH PLACES IN THE BIBLE, UNLIKE THE OTHER VERSIONS LIKE THE MUSLIM WEBSITE CITED AS CONTRADICTIONS. (IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THEY FREELY CHOOSE FROM DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS FOR TH ONE THAT COULD BETS MAKE THEIR CASE). SO THE LESSON I LEARNED IS: YES, SOME THINGS HAVE BEEN CHANGED OVER THE CENTURIES, THEREFORE WE MUST ASTUTE IN OUR STUDY OF THE BIBLE. BUT I MUST POINT OUT THAT ALL SEEMING ERRORS AND CONTRADICTIONS POINTED OUT WERE IN VERY SMALL AND MINOR DETAILS, NEVER ANYTHING BIG OR IMPORTANT.<br /><br />AS AN EXAMPLE OF "BAD TRANSLATIONS" ONE OF THE TRANSLATORS ST. JEROME HIMSELF MAD AN ERROR IN INTERPRETATION WHEN HE SAID THAT MOSES HAD HORNS IN HIS HEAD (EXODUS 34:29-30) WHEN IN FACT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION WAS THAT HE HAD "RAYS OF LIGHT" COMING FORM HIS HEAD. HIS CONFUSION WAS THAT THE SAME HEBREW WORD CAN MEAN BOTH HORNS OR RAYS OF LIGHT. AN UNFORTUNATE OUTCOME OF THIS ERROR WAS THAT MICHELANGELO MADE A SCRIPTURE OF MOSES WITH HORNS COMING OUT OF HIS HEAD AND NOT RAYS OF LIGHT. THIS STATUE CAN STILL BE SEEN IN ROME TODAY AT THE CHURCH SAN PIETRO IN VINCOLI. <br /><br />THE ARGUMENT AGAINST KING JAMES: MANY HAVE SAID "THE BIBLE CAN'T BE RELIED UPON AS TRUTH COMING FROM JESUS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED MANY TIMES OVER THE CENTURIES AND OFTEN BY UNHOLY LEADER OF NATIONS FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, FOR EXAMPLE KING JAMES, WHO WRITE HIS OWN BIBLE." OF COURSE THERE WAS A CONFUSION THERE BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY KING HENRY VIII WHO MODIFIED THE ACCEPTED CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GET A DIVORCE. THIS ARGUMENT WAS SHOWN TO BE FAULTY WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT MANY ANCIENT COPIES OF THE BIBLE THAT WERE DISCOVERED RECENTLY (E.G. THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS FOUND AT QUMRAN IN 1948) WERE IN NEAR COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE CURRENT BIBLES.<br /><br />SO AS MY KING JAMES EXAMPLE ABOVE POINTS OUT, ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY OFTEN DON'T CARRY A PURE MOTIVE OF WANTING TO KNOW THE TRUTH. RATHER THEY ARE MOTIVATED EITHER BY A DESIRE TO BLINDLY DEFEND THE STATUS QUO IN A PERSONS LIFE OR COMMUNITY OR BECAUSE OF A WEAKNESS FOR PEER PRESSURE. BUT THIS KING JAMES ARGUMENT IS FROM HEARSAY AND THE MEDIA HAS TAKEN IT AS FACT. <br /><br />TO CONCLUDE: WHEN IT IS SAID THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT, ONLY THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS ARE BEING SPOKEN OF, NOT THE MANY COPIES AND TRANSLATIONS THAT HAVE COME DOWN OVER THE YEARS THAT ARE LIMITED BY THE ACCURACY OF THE SCRIBES OR THE SKILL AND MATURITY OF THE TRANSLATORS. BUT LIKE I'VE POINTED OUT, THOSE INACCURACIES ARE VERY SLIGHT AND NEVER IN ERROR ABOUT THE ESSENTIAL THINGS. AND THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT. <br /><br /><br />-------------------------------------------<br /><br />(Continued)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-748992798947906192012-10-24T04:48:40.824-04:002012-10-24T04:48:40.824-04:00JAKE: why I know you are delusional is because ev...JAKE: why I know you are delusional is because even some of the people who study these things have concluded that they are not conclusive enough to prove life came from nothing.<br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: And some of the people who've studied the Gospel at great length have decided it's too flawed to base one's life on. We've been over this ground before.<br /><br />RESPONSE: WELL, WE NEED TO DEFINE THE WORD INERRANT. ATHEISTS, AND SKEPTICS HAVE LONG RIDICULED THE IDEA OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY. THAT IS, THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE (WHETHER IN ITS ORIGINAL OR CURRENT STATE) TO BE FREE FROM ERROR OR UNTRUTHS. [NOTE: THE WORD “ERRANT” DERIVES FROM THE LATIN INFINITIVE ERRARE, MEANING “TO WANDER,” WHILE THE PREFIX IN NEGATES THE WORD. THEREFORE, TO PURPORT BIBLICAL INERRANCY IS TO AFFIRM THAT THE SCRIPTURES ADHERE TO THE TRUTH, RATHER THAN DEPARTING, OR “WANDERING” FROM IT]<br /><br /><br />BUT I NEED TO CLEAR THIS UP. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS INERRANT AND I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THIS INFO TO YOU. I AM NOT A CLOSED MINDED PERSON, JUST ACCEPTING THINGS. I NEED ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS ATHEISTS COME UP WITH. THERE IS PROOF THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT IN ITS CONTENT. <br /><br />1. TO SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT DOESN'T MWAN THAT ALL BIBLES ARE INERRANT. I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY TRANSLATIONS IN MANY LANGUAGES THROUGH MANY YEARS. THERE ISN'T JUST ONE "THE" BIBLE (APART FROM THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS)<br /><br />2. IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, TEHRE ARE MANY INSTANCES WHERE THE SAME ENGLISH WORD IS USED IN TWO PLACES BUT THERE ARE TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WORDS REPRESENTED BY JUST ONE ENGLISH WORD (E.G. "LOVE"). ALSO, THERE ARE DIFFERENT GRAMMAR RULES USED IN OTHER LANGUAGES OF OTHER TIMES. AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT IDIOMS USED IN THE TIMES THAT THE SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN COMPARED TO NOW. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BOLAS SAYS "THOUSANDS" WHICH DOESN;Y MEAN "ONE THOUSAND", IT MEANS "A LOT"… JUST LIKE IF I WERE TO SAY, "OH I'VE DONE THAT MILLIONS OF TIMES." YOU WOULD KNOW THAT I DIDN'T LITERALLY MEAN "MILLIONS" AND THAT I MEANT "A LOT OF TIMES." BUT WOULD SOMEONE IN RUSSIA KNOW THAT? <br /><br />SO IT IS GOOD TO NOT ALWAYS COME TO QUICK CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE IBLE IS SAYING, OR WORSE, AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT SOMEON ELSE'S INTERPRETATIONS OR PINIONS AS TRUTH. SOME PHRASES ARE MORE OBIOUS AS TO WHAT THEY MEAN THAN OTHERS, WHILE OTHERS MIGHT HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM TAHT COULD LEND THEMSELVES TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS. IT IS ALSYAS GOOD TO AT LEAST START GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. EVEN THEN, IF YOU 'RE NOT A SCHOLAR, YOU COULD BE TRIPPING UP. (THAT IS WHY WHEN REYNOLD USED A SITE THAT CLAIMED TO HAVE FOUND ERRORS, IT WAS BASED ON THEIR LIMITATIONS OF UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURE AND HOW THINGS CAN BE "LOST IN TRANSLATION.")<br /><br />GOOD "BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS" WEB SITES:<br /><br />HTTP://ANSWERING-ISLAM.ORG/BIBLE/CONTRA/INDEX.HTML<br />HTTP://DEBATE.ORG.UK/TOPICS/APOLOG/CONTRADS.HTM<br />HTTP://CHRISTIAN-THINKTANK.COM<br /><br />EXAMPLE OF HOW A SPECIFIC TOUGH ISSUE IS RESOLVED:<br /><br />HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIAN-THINKTANK.COM/NOSTAFF.HTML<br /><br />(Rest is continued)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-43581516976281768282012-10-24T04:45:20.217-04:002012-10-24T04:45:20.217-04:00JAKE: THERE ARE SO MANY "INDICATIONS" O...JAKE: THERE ARE SO MANY "INDICATIONS" OF GOD THAT ATHEISTS HAVE TO DEVOTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS TO FIGHT THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT. <br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: And how many billions and organizations fight to prove the existence of God? Remember on whose side the organizational deck is stacked here, please.<br /><br />RESPONSE: We spend most of our money on missionaries in other countries feeding the poor, spreading the Gospel to people who know God exists but don't yet know who he is. The only problem is that atheism wants to force their opinion on everyone and Christians (and other religions) must fight their hostile tactics. For example, atheists tried to take down a cross of metal from the twin towers of 9/11 from a memorial. It was not hurting anyone, but atheists saw it as an eye sore and so sued the person who put it up. Another article (mentioned earlier in this discussion) spoke of an atheist stopping the nativity scene from being displayed. I can give you even more examples as these that are far more sinister, spiteful and unnecessary. I guess the atheists money is going to good use in these situations.<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />JAKE: BECAUSE THESE INDICATIONS WERE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME <br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: And remember, also, that for many people the indications are clear enough in the other direction.<br /><br />RESPONSE: Remember, no one really wants to be an atheist. They just choose this option after they think God whom they so wanted to exist doesn't exist. They are left with only this sad and depressing choice. You have to weed out the enthusiast whose emotion for their position causes them to stop short in their investigations and just push their points. If someone hears something enough times from respected sources they believe that it's true and then start passing it on as if it really is true. Atheism, having a negative belief system has the luxury of doing this because if you keep repeating "God doesn't exist" and "there is no proof for God", it sticks and then they rationalize their inability to prove these claims proof with more similar deception like "I lack belief". People enjoy deception for some reason.<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br />JAKE: SEARCH AS IF HE DID EXIST, IN ORDER TO PROVE HE EXISTS. <br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: If you take every possible gap in our knowledge as a sign of God, sure, you'll get the result that God exists. Of course, your evidence in that regard has been diminishing for centuries, but you'll get that result. <br /><br />But if you have to presume that existence to find that existence, that's an awfully weak argument.<br /><br />RESPONSE: Its more the fact that God said you must seek him to find him (), meaning he will not come to you unless you are willing to come to him. If you wanted to know, you would seek like I did. Since you say you did not seek, don't ask why you can't find him.<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-56256716306036442952012-10-24T04:44:29.171-04:002012-10-24T04:44:29.171-04:00JAKE: EVEN IF THIS SAME METHOD CAUSES CONFUSION A...JAKE: EVEN IF THIS SAME METHOD CAUSES CONFUSION AND MAKES FINDING ANSWERS DIFFICULT, EVEN CAUSING ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS IN RESEARCH." <br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: You know, I've never heard an atheist say that. I've heard a lot of them say "Unless you can test it, don't bring me any supernatural explanation", because anyone can say 'Oh, that? God did it" and foreclose useful discussion and analysis.<br /><br />RESPONSE: Repeating false statements don't make it true. Baseless assertions are not facts, neither are opinions evidence. Your argument reduces to absurdity. You keep repeating the "god of the gaps" yet nothing proves this is what is being used. Everything Creationists present is testable or empirically verifiable. Even agnostics agree with this. You keep parroting the same statements, proving you are indoctrinated into evolution and don't even use your mind anymore. You are accepting whatever says "Evolution" on it. Why are you so stubborn and hold onto illogical "science of the gaps"? However I can prove your "Science of the Gaps" and you could never explain it away.<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br />JAKE: WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE CAN EVEN HAVE A DEEP DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD AND NEVER COME TO A CONCLUSION?<br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Because the concept is so nebulous and vast that there are a well-nigh infinite number of ways to approach it? After all, look at how many different notions of "God" have gotten tossed around in this thread alone.<br /><br />RESPONSE: You are not getting it. If God is considered man made (like your favorite faulty analogy X), why are scientific discussions never coming to a conclusion that "God does not and cannot exist and we can prove it"?<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br /><br />JAKE: WHY WOULD SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST EVEN BE ARGUABLE AGAINST SCIENCE?<br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Oh, that's easy; because something that doesn't exist can have whatever characteristics you need to fit into whatever holes in the universe you might have.<br /><br />RESPONSE: Why couldn't this also apply to your "non-created" oigin theories? It sounds a lot like man made nonsense to me. As the saying goes "a frog becoming a prince is considered a fairy tale by children, but a frog turning into a prince is considered science to evolutionists." No truly reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />JAKE: WHY IS THIS BATTLE BETWEEN GOD AND NO GOD GOING ON WITH NO SOLUTION IN SIGHT?<br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Because neither side, realistically, can come up with a useful way to prove it one way or the other.<br /><br /><br />RESPONSE: So you are finally admitting you can't prove evolution to be true with absolute certainty. Maybe we are getting somewhere. If a belief like God is so "far fetched" and atheism/evolution is so logical and scientific, shouldn't atheism/evolution be slaughtering any claims about God? What do atheists turned christians see in this God if its so unscientific to accept God? How can people who loved evolution say God is scientifically possible to exist? Just saying that this concept doesn't matter doesn't solve this problem, it only proves you are not willing to consider the alternative no matter what indications are given to do so. This is self deception. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)<br />Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31770068166764998252012-10-24T04:43:35.305-04:002012-10-24T04:43:35.305-04:00JAKE: RULING OUT ID THEORY BECAUSE IT "SEEMS...JAKE: RULING OUT ID THEORY BECAUSE IT "SEEMS" RELIGIOUS IS RULING OUT A GREAT WELL ROUNDED UNDERSTANDING OF HOW HUMANS VIEW THIS WORLD. <br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Then give me a prediction ID has made that has been scientifically verified. Give me something that ID has *added* to human knowledge rather than tried to undercut. I rule out ID theory because it hasn't done that; all it has done is tried (and failed) to demonstrate holes in other theories.<br /><br /><br />RESPONSE: There will always be someone who will claim (especially on the internet), to have invalidated a Creationist or ID theorists claim, but not because they actually have don so, but just because they are predisposed to being anti-bible no matter who anyone proves or says. Evolution is a very speculative "fishing for an explanation of this universe" theory whose main purpose has been to keep God out of the mainstream. Even Evolutionist, Scott Todd hints at the possibility when he stated, "Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” - [Referenced from the Journal Nature written by Scott C. Todd - Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423] This quote indicates that evolutionists hostility to intelligent design appears to be based on philosophical objections, and not on scientific merits. Atheist's try to avoid the God conclusion by saying that chemical reactions occur now and therefore have always occurred. However their semantical statement DOES NOT substantiate how life's first stage of existence assembled without the fine-tuning of an intelligent Creator. Therefore, it is impossible to rationally think an intelligent designer doesn't exist. No truly reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br /><br />JAKE: YOU KEEP ASSUMING CHRISTIANS SAY, "I'M A CHRISTIAN, THEREFORE I ONLY BELIEVE WHAT MATCHES WITH THE BIBLE." <br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Some Christians do say that -- AiG, as has been pointed out, is an example.<br /><br /><br />RESPONSE: Another "No true scotsman" fallacy. You are basically saying "No true" Christian would disagree with AIG's oath. However, I don't agree with AIG's oath. I am open for evidence that God is impossible. So far, I haven't seen anything that resembles proof to this. A book titled "the proof that God doesn't exist" could never be written because there aren't any conclusive proofs to support that viewpoint. You seem to have evidence that he doesn't exist so why don't you write this book?<br /><br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />JAKE: WHY DO YOU THINK ATHEISTS/EVOLUTIONISTS ARE ON THEIR TOES SPENDING MANY HOURS AND MILLIONS TO DISPROVE CREATIONISTS EVIDENCE IF IT WERE CONSIDERED "NOT SCIENCE" OR SOMEHOW BASED ON FLIMSY RESEARCH?<br /><br />IMNOTANDREI: Because the results, if not disproven/debunked, are terrible; they result in the undercutting of scientific knowledge, the use of bad science or outright lack of science as a basis for how people live their lives and shape their world, and the misery and suffering that entails.<br /><br />RESPONSE: Repeating false statements don't make it true. I hope you know you are just parroting atheist conjecture. Why don't you be an individual and form you own opinions rather than repeat the same lines that all atheists say? Its really making you look less open minded than I once thought when we first started this discussion. Its quite unfortunate that I must end this discussion with you sooner than I thought since you won't really be conversing with me but just repeating the same five atheist conjecture arguments over and over.<br /><br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Jake_Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589549109695256998noreply@blogger.com