18 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAtheists may not be lying to themselves, but their presuppositions are in error. Only a person who knows everything can authoritatively say that God doesn't exist. All other less omniscient beings, in order to be intellectually honest, must admit the possibility.
It is a fallacy that atheists are lying to themselves.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesWhich is why most atheists don't say anything of the sort, the majority are weak atheists and even most of those that actually make a positive claim against god's existence (strong atheists) do so in regards to the logical impossibilities which certain views of god bring. Neither of these is an absolute 'no god' claim.
Atheists may not be lying to themselves, but their presuppositions are in error. Only a person who knows everything can authoritatively say that God doesn't exist. All other less omniscient beings, in order to be intellectually honest, must admit the possibility.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanWhich logical impossibilities are you referring to, if you don't mind me asking?
Which is why most atheists don't say anything of the sort, the majority are weak atheists and even most of those that actually make a positive claim against god's existence (strong atheists) do so in regards to the logical impossibilities which certain views of god bring. Neither of these is an absolute 'no god' claim.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanIf God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then, logically, evil should not exist. Evil does exist, therefore the God as revealed biblically does not.
Well, for a strong atheist, for example, the argument from evil serves to crush the notion of the Christian 3-O god.
Would you consider it a good thing if you weren't free? Would it be more desirable to be an automaton? According to the Bible, God created a man and a woman who enjoyed freedom. Would you not agree that it is in keeping with a good God to have created creatures possessing free will?
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesI agree with what starrman said.
Atheists may not be lying to themselves, but their presuppositions are in error. Only a person who knows everything can authoritatively say that God doesn't exist. All other less omniscient beings, in order to be intellectually honest, must admit the possibility.
I have usually found that theists go based on the assumption that there is a god and then everything becomes evidence of it. I acknowlege that there is a possibility of god existing, but I just don't see the evidence.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnHave you ever been presented the evidence for God? If you would like, I can give you a quick rundown of the evidence and you can decide for yourself. And if our discussion pans out, perhaps we can start a new thread. It's up to you.
I agree with what starrman said.
I have usually found that theists go based on the assumption that there is a god and then everything becomes evidence of it. I acknowlege that there is a possibility of god existing, but I just don't see the evidence.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesPresent me with evidence that isn't the bible. The bible isn't evidence of itself. Also, the complexity of the earth or life isn't evidence of god. Those are the usual laughable posts of supposed evidence that people claim.
Have you ever been presented the evidence for God? If you would like, I can give you a quick rundown of the evidence and you can decide for yourself. And if our discussion pans out, perhaps we can start a new thread. It's up to you.
I am interested in actual, physical, repeatable evidence.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe bible isn't evidence of itself.
Present me with evidence that isn't the bible. The bible isn't evidence of itself. Also, the complexity of the earth or life isn't evidence of god. Those are the usual laughable posts of supposed evidence that people claim.
I am interested in actual, physical, repeatable evidence.
But the Bible can be evidence of itself. For instance, the Old Testament was written before Jesus was born, and the New Testament was written by people who knew, ate with, walked with, and learned from Jesus. The modern Christian Bible is actually two separate collections of books separated by many centuries. In the OT there are prophecies that Christ would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10; 49:15), that Jesus would die by having his hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16-18), that he would be betrayed by a close friend (Isaiah 41:9), that he would be rejected by his own people (Isaiah 53:3), that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), and the place of his birth (Micah 5:1-2), etc.
If the Bible is not the word of God, then why does it contain so many fulfilled prophecies?
__________________________
I am interested in actual, physical, repeatable evidence.
I don't have physical evidence, but I can present some logical evidence (not proof, mind you, but evidence).
In the Christian world-view God is absolute and the standard of truth, and the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. These laws are uncreated, that is, eternal, because they reflect God's thinking. For instance, a tree cannot both be a tree and not a tree at the same time. This is a logical absolute. The contention is, the absolute laws of logic, which transcend time and space and subjectivity, are not Man's invention but originate in God.
How else would you account for the absolute laws of logic?
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesIf the Bible is not the word of God, then why does it contain so many fulfilled prophecies?
[b]The bible isn't evidence of itself.
But the Bible can be evidence of itself. For instance, the Old Testament was written before Jesus was born, and the New Testament was written by people who knew, ate with, walked with, and learned from Jesus. The modern Christian Bible is actually two separate collections of books separated by many centuri ...[text shortened]... nvention but originate in God.
How else would you account for the absolute laws of logic?[/b]
When it comes to prophecy, people see what they want to see. For example, the Jewish religion does not generally believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor a deity.
For instance, a tree cannot both be a tree and not a tree at the same time. This is a logical absolute. The contention is, the absolute laws of logic, which transcend time and space and subjectivity, are not Man's invention but originate in God.
Even in a universe without God, a tree would still be a tree. If you think it could be otherwise, please provide a counterexample.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by gaychessplayerAs I told someone [josephw, I think] before, just the idea that bacteria like MRSA can adapt to resist our medicines ought to give you pause before making such a sweeping statement.
Well, at least we know that you reject the theory of evolution, since it isn't repeatable.
19 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhen it comes to prophecy, people see what they want to see. For example, the Jewish religion does not generally believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor a deity.
If the Bible is not the word of God, then why does it contain so many fulfilled prophecies?
When it comes to prophecy, people see what they want to see. For example, the Jewish religion does not generally believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor a deity.
For instance, a tree cannot both be a tree and not a tree at the same time. Th ree would still be a tree. If you think it could be otherwise, please provide a counterexample.
I don't mean to be impolite, but this does not seem like much of an argument. Your argument basically boils down to: some people don't believe the evidence, therefore the evidence is negligible. Have you studied the prophecies in the OT concerning Christ?
Even in a universe without God, a tree would still be a tree. If you think it could be otherwise, please provide a counterexample.
The question is concerning the absolute laws of logic, not whether a tree is a tree. Do you agree that there are logical absolutes? If so, how do you account for them in your particular world-view?
1. Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense.
3. Law of Excluded Middle: A statement is either true or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesI don't mean to be impolite, but this does not seem like much of an argument. Your argument basically boils down to: some people don't believe the evidence, therefore the evidence is negligible. Have you studied the prophecies in the OT concerning Christ?
[b]When it comes to prophecy, people see what they want to see. For example, the Jewish religion does not generally believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor a deity.
I don't mean to be impolite, but this does not seem like much of an argument. Your argument basically boils down to: some people don't believe the evidence, therefore the evidence is ...[text shortened]... or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false.[/b]
No, the argument is that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. The Jews certainly don't disbelieve the "evidence" - the prophecies of the Messiah. They just don't think that it was Jesus. They're still waiting for Messiah to come.
The question is concerning the absolute laws of logic, not whether a tree is a tree.
The point I was trying to make is that I do not see why God is required to give us laws of logic, or how he could have even 'created' laws of logic. I have trouble imagining a universe in which a tree can also be a not-tree at the same time. [Maybe a Star-Trekian idea of separate Quantum realities - but then can we really say that we are dealing with the same time from one reality to the other?]
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesWell the oldest bible is from about the fourth century AD so it seems possible to me that someone changed it when it was copied down from all the different books and scrolls that made it up. I mean if you look at all the different versions of the bible they change every-time a new one is released.
[b]The bible isn't evidence of itself.
But the Bible can be evidence of itself. For instance, the Old Testament was written before Jesus was born, and the New Testament was written by people who knew, ate with, walked with, and learned from Jesus. The modern Christian Bible is actually two separate collections of books separated by many centuri ...[text shortened]...
If the Bible is not the word of God, then why does it contain so many fulfilled prophecies?[/b]