10 Apr 05
Originally posted by saffa73You can't. You are making an argument that is logically invalid. If you want you're argument to carry any weight - you need to add more information that makes it necessary that a creator must be created.
'''You have to show that the creation of the universe necessarily demands the creation of the creator. As it stands, it is still an invalid inference.'''
Why do I need to show this??
In the beginning of time there was nothing but God. Matter was absent.
But is matter but energy and space through time. God spoke, and created the universe. God is all powerful - he used that power to create matter.
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMathew 10 18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.
More quotes from Paul; do you ever quote Jesus? Here's one for ya Matthew 10:24 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord." Can you find a quote from Jesus in the gospels saying Man's nature is "vile" or some such thing?
close enough?
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo, it doesn't. The claim that is being made is that Man's very nature is "evil" and "vile"; thus it is incumbent upon those making such a self-loathing claim to explain away the billions of acts of simple kindness and compassion that the human race does EVERY DAY. I don't see in my daily life many examples of vileness or evil, but I do see plenty of what Jesus told us to do in the Sermon on the Mount and in Matthew 25. I'm not interested in dogmatic pronouncements like the one you just made, show me some real evidence that man's "nature" is "evil" or "vile".
"Sinners" covers it sufficiently.
10 Apr 05
Hey Eags;
Thanks for taking so much time to elaborate on your (and my) views!
I really appreciate it, and I respect your thoughtfulness very much.
I'm afraid I can't take time now to address your position however.
One thought though: There is but one absolute truth. Without this premise between us there is no point to any of these discussions. can we agree on that?
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by chinking58Matthew 10:18 says this: 18 yea and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
[b]Mathew 10 18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.
close enough?
[/b]
Could you give me a correct citation? And the quote you give does raise an interesting point: If Jesus is asking them why do they call him good when no one is good but God alone, isn't Jesus saying he isn't God?
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou were given proof and now you want evidence. OK. Look around you. Man's sinful nature is everywhere, pollution, war, famine, rape, robbery, etc.
No, it doesn't. The claim that is being made is that Man's very nature is "evil" and "vile"; thus it is incumbent upon those making such a self-loathing claim to explain away the billions of acts of simple kindness and compassion that the human race does EVERY DAY. I don't see in my daily life many examples of vileness or evil, but I do see ...[text shortened]... he one you just made, show me some real evidence that man's "nature" is "evil" or "vile".
You are accusing Christians of being self loathing. You think by using strong terms it makes you argument stronger - it only makes them more emotional. And that does not make them any more valid.
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1maraudersorry about that chief!
Matthew 10:18 says this: 18 yea and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
Could you give me a correct citation? And the quote you give does raise an interesting point: If Jesus is asking them why do they call him good when no one is good but God alone, isn't Jesus saying he isn't God?
That should read mark 10:18
No, Jesus is challenging the guy. Saying, roughly, 'are you really recognizing me as God, or just trying to butter me up?'
Jesus made it very clear that He knew Himself to be God.
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's an ad hominem argument. Christ used them all the time. He used a person's own assertions to show how foolish they are.
Matthew 10:18 says this: 18 yea and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
Could you give me a correct citation? And the quote you give does raise an interesting point: If Jesus is asking them why do they call him good when no one is good but God alone, isn't Jesus saying he isn't God?
Mark 10:18
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by saffa73Why?
You are the one not getting it.
God cannot just exist without being created. Just like you and I hda to be created. And the universe had to be created.
The very definition of God mean it is impossible for him to be created. God is omniscient and omnipotent. Nothing with those characteristic can be created. The infinity can not be created or it would not be infinite. Nothing that is timeless can have a beginning.
11 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiSelf-loathing is to view oneself with "extreme disgust"; as the "Christians" on this site believe their very nature is "evil" or "vile", I believe the term is an accurate description of their beliefs. Complaining that someone is using "strong words" when those words accurately describe your beliefs does not make YOUR argument stronger; it is merely an attempt to make an unpalatable belief more acceptable.
You were given proof and now you want evidence. OK. Look around you. Man's sinful nature is everywhere, pollution, war, famine, rape, robbery, etc.
You are accusing Christians of being self loathing. You think by using strong term ...[text shortened]... hem more emotional. And that does not make them any more valid.
That men do evil or vile things is not proof or even particulary good evidence that his "nature" is "vile" or "evil". They do many, many more compassionate and kind things than they do the things you mention. If Man has a nature it would seem to be geared to cooperating and assisting their fellow men which Jesus said in Matthew 25 said was how you would be judged on Judgment Day. Therefore, I would postulate that the available evidence says that Man's nature is basically good (if he has a "nature" at all).
11 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe word I would use is depraved. The natural state of man is antithetical to God.
Self-loathing is to view oneself with "extreme disgust"; as the "Christians" on this site believe their very nature is "evil" or "vile", I believe the term is an accurate description of their beliefs. Complaining that som ...[text shortened]... t Man's nature is basically good (if he has a "nature" at all).
Evidence is not proof. You interpret the evidence the way that fits your presumptions about the nature of man.
But you don't understand my position. You carry all the emotional baggage into the argument and think I "loath" mankind. I am giving you a statement about the spiritual nature of mankind, not the emotional state. And the judgment can not be made on observation, for no one knows the heart of man but God. That is why the proof is scriptural. No one is good except God.
You have been show both evidence and proof. If you do not see it, maybe you do not have the eyes to see.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYour argument is circular and thus invalid. I interpret the evidence in the manner that is most compelling to me based on what I know and see; that is what a rational man does. Saying that Scripture says something and therefore I must believe it because the same Scripture claims it is the Word of God is non-rational, if not irrational.
The word I would use is depraved. The natural state of man is antithetical to God.
Evidence is not proof. You interpret the evidence the way that fits your presumptions about the nature of man.
But you don't understand my position. You carry all the emotional baggage into the argument and think I "loath" mankind. I am giving you a statement abo ...[text shortened]... been show both evidence and proof. If you do not see it, maybe you do not have the eyes to see.
I was given or simply have a functioning brain and an ability to reason; that is what humanity has that the "lower" animals mostly lack. Men by using these gifts have come to astounding levels of knowledge in the last few centuries having powerful explanations for things that Man 2000 years ago ascribed to Gods or magic or that they couldn't even fathom. I see order in the universe and do not reject the possible existence of a God; however, I see no reason to believe in a God who demands that we scorn the gifts He gave us: those of reason and thought. And I cannot believe in a God who is "good" who would order a sword stuck into thousands of infants in the Midianite Massacre and other atrocities. You can have the God of the OT, Coletti; he is no more likely than Zeus or Baal or Odin or any other of the gods of ancient people: a cruel and vicious construct reflecting the brutalities of those men, not a real and tangible God that men imbued with reason should worship 'cuz the Bible, written by men, says so.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou mean because my proof is scripture?
Your argument is circular and thus invalid. ....
God gave us rational minds so we can reason. That is what it means to be created in the image of God.
Since you have made two assertions and then a rant, show me by good reasoning how my argument is circular, and then show how that makes it invalid. You should be able to give a valid proof that a circular argument is invalid.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiTry reading the third sentence of my post above for the proof that your reasoning is circular. In logic, a circular argument is invalid by definition; you cannot prove the conclusion of an argument by claiming the conclusion proves the premises! Try taking a course or reading a book on logic, since you refuse to waste your valuable time reading important political philosophers like John Locke.
You mean because my proof is scripture?
God gave us rational minds so we can reason. That is what it means to be created in the image of God.
Since you have made two assertions and then a rant, show me by good reasoning how my argument is circular, and then show how that makes it invalid. You should be able to give a valid proof that a circular argument is invalid.