Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort's Blog: Secular Philosophy

Friday, July 4, 2008

Secular Philosophy

"With the limited knowledge I have at present, I have come to the conclusion that Ray Comfort may secretly be a Muslim, a homosexual, a polygamist, and that he might have a green leprechaun who reads him children's stories living in his closet. I mean, I'm pretty sure that none of the above things are true, but because I don't know the thoughts of everyone that has ever existed, and because I haven't traveled to every planet to determine if there are green leprechauns, I cannot be 100% certain. There may just be someone in the Universe that has ample evidence to prove those things to be true." C. Diddy

As a professing atheist, you can’t be "sure" of anything. You don’t know that there is no God. You don’t know if Hell is a reality. All you have is your beliefs (faith) that God and Hell don’t exist. You have faith in what you believe. You can’t be sure that the sky is blue (it’s not), or that the sun rises (it doesn’t). You don’t know for certain that the blue or the red that you see is actually the same colors that others see. You don’t know if evolution is true, or even if a rock is "hard, because you have no concrete definition of what "hard" is, other than what a dictionary tells you and what you have come to believe from the beliefs of others. For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality. That’s why knowing God is such a wonderful thing. It’s because He knows the thoughts of everyone that has ever existed, and He is ever-present on every planet to determine if there are or are not green leprechauns.

The Scriptures give us insight into the mind of God. Through them we can know absolute truth. We can know reality. We have what the Bible calls "an anchor for the soul." Without the solid foundation of the Word of God you will be blown about by the winds of an ever-changing secular philosophy.

212 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»

weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 4, 2008 6:19 PM
dale said...: Ray,
It sounds like you are chanelling SyetenB, ie, "You don’t know if a rock is "hard,...."

"You don’t know that there is no God."

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God, therefore there is no God.

This post is borbering on insanity, man.

This kind of thinking is no different than all those preachers out there claiming they are the messiah. For you to throw away reason and logic for the garbage you just posted you have reached a new level of delusion.

This is absolutely pitiful.

We have no concrete definition of what "hard" is?

You are definitely a master of the non-sequitur.; July 4, 2008 6:35 PM
get_education said...: Ray,

Why now exacerbate your previous post?

Since you seem to like it:

Well, you have been told several times already that this is a flawed argument. The reason being that then you have to be "agnostic" of anything your imagination can throw out. Like Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and so on. By that logic, everything is possible, and thus you Ray would be agnostic of every other god in human history, plus whatever we say that cannot be proven not to be true without absolute knowledge.

So, easy task, since there have been imaginary gods all over human history tribes and civilizations have invented gods at some point or another, we know all of them were invented, thus the abrahamic God has to be invented too. Since we know that imaginary things do not exist we do not need absolute knowledge to deny God's existence, all we need is look at the evidence of imaginary gods all over our history and prehistory to conclude this God is also imaginary. Again, otherwise we would have to declare agnosticism of all of the other gods, with anything that we can imagine to exist, that would need proof of nonexistence, which is actually illogical. Case closed, no need for atheists to be "agnostic" in this sense of "since I cannot disprove it, there is a possibility." We do not need teapots orbiting Mars to come to this conclusion. Do we?

(I wonder if anthropologists tend to have the highest rate of atheism, they have such a God-confrontational field of study they have to be atheists!)

G.E.; July 4, 2008 6:46 PM
dale said...: Ray and minions,
We all of course know the Redeemer who was no figure of pagan Greek polytheism. He was the true Saviour who wanted to help and save the sinful humans, by sacrificing himself. But he was willing to do this, out of love, pity and compassion for the humans.

His name:...Prometheus.

The Jesus Myth was not original whatsoever.; July 4, 2008 6:46 PM
dale said...: Who is the "Light of the World", the One, the God who defeated death? Born of a virgin mother, considered the first true King by the people. Who rose from the grave and ascended to heaven. He defeated death, and must be considered the single true God.

Of course the Egyptian Osiris!; July 4, 2008 6:47 PM
dale said...: Ray,
On thinking this over a bit, it is not unusual for you to have these idiotic beliefs. Muslims are just as sure of the validity of their religion as you are yours.
(Plus, their ranks are growing much faster than the Christian religion.)
You might say, as you always do that they are a works based religion. And so? Their book tells them that. You books are all equally as absurd as the others.; July 4, 2008 6:53 PM
dale said...: Now, the real God often called the "Light of the world", "The good shepherd", "The lamb" and is "…the way, the truth, and the life". Identified with a cross. Who could that be?

Horus, (the son of Osiris).; July 4, 2008 6:54 PM
dale said...: Your book has nothing original in it.

The original "Light of the world" was the mediator between God and man and was born on the 25.th of December. Local shepherds witnessed his birth and gave him gifts. He had 12 disciples, and when his work was done on earth he gathered together to a last supper, and then ascended to heaven. At doomsday he will return to pass judgment on both the living and the dead. The righteous will go to heaven and the sinful will be killed in a giant fire. Sunday is his holyday, and this religion gave us the seven days of the week. His followers called each other "brothers" and their leaders "fathers". They practiced babtism and established a sacred meal ritual, where flesh and blood was symbolically consumed by initiates. Above earth was heaven, and below the dark hell with demons and the sinners.

The 'Light of the World' is of course the sungod Mithra.; July 4, 2008 6:55 PM
dale said...: Wise men were led to his birth by a star, and his conception was miraculous. After his birth the ruler in the area wanted him dead and started a hunt for the child. But his parents were warned by a heavenly messenger who told them to escape over the river with the holy child. Here, he was met by shepherds. The boy grew up and did many great deeds, and was the mediator between God and man.

His name: Krishna.; July 4, 2008 6:56 PM
dale said...: Who then, was the God whose mother was told by an angel that she would give birth to a holy child destined to be a Saviour? Even as a child he instructed the priests in the temple in religous matters, while his parents were looking for him. He started his religious career when he was ca 30 years of age, and surrounded himself with 12 disciples. One of the disciples is his favorite another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around talking in parables and metaphors. This God called himself "Son of Man" and was referred to as "Prophet", "Master" and "Lord". He did many great wonders and healed the sick, blind could see again and deaf hear.
He also walked on water. When one of his disciples tried to do the same, he started to sink - his faith was not strong enough.

We are here obviously talking about Buddha.; July 4, 2008 6:57 PM
dale said...: And there is of course the God-man, the prophet, the founder of a great monotheistic religion that still exist today. He preached that there was only one true God, and his teachings focused on the eternal fight between good and evil. The teachings include the idea of the Saviour will wake the dead and pass judgment on all. The righteous ones goes to Paradise and the sinful straight to a burning Hell. The very word of Paradise stems from this religion. This semigod started his career in his early thirties, and had a following of disciples. As a band of monks they wandered around, preaching their religion. He was eventually killed and sent to heaven.

And he was the Persian Zarathustra.; July 4, 2008 6:58 PM
dale said...: The problem for Jesus is that all these deities are much older than him. You don't have to be very bright to see where the authors of the Gospels got their "devine inspiration" when they created the Jewish version of the popular God-Man/ World-Saviour of Antiquity.; July 4, 2008 6:59 PM
get_education said...: The cartoon is quite wrong, from that hat it should read "evidence," and from the Bible it should read "illusion of truth."

G.E.; July 4, 2008 6:59 PM
dale said...: Ray and minions,

Your fundamentalism is an addiction. These highly charged emotions that you depend on are your fix and they are very much like gambling.

"After the prospective Christian has been lured in by hope,or have been conditioned since a child, they are driven further in by fear. The refined effects of fear finally becomes a trap in which that fear, of damnation, becomes part of the horrid result of
questioning one's new faith. Fear is the key that fits the lock on the Christian's heart. The more orthodox, or fundamentalistic, the Christian's faith the more this is true. But the fear is almost universally denied by Christians. They cannot admit this fear to themselves for to admit it is to
be unsure of one's salvation, a sin. If it weren't for biblical fear the fantastic and unreal hope would soon loose its ability to create an emotional fix. Like any addiction, it's not so much that one feels better with the drug
than that one feels terrible without it. The grand promises made by the Bible fail in this life and need reinterpretation. The next life is too distant and
and the expectations for it, while grandiose, are vague and murky. For the faith fix to work continually it must work against and suppress a fear inspired by the very same Bible. The Christians created a problem, sin and damnation, and then they sold the cure.---- Norman Doering

Any thinking person can see that you are motivated by irrational fear and fundies are all alike in that they are people with low self esteem that use their religion to create a false sense of self value.; July 4, 2008 7:17 PM
Atheists know everything ! said...: Wee wrote:
"That makes two unpleasant beings that we don't know ain't there."
...................
Look in the mirror Wee.
Are you there?

You will not see yourself if you approach the mirror
from the WRONG ANGLE.

It's easy to not see the TRUTH by
approaching it in a way as to avoid it.; July 4, 2008 7:19 PM
Lauren said...: That was an awesome answer. *big grin*; July 4, 2008 7:27 PM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: This all seems so...familiar! It's like I keep hearing the same thing, over and over again, and every time I realize that it's chock-full of logical fallacies!

How many different themes do you guys think that Ray actually has? Off the top of my head, I'd say about five - and everything he writes is a variation on that.

Let's see:

1. Smart people believe in God, ergo, God is real.

2. Atheists profess absolute knowledge.

3. I know that God is real because the Bible reveals Himself to me.

4. You can't trust science.

5. Good things prove that there's a God; bad things prove that this is a sin-cursed world.

Is that about it? Anything else? It's all pretty much those points, but with variations on them.

BTW, atheists and skeptics, I have begun linking your blogs to my own - I have a few of you on there now, but I know I gotta get some more of you as well. I wish I could have you all over for some homebrews - I'd even invite Ray, but I don't think he drinks beer. I can make root beer though - I've done it before and it's pretty good.; July 4, 2008 8:22 PM
keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...: Amen Brother!

The secular world changes its beliefs and speculations like the wind changes direction. Without knowing it, they are influenced by the prince of this world.

What do I do when Satan attacks?

Be careful! Watch out for attacks from the Devil, your great enemy. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for some victim to devour. Take a firm stand against him, and be strong in your faith. Remember that your Christian brothers and sisters all over the world are going through the same kind of suffering you are.

1 Peter 5:8-9 NLT

So humble yourselves before God. Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. Draw close to God, and God will draw close to you.
James 4:7-8 NLT

You get the Truth of Salvation from 'Hells Best Kept Secret' video on my blogs or website!

God Bless! Happy 4th of July!!!; July 4, 2008 8:44 PM
keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...: Ray said, "You don’t know if Hell is a reality. All you have is your beliefs (faith) that God and Hell don’t exist."

Amen Brother! It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in the religion of atheism and scientology!

Man's arrogant mind fabricating a religion about us being descendants of space clams from outer space. Sci-Fi gone Mad!!!

Maybe I should be more careful about eating clams? oysters? lol; July 4, 2008 9:24 PM
Stephanie Michelle said...: I really enjoy your ministry but I must ask, are you against vegatrianism? Do you believe it is a sin not to eat meat?; July 4, 2008 9:32 PM
theShaggy said...: Well that post made no sense.; July 4, 2008 9:34 PM
Steven J. said...: Okay, so you can be sure you're not deluded, hallucinating, or simply misinterpreting the data because the Bible tells you so (on your interpretation of the Bible). I mean, it's not as though you might be wrong about the meaning, or the accuracy, of the Bible (or, indeed, about the very existence of the Bible -- after all, if we can't be sure that the sky is blue, just because we've seen it, and measured the wavelengths of light it scatters, how can you be sure that the Bible exists, just because you've seen it?

It still seems to me that your entire epistemology and apologetics comes down to insisting that your own subjective impressions cannot possibly be anything except objective facts. You believe the Bible exists and says what you think it says, and is inerrant and perfect, so it must be so. Of course, the same basis exists for the certainty of the Islamist Muslim, the Vedic Hindu, and probably the Raelians, to name just a few.

By the way, earlier generations of Christians, including the founders of Protestant Christianity, did insist -- and cite prooftexts to support their view -- that the sun orbited the Earth. A century ago, the prevalent interpretation of Revelation among evangelical Christians saw it as a panoramic overview of history, with most of the events described in it in our past, not our future. This view has been replaced by various futurist and premillenialist views. And I have mentioned elsewhere how 19th century Christians were on both sides of the debate over slavery. It seems to me that a worldview founded on the unchanging Word of God seems, nonetheless, to allow for quite about of being blown about by winds of ever-changing philosophy.; July 4, 2008 9:40 PM
Ann R. Key said...: "The Scriptures give us insight into the mind of God."

You don't know that for a fact do you Ray?; July 4, 2008 9:46 PM
Michael said...: As Todd would say, Well said Ray!

How can athiests make fun of us for believing in God, when they believe in evolution?? I kind of admire athiests though...they have more faith than I do. Fancy that :)

Happy 4th of July!!; July 4, 2008 9:48 PM
JSK said...: For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality. That’s why knowing God is such a wonderful thing.

You're saying that you can know you're not insane because you heard God's voice telling you you were sane? I hate to break it to you, Ray, but....; July 4, 2008 9:54 PM
EmpiricalGod said...: Ray

I don't know if the person who you quoted sees himself as a professional 'strong atheist'. That certainly doesn't apply to everyone who visits your blog, and i do not see myself as such.

Regardless, getting back to the content of your blog entry. You seem to have followed down a similar path that Descartes wrote of when he asked what am i certain of, and when he arrived at his now famous statement "Cogito, ergo sum" ,(I think, therefore I am). That was his axiom of certainly. He arrived at that conclusion by the self-evidence of the proposition.

You said the following "For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality."

Ray you seem to propose that the Bible is that axiom of truth, and hence you can prove that lepricons and other creators are not real. But you never have showed us how you came to that conclusion, because it certainly is not self-evident proposition.

Just as you have attributed the above statement for atheists, doesn't it also apply to yourself?
What if your reality is twisted , have you ever questioned that?

What if the devil is the deceiver who wrote the bible? He dressed it in some colorful moral laws, and apparent instructions how to please God. However the real way to please God and get to heaven would be to do 10 star-jumps every day? Your apparent certainly of God crumbles as soon as i apply the same skeptical claims you propose.; July 4, 2008 10:42 PM
C Diddy said...: Wow, my 2nd post here and I'm chosen for an entry by Ray. I feel honored to get such a direct response.

What it really comes down to is empirical evidence. You can define belief however you wish. You can define atheist however you wish. You can throw the wager of Pascal at me all day. You can point to the gaps in the evidence for evolution, for the Big Bang Theory, whatever you wish.

At the end of the day, there is simply no reason to believe in the God of the Bible. There is no evidence for it.

By the way, here's some food for thought for Ray and all the other Christians out there:

Had any of you been born in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, etc, there is nearly a 100% chance that you would be Muslim, and no amount of free will given to you from Jesus would prevent that. You would be doomed to Hell strictly because your parents lived in the wrong country.

Think about that the next time you picture your God as all-loving and merciful. If He exists like you say He does, He is allowing millions of souls to go to Hell because they were born into a nation that does not believe in Him.

How do you justify this?; July 4, 2008 11:21 PM
Antme said...: To atheists:

Are you guys trying to save Christians from themselves? Why does it seem like you guys want us to be atheists? Is it because you believe you are right and we are wrong?

How do you know you are right? Surely you must have something to persuade us?

The only thing I ever got is "you are probably to dumb to understand this" and then "atheism is an intellectual position...we just don't know how the universe started or how the first life ever existed."; July 4, 2008 11:42 PM
(ShiVeR)Curtis said...: Ray, I love you, but the comments from unbelievers is making me sick. I know it's just in their nature, and I know it's going to get alot worse, but to be honest I'd rather they attack me directly than to hear them again, and again blaspheme God without a care. I think it's more about the sadness I feel for them knowing what they are storing up for themselves.

I think it would be beneficial for the unbelievers to hear this clip.
--------------------------
--------------------------
Goto YouTube and search for:Copy/Paste
--------------------------
Paul Washer Sermon Jam 3 - The Reality of Judgment
--------------------------
--------------------------
It's only 6 min of your life, at least hear the truth we try to give you, clearly, biblically, the hard truth.

I will pray for you all this weekend with my wife. May God bless you and reveal Himself to you.; July 4, 2008 11:43 PM
(ShiVeR)Curtis said...: weemaryanne said...
"And you don't know that there's no crazed assassin stalking you with a sniper rifle.

That makes two unpleasant beings that we don't know ain't there.

I'll start praying to yours on the day when you post a photo of a receipt that reads "One Kevlar vest and Army helmet, paid in full.""

I have a helmet, and I can get the use of a vest, will that do?

Don't bother.; July 4, 2008 11:45 PM
Chris said...: Ray, understanding based on evidence is not faith.

And please explain how you claim to have knowledge there's a God.

You could be insane, living in a Godless universe, and just think there is a God. In fact, that's likely the case (although insanity isn't required, you're just mistaken). Explain how you can be sure of anything.

As a professing Christian, you' can't be sure of anything. You don't know there is a God. You don't know if Hell is a reality. All you have is your beliefs (faith) that God and Hell exist. You have faith in what you believe. You can't be sure Jesus existed (he didn't), or that the Israelites were ever in Egypt (they weren't). You don't know if the faith you feel is the same as another Christian feels.... For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality. That's why evidence is such a wonderful thing. It's because you can use it to figure out how the universe works, and to determine the likelihood of the existance of leprechauns.

Science gives us insight into the workings of the universe. Through evidence and rational thought, we can know reality. Without the solid foundation of rational thought and a desire for reality, you will be blown towards the pit of a stagnant corrupt dogma.; July 5, 2008 3:34 AM
Iago said...: And Ray all you have is faith that what you believe is true also.
I will not argue about mattersd of faith, however when you say that you have solid proof that changes the game entirely. Proof denies faith.; July 5, 2008 4:01 AM
captain howdy said...: @Ray--

The Scriptures give us insight into the mind of God. Through them we can know absolute truth. We can know reality. We have what the Bible calls "an anchor for the soul."

````````

That's just silly, Sye--sorry, I mean Ray. You really think your religion allows you this kind of certainty about reality? How do you know that's a Bible you're reading? How do you know you're really not holding The Satanic Verses instead? What--Christians can't hallucinate?

Besides, the Bible is verifiably wrong about so much. According to your holy book--the fountain of all wisdom according to you--the sun actually moves across the sky. According to your holy book, a young bride deserves to be stoned to death if she doesn't bleed on her wedding night, because if she didn't bleed--why, then she must be a whore! But people have known for years that a fall while still a young girl can also result in a failure to bleed after her first copulation, so just because the young bride in question didn't bleed doesn't necessarily mean she's a whore.

You'd think the deity that created all women in the first place would know that. Why do you suppose he got that wrong? How many innocent young women were stoned to death that way? Do you think we should resume that barbaric practice?

Not that you're actually going to answer, of course.; July 5, 2008 4:36 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: Ray,

Christians don't know anything for 'sure'. Only we muslims do as Allah has revealed the truth to us.

Dumb dumb dumb, the stupid on here burns sometimes.; July 5, 2008 4:56 AM
Andrew Douglas said...: It's honestly very difficult to take you seriously, Mr. Comfort. The things you say are so ludicrous sometimes.

If we can't be sure that rocks are indeed "hard". How can we be absolutely 100% sure that God does in fact exist?
How is an old book written by a few dozen people more inherently true than, for example, generations of people who all (with I would assume a few exceptions) agree that rocks do in fact have the property we know as "hard"?
If your assuredness of God comes not from The Bible, but instead from personal experience, how do you know that your personal experience reflects truth? If it's your idea that God is evident from "Creation" why do so many people differ in their perceptions? Certainly more people think that rocks are "hard" than Creation reveals God.

I really am genuinely curious as to how you think on this subject.; July 5, 2008 5:55 AM
Sye TenB said...: @ wee

The difference is wee, that the non-existence of a crazed assassin does not undermine logic, whereas the non-existence of God would.

How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?

Cheers,

Sye; July 5, 2008 6:37 AM
DisComforting Ignorance said...: Unless you own slaves and would demand 50 shekels of silver and a wedding when a man rapes your virgin daughter, then I don't want to hear about the "solid foundation" of the Bible or how secular philosophy is "ever changing."; July 5, 2008 7:47 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 8:08 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 8:10 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 8:12 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 8:13 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 8:18 AM
NaFa said...: Lance Johnson..."I wish I could have you all over for some homebrews - I'd even invite Ray, but I don't think he drinks beer. I can make root beer though - I've done it before and it's pretty good."

Cool. Will you finally then answer the most important question of them all - "So, what are your thoughts on abortion?" ;); July 5, 2008 8:26 AM
get_education said...: antme,

Well, somehow Ray invites us into these discussions. For me it started with witnessing his lies and trickery on that infamous video about evolution. Hum, nope, it started with Kirk at the O'Reilly, then the debate, then discovering that video. So, I was furious because misrepresentations and trickery are not supposed to be used by a Christian, right? I felt it quite offensive because it is an abuse of your trust on someone who declares to be representing you, or helping you "spread the word" somehow, or whatever the apparent leadership Ray represents.

Then, each time I see a post, I find them so misinformed. Then often the Christians help with more misinformation (most probably not out of hypocrisy, but actual trust on the lies given to you by someone else), and so on, that I cannot resist but to give my open opinion. (I really did not want to mess up with beliefs in God, just to fight against the misrepresentation of science and scientific facts, but then the misrepresentations and ignorance of so many other aspects convinced me that sometimes things have to be put in the proper perspective. Little by little I see why Dawkins is so adamant about the "religion problem.")

So, if you are truly looking for answers, there is plenty of good answers here, especially by Steven J. Just look around.

G.E.; July 5, 2008 8:28 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 8:29 AM
AllFiredUp said...: cutting and pasting dale? You're not original either.; July 5, 2008 9:40 AM
Cynthia said...: "dale said...
The problem for Jesus is that all these deities are much older than him. You don't have to be very bright to see where the authors of the Gospels got their "devine inspiration" when they created the Jewish version of the popular God-Man/ World-Saviour of Antiquity."

Reply:
Of course they are older than Jesus. God sent Jesus because of one of the sins of worshipping other gods. He would hardly have done it before the sin.; July 5, 2008 9:49 AM
Cynthia said...: "(ShiVeR)Curtis said...
Ray, I love you, but the comments from unbelievers is making me sick. I know it's just in their nature, and I know it's going to get alot worse, but to be honest I'd rather they attack me directly than to hear them again, and again blaspheme God without a care. I think it's more about the sadness I feel for them knowing what they are storing up for themselves."

Reply:
I agree. Sometimes I have to just skip over what the regulars write..and I cringe for them when I do read them. Too sad to bear sometimes.; July 5, 2008 9:53 AM
AllFiredUp said...: Dale those very old arguments have been axed long ago. You're really behind the times.

Here, I'll do some cut and paste of a few rebuttals to that old alleged copying of Christians from mythology which is pretty lame argument - because Christianity is rooted in Jewish history which predates many Greek and Roman mythology.

Christianity is from Judaism which is very very old. Many religions copy from Judaism, including the Babylonians, since they captured the Jews and took in their religion.

"Because Mithra worship is hailed as the pagan Roman Empire’s final state religion, many excavated cave-like temples have been found throughout what was the Roman Empire during the first through fifth centuries (notably, Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa.) Because the military people were its basic adherents, it went where they did.

The Roman Mithraic mystery religion claimed to have its origin in Persia where, in the 6th century BCE, a prophet named Zarathustra (Zoroaster in Greek) undertook the reformation of the polytheistic religion practiced at the time, by elevating Ahura-Mazda, god of the skies, and Ahriman, god of darkness, and placing the myriad other gods under them. One of the members of this pantheon of gods was Mithras, named the ‘judger of souls’. He became the divine representative of Ahura-Mazda on earth and was directed to protect the righteous from the demonic forces of Ahriman. Mithras was called omniscient, undeceivable, infallible, eternally watchful and never-resting. The name ‘Mithra’ means ‘contract’ and Mithra’s divine duty was to ensure general prosperity through good contractual relations between men.

It should be noted that occurring contemporary to this reformation were the Babylonian captivity of the Jews (597 BCE) and their later emancipation by Cyrus the Great of Persia (538 BCE). While some hold that the Jews were influenced by the Persians to create the ‘Satan’ figure, my observation is that perhaps the Persians (specifically Zoroaster) were influenced by Jewish thought to create a hierarchical system out of their gods, obviously bringing about a dualism, but ultimately having one really “good” guy, Ahura-Mazda, on top of the pile.

Zoroaster also incorporated the expectation of a savior, who was to be a god incarnated into human form. It is believed by most scholars that the three magi following the star to Bethlehem were looking for Zoroaster’s predicted savior. Persian tradition, however, says that Mithras was actually born in Persia to Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation, and that he ascended into heaven in 208 BCE, 64 years after his birth.

When Christianity was being birthed into the pagan Roman Empire, it was Mithras who was being worshipped by the military and also by many businessmen (because of the ‘contract’ aspect of blessing). In fact, from 67-70 CE, the legio XV Apollionaris, took part in suppressing the uprising of the Jews in Palestine. After sacking and burning the second Temple and capturing the Ark of the Covenant, they offered sacrifices to Mithras on the banks of the Danube River along with new troops from Turkey. By 200 CE the Roman Emperors were claiming to be divine and Nero actually claimed to be the reincarnation of Mithras. But after Constantine, Emperor from 306-337 CE converted in 312, Christianity was made the state religion and all emperors following him were openly hostile to Mithraism.

While there are some seemingly parallel practices (offering sacrifices, purification rituals, a life seeking good and resisting evil, life after death), the differences are many and definitive (a men-only religion, celibacy, seven levels of initiation, preexistence of the soul, use of hallucinogenic drink with sacrifice, secret ceremonies, passwords and handshakes).

Mithraism is not Christianity, nor did its practices lead to Christian practices--unlike Jewish practices that were given new meaning/fulfilled/explained by Jesus/Christianity.

And while there are some seemingly parallel traits in the lives of Jesus and Mithra (male, celibate, born of a virgin mother, saving by shedding of blood), the differences are many and definitive (born of the virgin Anahita who swam in a lake where Zoroaster (a prophet, not God) had left sperm 400 years earlier vs. born of a virgin of the line of David by the Holy Spirit of God Himself according to prophecy, shedding the blood of a bull rather than his own blood, ascension rather than death and resurrection).

The god Mithra is not the god-man Jesus, nor did Jesus’ “story” copy that of Mithra—unlike Jewish messianic prophecy that was fulfilled by Jesus. Christianity is of Judaic origin, not Mithraic origin.

Regarding the Roman Mithraic mystery religion, Ron Nash in “From Christianity and the Hellenistic World” says, “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least in its early stages…During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook…Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians. “

In summary, the Christian faith rests on the belief in the resurrection of Christ, His victory over sin and the grave, and the hope of believers in the redeeming work of Christ for salvation. Because there is no death and resurrection of Mithra in whatever scanty information there is about the “old” Mithraic religion, and nothing about a death and resurrection in the Roman Empire era of the religion, we have no choice other than to draw the conclusion that there is no connection whatsoever about the number one, most critically important doctrine of the Christian church (i.e., the resurrection) and the story of Mithra.

In the end Christianity swallowed up Mithraism—most probably because the nearness of the people to the historicity of Jesus proved compelling and real. His claims and those of his followers met the needs of those who practiced mystery religion, and while based on the ancient morality of Judaism, were contemporary and more meaningful to all people."
(Does Christ’s Resurrection Story Originate in Mithraism? - Judy Williams)

And CARM

"Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence.
Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology?
First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.
There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed."

As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.
Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense.
At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."1

What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

____________
1. R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World" as quoted in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler; Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1999, p. 492.
2. Wilson, Bill, compiled by; The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense; Nashville, Tenn., Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1993, p. 167.

(CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

NEXT!; July 5, 2008 9:54 AM
AllFiredUp said...: Another cut and paste refutation of the old argument that dale brought up hoping to once and for all rid the world of Christianity.

Sorry dale, that argument is debunked big time, has been for years.

"Question: "Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?"

Answer: Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, i.e. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600-500 BC. If that were the case, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 BC. If that were the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars) and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th Century BC) doesn’t mention him in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroaster; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster).

But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th Century AD. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th Century AD).

This looks to me to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.

All philosophical arguments aside, we know that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, that He fulfilled specific prophecies written and preserved hundreds of years before His life, that He died on a cross, and that He was reported to have risen from the dead and interacted with men and women who were willing to suffer horribly and die for this testimony." (Got Questions - Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?); July 5, 2008 10:00 AM
Antme said...: I just thought I'd let everyone know I am South African, so if my English suck, I apologize. My first language is Afrikaans :); July 5, 2008 10:00 AM
keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...: @ Lance,

"Good things prove that there's a God; bad things prove that this is a sin-cursed world."

You are starting to get the idea !
Read that Bible and you will continue to learn more as you open your heart to God.

God Bless! Have a Great Weekend! :)

'hellsbestkeptsecret'; July 5, 2008 10:05 AM
AllFiredUp said...: Stephanie Michelle said...

"I really enjoy your ministry but I must ask, are you against vegatrianism? Do you believe it is a sin not to eat meat?"

Stephanie this will help.

Romans 14

1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

2 man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.

8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

11 It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "

12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

If you don't want to eat meat, that's totally up to you and is not a sin. Nor is it a sin for me to eat meat.

What IS a sin is for you to judge me and tell me that I'm wrong for eating meat, and for me to judge you for not eating meat and tell you that you are sinning.

This is just the case with things like this, we are not talking about sins against God's moral commandments.; July 5, 2008 10:10 AM
Steven J. said...: Sye TenB replied to weemaryanne,

The difference is wee, that the non-existence of a crazed assassin does not undermine logic, whereas the non-existence of God would.

How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?

It seems to me that universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic are logically prior to individual Beings. That is, every argument about God assumes that He has some nature of His own: that some things are consistently true about Him, and others consistently false, and that He maintains some (actually, most Christian theologians would say "perfect") continuity in His goals, motives, and methods. But this implies that God is Himself subject to laws of logic: that He cannot be both one thing and another at the same time, or both exist and not exist at the same time, or contradict himself at any one time.

In other words, we need to assume that logic and consistency hold to just assume that God isn't suddenly and for no reason going to turn into Satan, or a penguin.

That is, we can have logic apart from God, but not God (or any other being or thing) apart from logic. And, of course, if we can grant a preexistent, eternal Being that has both internal logic and personality and limitless power, then there seems no logical difficulty in assuming that just the internal consistency and logic exist, and that everything else is contingent and gradually emergent.; July 5, 2008 10:47 AM
Sye TenB said...: Wow Ray,

I just heard you on Drew Comfort's radio show up here in Canada. Thanks so much for your message. My heart aches for the mixed up message I all too often hear on his show. We have a lot of work to do. Thanks for taking the time to point people in the right direction.

Blessings,

Sye; July 5, 2008 11:29 AM
Atomic Chimp said...: Excellent series of posts Dale!

I'd love to see a reply from Ray or his minions on these Messiahs. So far no one has been brave enough, but I suspect they are too confused at this point to have concocted some flawed logic to supports their delusion.

Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp; July 5, 2008 12:14 PM
Atomic Chimp said...: Steven J. Said,"It seems to me that a worldview founded on the unchanging Word of God seems, nonetheless, to allow for quite about of being blown about by winds of ever-changing philosophy."

Well said Steven! I've tried to make this same point before but not as clear and concise as you'd stated it!

Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp; July 5, 2008 12:18 PM
Atomic Chimp said...: Sye TenB said,"The difference is wee, that the non-existence of a crazed assassin does not undermine logic, whereas the non-existence of God would."

Maybe in your bias view of the world but what evidence do you have to support that this applies to the real world.

Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp; July 5, 2008 12:26 PM
keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...: Poor atheists, the answers are all in the Holy Bible, but your secular reasoning keeps you from the Truth! Open your heart to Jesus Christ, pray to Him, and He will provide the Way to Salvation.

"It was the message 'Hell's Best Kept Secret' that set me on fire to evangelize the world. I wouldn't be where I am or who I am today without God having spoken to me through that message. I spent 3 years doing non-stop tract and personal evangelism from the time I first heard the message at 15 years of age until I left to go to Peru and China in 2002 after graduating from high school. I have now been a missionary for about 5 years . . . in the foothills of Tibet ministering to Buddhists and Muslims. I have prayed and longed for the day that 'Hell's Best Kept Secret' would no longer be the secret that it once was, and I am overjoyed to see all that God has done and is still doing!!!!" -- Eugene West

Watch the video on my blogs or webpage. The Power of prayer should never be underestimated, please pray with me for the athesits and and non-believers that frequent this blog.

Thank you! :) God Bless!!!; July 5, 2008 2:18 PM
life unobstructed said...: Sye,

You are trying it again and this time on a woman. Repent of your foolish ineptitude and for mocking your Creator. You claim to be a Christian, but as a Christian I tell you that you are an embarrassment to Christianity.; July 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Michael said...: I'VE GOT A PROPOSAL ATHEISTS!

since you guys want us to become atheists SOO bad that you're willing to hang out on a Christian blog, then all us Christians will become atheists if you do one thing:

Read the Bible all the way through, cover to cover, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Come back, and if you're still an atheist, then we'll become atheists too!!

IF you are not willing to do this, then go hang out on an evolution forum, where everyone can agree with you.

maybe the forum will go through an evolutionary break through and evolve into a blog better than Ray's. haha... that would be awesome; July 5, 2008 3:52 PM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 4:37 PM
David said...: moral problems all of this is insulting, critizing,and other things are just moral problems with the law of Almighty God. Go ahead and run from God and try to hide and say he doesn't exist but that dont change reality.You'll still have to face him on judgement day and on that day when you stand before a holy God you will finally Bow on your knees and tremble and give an account of every idle word spoken.all your sins will lie before you everytime you have lied, stolen, commited adultery, fornicated, murdered, coveted, stolen, raped.

Will he have Mercy then? He's already sent his son to die on the cross for your sins and if you reject Jesus sacrifice than how could he have mercy?

You who seek to justify yourselves do you enjoy people lying to you? stealing off you, how bout someone murdering your family members? can you tolerate a murderer? Than how will God look over your offenses whatever they may be? big or small makes no difference. except you repent of your sins and trust in Jesus christ to save you from your sins you will also perish into everlasting fire. Dont think hell will be bad? take a cigarette lighter or match and hold the small flame to your arm, if cant handle that tiny little flame how can you handle a eternity of nothing but fire and weeping?; July 5, 2008 4:54 PM
Benjamin Franklin said...: Whether you are a professing Christian or not, you can’t be "sure" of anything. You don’t "know" that there is a God or not. You don’t "know" if Hell is a reality or not. All you have is your beliefs (faith) that God and Hell do exist, or not.

You don’t know for certain that the blue or the red that you see is actually the same colors that others see.

What you have come to believe generally comes from the beliefs of your parents and community, instilled in you from childhood. But, for all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality.

The Scriptures don't really give us insight into the mind of God. They were written by men who proclaimed them to be divine "revelations". Because they were just written by men they can only purport to teach absolute truth.

Perhaps we can't "know" reality, but we can certainly perceive it, and base a wonderful life on those perceived realities without the need for personal deities or devils, and certainly without any need of religion and superstitions.; July 5, 2008 5:49 PM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: Nafa wrote:

Cool. Will you finally then answer the most important question of them all - "So, what are your thoughts on abortion?" ;)

You find me a crockaduck and you have yourself a deal!; July 5, 2008 5:52 PM
Benjamin Franklin said...: Whether you are a professing Christian or not, you can’t be "sure" of anything. You don’t "know" that there is a God or not. You don’t "know" if Hell is a reality or not. All you have is your beliefs (faith) that God and Hell do exist, or not.

You don’t know for certain that the blue or the red that you see is actually the same colors that others see.

What you have come to believe generally comes from the beliefs of your parents and community, instilled in you from childhood. But, for all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality.

The Scriptures don't really give us insight into the mind of God. They were written by men who proclaimed them to be divine "revelations". Because they were just written by men they can only purport to teach absolute truth.

Perhaps we can't "know" reality, but we can certainly perceive it, and base a wonderful life on those perceived realities without the need for personal deities or devils, and certainly without any need of religion and superstitions.; July 5, 2008 6:03 PM
Sye TenB said...: Ray,

Of course I meant, Drew Marshall, not Drew Comfort. He only wishes :-)

Blessings,

Sye; July 5, 2008 6:19 PM
The Ranting Student said...: Michael said...
I'VE GOT A PROPOSAL ATHEISTS!

since you guys want us to become atheists SOO bad that you're willing to hang out on a Christian blog, then all us Christians will become atheists if you do one thing:

Read the Bible all the way through, cover to cover, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Come back, and if you're still an atheist, then we'll become atheists too!!

IF you are not willing to do this, then go hang out on an evolution forum, where everyone can agree with you.

maybe the forum will go through an evolutionary break through and evolve into a blog better than Ray's. haha... that would be awesome

Already have. And I've asked God to reveal himself plenty of times.

Still nothing.

So, I guess you have to welcome us now huh.

Now, go earn a Masters in Science degree, study biology, archeology, anthropology... And then come back. If you're still Christian, you're welcomed. If you're not, you're still welcomed[because I am tolerant of different beliefs, and don't discriminate, and this is Ray's blog, not mine].

Please do so, your understanding of evolution is worse than Ray's.; July 5, 2008 6:21 PM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 6:31 PM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 5, 2008 6:34 PM
get_education said...: Michael,

Do not bet that high, besides it is foolish to bet, and besides it would be considered a sin by your religion, you would loose. How do I know? Well, you would be surprised, but I read the story of one atheist here who told us all about his trying to do exactly as you said and emerged an atheist anyway. I would be another example. When my reason started me doubting hard, well, I tried to get back by your formula. To no avail.

(I am talking about you all becoming atheists if we read the Bible asking God to reveal to us, and after that we are still atheists.)

(By the way, thanks dale for those references. Obviously Christians have heard those before and invented excuses about other religions stealing their stuff, as AllFiredUp revealed.)

David,

"Dont think hell will be bad? take a cigarette lighter or match and hold the small flame to your arm, if cant handle that tiny little flame how can you handle a eternity of nothing but fire and weeping?"

Well, if you think Jesus paid for our sins by the crucifixion and whipping, and those torments, and compare that suffering to billions of people passing eternity in hell, it does not match well. A more proper comparison might give each of us, maybe, a few pico-seconds of roasting.

Now seriously, the reason not to believe is, well, reason, that is why nobody (on the skeptical side) is worried at all about these hell things. The "what if you are wrong?" Just won't cut it.

G.E.; July 5, 2008 7:11 PM
Sye TenB said...: Life unobstructed said: "You are trying it again and this time on a woman.

Well, unlike you, I do not want to see women go to hell either, and I therefore challenge their Godless worldviews, whereas you do nada.

Cheers,

Sye; July 5, 2008 7:16 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: "There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God, therefore there is no God."

1. You are claiming knowledge of a universal negative. Please prove that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. (You'd have to be omniscient to know this, the very characteristic which you deny exists).

2. Even if there was no empirical evidence, how in any way does this mean that their is no God??? It's like the child that is mad at his father, who pulls the sheets over his head and says: "I can't see you daddy, so you don't exist."

Your 'logic' is pathetic.

Cheers,

Sye; July 5, 2008 7:22 PM
Sye TenB said...: @Dale,

Wow 11 posts. Methinks thou dost protest too much :-)

By the way Dale, how do you account for the logic you are attempting to use to refute the Christian worldview? :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 5, 2008 7:26 PM
get_education said...: Seems like there is a need for as shortened version of my answer to this post, and the previous about the atheist needing absolute knowledge to deny God:

By this logic, denying any imaginary thing would always be impossible without absolute knowledge. However, since we know that imaginary things do not exist we do not need absolute knowledge to deny God's existence, all we need is to look at the evidence of imaginary gods all over human history and prehistory to conclude this abrahamic God is also imaginary. Again, otherwise we would have to declare agnosticism of all of the other gods, and of anything that we can imagine to exist. Such proposition of comprehensive / exhaustive agnosticism does not make any sense. Case closed, no need for atheists to be "agnostic." We do not need teapots orbiting Mars to come to this conclusion. Do we?

(No, I am not tired of the teapot argument, I just think we need to explain things in many ways. But agreed, repetition is also a good educational tool.)

G.E.; July 5, 2008 8:07 PM
Vox Veritas said...: dale,

It looks like you've either been watching too much of Brian Flemming's non-sense or you've been reading entirely too much of Rook Hawkins fabricated "evidence" against a historical Jesus. Then again, maybe you've done some original research. Either way, you should read more, try actually engaging some theologians and scholars who have embarrassed your "jesus myth" claims. There are dozens: Strobel, McDowell, J.P. Moreland, Mark D. Roberts, J.P. Holding (tekton), et al. Isn't it convenient that when an atheist doesn't like history, he just decides to revise it. An old and tired trick indeed.

allfiredup,

Love your thorough research, Lord bless you.; July 5, 2008 8:20 PM
Sye TenB said...: get_education said: "By this logic, denying any imaginary thing would always be impossible without absolute knowledge."

Please prove that imaginary things do not exist.

However, since we know that imaginary things do not exist

How do you know that imaginary things do not exist?

we do not need absolute knowledge to deny God's existence

Please prove that God is imaginary.

Your question begging is tiresome.

Cheers,

Sye; July 5, 2008 8:30 PM
stranger.strange.land said...: "I've read the Bible... Yes, the whole thing,... It didn't work."

Or maybe it worked only too well. In fact it always does. Those who reject it are hardened in their hearts, and are confirmed in their unbelief. The hearts of those who receive it are softened. They accept God's judgement of them, then they receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Works every time, one way or the other.

Craig; July 5, 2008 11:56 PM
EmpiricalGod said...: @michael

You wrote "Read the Bible all the way through, cover to cover, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Come back, and if you're still an atheist, then we'll become atheists too!!"

Michael a lot of non-christians have read the bible from cover to cover. If i was an evangelical christian i would actually deter people from reading a lot of the Old testament. It is the best way to turn any person away from the christian faith. The genocides, incest, senseless killings, and the atrocities committed by God with his never ceasing wrath will surely put off any new reader. Unless you are so deep into it, you best not even mention the OT.

Can a person ask God to reveal Himself to us as a corporeal figure that will appear in my lounge room? Instead of the subjective voice that speaks in a persons head, which strangely resembles my own personal thoughts.; July 6, 2008 12:02 AM
stranger.strange.land said...: @ life unobstructed

Just out of curiosity, are you friends with Dale?

Craig; July 6, 2008 6:05 AM
chris said...: “what you believe. You can't be sure Jesus existed (he didn't), or that the Israelites were ever in Egypt (they weren't).”

Oh Chris,
Catch up with the argument. In circles of scholars now they argue if Jesus is who He says He is. Josephus writes reference to Jesus in his book. Though it was done after Christ’s ministry on earth he probably had heard from those who saw it first hand.

Also I found this article. Does anyone know anymore than this one article?
Digging out the truth of Exodus
By Helen Fields
Posted 10/12/03
Egyptologist Manfred Bietak was reading a 60-year-old report of a dig near Luxor in Egypt when a surprising find caught his eye. Near a mortuary temple from the 12th century B.C., archaeologists had uncovered a grid of shallow trenches, which they guessed was the base of a workers' hut. Bietak, head of the Institute of Egyptology at Vienna University, recognized the floor plan as that of the four-room houses used by almost all Israelites from the 12th to the sixth century B.C. What was it doing in Egypt? If Bietak is right, the trenches could be the first physical evidence for the Bible story of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt.
You will have to google it for the rest of the article. I wrote this post once before but I forgot and added a link.
Pastor Chris; July 6, 2008 7:37 AM
Reynold said...: Sye TenB said...

get_education said: "By this logic, denying any imaginary thing would always be impossible without absolute knowledge."

Please prove that imaginary things do not exist.
Wrong. Prove that they do exist. Do you believe in mermaids, centaurs, unicorns, Sye? To be consistent, you'd kind of have to.

However, since we know that imaginary things do not exist

How do you know that imaginary things do not exist?
When's the last time you saw a unicorn, or an angel for that matter? Once again, you're shifting the burden of proof. Imagine someone of another religion asking that question.

we do not need absolute knowledge to deny God's existence

Please prove that God is imaginary.
Well, ignoring that you're shifting the burden of proof...Biblical contradictons, mistakes, failed prophecies, etc? Try looking at the messiahtruth dot com site, Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies, try reading a few books like The Bible Unearthed, etc. They sure cast doubt on the infallibility of the bible, and therefore on the existence of your "God".

Your question begging is tiresome.
Look who's talking, Sye. You're the one making the claim that your god exists, you're the one who has to back it up.

Shifting the burden of proof gains you nothing.

What would you do if a Muslim was saying to you to disprove the existence of his god?; July 6, 2008 7:42 AM
Reynold said...: Well, it looks like my reply to Sye on "the atheist worldview" post didn't get through...I'll post it here; it's as relevent as anything else...

-----

Ok, on to SyeTen' "rebuttal" which I think is in this post...

Sye TenB said...

@Reynold

Alright, you said:”Bottom line, your religion can not take credit for the scientific method or the uniformity one sees in nature.”

I asked you to prove that statement and you responded with:

”Again, though you dismissed it: other religions and non religions in the old world observed and made discoveries before your religion came along. I can't help that you don't like my answer.”

It is one thing to disagree with my position, it is quite another to change it. God has existed for eternity, and is indeed beyond time, and therefore nothing existed before ‘my religion.’ Your statement was that ‘my religion’ cannot ‘take credit for the uniformity of nature,’ you have yet to prove your point.
Before I "have to prove my point", why don't you try showing that your deity actually has existed for eternity? You've got a few assumptions that you have to prove first! Until then, I'm fully justified in saying that other cultures have come up with rules of science before your religion came along. They could just as well ask the same thing of you and accuse you of "vicously circular reasoning", which is what you are doing when you just blindly assert, without proof that your diety is the one who's always existed.

I've pointed out before (and you keep sidestepping) that we don't need any diety for the laws of logic to exist. They're discoverable by man. They work, that's that.

Let's see: you want US to account for why the laws of nature don't just keep changing willy-nilly? Is that it?

Yip
Easy. Observation, inductive reasoning and we don't have to factor in some deity who can change the laws of nature around on a whim. You do! That's the question we should be asking of theists.

We don't need any deity for that; if anything, we'd only need to use a deity to explain something if the laws of nature were not consistent! … …Again, observation and inductive reasoning.

How do you know that your observations, the reasoning with which you interpret them, and the inductive method are valid?
Unlike, say, prayer, it's been shown to work. What other criteria does one need?

What makes you think that the laws of nature are not uniform?

I don’t think that, but I can account for their uniformity, whereas you can’t.
Wrong. You worship a being who can change the laws of nature on a whim, and according the the Bible, he has. You can't account for uniformity, we can to a degree better than you. We don't have any super being who can change them around.

”Observation and inductive thinking are on our side. What can you do to disprove it”

I’m not saying that they are not valid, I am simply asking you to account for their validity according to YOUR worldview.
Done. They work, observations are consistent, we're able to learn more and more about the world around us.

That's more than "divine revelation"'s ever done, or do you think the bible has the instructions for satellites and computers in it?

As well consider that if our senses weren't valid, how could we have done this? Isn't it one huge coincidence that people are able to WORK TOGETHER to build things with "invalid senses"?

The fact that you don't accept our reasons because the reasons aren't handed down from on high does not mean that we have not answered your question.

You just don't like the answer we give.

Yeah, that's the same "revelation" that mentions that he likes to overturn the laws of nature when he wants to in the first place.

Even if this were the case, which it is not, the occurrence of miracles was so rare that one could at least proceed on the assumption that the future will very likely be like the past, based on the promises of God.
So what that they're "rare"? Do they happen or not? Even today we hear anecdotes about "miracles". By what criterion do you judge miracles to be "rare"? At what point would you judge them to be "uncommon"? I think you're just trying to dodge here.

Again, explaining the uniformity of nature is your problem not ours.

You have yet to tell us how you account for the uniformity of nature according to your worldview asided from the visciously circular
That's not circular at all. Your blind assumption that your deity exists and that all the laws of logic and reason derive from him is circular.

“The future will be like the past because the future has been like the past – and – I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning about this are valid.
It's not circular; it's called going by the track record.

You're the one who in other posts, kept rabbiting on about how it's "divine revelation" that you know you can accurately understand the world around you while turning around and asking how do the rest of us prove that our senses are reliable!

That’s right, a question which you have yet to answer.
Wrong. You just refuse to accept it, then lie about me "refusing to answer".

What do you even percieve your "divine revelation" through, anyway? As I said once before, if it's not voices in your head, that leaves you with the senses. Same as us.

I said: “Hey I agree, science has produced many wonderful things,”

You answered: ”How do you know? Aren't you the one who keeps claiming that the senses aren't a good enough way to discern the world around us?”

Nope I have never said that ‘senses aren’t a good enough way to discern the world around us,’ I am simply asking how you know that your senses are reliable?
That's what you imply when you ask that. I've said before: Corroborating evidence. Look at what I said earlier about people being able to work together to build stuff and learn about things.

What should be asked: What makes you question the validity of the senses in the first place?

I asked: ”On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the scientific method is valid? Saying “Science is great” – now THAT is not an answer!”

You answered: ”It's more along the lines of "science works"

Um, the scientific method is valid, because it works??? You are kidding right? You are only moving the goal posts, how do you know that the scientific method works???
(And please don’t say ‘because it is valid’).

It's called track record. Otherwise we wouldn't have these computers on which to communicate with, you see.

”with naturalistic assumptions that don't include outside forces altering the laws of nature at will.”

What are these ‘naturalistic assumptions, and how do you know that they are valid?
Read a philosophy text. Learn something. I can't spoonfeed someone who refuses to accept anything other than divine revelation.

Basically, they've been shown to work, and to explain the world around us. Same as the scientific method. And with a better track record than the geocentric bible, too.

You said: ”How do you know that this "divine revelation" is valid?”

I answered: ”By the impossibility of the contrary.”

You asked me to prove that. Well, all you would have to do to refute me is posit a contrary justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, which comport with reality, apart from God.
All I would have to do??? I asked you to prove your statement!

You are the one who has to prove it! You are the one who made the claim, you back it up. It's obvious you know nothing of the scientific method.

I say there are none. If you wish to refute me, offer your refutation.
How's about mistakes in the bible? Like geocentrism, or mathematical mistakes, etc? Remember, though. You made the claim first, you back it up.

”Why don't you try explaining how your worldview can account for the uniformity of nature when you have a being who can overturn the laws of nature at will?”

First of all, God has promised to keep nature uniform ‘until the end of the earth.’
How do you know that promise is valid? At least with science, we have a track record. How do you know that he's speaking to you through the bible? Remember, if you use "divine revelation", you're back to square one.

Just because God performed miracles which SEEMINGLY defy nature,
How do you know that the miracles only "SEEMINGLY" defy nature? How do you know that they don't? How's about raising Lazarus from the dead?

What criteria would you use to determine if a "miracle" seemingly defied nature and one that does defy nature?

does not mean those laws were overturned.
What about the sun going backwards in the sky? Does that seemingly defy nature, or does it truly defy nature. Explain how you know, please.

(Gravity still works – for example). Plus, for all we know God could be operating in different dimensions which supercede natural laws, and do not defy them at all.
Wow, talk about unproven assumptions here. Care to prove that?

Still though, as I said, miracles were rare, and I would even argue not of this age,
If they're not of this age, how do you know that they happened at all?

so proceeding on the assumption that nature is uniform makes sense in my worldview, how does it make sense in yours?
No, it doesn't. Your worldview still has "miracles", ours does not.

”The greeks didn't believe that as much as you do, so they were able to rely on observations and inductive reasoning to account for it.”

And how did the Greeks know that their observations and reasoning were valid?
That’s the point Reynold, without God, they are in the same visciously circular boat as you are.
Nope. You are the one doing circular reasoning...you are the one who's blindly assuming that your deity exists, and then using his assumed existence as a basis for reasoning.

The greeks and us just learn from experience, trial and error, and what works (ie. what methods let us learn more about the world).

Sure, the scientific method may not be perfect, but it's the best thing out there that I know of.

From the "Jesus and Mo, Faith and Reason", do a search. They talk about logic.

Premises
1) Their arguments for their respective faiths have been shown invalid by logic. That is, Faith is shown invalid by Logic, because Faith based beliefs are circular. (”I believe this because it’s true, it’s true because I believe it”)

2) Logic is based on faith in the belief that logical principles are valid.
sound familiar, Sye?

3) Circular arguments are Logically invalid.

Conclusion
Since Logic is based on faith, it too is a circular argument, because Faith based beliefs are circular.

Error
You cannot use logic to disprove the validity of logic, because insodoing, you disprove the validity of your own proof.

Thats right, they showed readily that if logic were based on faith, that logic would be a circular, invalid arguement. The problem was that, in order to show that circular argument is invalid, you must use logic. However, if logic itself is invalid, then circular arguments are okay, which means Logic as a belief system is okay, but we’ve previously shown that logic as a belief system isn’t okay, since it denys a circular argument.

This is a stronger result than it may seem, it states that the rules of logic cannot be shown to be invalid. Because insodoing you must use logic, and if you were to complete your proof, then your proof would immediately be invalid.

There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.

This is why we, as rationalists, rely on logic so heavily, we know — in fact, we can prove, that logic cannot be proven false by logical means. Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.; July 6, 2008 7:46 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 6, 2008 8:30 AM
The Ranting Student said...: weemaryanne said...
Life_Unobstructed and SyeTenB,

You can both stop worrying about my going to hell. There's no evidence that any such place exists, and also no evidence that any immaterial part of me will survive the death of my physical body.

So:

No soul.
No life after death.
No need to reserve an eternal parking spot for the soul.

No problem!

Hahaha. Thank you weemaryanne.; July 6, 2008 9:39 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 6, 2008 9:58 AM
Sye TenB said...: Weemaryanne said: "You don't get to say "probably" unless you have EVIDENCE."

What is the evidence to support your statement that "you don't get to say "probably" unless you have EVIDENCE?"

"Your oh-so-casual carelessness does not count as evidence."

Indeed :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 10:59 AM
Sye TenB said...: weemaryanne said: "There's no evidence that any such place exists, and also no evidence that any immaterial part of me will survive the death of my physical body."
So:
No soul.
No life after death.

Prove your claims please. You would have to be omniscient to prove a universal negative, the very quality you deny exists.

No problem

If you die in your sin, I am certain that you will feel otherwise.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 11:05 AM
dale said...: The most profound statement ever written in the history of mankind.
Wriiten by Syetenb,
"Please prove that imaginary things do not exist."

Yhe boyn!!!! It hoyts!!!

That made my day!; July 6, 2008 11:07 AM
Sye TenB said...: @Reynold:

Wrong. Prove that they do exist.

He made the claim, it is up to him to prove it.

I said: “Please prove that God is imaginary.”

You answered: ” Biblical contradictons, mistakes, failed prophecies, etc?”

You are simply interpreting the Bible subject to your presuppositons, where is your proof that God is imaginary?

You're the one making the claim that your god exists, you're the one who has to back it up.

Um, I have a website that does just that. You can access it through my profile.

”What would you do if a Muslim was saying to you to disprove the existence of his god?”

Well, for one I would show him 71 verses from the Qur’an which profess the truth of the Bible, then I would show Him where in the Bible that it says there is only one God, disproving the existence of his ‘god.’

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 11:17 AM
get_education said...: Hi Reynold,

Nice answering to Sye. However, instead of trying to understand what you wrote, his next step will be to take little pieces of your answer out of context, print a laugh, then say again something with "viciously circular," and "How do you account for" in it. He might also do the "your logic is based on pure FAITH! WUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" thing. I have posted the next part before (in case you did not see it):

---
Before you start discussing with Sye let me wanr everybody here about this guy:

Sye is either a troll making fun of the fundamentalists by showing it is enough to put God in a revered way in every sentence to keep them happy, and making skeptics angry by pushing his circularity fallacy ad absurdum, or he is perfectly convinced of his deluded logic to the point that he feels in his gut that it makes perfect sense, and he is out of the reach of true intelligence.

If you saw the movie "Amadeus," the story, whether apocryphal or not, is about Saglieri being at that point where he can understand genius, yet he is unable to do the same thing as the genius (thus the envy plot).

Sye would be a sub-Sagliery, where he does not even understand genius, but he thinks he does. Since he can put a few notes together into something that looks like a melody, he even thinks he is a genius, but he is at such low level, that he cannot see the difference.

Either way (smart atheist troll mocking both the fundamentalists and the skeptics, or sub-Saglieri), there is NO PRODUCTIVE arguing with this guy. Do not waste your time. It is far more productive to de-mystify the fundamentalists arguments against science and evolution, so that people at the fence can get better understanding and not get trapped into ... fundamentalism.

(Every time I read Sye's stuff I get more and more inclined to think that he is the sub-Saglieri.)

G.E.; July 6, 2008 11:22 AM
Sye TenB said...: Reynold said: "Well, it looks like my reply to Sye on "the atheist worldview" post didn't get through...I'll post it here; it's as relevent as anything else..."

Look Reynold, your whole worldview comes down to the assumption of the reliability of your senses, and your reasoning. I asked how you know that they are reliable, and you answered: "They have been shown to work." What you fail to realize is that you must use the very senses, and reasoning, you are trying to prove reliable, to determine whether or not 'they have been shown to work.' All you end up saying is "I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are reliable." If you cannot see the vicious circularity in your reasoning, I see no point in continuing.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 11:25 AM
dale said...: Allfiredup,
You have admitted that the other historical messiahs have solid evidence for their existence.
They did predate christianity and
The circumstances surrounding them are far to similar to be mere coincidences.

You pointed out some problems with the dating of Zoroaster but no comment on all the others.

You should study the new evidence.

On the Exodus myth, if there were millions of Hebrews wandering the Sainai for forty years, there would be tons of artifacts and features, yet there is ot so much as a pottery shard.
Also, if the Hebrews would have been captive in Egypt all those years there would have been a huge exchange in the words of their respective languages, yet there are no words common to both languages.

Now, I dont' much care if you want to be a "Christian," or have a "spiritual" life, but when you try to pass off the bible as some kind of historical and scientific document, you are very wrong indeed. I merely like to do my little part to show the absurdity of your delusions.; July 6, 2008 12:24 PM
dale said...: Syetenb said,
"Look Reynold, your whole worldview comes down to the assumption of the reliability of your senses, and your reasoning."

Truer words were never spoken, thank you.; July 6, 2008 12:27 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: "The most profound statement ever written in the history of mankind.
Wriiten by Syetenb,
"Please prove that imaginary things do not exist."

Hey, I believe that imaginary things do not exist, but I did not make the claim, Get Education did. But as usual, neither he, nor you, are willing to support the claims you make. I don't blame you though, you just don't want your reasoning to be publicy eviscerated - again.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 12:30 PM
chris said...: weemaryanne,

If you would read what is going on. I did not say that Josephus said that he was the Messiah. We are talking about was there the historical Jesus. Also there is Cornelius Tacitus history in AD 64
and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus 1st century history, and Pliny the Younger record in AD 73. They mentioned followers of Christ. Would people follow a man who did not exist that had the chance to see Him first hand. Chris made the statement that Jesus did not exist and also there were no Jews at the Exodus time frame in Egypt. IF you look up the whole aticle then you will find out that those huts or houses are specifically a Jewish style of construction. Respond to the question that was debated instead of blowing smoke or using mythical snipers. Weemaryanne, yes of no. Is there the historical Jesus the man that is mention in the Bible. I am not saying the traits they say he has but the man that is mentioned. Yes or no. Also if those indeed Jewish houses in early Egypt then could Jews inhabited Egypt during that time period of the so called Exodus. Not saying the Exodus happen. Is this a historical evidence of Jews being there. Yes or NO to response I made to Chris.
Pastor Chris.; July 6, 2008 12:30 PM
dale said...: Sye says,
"Please prove that imaginary things do not exist."

If they are imaginary, the onus is on you to have the proof.

reality is merely an illusion, albeit a rather persistent one!

By the way, people, Sye is a run-of the-mil troll.

People like this think they are cute because they have figured out a simple circular question, although thoroughly debunked, he continues to respond with the same answer. These trolls aboud on many blogs and they never contribute anything to the discussion. It is simply an attention getting device.

If we cannot depend on our reason then we surely cannot use reason to understand the bible or any other book ever written.

Society dermines what is right and who is sane and since I don't see any Christians (maybe one or two) coming to his defense, I doubt if they are buying into his crackpottery.

It is best not to feed the troll. All they do is obfuscate reasonable arguments and attract attention to themselves. It is obvious Sye has security issues.

With his approach it allows him to take any statement, no matter how true, and argue that it is wrong.
Argument from absurdity.; July 6, 2008 12:40 PM
weemaryanne said...: Pastor Chris,

Re a historical Jesus: I don't know but I'm inclined to think No. The evidence for the existence of such a person isn't very good. OTOH, the evidence for the existence of a lot of itinerant rabbis in that area at that time is quite good; and of course we know that the early Churchmen cobbled the modern Bible together in service to their own agenda. There's even some evidence that they created the Jesus myth for the same reason. Gotta keep the Church united, doncha know.

(Aside: Hey, Pastor Chris, didja hear the story about the medieval Pope -- Leo X I think it was -- who actually admitted "It has served us well, this myth of Christ"?)

Re Jews living in Egypt: Possibly. There might have been Jewish neighborhoods in various parts of the Middle East, as indeed to this day there are Jews in Iraq and Iran (for example). But that's no indication that the Exodus story is real, especially in the absence of other evidence.

-------------
Yer doin' fine, PC, keep it up!; July 6, 2008 12:44 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: "Truer words were never spoken, thank you."

Wow, I'm glad you agree. Now, how do YOU know that your senses and reasoning are reliable?

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 12:44 PM
get_education said...: dale, guys, isn't this funny?:

"Please prove that imaginary things do not exist."

Then:

"Hey, I believe that imaginary things do not exist,"

Wow, so insightful! (why ask for proof then?)

"you just don't want your reasoning to be publicy eviscerated"

When Sye says "publicly eviscerated" he means browsing explanations without understanding them, just looking for the little pieces to cut for future use, changing the meaning of such little pieces "in your face," then insisting on his original stupid fallacy about inference and circularity.

What did actually surprise me was when Sye said to Reynold:

"I see no point in continuing."

Bravo! (I am cheering on Reynold, of course).

G.E.; July 6, 2008 1:20 PM
chris said...: weemaryanne,

Thanks for the pat on the back.

I will take it where I can. On the cobble issues you have to raise the question they rewrote from cover to cover. What years are you using for manuscripts? You do find scribe errors in some early manuscripts but they would go back to early manuscripts to compare and correct.

Pastor Chris; July 6, 2008 1:45 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: ”f they are imaginary, the onus is on you to have the proof.”

I did not make the claim, Get Education did. It’s not so much the proof of his statement I am looking for, but how it is possible to prove ANYTHING according to your worldview. You don’t try, because you know that you can’t.

”If we cannot depend on our reason then we surely cannot use reason to understand the bible or any other book ever written.”

This begs the question that God could not reveal the truth of the Bible to us in such a way that we can be certain of it’s validity. Again, my question is, how do YOU know that YOUR ability to reason is valid?

Society dermines what is right and who is sane

Which society, who says they have the proper definition of 'rightness' or 'sanity,' and who says they get to decide? Is the society that gets to decide what is 'right,' always 'right?'

and since I don't see any Christians (maybe one or two) coming to his defense, I doubt if they are buying into his crackpottery.

Does it look like I need help arguing with you? :-)

”It is best not to feed the troll.”

Oooh looky! Yet another atheist suggesting that people do not argue with me! (Interestingly, you do not take your own advice :-)

”All they do is obfuscate reasonable arguments”

What is a ‘reasonable argument’ according to your worldview, and how do you know it?

”With his approach it allows him to take any statement, no matter how true, and argue that it is wrong.”

That’s just it Dale, without God, YOU cannot account for the very concept of ‘truth.’ I’d ask you to tell me how you know anything to be ‘true’ according to your worldview, but I know that you’d just dodge the question – again.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 1:50 PM
dale said...: Sye,
Your theological hypothesis is not very popular, to say the least.
You still end up where you must have faith and trust your senses to believe that the Bible is the word of God, which of course it is not.
Therein lies the circularity.
By your own argument, you could not trust your own senses to know that the bible is true.

After having looked into this matter I have to agree most with Greg Bahnsen. He was an influential Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.

He states,
"The chief criticism of presuppositionalism is that it uses circular reasoning, which is generally considered a logical fallacy. Specifically, critics point out that the presuppositional argument depends on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, and God's existence is known because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. This charge would classify presuppositionalism within fideism, which holds that belief in God can only be partly justified by reason (if at all), but must finally be accepted or rejected by faith."

So, since I reject the bible as a source of truth because of lack of evidence, I am not compelled to discuss this with you any further.

If you can come up with something other than your circular question, for whatever it is you are trying to prove, I might read it.

There are a couple people who tried to advance the hypothesis of presuppositionalsim and one is Van Till.
"Apologists who follow Van Til earned the abel "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything. Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all human thought presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible."

Remember, you must use your senses to presuppose the revelation on the bible. hehe.

The other branch of Presuppositionalism comes from Gordon Clark. He like VanTill consider the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom [an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident,therefore, its truth is taken for granted. The axiom cannot be proven or disproven.

That is soooo Ken Ham-like!
I wondered where Ham came up with his "presuppose the bible is true" stuff.
At least Ken Ham admits he is starting with an axiom where you have been trying to hide that from ol' dale.

The weakness in the circularity of your arument was pointed out early on, but now that the history of the argument is exposed, the argument is shown to be absurd beyond description.

I am happy to say that you have served to expose another silly apologetic argument that I will be able to efficiently refute in the future.

Cheers,
ol' dale; July 6, 2008 2:02 PM
dale said...: Sye,

You said,
"That’s just it Dale, without God, YOU cannot account for the very concept of ‘truth.’"

Yes I certainlycan. It comes from the electro-chemical processes of our evolved brain.

All you have is blind faith.

Plus your presuppositionalism is not supported by scripture. It's only suppoted by a couple desperate crackpot aplologists.; July 6, 2008 2:11 PM
dale said...: Chris,
The Exodus story is merely allegory as are Genesis, Tower of Bable, The Flood, the Fish, etc, etc, etc.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the genesis myth.

You should ust accept the bible for what it actually is.; July 6, 2008 2:15 PM
AllFiredUp said...: Dale said..."reality is merely an illusion, albeit a rather persistent one!"

Oh finally the truth is revealed!
(sarcasm)

Dale do you honestly believe that reality is an illusion?

So you are Buddhist aren't you? Or at the very least you agree with Buddhism

Which makes sense because Buddhism and atheism go hand in hand.

Well why don't you go ahead and take that to it's logical conclusion and admit that evolution is an illusion because you say that evolution is a reality but then you contradict yourself saying that reality is an illusion - hence evolution according to your Buddhist philosophy is really an illusion.

no wonder you have no idea of what real truth is!

wiki note here: "Some views of reality in Buddhism are relevant to the issue of dependent origination and some to teachings beyond cause and effect. Examples are discussed below.

* Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma, part of the process of impermanence, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya.

* Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations.

Different schools and traditions in Tibetan Buddhism give different explanations of the mechanism producing the illusion usually called "reality"."

Dale finally reveals that he is religious after all! A Buddhist no less or at least wanting to be.

shaking my head. Well now I know where you are coming from.

You like Zen Buddhism don't you?

Any other Zen Buddhist atheists here? Just so we know where you are coming from?; July 6, 2008 2:47 PM
chris said...: Hey Dale,

I hope you are having a good weekend. We will talk about what you wrote later. Yes or NO to both of the question asked weemaryanne. Wee gave me a sincere and open response. We have very few of those because both sides tend to be on the offense.

Pastor Chris; July 6, 2008 2:58 PM
weemaryanne said...: Pastor Chris,

No, no, I wasn't referring to errors of translation or transcription (though nodeity knows there must be long lists of both).

I was referring to the various Councils convened by the early Church to argue and squabble and vote and decide which books were The Real Bible and which were heretical. There were countless different versions kickin' about and giving rise to endless doctrinal differences. The guys who eventually won these Doctrine Wars got to compile The Official Bible.

GotQuestions dot Org says, in part:

....In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative....

It was Church politics that gave us the Bible we know today.; July 6, 2008 3:05 PM
AllFiredUp said...: dale said,

"On the Exodus myth, if there were millions of Hebrews wandering the Sainai for forty years, there would be tons of artifacts and features, yet there is ot so much as a pottery shard."

Oh really?!?

Guess that you don't understand how hard it is to trace nomadic tribes, which is EXACTLY what the Jews were in the wilderness - nomads. They go, stay, leave, go stay, leave, they didn't settle down for 40 years. They tented, then picked up everything they had EVERYTHING! Continually on the move for a total of 40 years. And many of the Israelite people died. In fact it was only the younger ones, the children and very young teens who grew up that made it to Canaan - who inherited the promise that God first gave them, but the nation rejected at first.

I don't think, dale, that you have a clue about Jewish history and this is very revealing.

It is well known in archaeology that movements of nomadic tribes is VERY hard to trace, both in evidence and in accounting from others.

I'm surprised you don't know this?

This is indeed science we are talking about you know.

Also being in the desert as you ought to know, where dunes move like the sea, where the wind and weather and sun can literally scour the desert floor of any type of permanent dwellings, let alone tent like structures. An inch of rain in the desert can create flash floods, and wipe away any remnant of any temporary type camping. Especially after thousands of years of the wind and sun literally washing the desert wilderness clean.

That's why people don't usually live in wasteland areas! except for hard to trace nomadic tribes who continually wander due to extremes in the climate and changing food and water sources.

You ought to know this as "science" minded as you keep telling us. You seem to be persuaded by old and pointless arguments from other atheists who don't have a lick of common sense regarding supposed science.

That's why I never trust an atheist's answer about science because their answers are often shrouded with ever changing definitions, steeped in bully language, complicated by revisionist history, filled with malice, influenced by biased atheistic thought, perpetuated by a long line of omitted information and topped off with a dose of atheist presupposition.

I mean, I go to the Science Center the other day, and here they get into philosophy lessons as if they (the scientists) know it all, by telling people on their little plaques that "the human brain is no different than a bug's brain"

What kind of nonsense is "science" teaching people?

I know, Humans are just better animals.; July 6, 2008 3:23 PM
Chris said...: dale, I assume you're talking to Pastor Chris, rather than myself, but I agree with you it's all myth of course.

Unfortunately any Christian accepting the bible for what it actually is, would no longer be a Christian. Which kind of puts a dampner on the whole "Pastor" thing... Hopefully it's not a money-making venture for him.

Chris (from Oz); July 6, 2008 3:30 PM
euthyphro037 said...: Michael said:

"Read the Bible all the way through, cover to cover, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Come back, and if you're still an atheist, then we'll become atheists too!!"

Done! In fact, that was one of the reasons I became an atheist in the first place. I advocate that everyone should read the bible cover to cover, just to see how uninspired it is.; July 6, 2008 4:46 PM
John Doyle said...: @allfiredup
I know, Humans are just better animals.

There is no scale of better or worse animals. We are animals and in our way are quite unique in the animal world. In many other ways we are no different to many other species. Humans are animals.; July 6, 2008 4:47 PM
Andrew Louis said...: It was stated:
"As a professing atheist, you can’t be "sure" of anything. You don’t know that there is no God....."

Is the believer any more certain? Why don't people go around professing the great truth of the sun rising tomorrow? I would say that it's because it's self evident, so as a result we pay it no mind. Sure people may discuss the weather, but this is an unknown.

It seems to me the fact that some go around professing God as truth suggests in itself an uncertainty.; July 6, 2008 5:29 PM
get_education said...: AllFiredUp,

"Buddhism and atheism go hand in hand"

Not truly, I experimented with Buddhism a long while ago. Buddhism allows you to believe in a God, that is up to you. Buddhism is more about growing and achieving illumination. It is not always considered a religion, because God pays no part in it. Clear enough?

I enjoyed Buddhism. Meditation does help with making you feel so well, so sharp, and so ready for action afterwards. Buddhism invites you to think profoundly rather than to accept dogmas. That might lead to atheism, but it is not its purpose (again, the purpose is illumination). Still, I would not consider myself a Buddhist, because I do not practice any of it anymore, except the occasional meditation

There are several forms of Buddhism. But that is another story.

G.E.; July 6, 2008 5:31 PM
Sye TenB said...: John Doyle said: "There is no scale of better or worse animals. We are animals and in our way are quite unique in the animal world. In many other ways we are no different to many other species. Humans are animals."

Hey John, are you a vegetarian?; July 6, 2008 5:54 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew Louis said: ”Is the believer any more certain?”

Yes. Certainty is impossible without God. The only way anyone can KNOW anything is by or through divine revelation, else one ends up in an infinite regress of “And how do you know THAT.”

”Why don't people go around professing the great truth of the sun rising tomorrow?”

Because people take for granted their assumption that nature is uniform. Problem is, the unbeliever has exactly zero justification for such an assumption.

” I would say that it's because it's self evident”

Not if one believes in a “random, chance” universe.

”It seems to me the fact that some go around professing God as truth suggests in itself an uncertainty.”

The Christian worldview is that God has revealed Himslef to mankind in such a way that everyone is certain of His existence, and that those who deny Him are merely “Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1: 18-21).

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 6:01 PM
dale said...: Allfriedup,
You said,
"Dale do you honestly believe that reality is an illusion?"

No, emphatically not. I was responding to the lunatic racings of Sye. If you start taking me out of context, I will do it to you too.; July 6, 2008 6:11 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: ”Your theological hypothesis is not very popular, to say the least.”

It ain’t a popularity contest.

”You still end up where you must have faith and trust your senses to believe that the Bible is the word of God”

This begs the question that God could not reveal the truth of His word to us, via, or wholly apart from our senses.

”which of course it is not.”

Prove this please.

After having looked into this matter I have to agree most with Greg Bahnsen. He was an influential Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater.

Ah the Wikipedia scholar strikes again. No need to introduce me to Dr. Bahnsen, I know his work well and have met his son.

He states,

Um, don’t you mean “Wikipedia states?” If you are going to quote Wikipedia, it’s best to not only present half the argument. Allow me:

”Neither Van Tillians or Clarkians deny the charge of circularity. Rather, they insist that all worldviews are ultimately circular and cannot justify their foundational principle except by that principle itself. Therefore, while presuppositionalists agree that circularity makes for an invalid argument in some circumstances, in the case of ultimate presuppositions, they contend that there is no other option. So when considering worldviews, the concern must not be for vicious (or "small") circularity, but for internal coherence ("large circularity"). In other words, presuppositionalists believe that the question to be asked is not, "Do I begin with my ultimate presupposition?" but rather, "Do my beliefs and practices comport with my ultimate presupposition?"

And yours don’t :-)

”So, since I reject the bible as a source of truth because of lack of evidence, I am not compelled to discuss this with you any further.”

Um, you’re not compelled either way.

”The weakness in the circularity of your arument was pointed out early on, but now that the history of the argument is exposed, the argument is shown to be absurd beyond description.”

That’s a hoot, the whole argument displays that it is in fact the atheists whose presuppositons do not comport with their beliefs and practices!

”I am happy to say that you have served to expose another silly apologetic argument that I will be able to efficiently refute in the future.”

What a relief, cause you sure haven’t been able to yet :-) (I guess you do feel compelled after all :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 6:21 PM
dale said...: Allfiredup,
You said
"I don't think, dale, that you have a clue about Jewish history and this is very revealing."

I have more than you think I do, but that still does not change the evidence.

You did not address the essence of my comment, If there were millions of people in the desert for all those years, there would have been countless artifacts and features.

Nice try li'l buddy. The only thing you have on your side is obfuscation. Good luck with that.; July 6, 2008 6:21 PM
Sye TenB said...: I said: "That’s just it Dale, without God, YOU cannot account for the very concept of ‘truth.’"

You said: ”Yes I certainlycan. It comes from the electro-chemical processes of our evolved brain.”

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

”All you have is blind faith.”

I have absolutely no problem comparing our worldviews, and seeing which one of us actually has the blind faith, problem is, you don’t asnwer my questions. (Don’t worry, I know why). Just for the record though :Dale, how do you know that your ability to reason is valid?

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 6:28 PM
Sye TenB said...: Get Eduaction said: "dale, guys, isn't this funny?

But not suprisingly, Get Education did not offer his proof :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 6:30 PM
AllFiredUp said...: dale said...

"You did not address the essence of my comment, If there were millions of people in the desert for all those years, there would have been countless artifacts and features."

And you just glossed over what I said about them being nomadic, in a wilderness where what we see today is not what it was when they wandered it it.; July 6, 2008 6:36 PM
AllFiredUp said...: dale said...

"Dale do you honestly believe that reality is an illusion?"

No, emphatically not. I was responding to the lunatic racings of Sye. If you start taking me out of context, I will do it to you too. "

You aren't very good at explaining yourself, that's for sure.; July 6, 2008 6:38 PM
dale said...: Uh...Oh... Now that I have ferreted out the totally absurd hypothesis that Sye prescibes to, he has changed his tune.

His message is in no way scriptural, as we can see from his avoidance of his earlier comments.

Sorry, Sye. You are soooo busted.

Be careful there, wouldn't want to see you break a hip.; July 6, 2008 6:41 PM
dale said...: Sye,
You said,
"I have absolutely no problem comparing our worldviews,..."

Yes you do, because no matter what you do or say, you still must presuppose that your bible is the inerrant word of God.

You are soooo busted, you poor old man.; July 6, 2008 6:44 PM
dale said...: Sye,
You said,
"I have absolutely no problem comparing our worldviews, and seeing which one of us actually has the blind faith,.."

That is the essence of presuppositional thought.

It always comes back to the bible, which is very emphatic about believing in "faith" in "things not seen."

Go ahead!; July 6, 2008 6:49 PM
chris said...: Weemaryanne,

Your right about councils but the main test was not a political one. It was aurthorship for New Testament. If you had a book that came later than the aurthor's death date and his name was attached to it then they left it out. People are so eager about these so called missing or hidden Gospels. The truth was they were smacked down at the time they came out because original manuscripts were written after the so called arhtor's death by many years. Have councils down some fishy stuff? I believe so. As a Baptist we do not accept some of the books the Catholics use because we do not accept authorship and they are not validated. I believe I have books on arguments somewhere.
On the money issue I believe a man should be able to support himself but if he is getting rich off his flock then there is a problem.

Chris of Oz(hopefully the movie and not the HBO series)Give your take on what I asked weemaryanne.

Also Dale and weemaryanne I add another question. Do You believe there is any historical facts in the Old Testament of historical events and everyday life of the time period it suggests.
Pastor Chris(not of Oz); July 6, 2008 6:58 PM
dale said...: Sye,
You accuse me of not answering your questions, but I can prove that I have answered them, so let's get rid of that Red Herring.

What you are saying is that you do not like my answers; another continuation of your presuppositionalist belief system.

Circular Sye, You are "out there."; July 6, 2008 7:02 PM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye: (you said)
"Not if one believes in a “random, chance” universe."
Thats a bit of stretch don't you think. No one goes around thinking, "well, the sun might come up tomorrow."

And you said the unbeliever has no justification for nature being uniform. Sye, come on, it's simple experience. Your justified by the fact that everyday the sun is there. It's a pragmatic truth.

The point is, and you danced around it; Why do people go around professing God as truth if it's self evident? No-one denies the sun, show me a random chance thinker who thinks the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow.

By the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm simply don't agree with the use of logic here.; July 6, 2008 7:22 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew said: ”Thats a bit of stretch don't you think. No one goes around thinking, "well, the sun might come up tomorrow."

That is EXACTLY my point. People do not give God the credit for the uniformity which is at the basis of all reasoning, and scientific endeavour.

”And you said the unbeliever has no justification for nature being uniform. Sye, come on, it's simple experience.”

Alright Andrew, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that yesterdays experiences will be the same as tomorrow’s experiences?

”Your justified by the fact that everyday the sun is there.”

On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the sun WILL be there?

”It's a pragmatic truth.”

Please explain.

”The point is, and you danced around it; Why do people go around professing God as truth if it's self evident?”

1. Because He commands it.
2. Because people would rather be their own God, than submit to the real God.

”No-one denies the sun, show me a random chance thinker who thinks the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow.”

Again, this is EXACTLY my point. They proceed on the assumption that the sun WILL rise tomorrow, but have exactly zero basis for such an assumption.

”By the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm simply don't agree with the use of logic here.”

Logic is another area that has zero justification outside of God.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 7:48 PM
dale said...: Chris,
You asked,
"Also Dale and weemaryanne I add another question. Do You believe there is any historical facts in the Old Testament of historical events and everyday life of the time period it suggests.
Pastor Chris(not of Oz)"

Of course there are ! There are some historical indications in the bible, ad trust me, they have been very much examined! All myths contain elements of truth!; July 6, 2008 7:49 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: "You accuse me of not answering your questions, but I can prove that I have answered them, so let's get rid of that Red Herring."

Alright, prove that you have answered my question as to how you know that your reasoning is valid.

This should be good.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 7:51 PM
Sye TenB said...: @Dale

I said: "I have absolutely no problem comparing our worldviews,..."

You answered: ”Yes you do, because no matter what you do or say, you still must presuppose that your bible is the inerrant word of God.”

Again, this begs the question that God could not reveal the truth of His word via, or wholly apart from our senses. Now, how is it that you know that your reasoning is reliable?

You are soooo busted, you poor old man.

Engaging in ad-hominems only serves to show the weakness of your argument.

Cheers,

Sye; July 6, 2008 7:57 PM
John Doyle said...: @Sye TenB
Hey John, are you a vegetarian?

No, I eat pretty much anything. I did turn down a plate of tadpoles I was offered for dinner last night though. I was too squeamish to even try them.; July 6, 2008 9:09 PM
weemaryanne said...: Pastor Chris,

Why does my opinion of the contents of the Old Testament matter to you?

There may be some actual, verifiable history in it; it's difficult to tell at this late date. And on the basic points of doctrine, e.g., the Noahic flood, the evidence is conclusive: It didn't happen.; July 7, 2008 12:04 AM
Chris (from Oz) said...: Pastor Chris said "Chris of Oz(hopefully the movie and not the HBO series)Give your take on what I asked weemaryanne."

It's Oz, as in Australia. I suppose as an old British penal colony, it's closer to the TV show "Oz", but as a place full of wonderful things, it's like the movie :)

And, I'm not sure what you asked weemaryanne. In that comment you just made a statement I don't have much to say about.

On other points though, you're right there could have been Jews in Egypt, my point was of course about the Exodus, and no, I don't know for certain there was no Jesus or Exodus, but it's not looking good. My original statements in this regard were in reponse to Ray's assertions, in which he says the sky isn't blue. Which demonstrates either an amazing lack of ability to look up, or is based on a subtle interpretation and understanding of the physics of the way light interacts with the atmosphere. Based on his previous demonstrations of his scientific literacy, I'm assuming the first case is true.; July 7, 2008 2:40 AM
Sye TenB said...: @ John Doyle,

So, if as you say: There is no scale of better or worse animals.

And since you are not a vegetarian, on what basis would eating humans be unethical? Before you answer that it has to do with mental capacity, why should we then not eat babies, or those who are mentally handicapped according to your worldview?

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 7:08 AM
Andrew Louis said...: So ahhh, Sye:
the fact that science shows the earth spins on an axis and around the sun isn't justification for believing the sun will come up tomorrow?

Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow, are you suprised everytime it happens?

On logic,
it has no place in discussing God.; July 7, 2008 9:36 AM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye,
All I was trying to suggest is that what people find certain/self evident, they tend not concern themselves with, it just is. There are no proclamations, no preached, no calling out.

I find that some Christians have a tendancy to constantly try and justify they're beliefs. This seems to me to suggest some uncertainty, especially from believer to believer. If we know God, then let it be.

Now it's differnt if it's for the sake of the unbeliever, however logic is not the path to God. It merely opens the door to scrutiy from the atheist and legthens the gap between believer and unbeliever.; July 7, 2008 9:50 AM
John Doyle said...: @Sye TenB
And since you are not a vegetarian, on what basis would eating humans be unethical?

In most but not all cultures, the consumption of human flesh is not considered acceptable and as such is unethical behaviour.

Before you answer that it has to do with mental capacity, why should we then not eat babies, or those who are mentally handicapped according to your worldview?

The thought is thoroughly abhorrent according to my worldview.; July 7, 2008 10:28 AM
Andrew Louis said...: John,
your slidding down a slippery slope; July 7, 2008 12:02 PM
Sye TenB said...: @ John Doyle.

I said: ”And since you are not a vegetarian, on what basis would eating humans be unethical?”

”In most but not all cultures, the consumption of human flesh is not considered acceptable”

Yes John, I agree, but that is my question, if we are all just animals, and there is ‘no scale of better or worse animals,’ why is the consumption of human flesh not considered acceptable? I can answer that question according to my worldview, as humans have a special part in God’s creation, being created in His image. Why is eating humans not accetable according to YOUR worldview? Saying, it’s not acceptable, because it’s not considered to be acceptable, is not an answer.

”The thought is thoroughly abhorrent according to my worldview”

But John, is it wrong? If so, how do you know this?

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 12:23 PM
dale said...: Presuppositionalism is an ingenious, elaborate mental trap by which some otherwise extremely bright people manage to keep their minds locked inside the hardcore Christian box.
And it is a trap used by some of the nastiest and most dangerous hardcore Christians of all, e.g. the Christian Reconstructionists, who advocate a return to "Biblical Civil Law" -- including death penalty by stoning for "blasphemy," "idolatry," and assorted other victimless crimes.

Presuppositionalism is a failed philosophy with very few adherents.
There are virtually no churches that preach this because they end up with no congregation.

I now suspect that Ray is an adherrent of this inanity from some of the clues he has left lately, like, "you have no proof a stone is hard."

I totally reject the concept and therefore Sye's question, "Prove you know that your reasoning is valid," is moot and and devoid of serious inquiry or response.

The question is contrived to have no answer and even the presupps admit their philosophy is circular.

Finis.; July 7, 2008 12:31 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew said: ”the fact that science shows the earth spins on an axis and around the sun isn't justification for believing the sun will come up tomorrow?”

Not without first assuming that what happened yesterday is likely to happen again today. The problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero grounds for such an assumption. Saying that tomorrow will be like today, because yesterday was like the day before is question begging. I’m not asking about the past, I’d like to know on what basis the professed atheist assumes that the future will be like the past.

”Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow, are you suprised everytime it happens?”

No, because I trust in uniformity on the basis of God’s promises. The professed atheist, however, if he/she was consistent with his/her worldview SHOULD be surprised every time the sun rises, since they believe in a random chance universe.

”On logic, it has no place in discussing God”

Then we are reading different Bible’s as Isaiah 1: 18 says: “Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. And 2 Corinthians 10:5 says “” We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I’d like to see how you obey those commands without logic.

”All I was trying to suggest is that what people find certain/self evident, they tend not concern themselves with, it just is.”

I realize this, and that is one of the reasons those who deny God are stand guilty before him. They use logic and assume uniformity without giving their only possible source (God) the credit for them. “It just is,” is not an argument. I could just as easily say “God just is,” but such an argument would be just as arbitrary as theirs.

I find that some Christians have a tendancy to constantly try and justify they're beliefs.

Some do, and this is wrong. I am not trying to justify my beliefs, I am simply following God’s command to ‘contend for the faith,’ (Jude 1:3) and ‘demolish arguments (2 Corinthians 10:5).’

”This seems to me to suggest some uncertainty, especially from believer to believer. If we know God, then let it be.”

Problem is, then we are being disobedient to God’s commands. It is not a matter of uncertainty, it is a matter of obeying God. Some believers defend belief in a whimpy God, that almost certainly exists, I defend belief in the God of the Bible who certainly exists.

Now it's differnt if it's for the sake of the unbeliever, however logic is not the path to God.

I agree 100%. No one is converted by logical argumentation, but it is our duty to demolish the arguments of those who set themselves up against the knowledge of God, in the hopes that the Holy Spirit will work in their hearts. As I say on my website, no one needs proof that God exists, I am merely exposing the suppression of truth.

It merely opens the door to scrutiy from the atheist and legthens the gap between believer and unbeliever.

Our faith should be open to scrutiny. “Test everything, hold on to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5: 21)

I’d like to hear how you suggest we obey the above commands.

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 12:54 PM
Sye TenB said...: @ Dale:

You said: ”You accuse me of not answering your questions, but I can prove that I have answered them”

I said: “Alright, prove that you have answered my question as to how you know that your reasoning is valid. This should be good.”

You said: ”I totally reject the concept and therefore Sye's question, "Prove you know that your reasoning is valid," is moot and and devoid of serious inquiry or response.
The question is contrived to have no answer”

So, you CAN’T prove that you have answered my question after all! I was right, it was good :-D

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 1:01 PM
AllFiredUp said...: I noticed dale, that those aren't your own words.

You copied and pasted the thing about presuppositionalism from "Arguments against hardcore Christian beliefs:
Information about Presuppositionalism and Calvinism" by Diane Vera

It's best that you site your references, instead of making them seem like your own.

You blame Ray and others for not doing so, yet you do it so repetitively.

Your view on presupposition is biased with other atheists rants and gripes and not based in real truth seeking.

You've gotten yourself very comfortable with other atheists and what they believe and claimed it as your own, without any real digging.

The parts of the Bible that you don't like, you toss away like trash without doing your own hard study on the matter.

And regarding your explanation of filling the churches...

Many churches are filled with false converts who don't even read the Bible, but just go to get their kick start with coffee, donuts and with a nice preacher who "tickles their ears" and so they call it a day and claim they did "business with the Lord" when they don't even know who God is.

That being said, many of these false converts and unbelievers filling churches like a social club won't get any sort of hard truth taught to them at all.

Apparently you can't even deal with truth yourself as you can't even prove your own reasoning's valid.

Instead you attack the question and questioner without answering the question.

nice.

Not so "Finis" as you want it to be.; July 7, 2008 1:11 PM
Reynold said...: Sye TenB to Reynold:

Wrong. Prove that they do exist.

He made the claim, it is up to him to prove it.
Wrong. You are the one who asked him to prove that imaginary beings do not exist. You have to show that they do.

I said: “Please prove that God is imaginary.”

You answered: ” Biblical contradictons, mistakes, failed prophecies, etc?”

You are simply interpreting the Bible subject to your presuppositons, where is your proof that God is imaginary?
Actually, when I started on this nonesense, I believed "he" existed.

So, when given evidence you just dismiss it without even bothering to look at their merits or weaknesses. Why am I not surprised?

What would you consider as proof then? You blindly assume that "God" exists (without any evidence) then you turn around and use him as the basis for your reasoning. Doing that, it's obvious that no matter what you'll still reject anything we bring up, just as you did with my stuff above. Nice way to insulate your beliefs from reality.

How's about at least trying to prove he exists first before using him as a basis for anything?

You're the one making the claim that your god exists, you're the one who has to back it up.

Um, I have a website that does just that. You can access it through my profile.
Yeah, it's full of the same weird reasoning you have here. You have nothing but circular reasoning here. You say "divine revelation" is the only way to learn anything, yet you offer NO evidence that "divine revelation" works!. At least with my so-called "circular reasoning", relying on the senses, one can learn about the world.

Think of it: If I see someone get hit by a car, what are the chances that:
1) I'm not really seeing it
2) The driver's car only appears to be damaged when it isn't
3) The person who got hit isn't really hurt
4) The doctors and paramedics see the person's injuries when it's not there? etc.

Can you imagine how weird it would be for so many people to have their senses playing tricks on them to make it seem like one event happened when it really didn't?

That's a far greater correlation of facts than from any "prophecy".

”What would you do if a Muslim was saying to you to disprove the existence of his god?”

Well, for one I would show him 71 verses from the Qur’an which profess the truth of the Bible, then I would show Him where in the Bible that it says there is only one God, disproving the existence of his ‘god.’
And he'll show you the verses that say that Jesus was just another prophet who foretold the coming of Muhummad, then he'd show you the verse in the Qur'an that say that the Christians and the Jews are friends of each other, showing that his god is different than yours.

-----
”The point is, and you danced around it; Why do people go around professing God as truth if it's self evident?”

1. Because He commands it.
That is true Circular Reasoning, Sye. You have to assume that your deity exists then you do and use your unproven assumption as the basis for your "reasoning".

2. Because people would rather be their own God, than submit to the real God.
False assumption. We don't believe your deity exists in the first place. Circular reasoning again, plus ad-hominem. You're blindly assuming that your deity exists, and attacking our character for not believing that this thing exists for which you refuse to show evidence for.

”No-one denies the sun, show me a random chance thinker who thinks the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow.”

Again, this is EXACTLY my point. They proceed on the assumption that the sun WILL rise tomorrow, but have exactly zero basis for such an assumption.
Bull. Again, ever hear of "inductive reasoning"? Also, it's your worldview that has someone changing the rules of nature around, not ours. You're the one who has no basis, really, for assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow. We do.

-------

Look Reynold, your whole worldview comes down to the assumption of the reliability of your senses, and your reasoning. I asked how you know that they are reliable, and you answered: "They have been shown to work." What you fail to realize is that you must use the very senses, and reasoning, you are trying to prove reliable, to determine whether or not 'they have been shown to work.' All you end up saying is "I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are reliable." If you cannot see the vicious circularity in your reasoning, I see no point in continuing.
Again, your hypocritical charge of "circular reasoning".

00000000000000

What I think: Look at the name Sye TenB. I seriously doubt that he's a true christian with that name. I responded to him as if he was since sometimes with the messed-up reasoning they use, you can never tell.

I also wanted to show how foolish that kind of reasoning is, which is *hopefully* his goal as well.

Anyone who blindly relies on the existence of "God" and then uses him as the basis for further reasoning while trying to shift the burden of proof onto others to prove that
1) his deity does not exist
2) prove that "their reasoning is valid/their senses are valid"

is just trying to avoid the fact that they themselves have no evidence to bring forward for the existence of said deity. It's a distraction technique Sye's demonstrating for us, nothing more.

For more on this method of logic-denial that Sye's using, I'll just repeat what I posted earlier:

From the "Jesus and Mo, Faith and Reason", do a search. They talk about logic.
-----------------------
Premises
1) Their arguments for their respective faiths have been shown invalid by logic. That is, Faith is shown invalid by Logic, because Faith based beliefs are circular. (”I believe this because it’s true, it’s true because I believe it”)

2) Logic is based on faith in the belief that logical principles are valid.
sound familiar, Sye?

3) Circular arguments are Logically invalid.

Conclusion
Since Logic is based on faith, it too is a circular argument, because Faith based beliefs are circular.

Error
You cannot use logic to disprove the validity of logic, because insodoing, you disprove the validity of your own proof.

Thats right, they showed readily that if logic were based on faith, that logic would be a circular, invalid arguement. The problem was that, in order to show that circular argument is invalid, you must use logic. However, if logic itself is invalid, then circular arguments are okay, which means Logic as a belief system is okay, but we’ve previously shown that logic as a belief system isn’t okay, since it denys a circular argument.

This is a stronger result than it may seem, it states that the rules of logic cannot be shown to be invalid. Because insodoing you must use logic, and if you were to complete your proof, then your proof would immediately be invalid.

There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.

This is why we, as rationalists, rely on logic so heavily, we know — in fact, we can prove, that logic cannot be proven false by logical means. Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.
------------------------

So this is why one would, like Dale reject Sye's reasoning. Quoting Dale:

”I totally reject the concept and therefore Sye's question, "Prove you know that your reasoning is valid," is moot and and ”I totally reject the concept and therefore Sye's question, "Prove you know that your reasoning is valid," is moot and and devoid of serious inquiry or response.
The question is contrived to have no answer” of serious inquiry or response.

The preceding paragraphs from the "Jesus and Mo, Faith and Reason" site show why Sye's question is contrived.

I've also noted in other posts that "God" is not necessary for the laws of logic to exist.; July 7, 2008 2:50 PM
JOSHUA S BLACK said...: DisComforting Ignorance said...
Unless you own slaves and would demand 50 shekels of silver and a wedding when a man rapes your virgin daughter, then I don't want to hear about the "solid foundation" of the Bible or how secular philosophy is "ever changing."

Your ignorance is truly discomforting. You must have read the verse from an atheist blog or something, because the real verse doesn't require the father to force marriage in a case of rape. But then, the facts don't matter to you because you are an atheist. Still Deuteronomy 22 doesn't say what you say it does.; July 7, 2008 3:27 PM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: Joshua S. Black,

Forgive me for horning my way in on this conversation, but...

Your ignorance is truly discomforting. You must have read the verse from an atheist blog or something, because the real verse doesn't require the father to force marriage in a case of rape. But then, the facts don't matter to you because you are an atheist. Still Deuteronomy 22 doesn't say what you say it does.

I've been through this argument before with other Christians, and it astounds me how you could deny what it's saying. It's doublethink at its most extreme that you could say that.

The context of the verse is a list of commandments about what to do regarding rape victims. According to the verse, if you rape a virgin, you have to marry the girl and pay off her father. It's pretty clear. You said that's wrong, so what does it mean then?; July 7, 2008 4:18 PM
weemaryanne said...: JOSHUA S BLACK:

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29; July 7, 2008 4:42 PM
life unobstructed said...: I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, at least it is for me, that Sye is a sockpuppet and an embarrassment to Christianity. When being called out on it he has accused me of not being a Christian and of being another poster here, which is just more deflection on his part. However, I no longer believe Sye is a Christian, I think he is just an atheist troll with too much time on his hands and perhaps some bodies in his basement. Sure is fun to watch that boy chase his tail though and get it handed back to him by his fellow atheists every single time. Fetch boy fetch!; July 7, 2008 5:21 PM
dale said...: Life Unobstructed said...
"I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, at least it is for me, that Sye is a sockpuppet and an embarrassment.."

I know.... I continue to be embarassed for him....,
Yet, actually, he descibes himself as an "engineer," which would account for his good presence and staight forward prose.

Just sayin'.; July 7, 2008 6:55 PM
dale said...: Joshua Black,

You stepped into some very deep do-do here. You need to start eliminating these bigoted and negative comments against women.
Just sayin'.; July 7, 2008 7:00 PM
dale said...: "Your ignorance is truly discomforting. You must have read the verse from an atheist blog or something, because the real verse doesn't require the father to force marriage in a case of rape."

That is why I am embarrassed for you, Josh. You get your entire knowledge of the universe from you ancient book of myths.; July 7, 2008 7:09 PM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye,
I don't want to draw this out to a long conversation here, so you said the following:

Andrew said: ”the fact that science shows the earth spins on an axis and around the sun isn't justification for believing the sun will come up tomorrow?”

Not without first assuming that what happened yesterday is likely to happen again today. The problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero grounds for such an assumption. Saying that tomorrow will be like today, because yesterday was like the day before is question begging. I’m not asking about the past, I’d like to know on what basis the professed atheist assumes that the future will be like the past.

”Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow, are you suprised everytime it happens?”

No, because I trust in uniformity on the basis of God’s promises. The professed atheist, however, if he/she was consistent with his/her worldview SHOULD be surprised every time the sun rises, since they believe in a random chance universe.

-----

I'll simply say this. The idea of "uniformity" does not necessitate the belief in God. There is no question begging here. An individual can confess uniformity based on empirical and/or scientific grounds, and trust in the logic therein. Furthermore, simply because one may perhaps believe that creation was by a radon chance event does not lead to the belief that a sunny day tomorrow is also radom (for the above reasons). This is a slippery slope, nothing more. It sounds nice, but is fallacy.

I'm curious Sye; what is God?; July 7, 2008 7:23 PM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye,
One final note. Given this conversation has some semblance of logical discourse (but not much), all your suggesting is that since you do not understand and/or comprehend the nature of uniformity your going to fill the void with a chimera – in this case God. If such is the case, then the burden of proof is on you to prove God.

Certainly the state of man’s experience and scientific endeavors has not yet led to all the answers to the questions being laid out, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the atheists lap to prove his/her stance. They are not the ones affirming God – an as yet unproven entity in the realm of empirical science.

Now if one were to say, “There is definitely not a God”, well there’s a hypothesis that would require some proving. In the end it may be best to say, “I simply don’t know.” And if that is the case, then to you again goes the burden of proof.; July 7, 2008 7:48 PM
get_education said...: Andrew Louis,

I'll simply say this. The idea of "uniformity" does not necessitate the belief in God. There is no question begging here. An individual can confess uniformity based on empirical and/or scientific grounds, and trust in the logic therein. Furthermore, simply because one may perhaps believe that creation was by a radon chance event does not lead to the belief that a sunny day tomorrow is also radom (for the above reasons). This is a slippery slope, nothing more. It sounds nice, but is fallacy.

So nicely said!

G.E.; July 7, 2008 8:12 PM
Reynold said...: From Sye TenB's site:

I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Please keep in mind, I am asking what YOU believe, not what you think anyone else believes.

Read the OT, Sye..."God" ordered the rape of the Midianite women, and the killing of babies. Sure, it wasn't for "fun", at least the baby killing wasn't, but nevertheless, the actions were done. If "absolute morality" existed, "God" would not have done that.

If he's not consistent with following his own rules we don't need him to figure out morality since according to the OT "God" had that done to other people, and just because he had it done to them (as opposed to "yourselves") does not make it any more right.

At least the laws of logic and mathematics can't be bent around like that. Why? For morality, religious people will just find excuses for their god no matter what he does. But unlike actions we're dealing with ideas that can't be broken. Remember the last comment I posted about logic from the "Jesus and Mo, Faith and Reason" site I mentioned earlier.

I've said before, one does not need "God" to have logical or mathematical rules. At most one could say that he was the first to figure them out, not that they would not exist if he didn't exist.

On to more of Sye's site:
By reaching this page you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?
Wrong, Sye...by pointing out your deity's actions in the OT it's been shown that absolute moral laws do not exist. Besides, just because some non-physical things exist, doesn't mean that your non-physical thing exists...you still have to show that it does.

Also, an idea that can be thought up by someone proves only one thing: that people can imagine stuff. If you were arguing that because of that, people can imagine your god exists, then there'd be no problem. But you're claiming that he does exist. You still have to prove it, just like mathematical theorems need proofs, so does your "God".

You don't give proof, you just give assertions.

If one wanted to, one could argue that with no people around, there'd be no laws of logic or maths. Therefore, without people, your "God" wouldn't exist either, since both are non-physical "entities"...we made him, not the other way around.

By the way, an idea is not itself a sentient being, your "God" supposedly is. There is a difference.

More from Sye's site:
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not material, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.
Since we act differently than the OT it's obvious that the laws of morality change over time. We don't condone the killing of pregnant women any more, at least in civilized society.

On another branch:
To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
Uh, no. People can think up ideas and use them to examine the world around them. We don't need any outside being for that.

Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...
Wrong. As was said earlier:
If the laws of logic are whatever "God" say they are, then he could have just made up anything, and those would be the laws. If the laws of logic are logical because "God" follows them, then that just means that he figured them out first, not that he "made" them, and wouldn't exist without him. They're something that anyone can figure out, whether on their own, or whether someone tells them of them or not.

To say that they're part of "God's nature" is just another way of saying that he (allegedly) follows them.

As I said, Sye...your site has the same ramblings you have here.; July 7, 2008 8:15 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew said: ”I'll simply say this. The idea of "uniformity" does not necessitate the belief in God. There is no question begging here. An individual can confess uniformity based on empirical and/or scientific grounds, and trust in the logic therein.”

Problem is, they cannot account for the validity of the senses and reasoning with which they obtain and interpret evidence, cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science, and cannot account for universal, invariant, abstracts, such as the laws of logic, without God. You say that these are possible without God, I challenge you to prove your case.

Furthermore, simply because one may perhaps believe that creation was by a radon chance event does not lead to the belief that a sunny day tomorrow is also radom (for the above reasons).

On what basis do you know that tomorrow will be like today? How do you know the future Andrew? Saying that the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past is question begging.

This is a slippery slope, nothing more. It sounds nice, but is fallacy.

You are only making statements, please prove your case. Which law of logic does my argument violate, how do you account for that law, and why does that law necessarily apply to my argument?

I'm curious Sye; what is God?

Navigate to the main page of my website, you can find my answer there.

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 9:19 PM
Sye TenB said...: Life unobstructed said: "I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, at least it is for me, that Sye is a sockpuppet and an embarrassment to Christianity. When being called out on it he has accused me of not being a Christian and of being another poster here, which is just more deflection on his part. However, I no longer believe Sye is a Christian"

Would you like to put your hypothesis to a vote to see who the Christians here believe is the imposter? I'm game.

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 9:24 PM
Sye TenB said...: Reynold,

How do you know that your senses and reasoning are valid? Your whole post assumes the validity of your senses and reasoning, which you base on your senses and your reasoning. As I said, if you can't see the problem there, I see no point in continuing.

Cheers,

Sye; July 7, 2008 9:30 PM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye,
You’re not getting it, so let me put it another way. All you’re doing is filling the void where humanity, through science/philosophy whathaveyou, is unable to explain the nature of things with a chimera – in this case God. As a result of this action you’re suggesting that you have a consistent theory of the universe where the atheist does not, therefore it is on the atheist to come up with one. What your missing is that it is you with the theory (GOD), and it is on you to come up with (on the basis of your argumentation) the empirically verifiable evidence for the existence of your theory. I say it that way due to the nature of your argument, which is grounded in the objective.

The atheist knows that humanity does not yet have all the answers, but as it relates to uniformity for example, it is enough to accept this as a pragmatic truth (as I’ve already said). This is to say that it’s simply practical /utilitarian to do so, it makes sence, it works, nothing more. There is no necessary reason to evoke a chimera when one does not understand something. It would be akin to a physicist, every time he cannot figure out a mathematical problem he proclaims that the answer is MU. Since none of the other physicists can prove him wrong, he suggests that the burden of proof is on them to do so (you have the consistent theory). But, once the other scientists find the correct answer, you push MU back to the next empty slot, the next unanswered question. You’re career as a physicist would not last long if this is how you went about things.

You need a better argument Sye…..; July 8, 2008 5:02 AM
Sye TenB said...: @ Andrew Louis

Andrew, I have responded to your questions, but you seem unwilling (or unable) to respond to mine. You say that our conversation “has some semblance of logical discourse (but not much),” but do not care to to tell us how logic and science can be justified without God, or how to obey the commands to defend the fatih – without using logic. Perhaps if you even attempted to answer the questions, you would get a better grasp of the argument. Surely you see the difficulty with saying, I have logically deduced the validity of the laws of logic, and I have scientifically discovered the validity of the scientific principle???

”all your suggesting is that since you do not understand and/or comprehend the nature of uniformity your going to fill the void with a chimera – in this case God.”

That would be like saying: “All you’re suggesting is that since you do not understand/or comprehend the nature of 2 + 2, you’re going to fill the void with chimera – in this case 4. Andrew, it is not arbitrarily ‘filling a void’ when you know the right answer.

”If such is the case, then the burden of proof is on you to prove God.”

Well, I would say that the burden of proof is on those who say the scientific principle, and laws of logic can be made sense of without God. Still though, my website, which can be found through my profile, offers the proof you seek.

”Certainly the state of man’s experience and scientific endeavors has not yet led to all the answers to the questions being laid out, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the atheists lap to prove his/her stance.”

If they want to live on blind faith, that’s up to them.

”They are not the ones affirming God – an as yet unproven entity in the realm of empirical science.”

The validity of empirical science IS proof that God exists. No other worldview can consistently account for the uniformity of nature, the foundation of all science. If you tried to account for uniformity outside of God, you might even see this.

”Now if one were to say, “There is definitely not a God”, well there’s a hypothesis that would require some proving.”

But atheists posit that science, logic, reasoning, and morality (to name but a few) can be made sense of without God. The burden is on them to prove this.

”In the end it may be best to say, “I simply don’t know.” And if that is the case, then to you again goes the burden of proof.”

The thing is though Andrew, I believe that the Bible is true. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, and that those who deny Him are merely ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.’ When it comes to the existence of God, the option of “I don’t know” is a lie.

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 7:40 AM
Sye TenB said...: Reynold said:

”Read the OT, Sye..."God" ordered the rape of the Midianite women, and the killing of babies.”

I certainly do not take my Biblical exegesis from professed athesits. Still though, even if this were the case, which it is not, is rape absolutely wrong according to YOUR worldview?

”At least the laws of logic and mathematics can't be bent around like that.

So, you agree that they are invariant? Fine, how does an invariant law make sense according to YOUR worldview?

”I've said before, one does not need "God" to have logical or mathematical rules. At most one could say that he was the first to figure them out, not that they would not exist if he didn't exist.”

The floor is yours. Please give us the justification for ‘logical or mathematical rules,’ apart from God.

”Wrong, Sye...by pointing out your deity's actions in the OT it's been shown that absolute moral laws do not exist.”

What moral law did God break?

”Besides, just because some non-physical things exist”

Which emprical sense led you to the knowledge that some non-physical things exist? Did you see, hear, smell, touch or taste that some non-physical things exist?

”You still have to prove it, just like mathematical theorems need proofs, so does your "God".

Well since you agree with the concept of proof WITHOUT God, perhaps you can tell us how proof of ANYTHING makes sense in YOUR worldview. Proof requires, knowledge, logic and truth, none of which can be made sense of apart from God.

”If one wanted to, one could argue that with no people around, there'd be no laws of logic or maths.”

Yes, but only a complete idiot would argue that the sun could both be the sun and not the sun at the same time, and in the same way, if there were not people around.

Since we act differently than the OT it's obvious that the laws of morality change over time.

Behaviour has exactly nothing to do with the existence of absolute moral laws.

”Uh, no. People can think up ideas and use them to examine the world around them. We don't need any outside being for that.”

Prove this please.

”If the laws of logic are whatever "God" say they are, then he could have just made up anything”

They aren’t. They are a reflection of God’s nature.

”If the laws of logic are logical because "God" follows them”

They aren’t, they are a reflection of God’s nature. God does not follow the laws of logic, they are part of His unchanging nature.

”To say that they're part of "God's nature" is just another way of saying that he (allegedly) follows them.”

Do you answer to your name, or is it your name?

As I said, Sye...your site has the same ramblings you have here.

Um, yip. (Thanks for the plug :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 8:01 AM
Reynold said...: I'll say this, Sye, if you're just a poser pretending to be religious, at least you're persistent. On the off chance that you really are religious, I'll make this post.

Sye TenB said...

Reynold,

How do you know that your senses and reasoning are valid? Your whole post assumes the validity of your senses and reasoning, which you base on your senses and your reasoning. As I said, if you can't see the problem there, I see no point in continuing.
I've shown before, Sye, from the "Jesus and Mo, Faith and Reason" site, that your method of questioning "reasoning" and "logic" are out of the question.

----------
I'll just repeat what I posted at leat twice earlier:

From the "Jesus and Mo, Faith and Reason", do a search. They talk about logic.

-----------------------
Premises
1) Their arguments for their respective faiths have been shown invalid by logic. That is, Faith is shown invalid by Logic, because Faith based beliefs are circular. (”I believe this because it’s true, it’s true because I believe it”)

2) Logic is based on faith in the belief that logical principles are valid.
sound familiar, Sye?

3) Circular arguments are Logically invalid.

Conclusion
Since Logic is based on faith, it too is a circular argument, because Faith based beliefs are circular.

Error
You cannot use logic to disprove the validity of logic, because insodoing, you disprove the validity of your own proof.

Thats right, they showed readily that if logic were based on faith, that logic would be a circular, invalid arguement. The problem was that, in order to show that circular argument is invalid, you must use logic. However, if logic itself is invalid, then circular arguments are okay, which means Logic as a belief system is okay, but we’ve previously shown that logic as a belief system isn’t okay, since it denys a circular argument.

This is a stronger result than it may seem, it states that the rules of logic cannot be shown to be invalid. Because insodoing you must use logic, and if you were to complete your proof, then your proof would immediately be invalid.

There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.

This is why we, as rationalists, rely on logic so heavily, we know — in fact, we can prove, that logic cannot be proven false by logical means. Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.
----------

You're just shooting yourself in the foot.

I've posted the reason why logic can exist even without your "God" existing. I'll just do it again, worded a bit better so he can understand it...

------------
1) If the laws of logic are whatever "God" say they are, then he could have just made up anything, and those would be the laws. If the laws of logic are logical because "God" follows them, then that just means that he figured them out first, not that he "made" them, and wouldn't exist without him. They're something that anyone can figure out, whether on their own, or whether someone tells them of them or not.

To say that they're part of "God's nature" is just another way of saying that he (allegedly) follows them.

2) Just because some non-physical things exist, doesn't mean that your non-physical thing exists...you still have to show that it does.

Also, the fact that an idea can be thought up by someone proves only one thing: that people can imagine/think about stuff.

If you were using that fact as a basis to argue that people can imagine that your god exists, then there'd be no problem. But you're claiming that he or she does exist. You still have to prove it.

Just like mathematical theorems [another non-physical entity] need proofs, so does your "God".
------------

You are the one who's left not being able to back up the claims either from here or from your own site, as I've shown.

You prove that "divine revelation" is valid.

You prove that your "God" exists.

You have to prove that your "God" is a "he", since all you Christians refer to this "God" as a male.

You prove that the rules of logic and reasoning would not exist if your god did not.

As for the rules of morality, they never were constant [which you blindly assert on your website] in the first place, as I've shown in my last post.

Try not to use circular reasoning in your proofs by saying baloney like "Divine revelation is valid because God told me it is", etc. That's all just assuming without evidence that your "God" exists in the first place and then building your argument on that.

Sye TenB to Andrew
On what basis do you know that tomorrow will be like today? How do you know the future Andrew? Saying that the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past is question begging.
No Sye, it's inductive reasoning focused on one particular, established, reliable process. Not many things can disrupt the orbit of the earth around the sun.

For geological processes on the earth, there are many things that can disturb the processes, but scientists know that, and take it into account. Besides, things like earthquakes, volcanoes, etc leave their footprints behind.

What we can rely on is the fact that the laws of nature do not change from the past to the present, something that believers in supernatural beings can't account for, since they believe in the existence of beings that can overturn nature whenever they want. Sometimes when believers pray, that's the kind of thing they ask for! (healing,etc).

If Sye truly wants question begging, it's him saying that the laws of logic exist because your god exists, then just blindly assuming that his deity exists in the first place.

Sye to Andrew when Andrew asks:
I'm curious Sye; what is God?

Navigate to the main page of my website, you can find my answer there.
Which is false, Sye gives no answer as to what his "god" is. He just uses the same "reasoning" that he uses here to say that she, his goddess, exists.; July 8, 2008 9:12 AM
life unobstructed said...: Sye,

So now you are going to try to get others to stand up for you and this proves what? But sure, go ahead. It won't change what I think though. When are you going to bring back that bone, boy? Fetch!!; July 8, 2008 10:54 AM
Sye TenB said...: Ok Reynold, here’s the difference. I claim that logic, science, morality, etc. are valid based on God’s revelations. I claim that these revelations have been made in such a way that we can know them for certain. YOU base the assumption that they are valid, not on certainty but on blind faith.

Again, you may not agree with my claim to certainty, you may not even like it, but since you have no claim to certainty, it is YOU who are basing your arguments on faith. You are the one saying: I believe that the laws of logic are valid, they are valid because I believe it. Again, if you can’t see the problem there, there is no sense in continuing.

There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.

Um, there exists no logical proof that God does not exist. How do you like your argument now?

This is why we, as rationalists, rely on logic so heavily, we know — in fact, we can prove, that logic cannot be proven false by logical means.

Again, when you say this you borrow from MY worldview. How do you know that logic has never been proven to be false at any time anywhere in the universe? How do you know that logic can’t be proven false tomorrow? How do you know that your reasoning about logic is valid? How do you account for the laws of logic which are universal, abstract, invariant and cannot be proven false? How do they make sense in YOUR worldview?

Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.

And you are the one accusing me of circularity! This is rich. Logic is valid because logic is valid. Thanks for that man. You are doing us a great service by exposing your worldview here.

No Sye, it's inductive reasoning focused on one particular, established, reliable process.

How do you know that the reasoning with which you concluded that it WAS reliable is valid? How do you know that it WILL BE reliable tomorrow, or 2 seconds from now? How do you know the future Reynold?

Which is false, Sye gives no answer as to what his "god" is.

It is the first answer on the main page. Just because Reynold can’t find it, don’t be discouraged Andrew.

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 11:25 AM
Sye TenB said...: Life Unobstructed said: "So now you are going to try to get others to stand up for you and this proves what? But sure, go ahead."

Alright, for Christians only. Who do you believe is the troll, me (Sye), or Life Unobstructed). Please only vote if you have been posting here as a Christian, as people have {{ahem}} been known to make false profiles :-)

If you need more information, just examine the posts in this thread. (or search all the threads for my, and LU's posts.

If Ray wishes to post this poll in a more prominent location, it would be appreciated, but is certainly not necessary.

"It won't change what I think though."

Of course not, why would you agree with Christians?

"When are you going to bring back that bone, boy? Fetch!!"

You make it way too obvious 'man' :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 11:35 AM
Reynold said...: Sye TenB's post:

Reynold said:

”Read the OT, Sye..."God" ordered the rape of the Midianite women, and the killing of babies.”

I certainly do not take my Biblical exegesis from professed athesits. Still though, even if this were the case, which it is not,
Are you denying that those verses are in the OT? Read up a bit more so that you won't have to have an atheist remind you of what's in your own holy book.

is rape absolutely wrong according to YOUR worldview?
Yes. Do you need a "figure from on high" to tell you that such things are wrong?

Do you realize that that says more about your lack of morality than anything else? You mean that the victim's feelings don't count?

From your site:
I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Please keep in mind, I am asking what YOU believe, not what you think anyone else believes.
Rape is wrong, regardless of whether it's me or someone else it's done to.

Too bad when it came to the Midianite women, your OT "God" had no problem having it done to them, after their families were knocked off. If that's not immoral, what is?

”At least the laws of logic and mathematics can't be bent around like that.

So, you agree that they are invariant? Fine, how does an invariant law make sense according to YOUR worldview?
Easy. There's no deity to change the laws around. Invariant laws then mean that we can rely on our senses and assume things like the sun will rise tomorrow and math texts will not all of a sudden become irrelevant.

How can invariant laws make sense in YOUR worldview, which includes such a deity?

”I've said before, one does not need "God" to have logical or mathematical rules. At most one could say that he was the first to figure them out, not that they would not exist if he didn't exist.”

The floor is yours. Please give us the justification for ‘logical or mathematical rules,’ apart from God.
Done in my last post. You just dodged it by saing that the laws of logic are "part of his/her nature". I dealt with that before, and I do again later here. I also go on later in this post after dealing with your comment just below.

”Wrong, Sye...by pointing out your deity's actions in the OT it's been shown that absolute moral laws do not exist.”

What moral law did God break?
His law about "thou shalt not kill"..escpecially when it's babies who've done nothing wrong.

”Besides, just because some non-physical things exist”

Which emprical sense led you to the knowledge that some non-physical things exist? Did you see, hear, smell, touch or taste that some non-physical things exist?
No, empirical senses can't be used to examine ideas or thoughts. Chances are, that's the only part of my reply you'll pay attention to...

What you can't seem to grasp: an idea or thought is not the same as a BEING, like this "god" you claim exists.

I said before: If a person can imagine or think up an idea, all that proves is that non-material things can be thought up. It does not mean that they necessarily do exist in the real world. Remember, your "god" is supposed to interect with the physical world, as with the "virgin birth" incident. Not only that, she's supposed to have existed before anyone else could have concievably thought her up.

What evidence do you have of that?

All you're doing is hiding your "God" away from physical examination.

”You still have to prove it, just like mathematical theorems need proofs, so does your "God".
And in your upcoming reply, you just ignore my demand and shift the burden of proof again. I ask you for evidence of your "God" and you say that without your "God" there is no such thing as proof. Prove it.

Well since you agree with the concept of proof WITHOUT God, perhaps you can tell us how proof of ANYTHING makes sense in YOUR worldview. Proof requires, knowledge, logic and truth, none of which can be made sense of apart from God.
Prove that, please. I've never seen a mathematician use "god" in his proofs before. Have you? Quit dodging. We've all shown that you're wrong. Just read my last two posts to you: You just plug your ears.

”If one wanted to, one could argue that with no people around, there'd be no laws of logic or maths.”

Yes, but only a complete idiot would argue that the sun could both be the sun and not the sun at the same time, and in the same way, if there were not people around.
I'm not; I had just said that if one wanted to argue that with no people around, there'd be no laws of logic or maths. I'm showing that's how you're arguing with you're implying that without your "God", there'd be no laws of logic. Are you now admitting that even without your god, there could still be laws of logic?

Since we act differently than the OT it's obvious that the laws of morality change over time.

Behaviour has exactly nothing to do with the existence of absolute moral laws.
It does if the so-called basis for "absolute moral laws" doesn't herself follow them. If she can't follow them, then what evidence is there left for their existence?

That's what I should have included in my last response above. That clarifies the sentence of mine you quoted.

Look at the differences between the OT and the NT if you don't believe me. If "God" can change, so can we.

”Uh, no. People can think up ideas and use them to examine the world around them. We don't need any outside being for that.”

Prove this please.
Besides the fact that this goes on every day by every person, even you?

What would you accept as proof? It seems the only thing you accept as proof of anything is the unsupported assumption that your "God" exists and that you somehow know what her nature is like.

From those assertions you make your "proofs" on your website. Nothing but question begging from you.

”If the laws of logic are whatever "God" say they are, then he could have just made up anything”

They aren’t. They are a reflection of God’s nature.
How do you know? How do you know what his or her nature is even like in the first place, Sye??

”If the laws of logic are logical because "God" follows them”

They aren’t, they are a reflection of God’s nature. God does not follow the laws of logic, they are part of His unchanging nature.
What does that mean, Sye? If they're a part of his nature, that just sounds to me like he follows them because they make sense for him to follow them.

You've yet to show that they could not exist without him.

”To say that they're part of "God's nature" is just another way of saying that he (allegedly) follows them.”

Do you answer to your name, or is it your name?
We're talking about his or her nature, not his or her name.

Not even a good dodge. My point has yet to be refuted; that your "God" allegedly just follows the laws of logic. He or she just figured them out like the rest of us have to. If you think that they're a part of her character, you'll have to show that.; July 8, 2008 12:39 PM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye,

here's the problem I have with you're God proof link. You assume Absolutism from the start, and that beggs some questions.

First off scientific knowlege is not static / abolute. Newtonian physics would be a good example of this. Our experiences, ideas and what we know change over time (you could say they evolve). Morality is also not static / absolute. Overtime our idea of what is right and wrong change (you use molesting children as an example, but this is an extreem that all will agree on in todays world, [hopefully] and it's a snake oil tactic). Now one may argue that our morality and science is reaching towards the goal of being absolute (trying to touch God if you will), however this is just a theory. There is no logical basis with which to suggest this is the case beyond the slippery slope fallacy.

Again, most accept what they know not based on absolutes, but because it works, and that goes for morals and science. Once something comes along that works better, our static nature changes.

Again,
I don't think you have it here Sye. You're putting "absolute" in the same catagory with "GOD" almost as though they're synonomous (and perhaps they are). BUT, now your left to proove both of them (back to square one).

I personally don't accept anything as being absolute, however I do believe in God. And don't ask me to define that, because I can't (that's what faith is for).; July 8, 2008 1:30 PM
get_education said...: Life Unobstructed,

Good job friend. It is refreshing to see christians who can think. Here I just repeat my warning (now that you have experienced it yourself):

Sye is either a troll making fun of the fundamentalists by showing it is enough to put God in a revered way in every sentence to keep them happy, and making skeptics angry by pushing his circularity fallacy ad absurdum, or he is perfectly convinced of his deluded logic to the point that he feels in his gut that it makes perfect sense, and he is out of the reach of true intelligence.

If you saw the movie "Amadeus," the story, whether apocryphal or not, is about Saglieri being at that point where he can understand genius, yet he is unable to do the same thing as the genius (thus the envy plot).

Sye would be a sub-Sagliery, where he does not even understand genius, but he thinks he does. Since he can put a few notes together into something that looks like a melody, he even thinks he is a genius, but he is at such low level, that he cannot see the difference.

Either way (smart atheist troll mocking both the fundamentalists and the skeptics, or sub-Saglieri), there is NO PRODUCTIVE arguing with this guy. Do not waste your time. It is far more productive to de-mystify the fundamentalists arguments against science and evolution, so that people at the fence can get better understanding and not get trapped into ... fundamentalism.

(Every time I read Sye's stuff I get more and more inclined to think that he is the sub-Saglieri.)

G.E.; July 8, 2008 2:04 PM
Reynold said...: Sye TenB said...

Ok Reynold, here’s the difference. I claim that logic, science, morality, etc. are valid based on God’s revelations.
You never back it up, though. Where does "God's revelations" explain the rules of logic? Verses, please.

I claim that these revelations have been made in such a way that we can know them for certain.
You never show how though.

You just start off your reasoning by assuming that your "God" exists then saying that she's responsible for the rules of logic, etc. without showing how she's necessary for those laws to exist.

Now, if, as empricalgod said:
Can a person ask God to reveal Himself to us as a corporeal figure that will appear in my lounge room? Instead of the subjective voice that speaks in a persons head, which strangely resembles my own personal thoughts.

If that were to happen, Sye wouldn't be on such shaky, circular ground.

I've shown several times that the laws of logic are independent of the existence of any being, yet you just deny it.

YOU base the assumption that they are valid, not on certainty but on blind faith.
No, you just selectively quoted form the article that I posted on this website, then ignore the reasoning behind their conclusions and then falsely accuse me of "circular reasoning".

Someone warned me you'd do that:

get_education said...

Hi Reynold,

Nice answering to Sye. However, instead of trying to understand what you wrote, his next step will be to take little pieces of your answer out of context, print a laugh, then say again something with "viciously circular," and "How do you account for" in it. He might also do the "your logic is based on pure FAITH!

Back to Sye:
Again, you may not agree with my claim to certainty, you may not even like it, but since you have no claim to certainty, it is YOU who are basing your arguments on faith. You are the one saying: I believe that the laws of logic are valid, they are valid because I believe it. Again, if you can’t see the problem there, there is no sense in continuing.
No, Sye. You just did what get_education said you'd do: You took several statements out of context and then falsely accused me of circular reasoning.

There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.

Um, there exists no logical proof that God does not exist. How do you like your argument now?

Unlike you, I've defended it. What logical proof that your god exists, as opposed to Amon-tha, Zeus, etc?

Maybe it would help if you read the rest of what I posted from that site?

I'll put some of it in italics so to help you out:

-----
Premises
1) Their arguments for their respective faiths have been shown invalid by logic. That is, Faith is shown invalid by Logic, because Faith based beliefs are circular. (”I believe this because it’s true, it’s true because I believe it”)

2) Logic is based on faith in the belief that logical principles are valid.

3) Circular arguments are Logically invalid.

Conclusion
Since Logic is based on faith, it too is a circular argument, because Faith based beliefs are circular.
------
That seems to be all you've read, Sye.

Here's the part that you left out:
---------
Error
You cannot use logic to disprove the validity of logic, because insodoing, you disprove the validity of your own proof.

Thats right, they showed readily that if logic were based on faith, that logic would be a circular, invalid arguement. The problem was that, in order to show that circular argument is invalid, you must use logic. However, if logic itself is invalid, then circular arguments are okay, which means Logic as a belief system is okay, but we’ve previously shown that logic as a belief system isn’t okay, since it denys a circular argument.

This is a stronger result than it may seem, it states that the rules of logic cannot be shown to be invalid. Because insodoing you must use logic, and if you were to complete your proof, then your proof would immediately be invalid.
-----

Sye, quoting from the article after leaving the actual reasoning out:

This is why we, as rationalists, rely on logic so heavily, we know — in fact, we can prove, that logic cannot be proven false by logical means.

Again, when you say this you borrow from MY worldview.
Your worldview has nothing to say about logic one way or the other. If it did, I'm sure you'd have posted bible verses that detail the rules of logic. Instead, it was the non-christian greeks and romans who had to figure the laws out.

How do you know that logic has never been proven to be false at any time anywhere in the universe? How do you know that logic can’t be proven false tomorrow? How do you know that your reasoning about logic is valid? How do you account for the laws of logic which are universal, abstract, invariant and cannot be proven false? How do they make sense in YOUR worldview?
Read the stuff I posted from the site, Sye. All of it not just the snippets you take from there.

Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.

And you are the one accusing me of circularity! This is rich. Logic is valid because logic is valid. Thanks for that man. You are doing us a great service by exposing your worldview here.
The only thing that got exposed here, Sye, was that you did what get_education said you'd do: You selectively quoted what you wanted from my post, ignored the rest that justified it, then lied about me using circular reasoning.

Go back up and try reading it again. I've put some of it in italics to help with your reading comprehension.

No Sye, it's inductive reasoning focused on one particular, established, reliable process.

How do you know that the reasoning with which you concluded that it WAS reliable is valid? How do you know that it WILL BE reliable tomorrow, or 2 seconds from now? How do you know the future Reynold?

Why shouldn't they be? The laws of logic exist outside of any diety. How can you prove that the laws of logic are variable and subject to change?

Which is false, Sye gives no answer as to what his "god" is.

It is the first answer on the main page. Just because Reynold can’t find it, don’t be discouraged Andrew.
No Sye, it's not there. It's just a bunch of Ray Comfort-type bull that we all deserve to go to hell since we've all "defied" him, etc.; July 8, 2008 2:12 PM
Cynthia said...: Sye TenB, you are no troll.; July 8, 2008 2:13 PM
Andrew Louis said...: A final note on you're absolute question. It went as follows in one example:

Question: Do you believ in absolute truth?

Answer: [NO]
Choice:
A.) Absolutely True
B.) False

This is a snare tactic, nothing more. If one does not believe in Absolute Truth, or a static nature of reality, then the appropriate choice would not be "Absolutely True", but "True".

I believe our current state of scientific knowlege is true [right now]. But only because it works in grapling with todays problems, but I don't believe they are absolutely so. People once thought the world was flat, and that was logical from they're perspective and worked in dealing with the problems of the day.

Absolute is not a word that can honestly be used in a temporal reality, it's hyperbolic in a sense. I'm not certain people understand the implications of it's use. It is an eternal/infinite term. Infinity in numbers for example, is nothing more then a concept. You would never have time to proove it.; July 8, 2008 3:22 PM
Sye TenB said...: TROLL POLL UPDATE!

Not a troll: Sye = 1
LU = 0

Thanks Cynthia! :-)

Step right up Christian folk, and vote in the Troll Poll :-); July 8, 2008 3:49 PM
Sye TenB said...: @Reynold,

I said: "It is the first answer on the main page. Just because Reynold can’t find it, don’t be discouraged Andrew."

You said: "No Sye, it's not there. It's just a bunch of Ray Comfort-type bull that we all deserve to go to hell since we've all "defied" him, etc."

The main page Einstein, not the welcome page. (Again, just because Reynold is having difficulty, do not be discouraged Andrew :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 4:19 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew Louis said: here's the problem I have with you're God proof link. You assume Absolutism from the start, and that beggs some questions.

Read it again, I don’t assume anything, I ask what YOU believe.

First off scientific knowlege is not static / abolute.

I realize this, but the question is, what natural law has changed? Not our understanding or interpretation of it, but the actual law.

”Morality is also not static / absolute. Overtime our idea of what is right and wrong change (you use molesting children as an example, but this is an extreem that all will agree on in todays world, [hopefully] and it's a snake oil tactic). “

Behaviours may change, but as I said, that has exactly nothing to do with the existence of absolute moral laws. How did you answer the question, is molesting children for fun absolutely wrong or isn’t it?

”There is no logical basis with which to suggest this is the case beyond the slippery slope fallacy.”

What standard of logic are you using to call my reasoning fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

”Again, most accept what they know not based on absolutes, but because it works, and that goes for morals and science.

Is THAT absolutely true? (Denying absolutes is self-refuting).

”I personally don't accept anything as being absolute

Is it absolutely true, that you personally don’t accept anything as being absolute?

”however I do believe in God. And don't ask me to define that, because I can't (that's what faith is for).”

Actually the one true God has revealed himself to us. If the one you believe in cannot be defined in any way, then it is a god of your own making. Sorry, but I don’t believe in made-up gods.

If one does not believe in Absolute Truth, or a static nature of reality, then the appropriate choice would not be "Absolutely True", but "True".

Give me an example of something which is “true” but is not “absolutely true.”

”I believe our current state of scientific knowlege is true [right now]. But only because it works in grapling with todays problems, but I don't believe they are absolutely so. People once thought the world was flat, and that was logical from they're perspective and worked in dealing with the problems of the day.

Was it true back then that the earth was flat? Or did they just BELIEVE that it was? Truth is not arbitrary.

Absolute is not a word that can honestly be used in a temporal reality

Is it absolutely true that “absolute is not a word that can honestly be used in a temporal reality.” Denying absolutes is self-refuting.

Now, Andrew, instead of repeating your arguments, why don’t you take the time and answer my questions?

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 4:41 PM
Reynold said...: Sorry, but you have the same kind of ramblings on every page...

That, and many websites use "main" page and "welcome" page interchangeably.

How're you coming along with reading that article I quoted earlier? Are you able to get beyond the parts you quoted previously?; July 8, 2008 4:54 PM
Sye TenB said...: Reynold said: ”Where does "God's revelations" explain the rules of logic? Verses, please.”

Our Bible study meets Tuesday nights, you are more than welcome.

You never show how though.

The method of revelation is irrelevant to our discussion. I have submitted a possible claim to certainty. Tell me yours so we can compare. (I do address revelation briefly on my website, but with your track record, I doubt you’ll find it :-)

I've shown several times that the laws of logic are independent of the existence of any being, yet you just deny it.

What about all those posts where you said that Greeks figured out the laws of logic???

You said: There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.

I said: ”Um, there exists no logical proof that God does not exist. How do you like your argument now?”

You said: Unlike you, I've defended it.”

Um, ya, with that above statement, which I repeated to show you its vacuousness.

” What logical proof that your god exists, as opposed to Amon-tha, Zeus, etc?”

Tell me the one you believe in and I will be happy to refute it. I don’t see the point of refuting worldviews neither of us hold to.

”Your worldview has nothing to say about logic one way or the other.”

I do not see the point of doing Biblical exegesis with someone who denies the truth of the Bible. I do this on my site, so if you get your head in a sunnier place, you just may be able to find it.

”Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.”

How do you know that your reasoning about this is valid?

I said: “How do you know that the reasoning with which you concluded that it WAS reliable is valid? How do you know that it WILL BE reliable tomorrow, or 2 seconds from now? How do you know the future Reynold?”

You answered: Why shouldn't they be?

Huh? That’s your argument?
Um, why shouldn't God exist? How do you like your argument now?

The laws of logic exist outside of any diety.

Prove this please. You are making the claim, prove it.

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 5:06 PM
get_education said...: Well, it cannot be surprising to have cynthia's vote for Sye, the trollerism works quite well, put God in a revered way, and those christians not used to thinking will see Sye as a hero. They think that, since they cannot understand anything Sye says, except the part about "without God there is no logic," Sye has to be very smart and God loving. Not possibly a troll.

I had a classmate that also was good at putting lots of illogical thoughts together. i also had many classmates who would regard such beast as an amazingly smart person (I do not get it, it has to be very smart!). Well, the amazingly boring person admired by the non-thinkers was let go and told to go do something else. Science was not his thing. Of course, some "fallaciates" can survive the system. But that is another story.

G.E.; July 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Sye TenB said...: @ Reynold:

I said: Is rape absolutely wrong according to YOUR worldview?

You answered: ”Yes. Do you need a "figure from on high" to tell you that such things are wrong?”

No, but absolutes cannot be justified without God. Watch: Reynold, how do you know that rape is absolutely wrong?

Invariant laws then mean that we can rely on our senses and assume things like the sun will rise tomorrow and math texts will not all of a sudden become irrelevant.

Um nope, invariant means they do not change. How do you know that the laws of logic, science and math will not change?

”His law about "thou shalt not kill"

The law is “Thou shalt not murder”

”No, empirical senses can't be used to examine ideas or thoughts. Chances are, that's the only part of my reply you'll pay attention to...

Um, cause you realize that you just refuted yourself again? :-D So, not all knowledge is gained by the senses eh? How do yo uknow anything about logic then? You’d better go back and delete all your posts where you say that the greeks figured out logic empirically :-D

All you're doing is hiding your "God" away from physical examination.

God is not physical.

”I've never seen a mathematician use "god" in his proofs before.”

Your point? The laws of mathematics cannot be accounted for outside of God, just because some do not acknowledge God when they do math, does not negate the fact that God is the foundation of mathematics.

Are you now admitting that even without your god, there could still be laws of logic?

You said that if one wanted to argue that with no people around there would be no laws of logic or math, and I pointed out the absurdity of such a position. If you want to try to justify the laws of logic without God, the floor is yours.

Since we act differently than the OT it's obvious that the laws of morality change over time.

Since grade 10 students get the answer to the question what is 2 + 2 right, and kindergarten students sometimes get it wrong, the laws of math change over time. How do you like your argument now?

How do you know what his or her nature is even like in the first place, Sye??

Only by His revelation.

We're talking about his or her nature, not his or her name.

It was an illustration used to demonstrate God’s relation to the laws of logic.

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 5:36 PM
Sye TenB said...: Get Education said: "there is NO PRODUCTIVE arguing with this guy."

I think that's the biggest compliment I have been paid here - thanks.

Cheers,

Sye; July 8, 2008 5:44 PM
Reynold said...: Sye TenB said...

Reynold said: ”Where does "God's revelations" explain the rules of logic? Verses, please.”

Our Bible study meets Tuesday nights, you are more than welcome.
Well, that's nice, Sye. How about posting the verses here since I doubt we all can go to your bible study.

Are you willing to tell me your address so I can even tell if I can go to your "bible study"?

You never show how though.
The method of revelation is irrelevant to our discussion. I have submitted a possible claim to certainty.
Baloney. It's pretty much at the core of the discussion. Otherwise, how can anyone tell that "divine revelation" is valid?

Tell me yours so we can compare. (I do address revelation briefly on my website, but with your track record, I doubt you’ll find it :-)
Given that neither you, nor anyone else has posted it from your site, I doubt any coherent "god" definition or revelation is there. I just keep finding your usual ramblings that you post here.

How's about posting it here to prove me wrong?

I've shown several times that the laws of logic are independent of the existence of any being, yet you just deny it.

What about all those posts where you said that Greeks figured out the laws of logic???
That helps my case...they didn't need "your" god, now, did they? They didn't need any god. They figured it out themselves.

You're not getting the message...no being is necessary to "produce" the laws of logic. I get into this more later.

They can only be figured out/discovered by beings, that's it.

You said: There exists no logical proof that logic is invalid.
Close. That was from the site I quoted. That was after they went through a lengthy discussion which you still seem to have ignored.

I said: ”Um, there exists no logical proof that God does not exist. How do you like your argument now?”

You said: Unlike you, I've defended it.”

Um, ya, with that above statement, which I repeated to show you its vacuousness.
All you did, Sye...was quote a few lines from the article I quoted and ignore their reasoning behind it.

Since you keep doing that, I can't help you. I can only direct other readers to the previous posts I made and hope that their reading comprehension is better than yours.

” What logical proof that your god exists, as opposed to Amon-tha, Zeus, etc?”

Tell me the one you believe in and I will be happy to refute it. I don’t see the point of refuting worldviews neither of us hold to.
No dodging, Sye. Shut up and do it. If it will make you happy, you can pretend that ther are people out there who believe both of them.

Then, when you're done, you can go throught the disproofs of the thousands of other gods that people have believed in and still believe in.

Let us know when you're done.

After all, you can't call yourself a chrisian unless you've analyzed every other religion out there and found it wanting, now, can you? To do so otherwise would require infinite knowledge on your part. (Just throwing some of Ray Comfort's "reasoning" in your face) ;)

”Your worldview has nothing to say about logic one way or the other.”

I do not see the point of doing Biblical exegesis with someone who denies the truth of the Bible. I do this on my site, so if you get your head in a sunnier place, you just may be able to find it.
Hmmm, so much for "Christian civility" eh? Maybe Ray should be notified of this comment of yours that slipped in between the cracks.

Though it would perfectly explain why you continually fail to read the material I posted from that other site even though I've repeated it several times.

”Logic doesn’t just not require faith, it logically can’t admit faith on any level, since doing so would be admitting a contradiction in logic, which is illogical.”

How do you know that your reasoning about this is valid?
And once again, ignoring the reasoning the site puts out, Sye just brainlessly parrots the same question over and over and over again.

You've refused to answer why "divine revelation" is valid, yet you ignore any answer we give for our reasoning.

Why? You have no proof. Nothing. Your only defense is to shift the burden of proof (how do you know your reasoning is valid), demand that we prove a negative (that "your" god exists), and make baseless assumptions without backing them up (My "God" exists; "divine revelation" works, I don't have to explain how), blah, blah.

I said: “How do you know that the reasoning with which you concluded that it WAS reliable is valid? How do you know that it WILL BE reliable tomorrow, or 2 seconds from now? How do you know the future Reynold?”

You answered: Why shouldn't they be?

Huh? That’s your argument?
We're not the ones who have a being running around changing the laws of logic and nature willy-nilly, you are. Since the laws of logic have been found, why shouldn't they be unchanging?

What makes you think that they would change? Quit shifting the burden of proof, please and try answering a question for once.

Um, why shouldn't God exist? How do you like your argument now?
I mentioned biblical contradictions, biblical science mistakes, etc and listed sites where they can be listed and discussed in other posts.

It won't matter, though, because why should you argue "bible exegesis" with an unbeliever, you said. Nice to see you have a dodge all ready.

The laws of logic exist outside of any diety.

Prove this please. You are making the claim, prove it.
Done repeatedly before; you just don't like the answer I give. Tough. Until you can explain how "the laws of logic are in God's nature" is different from "he'd be just the first one to figure out the laws of logic" then you've got nothing.

If he (or she - I'd like to see the proof that "God" is a male) is the first one to figure out the laws of logic, then all that means is just that. He's the first one to figure them out. It does not mean that they would not exist without him.

If you can bring up the bible verses that describe all the laws of logic that would at least show that your "God" figured out those laws...so far, we've not even got that; we've just got your say-so that he's responsible for them.

Not good enough.; July 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Andrew Louis said...: You keep giving me the same old line, so you get it back.

We'll have to agree to disagree sye - and for the record I don't think you're a troll.

Truth is what works by way of belief.; July 8, 2008 7:09 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew Louis said: "Truth is what works by way of belief.

Is THAT true, or is it just your belief? I would have preferred it, if you had answered my questions, but hopefully they will get you to exmine what you really believe.

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. Thanks for the vote!!!

-----------------------------------

TROLL POLL UPDATE!

Not a troll: Sye = 2
Life Unobstructed = 0

Christians, vote in the Troll Poll! :-); July 8, 2008 7:21 PM
dale said...: Reynold,
The presupper's first presupposition is that their bible is the word of God. No evidence, merely presuppose it.

There is no actual scripture that supports this minority delusion.

VanTil says,
“It is fatal to try to prove the existence of God by the ‘scientific method’ and by the ‘appeal to facts’ if . . . the scientific method itself is based upon a presupposition which excludes God."

Of course scientists do not presuppose anything. Ken Ham uses that all the time to try to put science on the same faith belief system as his own.

and...

"Our argument as over against this would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs."

Oh? That is merely an opinion with nothing to back it up.

"But the best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world."

Again, there is no way for him to back that up.

From my cronie, "Prof.
"This is not a rational grounds for justification, it is an appeal to magic. It does nothing to actually provide a justification, it merely asserts that there is one. One might as well say that there is a council of twelve, universe-creating elves (tm)" who create uniform universes. This universe being an example of their handiwork. That "accounts" for the universe being uniform just as cogently as does positing the Christian God: in other words, its just a label - a magic word - abracadbra- without any content behind it. "Goddidit"

Next, there is an utterly unsupported assertion contained with statements like these: "the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature." It is the presumption that the uniformity of nature needs to be "accounted for." In other words, the implication is: "without a God, a universe wouldn't be uniform." But precisely on what basis is such an assumption made? Exactly what experience, or special insight, does the author have of universes forming, that give
him the grounds for sneaking in the implicit assumption that Universes without a God are not uniform? How many "non-uniform," "un-created" universes has he been privy to, on which to derive his assumption?

The answer would be "none.""

Presuppers are just like all people of "faith." They have no evidence that God exists, they merely try to tell us it is fine to presuppose that God exists.

Psychologically speaking, people who claim to have "absolute truth" normally are relegated to the sidelines of society, not to even speak of their egotistical nature.; July 8, 2008 8:15 PM
Sye TenB said...: Dale said: ”Of course scientists do not presuppose anything.”

Sure they do, they presuppose the validity of the scietific method, the uniformity of nature and the validity of their own reasoning, to name but a few.

”That is merely an opinion with nothing to back it up.”

It’s axiomatic, supported by the Word of God, and proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Watch: Dale, how do you account for the uniformity of nature according to YOUR worldview?

”One might as well say that there is a council of twelve, universe-creating elves (tm)" who create uniform universes.”

One might, and if this is what you claim to believe, I will be happy to refute it.

”In other words, the implication is: "without a God, a universe wouldn't be uniform." But precisely on what basis is such an assumption made?”

God’s revealtion. The question is though, on what basis do YOU assume that nature is uniform?

”Presuppers are just like all people of "faith." They have no evidence that God exists,”

What is your evidence that presuppers have no evidence that God exists, or is this your argument from faith?

”Psychologically speaking, people who claim to have "absolute truth" normally are relegated to the sidelines of society, not to even speak of their egotistical nature.”

Um, is this absolutely true? Pot meet kettle – kettle, pot :-)

Cheers,

Sye; July 9, 2008 3:36 AM
Andrew Louis said...: Sye look,
I can't answer you're questions because I don't understand them. You keep using the same language over and over again. Is this absolutely true, is that absolutely true, so on. But absolute remains undefined, I'm not sure what you mean.

I assume that by using absolute you mean to assign to things eternal characteristics, that whatever the nature of that thing now will be so always, forever and eternally. But again, like infinity, eternal is a transcendental term and given our finite consciousness I cannot answer the question either way. I cannot assign something a characteristic that is beyond my experience. [now this is where you say, "is THAT absolutely true"], but like I said I can't answer, you're question simply is not a valid question.

You seem to think you're rather clever in what you're doing, but you don't realize the black hole you have in the words you're using. As I've already stated, you've done the task of not just having to prove God, but first having to prove absolute, and unless we’re going to sit here for eternity the reality of that “concept” is mere supposition. And who knows what man will have evolved into by that time ;-)

So once again, at best I can say that what is true is what works by way of belief. To say something is eternal is meaningless given our finitude.

Sye: "is that absolutely true"

You don't get it.; July 9, 2008 3:41 AM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew Louis said: ” I can't answer you're questions because I don't understand them. You keep using the same language over and over again. Is this absolutely true, is that absolutely true, so on”

Andrew, you are being disingenuous. My question about absolute truth was only one of the many you failed to answer. Allow me to list them for you:

1. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that yesterdays experiences will be the same as tomorrow’s experiences?

2. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the sun WILL be there?

3. I’d like to know on what basis the professed atheist assumes that the future will be like the past.

4. I’d like to see how you obey those commands without logic.

5. Which law of logic does my argument violate, how do you account for that law, and why does that law necessarily apply to my argument?

6. What natural law has changed?

7. How did you answer the question, is molesting children for fun absolutely wrong or isn’t it?

8. What standard of logic are you using to call my reasoning fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

If you do not understand the question about absolute truth, let me simplify it:

9. Is anything true, if so, how do you know this?

If you have difficulty understanding any of the above questions, and need clarification, I will be glad to clarify the ones you specify. I have numbered them, so they will be easier to reference, and more difficult to avoid.

Looking forward to your answers.

Cheers,

Sye; July 9, 2008 5:30 AM
Cynthia said...: "get_education left a comment on the post "Secular Philosophy":

Well, it cannot be surprising to have cynthia's vote for Sye, the trollerism works quite well, put God in a revered way, and those christians not used to thinking will see Sye as a hero. They think that, since they cannot understand anything Sye says, except the part about "without God there is no logic," Sye has to be very smart and God loving. Not possibly a troll."

=====
Reply:

Well, it cannot be surprising that you, get_education, even with all of your $40 words and expensive education, always resort to cyber bullying and sarcasm just because someone doesn't agree with you.

Do you have this same attitude and treatment of people in person when they disagree with you?

I'm so glad I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else just to be able to have my own opinion.

You cannot even imagine how bored I am with most of the things the atheists post on here, but I "absolutely" love reading what the Christians write.; July 9, 2008 7:13 AM
Andrew Louis said...: And you’re dodging MY question.

ANSWERS IN BRAXKETS []

1. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that yesterdays experiences will be the same as tomorrow’s experiences?
[on the basis of experience]

2. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the sun WILL be there?
[on the basis of experience]

3. I’d like to know on what basis the professed atheist assumes that the future will be like the past.
[ask the atheist]

4. I’d like to see how you obey those commands without logic.
[experience]

5. Which law of logic does my argument violate, how do you account for that law, and why does that law necessarily apply to my argument?
[you’re assuming absolutism, but you haven’t defined it]

6. What natural law has changed?
[already answered that, Newtonian physics. It should also be noted much of our “natural laws” have only come about in the last 100 years. There are people alive today who were around before they existed. Many of them have to be tested. To assume absolutism is a step off the bridge. It should also be noted that this is also a snare question as it can be stated that anything which has changed is not / was not, a natural law but simply something we believed.]

7. How did you answer the question, is molesting children for fun absolutely wrong or isn’t it?
[I don’t THINK it is either true or false that to do so is wrong, however I BELIEVE that we should not do such things.]

8. What standard of logic are you using to call my reasoning fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
[already covered this]

If you do not understand the question about absolute truth, let me simplify it:

9. Is anything true, if so, how do you know this?
[I don’t necessarily believe anything to be true, of course I already stated that. True is what works by way of belief. And once again you are being disingenuous by not defining absolute.]

Now rather then continue to ask me questions, answer mine, or I see no need to continue this conversation.

1.) Define absolute
2.) Define God

If we can agree upon a definition, we have grounds for a proper discussion. So please define these things.

Again,
my problem isn't what you believe, it's how you're getting there. At the end of the day we're both believers.; July 9, 2008 7:17 AM
dale said...: Sye said,
"Sure they [scientists] do, they presuppose the validity of the scietific method, the uniformity of nature and the validity of their own reasoning, to name but a few.

”That is merely an opinion with nothing to back it up.”

It’s axiomatic, supported by the Word of God,..."

You proved my point. Axiomatic means to "take for granted."

You cannot escape the fact that you always have to take that leap of faith. hehe.

Then you go on to say,"Dale, how do you account for the uniformity of nature according to YOUR worldview?"

Step into a black hole and check out the uniformity. Uniformity is a word made up by you presuppers of which you offer no definition.

The, I write,
"”In other words, the implication is: "without a God, a universe wouldn't be uniform." But precisely on what basis is such an assumption made?”

and you respond,
"”In other words, the implication is: "without a God, a universe wouldn't be uniform." But precisely on what basis is such an assumption made?”

"God’s revealtion."

Here you go again! Gods revelation is your axiom that you presuppose.
Nice try.

God’s revealtion.

I then write,
"”Psychologically speaking, people who claim to have "absolute truth" normally are relegated to the sidelines of society, not to even speak of their egotistical nature.”"

You respond, as predicted,
"Um, is this absolutely true?"

There are no absolutes, however that statement definitely applies to you.; July 9, 2008 7:42 AM
dale said...: Sye,
My apology. I was doubletasking and made a misstatement in my most recent comment.
On the uniformity of nature.

Yes, there is a reasonable expectation that , say, the speed of light would be the same tomorrow as it is today, and it would be constant throughout the universe.

We know this because we can measure it. Everytime we measure it, we find it the samee. Now, if you want to presuppose that some supernatural entity somehow is responsible for this, fine by me.

However, no matter how the universe got to where it is today, it would be absurd to expect that the spped of light could be different in different areas of the same universe.

First of all, you are merely dancing around the edges of a far larger philosophical argument of inductive reasoning.; July 9, 2008 9:45 AM
get_education said...: Cynthia,

Well, it cannot be surprising that you, get_education, even with all of your $40 words and expensive education, always resort to cyber bullying and sarcasm just because someone doesn't agree with you.

Well, I do not think I use $40 words, not that I know, nor was my education expensive. I come from a poor family, not hungry, but poor. I had to work hard for my education. So, in hard work terms, yes, it was expensive, in which case you might be right (if this is part of what you meant).

My post was not cyber-bullying, just descriptive. If I am wrong, then just think about it a bit, and MAKE my post a lie! I would be happy about it. I do not mind if you agree with me or not, I just do mind when people do not use those amazing brains they most probably have. I am very willing to accept that you can be way much smarter than me. I would just like you to use that intelligence.

I am way worse (harsher) in person, but generally people understand my goal, rather than just take offense.

I just hope that did not sound like bullying. That is not the goal.

G.E.; July 9, 2008 10:22 AM
dale said...: Sye,
One question I have asked you several times now that you have totally avoided.
Where are the bible verses that support your philosophy of presuppositionalism?; July 9, 2008 10:45 AM
dale said...: This post has been removed by the author.; July 9, 2008 12:24 PM
dale said...: I deleted my comment because it was meant to be posted on the Einstein Post, not here. Sorry; July 9, 2008 2:32 PM
weemaryanne said...: Cynthia, I also love reading what the Christians write.

Even the ones who tell tales of not one, not two, but three generations' worth of sexually abused children in the family -- while continuing to believe that their imaginary friend is looking out for them.

It's really a fascinating study in delusional behavior.; July 9, 2008 4:01 PM
Reynold said...: Sye TenB:

TROLL POLL UPDATE!

Not a troll: Sye = 2
Life Unobstructed = 0

Christians, vote in the Troll Poll! :-)

What about non-christians? ;); July 9, 2008 6:47 PM
Sye TenB said...: Andrew Louis said: ”And you’re dodging MY question.”

Actually Andrew I referenced you to my answers on my website. More on that later, to your ‘answers.’

1. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that yesterdays experiences will be the same as tomorrow’s experiences?
[on the basis of experience]

See Andrew, this is not an answer. You may think you are answering my question, but you are not. If you cannot answer the question, I would prefer it if you said that you were unable to answer it, rather than respond with a non-answer. I will reword the question, based on your response: Which experience tells you that tomorrows experiences will be the same as yesterdays experiences?

2. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the sun WILL be there?
[on the basis of experience].

Again, which experience tells you that the sun WILL be there?

3. I’d like to know on what basis the professed atheist assumes that the future will be like the past. [ask the atheist]

Alright then, on what basis do YOU assume that the future will be like the past? Before you answer ‘experience’ again, please tell me which experience tells you that the future will be like the past? While we are at it, perhaps you could tell me how you know that your memory of those experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?

4. I’d like to see how you obey those commands without logic.
[experience]

Please tell me what experience answers the command to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God?”

5. Which law of logic does my argument violate, how do you account for that law, and why does that law necessarily apply to my argument?
[you’re assuming absolutism, but you haven’t defined it]

Huh? Did you even read the question? I’m not assuming anything in the question. You accused me of committing a logical fallacy, please back up your accusation by answering my questions, or retract it.

6. What natural law has changed?
[already answered that, Newtonian physics. It should also be noted much of our “natural laws” have only come about in the last 100 years.

Um, so 100 years ago, gravity behaved differently on people??? Again, you are talking about our interpretation of natural laws, not the laws themselves. Please try again. Please tell me which natural law has changed?

7. How did you answer the question, is molesting children for fun absolutely wrong or isn’t it?
[I don’t THINK it is either true or false that to do so is wrong, however I BELIEVE that we should not do such things.]

How did you answer the question? Is it absolutely wrong, or could it be right?

8. What standard of logic are you using to call my reasoning fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
[already covered this].

Only with a non-answer, but I’ll wait to see if you answer #5 this time.

9. Is anything true, if so, how do you know this?
I don’t necessarily believe anything to be true, of course I already stated that.

Is it true, that you don’t necessarily believe anything to be true? Is it true that you already stated that?

True is what works by way of belief. And once again you are being disingenuous by not defining absolute.]

Where is the word absolute in that question??? If someone believes that Al Gore is the president of the United States, does that make it true???

Now rather then continue to ask me questions, answer mine, or I see no need to continue this conversation.
1.) Define absolute

I don’t see ‘absolute in any of my questions, but so that you do not have a reason to dodge my questions… Absolute = not relative

2.) Define God

Well, since it appears you are having GE’s problem of navigating to the page on my site, let me cut and paste it for you:
God is a personal being (not an impersonal force). God is immaterial, omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all good), immutable (unchanging), sovereign (supreme in authority), free, perfect, and eternal (without beginning or end). As the creator and sustainer of the universe it is understandable that there are some characteristics of God that are beyond our ability to comprehend. For instance God is one divine being in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are equally and eternally the one true God.

If we can agree upon a definition, we have grounds for a proper discussion. So please define these things.

Our agreement on those defintions have nothing to do with our discussion. I have asked you questions which do not require these definitions. For some reason you are using them as a smoke screen.

Again,
my problem isn't what you believe, it's how you're getting there. At the end of the day we're both believers.

Well, Andrew, I’ve had a look at your blog, and it would appear that we profess belief in different things.

Cheers,

Sye; July 9, 2008 7:09 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»