I found this interesting.
 

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Ok here are the notes I have from walking through this so called proof of god

it's misdefining and misperceiving "law"

at one point making you make the jump from materialism to the abstract based on a twisting of words and ideas to conform them to suit their perpose.

the laws of logic, mathematics, and science are *descriptive* rather that *prescriptive*(i.e. we make them up and fit them to reality as best we can)

"absolute moral law" presupposes prescription


Conclusion: This is not a proof for god it is a fools game for the fool hearted who are not versed in the ideas and meaning of words used in science and logic. So this site is just a cheap mind trick. sorry Chris no dice

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I don't define law, I ask whether you believe universal, abstract, invariant laws exist, prescriptive, or descriptive.


No twisting of words. Are the laws, material or abstract?


That's right, they are prescribed by God. Now, do you believe that they exist. If not, of course morality is arbitrary and NOTHING is absolutely wrong.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but am not surprised. Your presuppositions do not allow you to evaluate anything in a way that would support the existence of God. A person who wants to be their own God, will never admit that a real God exists.

Thanks for posting this link 'Chris', and thanks for visiting the site and offering your opinions Lunar.;)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

well lunar, I was gonna reply, but that dude already said it.^
And I said I found it interesting. I didnt put it here to try and convert anyone.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

well said man:)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Mind you I did not expound last ngiht in my opost tro show every little place where your logic if flawed but I took it over to another board I frequent and told them to have at it. so if you are interested in reading what they have to say knock yourself out. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12103


don't pretend to know me or my story based on one post of mine you have read you make the assumption that I have never believed in the invisible sky daddy (at least thats what your post conveys) you have no I dea of where I have been in my life to rest at the conclusions that I am currently at

Re: I found this interesting.
 

That's a cute little site, but you aren't going to covince many people with stuff like "it's not a glitch, think about it".

I mean, it makes sense to me, but I already believe it.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Thanks, but I'm up to my eyeballs in atheistic forums. I may check it out when I have more time.


I don't pretend to know you based on your post. I know why you deny God though, based on His infallible, inspired Word.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I do not intend to convince anybody. I only present the truth and hope that God uses it to change hearts.

The reason I added that 'glitch page' is because some people could not figure out that saying 'it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist,' is self refuting.

Blessings,

Sye

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Well you should make that clearer because it comes across dishonest and like you are twisting the thoughts and meaning of your intened "victim" because you don't state weather prescriptive or descriptive

They are called laws but they are not absolute there are exceptions to the rules but they are commonly accepted so they are refered to as laws. so you are misunderstanding the use of the word law you are useing a christian world view to define you words so you are misrepresentign uninterntional or not


To say they are prescribed by god (anygod for that matter) means you actually have to prove or have proof of a god and you site doen't even come close so you go out on a limb with out the tree to support you. There is a naturalistic morality that has been covered in debate here before so morality both absolute and arbitrary at the same time based on your reference point what you see as a moral issure I wouldn't and vice versa (get it?)


this is why I said you presumme much about my life and where I have been when it comes to belief. I have been a Christian in my life I was one for some 18-20 years The house I grew up in was very christian my father (a calvinist) a Proffesor of theology and a minister, my mother a missionary kid. so I have seen the so called evidence and and proofs for god I am familiar with Christianity more so than your average christian. I ame to the conclusion that the idea of a deity is highly improbable more likely impossible. I am not my own god because there are no gods. am I open to true evidence for a god that you undenyably prove his existance once and for all sure but the stuff that every one offers as proof is anicdotal or deceptive or ignorant.


No problem... my big thing is going about things honestly and using words as they were inteded to be rather than taking one definition and running with it and not knowing what it meant in its other uses.


Peace Be With You

Re: I found this interesting.
 

That's obvious to the most amateur of logicians. I am not criticising the site, per se. I just wonder if there are more effective ways.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Well, I would say our existance is a pretty good proof...

Re: I found this interesting.
 

^^ Argument from exisitance is a ggod starting point UD don't get me wrong... Philosipohy has been asking that type of question for a long long time (I.E. The Chicken and the egg) but just being here doesn't answer anything but it is a good place to start. Heck us just being here one could argue a few different things such as.... Wo is to say we didn't evolve with the starting point of Abiogenesis? Whos says if there is a being powerful enough to create us... who says we are the main point of this universe or that he loves us at all? or maybe he is a loving caring god who wants our praise but has no affect on what goes on (there are many steps here so I will just say and so on and so on)


Regardless every one here believes in some form of Abiogenesis (meaning life from non life) A sound theory is jugded as such for the when it makes the least possibe nubers of assumptions Christianity assmues much. Atheism (on the other hand) assumes one thing and then the logical progression from there. So based upon that I would say that Either Atheism or Deism (depending on the stripe of it) are more a viable theories because they really makes only 1 assumption.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Well I found you on Infidel guy's board http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=180749

Re: I found this interesting.
 

No need to clarify as I mean both.


Now this conclusion that you came to - Did you use the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic to come to that conclusion. If so, you came to the conclusion borrowing the foundation for reason from MY worldview. You used the Christian worldview in refuting the Christian worldview.

I'm sure that you will protest at that notion but tell me, what is YOUR foundation for reason. How do you justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in YOUR worldview?

Another point. Neutrality is a myth. Everyone evaluates EVERYTHING they encounter based on their already held beliefs - their presuppositions. Any evidence I produce you will evaluate based on your presupposition that God does not exist, just as I will evaluate anything you say based on my presuppositions that God does in fact exist. The only way that our argument can be satisfied is by evaluating each other's presuppositions to see who can support the preconditions for intelligibility. In other words, who can support logic and reason itself.

My presupposition is that God exists and that His Word is true. His word gives us the foundations for logic (universal, abstract, invariants). His word also explains origins, science and the human condition.

Now you may correct me if I am wrong, but since God is not your ultimate authority, I imagine that your own human reason is your ultimate authority. This is what I meant by being your own God. Even if you could be reasonably convinced of God's existence, what would be proven to you would not be God, since according to your worldview your reason would have higher authority than God, and can work without His existence.

With that said, I challenge you to prove the validity of your human reason WITHOUT God.

When you realize that it cannot be done. I hope that you fall to your knees and thank the one true God of Christianity who makes even your ability to reason possibe.


Thanks for the kind sentiment. I was wondering though what exactly do you mean by that.

P.S. I had a peak at that other forum. I hope you dont call me the same things here as you did there. ;)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I imagine threatening death might be more effective, but I prefer the Biblical approach. :D

Re: I found this interesting.
 

You know, this little site reminds me of that one statement about God being able to do anything?

If so, is he able to make something that not even he could move?

Ofcourse I don't expect to win souls by this obvious ploy, but neither will your obvious ploy!

Re: I found this interesting.
 

God can only do that which is within the parameters of His nature. The proposition you site is a contradiction, and since God cannot contradict Himself, No God cannot make something that He could not move.

If I could do miracles, I could walk through a wall. I could not however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time. That would defy the law of non-contradiction.

Again, winning souls is not up to me. I only relay the truth, and hope and pray that God uses it to draw people unto Himself.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Indeed.lol



Indeed.


I'd say it answeres a few things.


I could get into the science of this and show that this is, if not impossible, nearly so. But that is unnecessary. Abiogenesis does not explain anything, really. It pushes the argument back one step. Admitting abiogenesis, the argument then says: okay, how did whatever we evolved from get here?



I don't recall ever positing this, maybe you were responding to someone else. The argument from existance definitely does not prove God loves us.


Indeed. I was not asserting that existance necessitated the Christian God, though I do believe that we can reach that conclusion eventually through similar means.



First of all, I don't have a clue what these assumptions are that you are talknig about. The only thing I would say we assume, is our existance. I think you would agree that to get anywhere, we should assume that. After that, we make no more assumptions.

The Atheist's assumption of "abiogenesis" is not only not their only assumption, but is also not only an assumption--its an invention. There is no evidence for it. Whereas, the evidence for a god, higher being, necessary being, etc. comes from... us. Being here.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Do Tell

Agreed abiogenesis is an assumption that both sides make mine is with out involvment from a deity you is with involvment of a deity. so yes either of us arguing this is moot at this point

no you never did post it I was jus trying to put up a few things to cover some of the bases rather than falling in to the either or fallacy... I was just trying to be thurough. and you are correct in your stament that the argument form existance does not prove gods love

I would like to the the progressive steps in wich you reach such a conclusion.


ok we will assume notting more than we are here.... that is the axiom of the discussion.

the assumptions that I was refering to when it comes to christianity are a few....
1. There is a god
2. He created the world and life on it and is involved in it
3. Jesus was his son and he was crucified.
4. everything in the bible is true (now I know that one may be different with you because the catholic church has said that some parts of the bible should be ignored and maybe you can outline that later)
5. that there is a heaven and hell
6. that prophacy (in the bible) has yet to happen

there are others but there are some good one that christianity assumes.


ummm..... no

Abiogenis is not with out its questions true, but your jump form there to the necessity of a god is premature at this juncture in the discussion.


and if you actually want to read up on abiogenesis and get the facts of it (Uncertian or anyone else reading) then feel free to read the link over at talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/


or the probability of it click here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Re: I found this interesting.
 

What so you want the privlage of having it both ways?? sorry it doen't work like that besides depening on the world view the person is probably gonna assume one way or the other wich makes it awfuly convienient for you doen't it?


A world view can be self refuting just as the bible is self refuting if you actually look and read the bible contradicts itself many many times over much as the christian world voew contradicts itself so you have a self refuting world view.

Point of contention here Logic and science and natualistic morality are all observable so they are not tottaly abstract they only seem abstract to the laymen but with some study you will find they are observable things in our world therefore comming back to a materialistic world view.... you try to take it in to the abstract by twisting words to make it seem as such
This is a moot point because I can not make you understand my world view but I understand your world view since I havve been there and I would have to go in favor of my world view when is comes to supporting logic and reason. I have the upper hand here because have held both world views in my life.
I disagree I have read the book over and over and it does not explain science nor does it explain origins (tell me wich genesis account is true Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?) there are 2 sepperate stories there that in itself defies logic unless he made the wolrd twice.

Where doe you get the foundations of logic?? please do tell

Now as far as the human condition I am not gonna argue there the bible is a good book of myth and speaks of the human condition.


You knwo what its the same on your side you stack the deck in gods favor even in the face of evidences that call him in to question you give him a couple extra so he can come ou on top. the finger can be pointed right back at you man.

I am not asking to be convinced I am asking for proof there is a difference. but christians I have found rarley use the words "proved existance" they use words like "I am convinced" so that leaves out proof... a god argument can convince anyone of most anything. but when it comes down to hard core irrefutable proof there is somethign lacking... and come on lets just face it. you would hope for irrefutable proof when sitting on the jury for a muder trial when some one's life hangs in the balance... why not ask for the same in our lives? the most important question the god question. why not ask for irrefutable proof instead of beign asked to be convinced?

no you don't get off that easy there... you're gonna have to prove the existance of god if you are gonna have me construct an arguemnt that big.
but you will find this all pointless due tothe facttaht you can nto prove his existance just like his non existance can not be universally proven... you can pick off gods one by one but can notknock them all out in one fell swoop because all gods have different attributes.

Why Christianity? why believe in jesus? he is not unique in any way his stroy is a rehash of many dying and rising god over 1000 years before him. but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

meaning Peace be with you
I do not wish harm to come to anyone no matter how heated a debate gets I may get frustrated but I wish no harm on anyone... but I can not say the same about other religions who order the death of Atheists and blasphemers and disobedient children and so on and so on.

I try to refrain from using ad-hom attacks in debate it is pointless and get the debate nowhere I hope the same form you.... but if I am not in a debate I will let my feelings of frustration be known. venting on a fourm where a debate between us is not happening is something I see as fair game.. sorry if you take offense to the language that is how I talk but per request for a few here I refrain form using it in debate and on most sections of the board.


Peace be with you

Re: I found this interesting.
 

So God cannot do anything? He is bounded by the law of non-contradiction.

Well if he is bound by it, I surely am, therefore I cannot state absolutely that there is no absolute truth and therefore your whole site is meaningless.

Btw if God is unknowable (for the most part) and works in mysterious ways, how are you able to define the parameters of his nature? If you are not able to define them, how do you know what lies within these parameters?

Also, your supposition that atheists consider themselves gods is utter nonsense, we have non-belief in gods and we, humans, do not fall under any kind of definition for gods.

We don't deny a higher authority, because we do not want there to be one, but because there simply is none.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

God cannot contradict himself. That is all I said.


You can state it but you would be contradiciting yourself. God cannot contradict Himself, we can. God cannot lie, we can.


He has revealed them to us in His Word.


What is your ultimate authority?


You cannot prove a universal negative. You would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say there is NO God. You would have to be God to say there is no God. Hardly convincing.

Thanks for your comments Ralph,

Sye

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I realize that this was not addressed to me but if I may...

The Christian only assumes (read - presupposes) 2 things, that God exists, and that the Bible is His word. The rest are contained in His word.

The atheist assumes MANY things.
1. Matter from non-matter
2. Sentient matter from non-sentient matter
3. Intelligent matter from non-intelligent matter
3. Moral matter from non-moral matter
4. Universal, abstract, invariant laws exist (from randomness)
5. Nature is uniform (in a 'random' universe)
6. Human reasoning is valid on its own.

I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point.

Cheers,

Sye

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Either they exist or they do not. People are free to choose what they believe.


Merely stating this does not make it so. You will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on your presupposition that the Bible is NOT the infallible word of God. The Christian will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on their presupposition that the Bible IS the word of God. Your point is moot. We have to examine the validity of our presuppositions to reach any conclusion.


Please show me a law of logic or science.


http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ho...ccount-for.php



I have given you proof. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You want to be CONVINCED that that proof is valid.


I have shown you the proof of God's existence. Rather than suggest that the argument supporting the validity of your human reason, without using human reason, is going to be 'Big,' just think about it first. You cannot do it. You may try if you like though.


For one, because Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logical foundation for universal, abstract, invariant laws. You may posit another. I will be pleased to refute it.


You realize that this is a nice sentiment but a meaningless statement coming from an atheist. How can an abstract concept 'be with' anybody in your worldview?


You directed me to a forum where you called me a pretty low name. I have decided to answer some of your objections, but really after that, I certainly was not obliged to.

Cheers,

Sye

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Same difference.
Question: God can do anything.
Answer: God cannot contradict himself.
Conclusion: God cannot do anything => God is not omnipotent => the God of the bible cannot exist.


Another proof that the God of the bible cannot exist, if I can do something he cannot. It also goes to the question of 'free will', apparently we have 'free will', but God himself hasn't.

Unproven assumption.



There is no such thing as far as my knowledge goes.



This is correct, but now we also have to assume that Santa Claus, unicorns, goblins, giants, elfs and any other fantasy figure are real, since I cannot disprove them either. Atheists have always stated that the burden of proof lies with those who make the positive assertation, namely that God exists. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, unless your omniscient indeed, that does not stop us from intelligently deducing that some things do not exist.


You're welcome.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I certainly do not make such an assumption. I have God creating the universe. You have nothing creatign the universe. Hence, I am obeying the rules of science and you aren't.



I'll do that when we come to an agreement about god existing in the first place :rolleyes:



Exactly. My answer to why we are here is God put us here. You don't really have an answer unless you have come up with somethign that millinos of atheists throughout history have failed to do.


Okay let's see....


No an assumption. Here is the syllogism:

We exist. An effect needs a cause. Hence, something had to cause us. This effect is called God.


That he created the world is easy to show. That He is involved in it is not an assumption, and though might not be scientifically proveable (but then, plenty of things you take for granted aren't either), it is reasonable to assume He would create us for a purpose.


Well, we seem to be getting way off-topic here, but this is not an assumption. Based on the evidence, many believe that Jesus was God. This is not an assumption, it is a deduction.


The Catholic Church does not say anything in the Bible is untrue. Indeed, the Catholic Church wrote and compiled the Bible's lsit of inspired books and holds it all to be the inspired word of God. However, the Church also admits the metaphorical speaking of Genesis which I believe you are refering to (the Church does not hold any young earth notions, etc.).

Well surely you understand this is not an assumption. This comes from many other things, i.e. Jesus, His apostles, the Church, etc.



Huh? I dont understand this one.



Seems fine to me. You haven't been able to show why god isn't necessary.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Where do you get the idea that God can do anything? God can't perform an evil act. That is something very simple which He can't do.


Sure He does. But He can't do anything contrary to His nature. That doesn't take away His will. You can't become invisible. Does that mean you aren't free?



Well at least you recognize that one can't disprove God. As for the burden of proof, I would say it is on you. For one thing, we need to have been created by someone, i.e. God. Seems like you have to come up with an alternative possibility (i.e. that something can come from nothing, thus disproving every rule of science we have and making your positions even more untenable), or else God wins.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

oops. double post

Re: I found this interesting.
 

As far as I've always heard, God is besides omniscient also omnipotent, which means he can do anything, but please correct me if I'm wrong.


I don't get it, God did create us in his image, didn't he. So if he cannot do anything against his nature, why can we do things against his/our nature. Or did he create us with a different nature? Why did he create us as sinners than? Isn't it against his nature to create something that can act against his nature?


It's the question of the chicken and the egg. You say that nothing can come from nothing, but in the same sentence you state that God was the origin and therefore always was and therefore does not need a cause. This is circular logic, if every effect needs a cause, so does God, unless he was created by God's God. :D

The problem with believing in God is, that God must be the answer to everything, but he isn't. While a non-believer can simply say, I do not know.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

The Bible says that God does not destroy. Evil things are not of God. They are of the dark side.lol
So, if its all cause and effect, then what caused the big bang or whatever else it is you believe? What caused existence altogether? God doesn't have to be the answer to everything. 2+2 does not equal God. We all know its 5.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Whoever said that God can do anything?!?


God can freely do that which is within His nature.


And that certainly does not make it so. The theist believes that God is so prevelant that His existence can be seen in everything, even your very ability to reason. Surely that would put the burden on you to prove how you can reason without God.


Cheers

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Very good post, sorry I should have read it before I responded. I said basically the same thing.;)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Omnipotent does not mean the ability to do anything. If I were omnipotent, I could walk through walls, I could not, however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time.


Adam and Eve were not created as sinners. They were created with the ability to sin. There is a difference. Creating them with the ability to sin, is not against God's nature.


I realize that this is not my argument, but this is why I argue presuppositionaly rather than evidentially (in that case ontologically).Of course you would have to prove that God is an 'effect' to make your case, but you have a point.

The presuppositionalist says that God must exist for you to make sense even of causality. The preconditions of intelligibility require universal, abstract, invariant laws, which you cannot account for in your worldview. Feel free to try however.


There are no true agnostics. If an agnostic were consisten with his belief, he would go to church half the time.

Thanks for your good points.

Cheers

Re: I found this interesting.
 

fair enough that most or which is contained in the bible so the list shrinks to 3 off the op of my head but I am cetrtain there is more so here are the 3 as I see it

1. God Exists
2. We are the focus of his creation (yes I do realize that one could infer this from the bible out but based on the universe I still see this as an assumption)
3. The bible is 100% true and accurate

1. nope who is to say that matter wasn't ust always here (per the solid state universe theory
2. The is abiogenesis and this is the one assuption
3. evolution is an obervable science so it is not an assumption
3 (agian). Please clairify what you mean by this
4. no gonna justify that with a response because we have already talked about that
5. its not it seems to take on uniformity because you only get a glymps of it in your short life span but it is chaos
6. it sure is any you have failed to demonstrait other wise as I have pointed out to you the flaws in your logical proccess and you continue to ignor and if you got you logic from the bible I guess god didn't spell it out well enough in the bible

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I love how you completly ignore the probablitity of abiogeseis this discussion is pointless if are not willing to do the leg work and either refute or call in to question what I bing to the table.... not like we haven't had this discussion before.but if you are unwilling to actually participate then we can stop.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Either or fallacy

you are ignoring the fact that there could be some other option.

if you need to know what fallacies are go here
http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

here is a list of contradictions lets see is you can combat them
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html


You have failed to give proof because your sight twists logic and there for it looses it wich is the opisite of what you have been trying to do with it.

You have failed to prove god or to prove that even if her existed how he is reposible for logic and reason. The link you provided offered nothing more than the suposed nature of god. Since you have already killed the christian model of god in discussion with Ralphy, there is no point at this time to address this because it has become moot as well, soon we will have nothing more to discuss because all points will have become moot. (lol)

You miss the point... There is nothing about Jesus that is unique in his story... The retelling of myth (dying and rising god myth in this case) is an old practice. Lets see who else is there off the top of my head that pre-dates Jesus, that has a very similar or an identical story as him... Dyonisis, Mythras, Osiris, Apolonious. are a few that come to mind... Have you read up on them? have you studied their stories? Did you even know of their existance?

Peace is not an abstract concept because it is observable. You really like ignoring reality when using your definitions of words don't you? if we can observe war then we can observe peace


then by all means if I offended you then don't talk to me. you never were under any obligation to, name or no name. plain and simple I could drop this convertation right now becasue I don't owe you anything, much as you don't owe me anything.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

The impossibility of an actual infinite in time:
"Let's use an example of marbles". Imagine I had an infinite amount of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all the odd numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you would have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! Or another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would have only three marbles left.
What these illustrations demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results"
William Lane Craig, interviewed by Lee Strobel in The Case for a Creator, ch 5


Actually it is a religion based on faith as NO ONE has observed evolution.

The rest you have not addressed, and I don’t have the time to explain them again.

Cheers

Re: I found this interesting.
 

You know what.... if you are gonna fail to educate yourself on such matters as simple as evolution which is an observable science accepted as scientific fact even by christians and catholics then we are done here. My time is much to valuable to me than to waste it your cultish beliefs and twisted pitiful excuse for logic.


we are done here I refuse do to the leg work while you sit over there and dick around with your ignorace in science.


and no I am nto gonna justify the pathetic ramblings of apologist Lee Stroble with a response he does not have the respect of te theological community nor shall he have my respect you would have known this if you had done your home work and actually read privious threads on this board but alas you are only half heartedly going after any endevor regarding your website so it doesn't surprise me at all.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I'll save you some time. Just post one evolutionary fact that science has observed.

(By the way, if in fact you know anything about the evolutionary theory, you have gotten it from faith in a book, or in evolutionary scientists. I'll give you a 'small' list of scientists who disagree: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...os/default.asp )