Ep. 97: Human evil

[Dr Mundo]

KTR,

To be fair, not all of the theist arguments have "been resoundingly beaten hard, and fail." If this were true, it would mean that all theists are naive or dishonest.

Or they could be ignorant of the facts regarding the reasons why the arguments are flawed. Its not as simple as naive OR dishonest. there are plenty of other reasons. I think the biggest thing for a Theist though, is that these things don't matter to them. Faith is far more important than some argument for the existence of God because they already believe. To them God is very much involved in their life because they "feel" his presence. I have a completely different view on these things than they do though. Unless I have direct evidence for the existence of something, I am literally unable to believe in it, some will be perfectly happy not having direct evidence for it, I just can't have it that way.

But back to the whole naive or dishonest, I see this with Tony and his (mis)use of the Big bang theory. What he fails to understand is that Time/Space "as we know it" is what they are talking about. So when he uses the cosmological argument, its flawed because he has not understood what the science behind it actually means. Its not dishonest of him or naive, at least I don't think so, Its just misinformed. We don't say that everything in existence began, Just that for the current state of our observable universe, the matter, and time/space as we know it have their origins linked to the big bang.

I will be the first to admit that some of the arguments are flimsy, but not all. In fact, some of them are convincing to me (the cosmological and contingency arguments, for example) and I don't think that I am naive or dishonest.

Could you possibly be misinformed then? If you could Scott, would you mind breaking down the cosmological argument for me? At least your understanding of the argument, I am not familiar with any Arguments for the existence of God that are in any way valid and sound. But I would love to hear any if you have them.

[Dr Mundo]

Are you comfortable with the following premises?
- Historically, Jesus was our direct evidence for God creating the earth.
- Today, Jesus is our unseen evidence for God creating the earth.
- When he comes again in the future, Jesus will be our direct evidence for God creating the earth.
As the saying goes, "[We] beggars can't afford to be choosers." I'm not saying you have to receive willingly something given or offered. It's entirely your choice. If you want to live your life with fewer problems or concerns, then why are you troubling yourself so much? That being the case, why would you need anything else other than Jesus? Don't forget, "Contentment with godliness is great gain."

Is there a Christian in these forums who thinks that these are Premises that are usable in any way. I think it would be helpful to cleve to hear why this is a poor way of presenting arguments, if it comes from a fellow follower of the Christ. Because at least that way cleve won't interpret our objections to his arguments as Atheists who just refuse to see his points. And besides you will be helping an other christian to refine his argumentative skills.

cleve here is why I doubt that any atheist will take these seriously, and why KTR most likley didn't accept any of these as worthy "premises". You have no evidence to back them up. It is unsupported and without justification. I have no reason at all to assume that Jesus existed or that he had these powers of creating the earth or any other claim ascribed to him. So in order for you to use Jesus as part of any premise you must first demonstrate that
1) A God exists.
2) That Jesus actually existed.
3) That Jesus is the God you proved existed in step 1.

Then and only then are you able to use Jesus as part of a premise. Hope this helps. If anyone thinks I have missed something or miss-stated something let me know, thanks.

[Keep The Reason]

There is no end to the capacity that people have of deluding themselves. I have heard the same ridiculous claims by people who call themselves "christian". It is my experience that the only thing that is resoundingly proven by them is that it is pointless to talk to them, because they are not listening.

Ah, again MM makes comments to me indirectly while keeping me on ignore.

A. Cowardly approach.
B. Stating it is pointless to talk to me but talking to me through someone else is both A. above, but it is also hypocritical.

At least you're consistent.

[Keep The Reason]

I think it would be helpful to cleve to hear why this is a poor way of presenting arguments, if it comes from a fellow follower of the Christ. Because at least that way cleve won't interpret our objections to his arguments as Atheists who just refuse to see his points. And besides you will be helping an other christian to refine his argumentative skills.

I don't know about this, Doc, for two reasons. The first is simple entrenchment. Anyone who doesn't see the fundamental flaws of cleve's statements (and I mean cleve himself by this) isn't apt to be open to any other approach from the start.

And secondly, historically the way Christians have of settling disputes of approach is to kill one another.

[mikedsjr]

Are you comfortable with the following premises?
- Historically, Jesus was our direct evidence for God creating the earth.
- Today, Jesus is our unseen evidence for God creating the earth.
- When he comes again in the future, Jesus will be our direct evidence for God creating the earth.
As the saying goes, "[We] beggars can't afford to be choosers." I'm not saying you have to receive willingly something given or offered. It's entirely your choice. If you want to live your life with fewer problems or concerns, then why are you troubling yourself so much? That being the case, why would you need anything else other than Jesus? Don't forget, "Contentment with godliness is great gain."

Is there a Christian in these forums who thinks that these are Premises that are usable in any way. I think it would be helpful to cleve to hear why this is a poor way of presenting arguments, if it comes from a fellow follower of the Christ. Because at least that way cleve won't interpret our objections to his arguments as Atheists who just refuse to see his points. And besides you will be helping an other christian to refine his argumentative skills.

I didn't respond to him in the first place because I don't have a lot of time to spend on multiple conversations.

Cleve's premises are not sound in a Reformed Systematic Theology. That's really the only one that counts.

-Historically, Jesus was our direct evidence for God creating the earth.

Cleve, to be honest I don't even understand your premise here. How is Jesus our direct evidence for the specific task you state? I really don't follow it.

- Today, Jesus is our unseen evidence for God creating the earth.

Again, I don't understand your premise or your point.

- When he comes again in the future, Jesus will be our direct evidence for God creating the earth.

And what does this mean?

Cleve, I didn't see what you stated before these, but the premises are not foundational at all to Christianity. Scripture alone, after the end of inscripturation, is our God inspired direct point of evidence for God creating the universe. Atheist are not going to believe your statements, even if they were logical, or what scripture says that whatsoever and that shouldn't be a problem for Christians to handle at all. Its not the Christians job to prove God. God proves God.

[Keep The Reason]

Cleve, I didn't see what you stated before these, but the premises are not foundational at all to Christianity. Scripture alone, after the end of inscripturation, is our God inspired direct point of evidence for God creating the universe. Atheist are not going to believe your statements, even if they were logical, or what scripture says that whatsoever and that shouldn't be a problem for Christians to handle at all. Its not the Christians job to prove God. God proves God.

Both cleve's and mike's approach are precisely the same approaches: Both are circular in nature to the point of adopting their conclusions as part of their proofs; thus, both fail as logical models.

Mike's has the additional problem of accounting for why he is here arguing or debating his Christianity at all. Unless there is someone who does not have the "story of salvation" here in this corner of the webiverse, the testimony is accomplished; if you aren't here to prove or defend your Christian positions, then why are you here? Don't get me wrong-- I'm not suggesting you leave, I'm suggesting that by your own claim, you serve no purpose here. We all have the "Jesus Tale" -- so your job is done.

[cleve]

[quote="Keep The Reason"] ... Both are circular in nature to the point of adopting their conclusions as part of their proofs; thus, both fail as logical models.

Everyone is chasing their tail - including you. End of discussion.

[cleve]

... Both are circular in nature to the point of adopting their conclusions as part of their proofs; thus, both fail as logical models.

There is no way to KEEP THE REASON for continuing this discussion with you. It goes in circles similarly to the way a dog chases its tail. For that matter, it seems like everyone chases their tail throughout life - including you. So why keep promoting a stupid game of going in circles? End of discussion game.

[Dr Mundo]

End of discussion.

Not for us. You may leave if you want, but its a bit disheartening that you don't want to continue the discussion, just when it was starting to get good. Mike had some good questions for you, shame you are done. Also not everyone is chasing their tails. As soon as you show me that I am, I'm going to stop and get a sense of direction before continuing to spin endlessly around in a circular argument.

[mikedsjr]

Amazing.
Atheist: there is no God, therefore i will suppress logical statements by those who use arguments based on God giving humanity Scripture to know Him. I only reason from my suppressed view of reason and thus im always right. Only bias suppressed logic is true for me.

I gave an argument earlier for scripture and science are harmonious. One time events(ass talking) which atheist cant believe because they suppress truth of scripture doesnt equate to reason. The word anomoly doesnt exist for nothing. I dealt with the issue KTR asked of me and he decides to use poor reasoning to handle ny statements. A person of good character would choose to interact with my statements. Thus KTR demonstrates evil of his heart. I too am done here

[Keep The Reason]

Amazing.
Atheist: there is no God, therefore i will suppress logical statements by those who use arguments based on God giving humanity Scripture to know Him. I only reason from my suppressed view of reason and thus im always right. Only bias suppressed logic is true for me.

What's amazing is that you think that written words in a book is "logical support" for a god. You haven't made that case at all. How are the words from your book different from the words in someone elses' book?

No case made; silence on that -- it's a "just because" argument. But no, we're not allowed to point that out to these two people because-- they don't have the answer. So if you do point it out, they turn tail and run away (Bye!).

So, to your retreating backs, I say it to you loud and clear:

In terms of accurately describing truthful events, your bible means utterly nothing to me. Zero. As literature from the bronze age and as some inspirational mythology, -- yep, there it has value-- no different from the Upanishads, or the Bhagavad Gita. Indeed, on that level, I robustly enjoy such writings. But as the ultimate truth of existence? No weight whatsoever.

I gave an argument earlier for scripture and science are harmonious. One time events(ass talking) which atheist cant believe because they suppress truth of scripture doesnt equate to reason. The word anomoly doesnt exist for nothing. I dealt with the issue KTR asked of me and he decides to use poor reasoning to handle ny statements. A person of good character would choose to interact with my statements. Thus KTR demonstrates evil of his heart. I too am done here

I am pointing out your "anomaly" is merely an excuse to have a completely mythological fictional account be considered a real event. You actually believe a donkey conversed with a person and are content to label it an "anomaly".

Your self-exemption for a childish imaginary story-- that's integrity, right? That's "good". You get to suspend criticism for the things you want to believe in regardless of how utterly inane (or insane -- take your pick) they might be, but anyone who doesn't grant you that luxurious freedom is evil. Evil, no less!

I could go a few ways with this insult of yours. I could return fire. I could mock it. Or, I can just let it stand as an illustration of the type of person you are.

I'll choose option 3.

[Dr Mundo]

I too am done here

Its a real shame, This is the way we need to move forward (with honest discussions and more understanding of each others positions). While I don't have the perfect way to help guide us through this process I can almost assure you that dropping out is the least beneficial way to further close the gap between believer and non believer, which is really what I want.

Amazing.
Atheist: there is no God, therefore i will suppress logical statements by those who use arguments based on God giving humanity Scripture to know Him. I only reason from my suppressed view of reason and thus im always right. Only bias suppressed logic is true for me.

How in the world did you ever get this from anybody on these forums. No one here starts with there is no God and then works their way back. No one even ends with "there is no God". Only I have concluded that I have no reason to believe this God these people are talking about is in any way a being that has either interactions with our physical world or itself has any physical properties. Your view of how atheist see the evidence for God is, unimaginably wrong. I couldn't even begin to describe how off the mark this statement that you just made really is.

I gave an argument earlier for scripture and science are harmonious. One time events(ass talking) which atheist cant believe because they suppress truth of scripture doesnt equate to reason.

Suppose I grant you the that this donkey talked. How does that prove it was God who made it talk. You still have not proven that God even exists.

If I told you the reason it gets dark at night was because Garbet covers the earth with a film that blocks out sun light, why wouldn't you accept that Garbet exists? Garbet by the way is a Giant 4 headed dragon-mouse, he is invisible and grants me wishes if I have a strong sexual desire for him. I'm sorry, I don't mean this to be insulting I just wanted to make it as absurd as I could to illustrate my point, no disrespect intended but I honestly want to know why you wouldn't accept Garbet as a being that exists, even though I explained to you that he is the reason why it gets dark.

[mitchellmckain]

If I told you the reason it gets dark at night was because Garbet covers the earth with a film that blocks out sun light, why wouldn't you accept that Garbet exists? Garbet by the way is a Giant 4 headed dragon-mouse, he is invisible and grants me wishes if I have a strong sexual desire for him. I'm sorry, I don't mean this to be insulting I just wanted to make it as absurd as I could to illustrate my point, no disrespect intended but I honestly want to know why you wouldn't accept Garbet as a being that exists, even though I explained to you that he is the reason why it gets dark.

Perhaps at one time, maybe 10,000 years ago or so, such an explanation might have been accepted and all the rest of us would be in awe of your ability to think up such an explanation. LOL Somewhat later in history, people would not be so impressed, they had what they thought was a much more reasonable explanation for things. Today we see that science provides a much more useful and effective way of explaining natural phenomenon and still people find value in Christianity and religion because there is more to life than explaining natural phenomenon.

[Dr Mundo]

If I told you the reason it gets dark at night was because Garbet covers the earth with a film that blocks out sun light, why wouldn't you accept that Garbet exists? Garbet by the way is a Giant 4 headed dragon-mouse, he is invisible and grants me wishes if I have a strong sexual desire for him. I'm sorry, I don't mean this to be insulting I just wanted to make it as absurd as I could to illustrate my point, no disrespect intended but I honestly want to know why you wouldn't accept Garbet as a being that exists, even though I explained to you that he is the reason why it gets dark.

Perhaps at one time, maybe 10,000 years ago or so, such an explanation might have been accepted and all the rest of us would be in awe of your ability to think up such an explanation. LOL Somewhat later in history, people would not be so impressed, they had what they thought was a much more reasonable explanation for things. Today we see that science provides a much more useful and effective way of explaining natural phenomenon and still people find value in Christianity and religion because there is more to life than explaining natural phenomenon.

Good response Mitch. this was set up to be silly to prove a point. Mike claimed that his argument was that science and scripture lined up. mine was that the Garbet is the reason why darkness falls on the earth at night. Just because we can come up with a scenario does not mean its probable, likely or even possible. You resorted to demonstrable and what we now know as common knowledge about a better explanation for the darkness of night. We need to have evidence for something before we start making claims about it to other people or else we just sound like we are making stuff up. One of the reasons you don't accept the Garbet hypothesis, is because 1. You don't have any proof for it, and 2. You have a better explanation for it already. That is the same way I feel about Mike's scripture argument.