The Futile Arguments Thread

[Davin]

God knows what we're going to do for it is present in the future.  He sees what we do in the future as present.  SO in the past (according to the future, its present) he knows beforehand in relation to our perception of time, not his, so this is the paradigm of God's perception of the universe, being outside of time, versus our perception of reality inside of time.  Also, just as God knows what you're gonna do, doesn't mean he made you do it.

It doesn't matter how you try to explain it, the concept is the same: What I'm going to do, god already knows.

If god created everything, including all my circumstances while knowing exactly what I'll do in those circumstances... he did make me do those things.

So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

I agree, nonsense does not acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the concept of a god or gods.

What does God do that's labelled as sin?

"Thou shalt not kill/murder" is a good one that the god in the bible ignored on many occasions.

[defendor]

1. I believe that truth as a category exists
2. I believe it is possible in a majority of claims to verify this truth by philosophical and historical accuracies
3. There are existential realities from which I cannot run, not just philosophical ones

How does God know?  As continually revealed throughout scriptures.  

If the bible made assertions that were either historically false or philosophically false or existentially disagreeable, then it could not be an accredited source.

As you take the 66 books of the Bible, disclosed over centuries (1500 years) you can observe the prophetic schema, all the way down to the person of Christ.

Even taking a look at such secular historians agree on the person and historical accuracy of Christ, such as:
Cornelius tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of samasota
Flavius Josephus
 
The thing about the manuscripts that support the scriptures is that it is greater than any other ancient text. Over 5,000 manuscripts that make the bible fairly transparent. So the question is not whether it's a reliable source, but whether or not you believe it. Which is a very reasonable doubt. It takes the Holy Spirit to believe it, thats in Ephesians 3:4-5. Do i believe the word of God is inerrant? Yes, but I am not inerrant. Do I believe the bible is infallible? yes, but I am fallible.  Islam holds true that the Koran is the precise word for word revelation from God to Mohammed and nothing must be changed for it is written perfection. But really, who's to say one word isn't so much better than another. what i mean by inerrant is the fullness of revelation by God to man through the written word. I think there is some discrepancy of the bible that is open to interpretation, but it is the inerrancy of God in revealing the nature and character of Jesus Christ throughout the entire schema. From Genesis 3 on, the story is laid out for Jesus.

The old testament, is premised on laying out a story of a real God, in real time, with real obstinate people. There is a great emphasis on dates, events, and historical accounts. But the story is not in the words, but in the revelation of the true God into each person.

For Example, the Book of Daniel was written in 500 B.C. and there is a prophecy of a nation that is marching "many nations" under foot.  Also the empire will be led by strident, strong man from the west.  Then the kingdom will be drastically cut off and split into 4 kingdoms.  These 4 kingdoms will become 2 and these 2 will become 1. (Daniel 11)

In 300 B.C. alexander the great marched many nations under foot, was drastically cut off at the time of his death so early in life.  His Kingdom was given to his 4 generals, these 4 combined into Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and of these empires the Roman Empire emerges.

So as you read this, you immediately see the supernatural.  As you make claims to what lays within the Bible are false and what not, you might need an accurate understanding of the Bible.

We as humans, are fractured beings.  We have become numb to our own affliction and blind to our own blindness.  The world in which we live will testify to the nature of man.  For society is only a culmination of men, right?  So in world with disobedience, God has revealed himself to one nation, and to this nation he has revealed his full character of justice and mercy.  In an obstinate people, he pleads repentance.  For every disingenuous act, he delivers from evil.  But he said, in the fullness of time, there will be a deliverer of everyone, not just this people.  So to rid the world of the shadow of the law and sin, he sent his Son Jesus to die on a cross.

You made mention that you don't sin, have you ever broken any rules, all the way from a child?  Have you ever disobeyed your own conscience?  SO if god made you disobey, you might think that he may make you become a believer, for god desires that all men come to know him..? But since you don't know the future, how do you really know?

I believe I posed the question of moral standards, and differentiating between Good and Evil, could someone please answer this?

About the rock paradox, the question is nonsense, but by simply adding God to it does not make it a respectable question.

The Hebrew word was murder.  But if someone is hanged for murder, is it murder?  I think this ties back into the standard of morality and differentiating between good and evil.  This is also why Jesus was sent to the cross, so that the fullness of the law might be met, so we can be free from the law of sin and death.

[Event_Horizon]

Man, if only I had enough hours in day to go through every point about how wrong you are.

[Stevil]

How does God know?  As continually revealed throughout scriptures.  

Whose to say that the scriptures are the word of Yhwh and that Yhwh is god?
The scriptures tell us this, but can we really trust them?


Whose to say that the scriptures weren't ill conceived by the devil, putting the thoughts and ideas into the human authors heads. Whose to say that Jesus wasn't the anti-christ, spreading confusion and slander to cause conflict amongst the people. The opposing scriptures, the Qur'an and others may also be of the devil. The result has been endless conflict, war and intolerance.

Maybe it is only the Atheists that are really in God's grace. With the true ability to excert free will, not simply following the rules and message of the corrupt and evil scriptures. With the true ability to be selfless not simply doing "good" for the goal of getting into heaven. Only atheists can be in tune with the objective morals of the universe. Knowing that it is bad to be intolerant and to judge others, only atheists have the true ability to treat others as equals rather than follow scriptures that treat women as less than man.
Maybe only Atheists are carrying out the true god's plan and will.
The other's have been deceived and are following what they have been told, contrary to what they would otherwise have felt and known to be the right path, the objective truth and morals that one would be aligned with had one not read or believed the evil scriptures.

Please tell me how my theory is incorrect.

[LegendarySandwich]

1. I believe that truth as a category exists
2. I believe it is possible in a majority of claims to verify this truth by philosophical and historical accuracies
3. There are existential realities from which I cannot run, not just philosophical ones

How does God know?  As continually revealed throughout scriptures.  

If the bible made assertions that were either historically false or philosophically false or existentially disagreeable, then it could not be an accredited source.

Did you just say that the Bible is not an accredited source here...?

As you take the 66 books of the Bible, disclosed over centuries (1500 years) you can observe the prophetic schema, all the way down to the person of Christ.

Even taking a look at such secular historians agree on the person and historical accuracy of Christ, such as:
Cornelius tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of samasota
Flavius Josephus

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

Link.
 

The thing about the manuscripts that support the scriptures is that it is greater than any other ancient text. Over 5,000 manuscripts that make the bible fairly transparent. So the question is not whether it's a reliable source, but whether or not you believe it. Which is a very reasonable doubt. It takes the Holy Spirit to believe it, thats in Ephesians 3:4-5.

You mean, it takes blind faith? I see.

Do i believe the word of God is inerrant? Yes, but I am not inerrant. Do I believe the bible is infallible? yes, but I am fallible.  Islam holds true that the Koran is the precise word for word revelation from God to Mohammed and nothing must be changed for it is written perfection. But really, who's to say one word isn't so much better than another. what i mean by inerrant is the fullness of revelation by God to man through the written word. I think there is some discrepancy of the bible that is open to interpretation, but it is the inerrancy of God in revealing the nature and character of Jesus Christ throughout the entire schema. From Genesis 3 on, the story is laid out for Jesus.

The old testament, is premised on laying out a story of a real God, in real time, with real obstinate people. There is a great emphasis on dates, events, and historical accounts. But the story is not in the words, but in the revelation of the true God into each person.

For Example, the Book of Daniel was written in 500 B.C. and there is a prophecy of a nation that is marching "many nations" under foot.  Also the empire will be led by strident, strong man from the west.  Then the kingdom will be drastically cut off and split into 4 kingdoms.  These 4 kingdoms will become 2 and these 2 will become 1. (Daniel 11)

In 300 B.C. alexander the great marched many nations under foot, was drastically cut off at the time of his death so early in life.  His Kingdom was given to his 4 generals, these 4 combined into Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and of these empires the Roman Empire emerges.

So as you read this, you immediately see the supernatural.  As you make claims to what lays within the Bible are false and what not, you might need an accurate understanding of the Bible.

We as humans, are fractured beings.  We have become numb to our own affliction and blind to our own blindness.  The world in which we live will testify to the nature of man.  For society is only a culmination of men, right?  So in world with disobedience, God has revealed himself to one nation, and to this nation he has revealed his full character of justice and mercy.  In an obstinate people, he pleads repentance.  For every disingenuous act, he delivers from evil.  But he said, in the fullness of time, there will be a deliverer of everyone, not just this people.  So to rid the world of the shadow of the law and sin, he sent his Son Jesus to die on a cross.

Yawn.

You made mention that you don't sin, have you ever broken any rules, all the way from a child?

Yes.

Have you ever disobeyed your own conscience?[/quote]
Yes.

SO if god made you disobey, you might think that he may make you become a believer, for god desires that all men come to know him..? But since you don't know the future, how do you really know?

What?

I believe I posed the question of moral standards, and differentiating between Good and Evil, could someone please answer this?

The Ten Commandments.

About the rock paradox, the question is nonsense,

No, it's not. It points out that omnipotence is ridiculous and an logically impossible trait to have.

The Hebrew word was murder.  But if someone is hanged for murder, is it murder?

Yes.

I think this ties back into the standard of morality and differentiating between good and evil.  This is also why Jesus was sent to the cross, so that the fullness of the law might be met, so we can be free from the law of sin and death.

I think you should watch the "Conversation with Yahweh" video I linked previously.

[defendor]

Whose to say that the scriptures are the word of Yhwh and that Yhwh is god?
The scriptures tell us this, but can we really trust them?

Well, I think this more aligns with the Ephesians verse.  But I will quote St. Augustine "I believe to understand"

Whose to say that the scriptures weren't ill conceived by the devil, putting the thoughts and ideas into the human authors heads. Whose to say that Jesus wasn't the anti-christ, spreading confusion and slander to cause conflict amongst the people. The opposing scriptures, the Qur'an and others may also be of the devil. The result has been endless conflict, war and intolerance.

I think when you take a look at the prophecies dating back through the original author of the Pentateuch, all the way through Isaiah and up through Malachi. You begin to see the prophetic passages that lead up to the revelation of a Messiah.  The gospels of Matthew and John, definitely appeal to the notion of the story of Jesus as the revealed Messiah and uses many scriptures quoted to discern this aspect.  Mark is more illustrated to the gentiles, and Luke is a very defined historical account.  So as we see in Matthew and John, the revelation of the Messiah. So throughout the flow of the narration there is a build up and a climax of the revelation of Jesus.  So the question you are posing is that if Jesus is not just the fulfillment of the scriptures but revelation of God in the flesh, as he indicates.  When you begin to look at the transparency of scriptures, then begin to look at the person of Jesus, the famous trilemma is introduced: He's either
1. Insane 2. A liar or 3. Telling the truth

There are many illustrations that scripture also testifies to scripture.  2 peter 3:15-16 makes reference to Paul's writings, also Paul writes 'all scripture is God-breathed'.  So I think that solely looking at the Bible by itself, it makes solid claims to Truth, and that this Truth is the only way.  So when we understand the claims the Bible (and Jesus) makes about itself, you can't simply pass it off into another lump of 'religiosity.'  For instance, Islam doesn't necessarily need Mohammed to have the same revelation of Allah.  Buddhism is a philosophy that didn't require Buddha.  Mormonism essentially didn't need Joseph Smith, for this falls into the same pattern as Islam. Hinduism is a very broad pantheistic view that has no set quality.  Even others such as Sikhism or Taoism or Confucianism are subjective moralistic deisms that simply abide by a certain interpretation.  But without the man of Christ, Christianity has no grounding as a philosophy.  The philosophy of Christianity is based on the man of Jesus.   So I believe there is a very stark contrast between other religions and Christianity from pure philosophical perspective.  To say Christianity is the true revelation of God, requires work of the Holy Spirit.  So you can say that Christianity is set apart and that it may be wrong, but to honestly say that Christianity is the sole philosophy that reveals the true nature of God (assuming there is a God) requires the Holy Spirit.  This is believing.

Maybe it is only the Atheists that are really in God's grace. With the true ability to excert free will, not simply following the rules and message of the corrupt and evil scriptures. With the true ability to be selfless not simply doing "good" for the goal of getting into heaven. Only atheists can be in tune with the objective morals of the universe. Knowing that it is bad to be intolerant and to judge others, only atheists have the true ability to treat others as equals rather than follow scriptures that treat women as less than man.
Maybe only Atheists are carrying out the true god's plan and will.
The other's have been deceived and are following what they have been told, contrary to what they would otherwise have felt and known to be the right path, the objective truth and morals that one would be aligned with had one not read or believed the evil scriptures.

Please tell me how my theory is incorrect.

Well, atheists don't believe in a God, so I'm not sure how atheism would qualify itself as being the only philosophy that is in God's grace.

But taking a look at the Humanist philosophy, which most atheists are today, has no qualifications for deciphering the existential dilemmas such as origin, morality, destiny, and purpose.  I think maybe evolution could answer a few but the question of Purpose is distinctly left out.  But again Humanism credits value to Humans, which I believe is God's permissible grace (that we are all created in the image of God) But it recognizes this worth without stating where this worth comes from.  If it is simply a product of chance and chaos, then there is no value that can be placed on any of them, for they are simply a random collocation of atoms.  Each of which is essentially nothing.  So the question is changed from how/what to Why?

So when you take the practicality of atheism, it is a stark contrast from its philosophy.  So as someone sees through his own relative scope of reality, and decides to change it, he is acting under the field of atheism, such as Hitler.  I'm not saying you're Hitler, but this idea also brings up a few questions, on what measuring stick do you define good and evil?  and how are you able to differentiate between good and evil?  What is evil?

[Whitney]

So when you take the practicality of atheism, it is a stark contrast from its philosophy.  So as someone sees through his own relative scope of reality, and decides to change it, he is acting under the field of atheism, such as Hitler.  I'm not saying you're Hitler, but this idea also brings up a few questions, on what measuring stick do you define good and evil?  and how are you able to differentiate between good and evil?  What is evil?

  If you want anyone to take you seriously don't even bring up Hitler (who was not an atheist...he was a christian and might have became pagan towards the end of his life)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

[defendor]

He sure wasn't a Christian.  If there is anything of substance to debate its that he gave a copy of the writings of Frederick Nietzsche (who's an atheist) to Joseph Stalin.

But I never even was insinuating Hitler was an atheist.  I was merely pointing out from an atheistic philosophy, on what moral standard could you disagree with Hitler's morals (or lack thereof)?

[defendor]

BS because some people take it too literally. A person that goes by logic and reason takes it as infallible proof that God does not exist.
e.g. "Omnipotent means one can do anything, even that which is deemed logically impossible, however the logically impossible is impossible therefore God is either not omnipotent or doesn't exist"

However as I have stated the answer is either A or B as above in my previous post.

A strong argument that works (for me at least) is one that TheJackel has presented on this forum in a different way to how I am presenting it below.
God (or anything that exists) cannot be made of nothing (same goes for the human soul).
Everything in existence is made up of some form of energy/matter.
If God/human soul is not made of energy/matter then God/human soul is not in existence.
If God is either made of energy/matter or not made of energy/matter then God cannot be the cause of energy/matter.

Also if God and/or the human soul were made up of energy/matter then they would be detectable by science and would be bound to the laws of physics just like everything else in existence. (So would heaven and hell).

By my understanding Space is reality. Reality is a three dimentional construct that is also affected by time. If something does not exist within Space then it does not exist within reality.

That which does not exist and is not within reality is purely conceptual.

I think this is a good rationalization.  But I have a question, what is energy?

[LegendarySandwich]

But I never even was insinuating Hitler was an atheist.  I was merely pointing out from an atheistic philosophy, on what moral standard could you disagree with Hitler's morals (or lack thereof)?

My own.

[Whitney]

He sure wasn't a Christian.  If there is anything of substance to debate its that he gave a copy of the writings of Frederick Nietzsche (who's an atheist) to Joseph Stalin.

And I'm well aware of who Nietzsche was.  I gave my mom a copy of the Pilgrims Progress because I thought she'd like it.  So, I disagree but am not going to discuss this further here.

But I never even was insinuating Hitler was an atheist.  I was merely pointing out from an atheistic philosophy, on what moral standard could you disagree with Hitler's morals (or lack thereof)?

What's wrong with using how an action affects people as a basis for understanding morality...moral understanding, after all, evolved due to how it helped us live together as tribes.

btw, how does ethics have anything to do with the OP?

[defendor]

So you disagree with him personally, that doesn't make his presence inherently evil.  He affected a lot of people that have no affect on you now.

Wouldn't he be just as right as you are in your subjectivity (assuming HItler himself is living an autonomous, subjective reality)?

[Whitney]

So you disagree with him personally, that doesn't make his presence inherently evil.  He affected a lot of people that have no affect on you now.

Wouldn't he be just as right as you are in your subjectivity (assuming HItler himself is living an autonomous, subjective reality)?

I never said that morals are subjective...I said they are based on how it affects other people and that it's a matter of our evolutionary history.  Just because some aspects of life are subjective doesn't mean everything is subjective...I still don't think you understand the difference between subjective and objective.

[LegendarySandwich]

So you disagree with him personally, that doesn't make his presence inherently evil.[strike:2px6bg7a]He affected a lot of people that have no affect on you now.[/strike:2px6bg7a]

Wouldn't he be just as right as you are in your subjectivity [strike:2px6bg7a](assuming HItler himself is living an autonomous, subjective reality)?[/strike:2px6bg7a]

Yes.

[defendor]

On the historical accuracy question, the Bible makes many claims to seeing Jesus from firsthand accounts, but isn't all History from firsthand accounts?
How do you know anything in history has happened if the only source you can trust is yourself?

So when we see historians that write about something after the fact, how does that disqualify the sources.  Isn't that what news channels do? (Scribe of events after the fact, using people from firsthand accounts)
As these historians were regarded, they would used people or writings from that time to deduce conclusions of historical accuracy


On the question of morality, what objective moral standard do you find instituted?