The Futile Arguments Thread

[Whitney]

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?

When numerous first hand accounts from various historians and contemporaries match then that gives us a good idea of history.  There are numerous places in Roman history which we are not sure of due to conflicting or unclear written accounts.  Archeological evidence also plays a big role.  Not to mention there is a big difference between taking accounts of a person and claiming that person was the messiah and performed miracles.  Jesus may have existed but a biased source (such as a collection of the works of a handful of people who want others to be Christians) is not a good way to prove it; and especially not a good way to prove that he performed miracles.

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)

I don't know of any historians or journalists who wait decades to write down the details of an event from memory then claim for their account to be objectively verifiable.

As these historians were regarded, they would used people or writings from that time to deduce conclusions of historical accuracy

yes, but they also consider the possibility of bias in their sources.

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

I'm pretty sure murder (not to be confused with killing) is universally considered bad...but this is neither here nor there since I merely explained where the standard of morality sits; not that all cultures agree on what harms and doesn't harm people

[LegendarySandwich]

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

None.

[defendor]

Well I think when it comes to the person of Christ, there again lays the problem.  The only 'historical' account of firsthand interaction is the Bible, as I have tried to make some semblance of a case for it comparatively, but really it comes down to believing, that really what it says it is, is in fact true.

As someone may believe that I am wrong and similarly, I may agree that you are the one who is wrong.  So when we begin to ask such questions of God or simply existential realities, we claim to a source of truth as our fundamental "guide" if you will, that dictates our realities.

So as I have stated I do believe in fundamental truth, this fundamental truth can be proved right, and there are existential questions from which I cannot run.

Therefore, there are a few claims of truth that have been made from an atheistic philosophy
1. There is no absolute truth (assuming this is absolutely true)
2.That the only source of truth is from the being in which it defines (we establish our own reality both good and bad)-So when a person is killed did he establish his reality to get killed?

I think these are a few holes in these philosophies, but there are a few things about my faith that I don't understand. But one thing I do, I do not claim to know the intricacies of my life and in which it is defined such as: who am I? what brings me here? why this life?
I do not reach to myself or logic for these answers for I have admitted that if I am a fallible being (have the capability to be wrong) then why would I listen to myself if I don't know that my thoughts are absolutely correct.  I have never had the audacity to claim my perception of reality as truth for I realize that my truth is simply no truth at all.

I think most people look outside themselves for truth, such as science, as if an impersonable, unrelatable force will answer their questions or even care about them.  
(some theorists posit that our perception of God is based on our fathers, so people who claim science as 'god' might have these same characteristics as their father, idk just a theory)

Or maybe its an excuse to stand defiantly and answer our own questions out of pride or sheer retaliation of the life we want to leave (i.e. Christianity)

But as for me, I have understood that as a fallible being, I cannot simply dive into myself to find anything infallible such as absolute truth.  So I reach to seek the only claims of truth of infallibility.  Of which Christianity is the foremost (any good scientist will say, "as of right now, this is what we think we know....")  

So when we seek answers, are we truly seeking answers or simply seeking to exalt ourselves?  

As for me, I choose hope, something no formula can explain.  I choose to deny myself, when every instinct in my being is completely contradictory.  I choose something completely unnatural to the natural world, and that is love and hope of Jesus Christ.  This is my prayer for those who read this.  In your studies of existentialism, that you are not simply seeking to exalt yourself, but to try and work out whatever questions you need to work out.   I pray you find that truth, not the truth for you, but the Truth.

[LegendarySandwich]

I pray you find that truth, not the truth for you, but the Truth.

Prayer won't do shit, but a well-reasoned argument might.

[defendor]

I'll give you a well-reasoned argument that prayer will in fact do something haha

according to my understanding of salvation, that only God can save
1. Believing requires God
2. I am not God
3. Prayer speaks to God
4. God answers prayer
5. God will answer my prayer to make you believe :bananacolor:

[Whitney]

Therefore, there are a few claims of truth that have been made from an atheistic philosophy
1. There is no absolute truth (assuming this is absolutely true)

This is not an atheist claim...most atheists understand truth as being absolute but some think it's unattainable

2.That the only source of truth is from the being in which it defines (we establish our own reality both good and bad)-So when a person is killed did he establish his reality to get killed?

This is not an atheist claim either.  I'm not even sure how you got the idea that you think atheists don't think reality is objective.

I think most people look outside themselves for truth, such as science, as if an impersonable, unrelatable force will answer their questions or even care about them.  

I would think that an objective method for understanding the world around us (such as science) would be a pretty good place to start when wanting to know what is true....why do you have a problem with science?  It's has a track record for being reliable and most theists also think science is a source of truth.

Or maybe its an excuse to stand defiantly and answer our own questions out of pride or sheer retaliation of the life we want to leave (i.e. Christianity)

this doesn't even make sense

But as for me, I have understood that as a fallible being, I cannot simply dive into myself to find anything infallible such as absolute truth.  So I reach to seek the only claims of truth of infallibility.  Of which Christianity is the foremost (any good scientist will say, "as of right now, this is what we think we know....")  

if your fallible self fallibly decided christianity is infallible isn't your decision of what is infallible actually fallible? (yes)

So when we seek answers, are we truly seeking answers or simply seeking to exalt ourselves?  

I actually care about answers....you seem to care about making those answers fit your existing religious construct

As for me, I choose hope, something no formula can explain.  I choose to deny myself, when every instinct in my being is completely contradictory.  I choose something completely unnatural to the natural world, and that is love and hope of Jesus Christ.  This is my prayer for those who read this.  In your studies of existentialism, that you are not simply seeking to exalt yourself, but to try and work out whatever questions you need to work out.   I pray you find that truth, not the truth for you, but the Truth.

are you incapable of posting without throwing preaching in there.  So you irrationally decided to be a Christian and claim it to be the Truth for no reason...that's your prerogative; I think it's lazy thinking.

[Whitney]

I'll give you a well-reasoned argument that prayer will in fact do something haha

according to my understanding of salvation, that only God can save
1. Believing requires God
2. I am not God
3. Prayer speaks to God
4. God answers prayer
5. God will answer my prayer to make you believe :bananacolor:

There is no reason in the above 'argument'.

[LegendarySandwich]

4. God answers prayer

God doesn't seem to answer prayer prayed by amputees.

[defendor]

I would make a fallible decision, but as we read about Jesus, it is only those who the Father enables that are able to believe.

So when I look it at, I couldn't make the decision, I didn't make the decision, God revealed himself to me.

"I believe to understand"

God's logic is eternal, so in an eternal and infinite understanding, what is 40 years without a leg?  God is more worried about your heart(soul) than he is about your body.

[Whitney]

I would make a fallible decision, but as we read about Jesus, it is only those who the Father enables that are able to believe.

So when I look it at, I couldn't make the decision, I didn't make the decision, God revealed himself to me.

"I believe to understand"

God's logic is eternal, so in an eternal and infinite understanding, what is 40 years without a leg?  God is more worried about your heart(soul) than he is about your body.

If you preach again I'm going to ban you permanently....it's not hard to not preach and at this point I don't even think you are trying to not do it; and that's very disrespectful.

[defendor]

I apologize

[LegendarySandwich]

If you preach again I'm going to ban you permanently....it's not hard to not preach and at this point I don't even think you are trying to not do it; and that's very disrespectful.

I agree with Whitney here. I can understand it being hard for Christians to try and not to preach -- but you don't even seem to be trying not to anymore.

[LegendarySandwich]

God's logic is eternal, so in an eternal and infinite understanding, what is 40 years without a leg?  God is more worried about your heart(soul) than he is about your body.

That conveniently ignores the problem.

[defendor]

Sometimes God says no

[LegendarySandwich]

Sometimes God says no

And in the case of amputees, always.

Gee, God answers prayer as if it's almost like...random chance :O