Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Tassman]

If you were told you had cancer and you didn't even believe that you did, would that mean that you didn't have it? Or that you were just too stupid to believe the doctor? He could show you a white spot on an X-Ray and you could just say, "So what? That doesn't prove anything!"

Denial doesn't mean you won't die of cancer (or of your sins)

So dishonest!

I said If I was told I had cancer and there was no substantive reason to think I had cancer, why would I believe I had it or was in need of cure? By the same token, IF there is no substantive reason to believe I am sinful and in need of saving, why would I believe such nonsense. The doctrine of the 'fall of man' is not analogous to white spots on x-rays.

Thanks.

Anytime!

[Tassman]

Hmm . . .

So it is really not Christianity per se. But the idea that the universe was created by a Creator you think is non sense.

What is your deductive argument for the universe which renders the concept of a created universe non sense?

What is your true premise from which to make a deductive argument proving the truth of a created universe.

[JimL]

You forget that we are imperfect human beings Sparko, and according to you, our imperfect selves are created by god, so for this god to save us or doom us based on our honest, reasoned, and imperfect conclusions regarding what we do, or do not believe, is ridiculous. It's not a matter of acceptance, it's a matter of belief!

[37818]

You forget that we are imperfect human beings Sparko, and according to you, our imperfect selves are created by god, so for this god to save us or doom us based on our honest, reasoned, and imperfect conclusions regarding what we do, or do not believe, is ridiculous. It's not a matter of acceptance, it's a matter of belief!

JimL, you fail to see the Biblical account in your reasoning. From a Christian perspective that account is deemed true. God made man good. The fall was do to two things. First, the woman was fooled by the Serpent's lie. (The man failed to stop her. As he should have.) And the man deliberately disobeyed God on her account. A good man making a very bad decision. Not yet having knowledge of evil. As I mentioned in another post there is the untold back story.

[37818]

What is your true premise from which to make a deductive argument proving the truth of a created universe.

1) That God told us so. I have the written witness from Moses. Handed down by the Jewish people. OT.
2) It was by way of such writings, the Christian NT from which the gospel of grace (favor not merited) is provided by God to be forgiven completely.
3) By actually understanding that grace and so being enabled to believe it.
4) God giving me the new birth according to His promise of grace.
5) This new birth enabling me to know God. Which in turn allows me to believe the witness handed down from Moses.

Do you understand the circle of the above argument?

What you lack is the understanding of this grace. Being it is not possible to believe what you are not understanding.

The direct answer to your direct question is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

[carpedm9587]

JimL, you fail to see the Biblical account in your reasoning. From a Christian perspective that account is deemed true. God made man good. The fall was do to two things. First, the woman was fooled by the Serpent's lie. (The man failed to stop her. As he should have.) And the man deliberately disobeyed God on her account. A good man making a very bad decision. Not yet having knowledge of evil. As I mentioned in another post there is the untold back story.

In a like vein...37818...you fail to see that an atheist is not going to see/accept the biblical account as authoritative. From an atheist perspective, we need to know why we should accept this account as true before we will do so. We do not believe a god (of any form) exists. We see the stories of Genesis as a combination of mythology and legend. We see it as a testament to the beliefs of an ancient people - not a testament to "what actually happened." So quoting scripture is meaningless, until and unless you can make the case for why we should accept this collection of books as authoritative beyond provinding a testament of the beliefs of its authors.

[carpedm9587]

So...I am thinking that you may not truly grasp the atheist position or how to address the issues.

1) That God told us so. I have the written witness from Moses. Handed down by the Jewish people. OT.

An atheist is not going to accept the OT as a valid argument. You need to make the case for why this document should be accepted as a source of "truth."

2) It was by way of such writings, the Christian NT from which the gospel of grace (favor not merited) is provided by God to be forgiven completely.

You've shifted to the NT - but the problem remains.

3) By actually understanding that grace and so being enabled to believe it.

I don't think you understand that, for an atheist, this is a meaningless sentence. You might as well say, "by actually understanding that flibbits and so being enabled to believe it." We don't even know what this sentence means.

4) God giving me the new birth according to His promise of grace.

So this suggest you have had some mystical experience. We have not. So we're not sure if your "mystical experience" is real, or if you are more like a person with a psychosis that hears voices and experiences things. We have no access to this experience you have apparently had, so this is not coherent to us either.

5) This new birth enabling me to know God. Which in turn allows me to believe the witness handed down from Moses.

You are making statements that are completely alien to anything we have experienced. They are not 100% alien to me, because I had similar (I think) experiences. But I came to see them, eventually, as the experiences of a traumatized mind seeking solace.

Do you understand the circle of the above argument?

Presumptively speaking for atheists - no - the argument makes no sense to us. What you have listed is not an argument to us; it is a collection of relatively meaningless words strung together in a way that makes no sense to us. You may be speaking out of your personal faith, but you are not doing so in a way that is accessible to an atheist (at least not this atheist - and I used to be Christian).

What you lack is the understanding of this grace. Being it is not possible to believe what you are not understanding.

By definition, we cannot understand something that makes no sense to us. You are speaking from your position of faith - and it makes no sense to us. If you want to convey information, you need to speak the the level of the recipient of the message.

The direct answer to your direct question is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Thus is not a direct answer. It is an appeal to a book we do not believe is more than a combination of mythology and legend. You might as well say, "the direct answer to your question is that Zees is the god of all and gave rise to all other gods and demigods." I do not mean this disrespectfully - but you seem to be under the impression that an appeal to your personal mystical experiences is going to provide information for/to any of us who do not share that experience. It does not. The best we can do is nod politely and say, "if that's what you think..."

[JimL]

JimL, you fail to see the Biblical account in your reasoning. From a Christian perspective that account is deemed true. God made man good. The fall was do to two things. First, the woman was fooled by the Serpent's lie. (The man failed to stop her. As he should have.) And the man deliberately disobeyed God on her account. A good man making a very bad decision. Not yet having knowledge of evil. As I mentioned in another post there is the untold back story.

Egad! How about you stop with the inane excuses. If a god made man, then he didn't make man good, if he did then that man wouldn't have disobeyed god in the first place. You are the one who fails to see the biblical account in your reasoning, because you don't use reason when seeing it.

[Tassman]

1) That God told us so. I have the written witness from Moses. Handed down by the Jewish people. OT.
2) It was by way of such writings, the Christian NT from which the gospel of grace (favor not merited) is provided by God to be forgiven completely.
3) By actually understanding that grace and so being enabled to believe it.
4) God giving me the new birth according to His promise of grace.
5) This new birth enabling me to know God. Which in turn allows me to believe the witness handed down from Moses.

Do you understand the circle of the above argument?

What you lack is the understanding of this grace. Being it is not possible to believe what you are not understanding.

The direct answer to your direct question is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

There is no substantive reason for me to accept scripture as authoritative.

[37818]

In a like vein...37818...you fail to see that an atheist is not going to see/accept the biblical account as authoritative. From an atheist perspective, we need to know why we should accept this account as true before we will do so. We do not believe a god (of any form) exists. We see the stories of Genesis as a combination of mythology and legend. We see it as a testament to the beliefs of an ancient people - not a testament to "what actually happened." So quoting scripture is meaningless, until and unless you can make the case for why we should accept this collection of books as authoritative beyond provinding a testament of the beliefs of its authors.

Our friend JimL maybe an atheist, but is a professed agnostic. My answer was from a stated Christian perspective. And JimL's response to Sparko seemed to be oblivious to that understanding. Jim does not agree with a view should state it in that way rather than, what seemed to be a mischaracterization of what he does not agree with.

So...I am thinking that you may not truly grasp the atheist position or how to address the issues.

That very well may be.

An atheist is not going to accept the OT as a valid argument. You need to make the case for why this document should be accepted as a source of "truth."

My answer was presenting from the premises I have come to hold, which is what I understood was being asked. Not what scientific evidence I had in mind. Notice my use of "I" in my answers.

What is your true premise from which to make a deductive argument proving the truth of a created universe.

You've shifted to the NT - but the problem remains.

Yes, again I am giving my reasons.

I don't think you understand that, for an atheist, this is a meaningless sentence. You might as well say, "by actually understanding that flibbits and so being enabled to believe it." We don't even know what this sentence means.

Yeah, that seems to the problem. How to get someone hear. It seems to be in evidence, you did not seem to understand what I was ranting about.

So this suggest you have had some mystical experience. We have not. So we're not sure if your "mystical experience" is real, or if you are more like a person with a psychosis that hears voices and experiences things. We have no access to this experience you have apparently had, so this is not coherent to us either.

I might as well be speaking in gibberish.

Do you understand the difference between a "wage" and a "gift?" Do you understand the difference between being "punished" for being wrong, regardless of reasons for being wrong. And being "forgiven," with the requirements being, one must willing accept it as solely a gift and without any conditions to deserve the forgiveness, other than accepting it as a gift.

You are making statements that are completely alien to anything we have experienced. They are not 100% alien to me, because I had similar (I think) experiences. But I came to see them, eventually, as the experiences of a traumatized mind seeking solace.

So what was it you discovered that was not true?

Presumptively speaking for atheists - no - the argument makes no sense to us. What you have listed is not an argument to us; it is a collection of relatively meaningless words strung together in a way that makes no sense to us. You may be speaking out of your personal faith, but you are not doing so in a way that is accessible to an atheist (at least not this atheist - and I used to be Christian).

OK. So when you were a professing Christian, what would you have explained as to what the requirements were to become a Christian?

By definition, we cannot understand something that makes no sense to us. You are speaking from your position of faith - and it makes no sense to us. If you want to convey information, you need to speak the the level of the recipient of the message.

Yeah, you are correct in that.

Thus is not a direct answer. It is an appeal to a book we do not believe is more than a combination of mythology and legend. You might as well say, "the direct answer to your question is that Zees is the god of all and gave rise to all other gods and demigods." I do not mean this disrespectfully - but you seem to be under the impression that an appeal to your personal mystical experiences is going to provide information for/to any of us who do not share that experience. It does not. The best we can do is nod politely and say, "if that's what you think..."

The task and problem is just that. How to get the message to those who have trouble understanding it.

[37818]

There is no substantive reason for me to accept scripture as authoritative.

I never said there was for you. But then how can you accept what does not make any sense to you? You did not and were not able to follow my argument. Your effective answer to my question, without saying it, is "no."

So this is what I need to understand from you. How do you recognize a truth. And how would you explain how to recognize a truth?

[37818]

Egad! How about you stop with the inane excuses. If a god made man, then he didn't make man good, if he did then that man wouldn't have disobeyed god in the first place. You are the one who fails to see the biblical account in your reasoning, because you don't use reason when seeing it.

Explain why you think man was always evil?

How was man made good, without having the knowledge to understand the difference between good and evil, to know to choose to disobey is evil? Do you think not being able to choose is good?

[carpedm9587]

Our friend JimL maybe an atheist, but is a professed agnostic. My answer was from a stated Christian perspective. And JimL's response to Sparko seemed to be oblivious to that understanding. Jim does not agree with a view should state it in that way rather than, what seemed to be a mischaracterization of what he does not agree with.

That very well may be.

My answer was presenting from the premises I have come to hold, which is what I understood was being asked. Not what scientific evidence I had in mind. Notice my use of "I" in my answers.

If you start with premises that you see as true, but the person you are speaking to does not, then your argument has no chance of convincing. If your goal is to convince, then you have to start from a place where you can agree on the premises.

Yes, again I am giving my reasons.

Yeah, that seems to the problem. How to get someone hear. It seems to be in evidence, you did not seem to understand what I was ranting about.

I might as well be speaking in gibberish.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that, for me, it's not about hearing at all. I "hear" you quite well. But you begin with assumptions about what is true that I do not agree with - so I am not going to agree with your conclusion. You also have a tendency to speak in very arcane terms, so sometimes I truly have no idea what you are trying to say.

Do you understand the difference between a "wage" and a "gift?"

Yes

Do you understand the difference between being "punished" for being wrong, regardless of reasons for being wrong. And being "forgiven," with the requirements being, one must willing accept it as solely a gift and without any conditions to deserve the forgiveness, other than accepting it as a gift.

For me - forgiveness is a gift I give myself. I do not forgive someone because they deserve it - I forgive them because I wish to let go of the anger and animosity and move on. If I don't forgive, then I chew on the wrong I am holding on to, practicing what I would like to say or how I can get "even," and it eats at me inside - disturbing my peace. When I forgive, I let go of all of that and I move on.

So what was it you discovered that was not true?

Ultimately - the statement "god exists."

OK. So when you were a professing Christian, what would you have explained as to what the requirements were to become a Christian?

As a Christian, I believed that Jesus was my god and that all one need to do is accept him as such. If the acceptance is genuine, it will come with a desire to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; to live one's life in accordance with his words. That is what I believed as a Christian, and how I spoke about those beliefs to those who did not hold those beliefs.

Yeah, you are correct in that.

The task and problem is just that. How to get the message to those who have trouble understanding it.

It is possible, my friend, that you are confusing "understanding" with "agreeing." Yes, I often have a hard time understanding you. But even when I actually do understand you, I disagree with you. My faith journey has taken me in a different direction. I still find great value in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. But he is, for me, one of many great men/women with profound things to say.

[carpedm9587]

I never said there was for you. But then how can you accept what does not make any sense to you? You did not and were not able to follow my argument. Your effective answer to my question, without saying it, is "no."

So this is what I need to understand from you. How do you recognize a truth. And how would you explain how to recognize a truth?

Now THAT's a marvelous question...

[Tassman]

I never said there was for you. But then how can you accept what does not make any sense to you?

You did not and were not able to follow my argument. Your effective answer to my question, without saying it, is "no."

My answer to your question is that there is no substantive evidence to support your assumptions.

So this is what I need to understand from you. How do you recognize a truth. And how would you explain how to recognize a truth?