Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can we trust what God says?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    You haven't argued for this. You've merely used bias language to make your comments sound persuasive. This is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet.



    This is the fallacy of appeal to majority, and faulty appeal to authority.
    Jesus took Genesis as literal history. Jesus is God, cannot lie and knows everything and was there, so is a reliable witness to the events of genesis. Therefore His testimony trumps that of ignorant men and women who can and often do lie, do not know everything, and were most certainly were not there.



    Fallacy of question-begging epithet again. The all-knowing God of the universe who can't lie, and was there, is a far superior source of information than the ignorant "educated" "experts" to whom you appeal.
    You aren't using the word "epithet" correctly. Moreover, you're engineering your own fall by viewing scriptures as "lies" if they are not literally true. That's called the fallacy of false dichotomy.

    You have the faith of American fundamentalism, and it'll literally get you nowhere. Start with William Lane Craig, who at least acknowledges the irrefutable fact that life evolves and who appeals to "consensus" in his resurrection apologetics. You need to read up on both.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
      To be fair, variations within a kind of thing (different breeds of foxes, felines, birds, k9s etc) is not the same thing as one kind of thing changing into a completely different kind of thing. Microevolution is not macroevolution. Microevolution is biblical, macroevolution is not.
      Cerebrum didn't say "speciation" is completely false. He said evolution is completely false, which I demonstrated can't possibly be the case because that's an example of profound change.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by whag View Post
        ...you're engineering your own fall by viewing scriptures as "lies" if they are not literally true. That's called the fallacy of false dichotomy.
        False. If I say, "I assembled my shed in 6 days", and my intended meaning is the ordinary, plain, straightforward understanding of it (6 literal 24-hour days), and then you come along and perform linguistic gymnastics to reinterpret it to fit your preconceived notions about centuries rather than days, then yes, you've told a lie about what I said. God said He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Exodus 20:11). You have no business telling God what He must have meant.


        Originally posted by whag View Post
        You have the faith of American fundamentalism, and it'll literally get you nowhere.
        I hold to the obvious fact that what the Bible teaches is true, and that's the only view that will rationally get you anywhere. If you wish to deny this then we need to have a discussion about epistemology.


        Originally posted by whag View Post
        Start with William Lane Craig,
        Why would I do that? Craig's not the authority. Neither are you or I, nor is the magical "scientific" majority to which you're so fond of appealing. God is the authority and, quite frankly, the only One Who's qualified to tell me how man came about. Ignorant people who weren't there have no business telling me what supposedly happened "millions" and "billions" of years ago.


        Originally posted by whag View Post
        who at least acknowledges the irrefutable fact that life evolves and appeals to consensus in his resurrection apologetics.
        1.) Last I checked Craig denied particles-to-people evolution, and merely held that, if it were true, it would not disprove Christian theism. If you've come across a change of mind on his part I'd love to see it.

        2.) But even then it would miss the point. Craig is not the authority. God is, and He's already told us how He brought man about.

        3.) By the way, I'd love to see the proof for this "irrefutable fact" that you're pushing. ;) And no, don't bother posting a bunch of links. If you do that I'll just send a bunch of counter links and we'll never get anywhere. You made the claim, so please present the evidence and argue for it yourself.
        Last edited by Mr. Black; 08-27-2014, 06:12 PM.
        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by whag View Post
          Cerebrum didn't say "speciation" is completely false. He said evolution is completely false, which I demonstrated can't possibly be the case because that's an example of profound change.
          If Cerebrum denies variations within kinds then I would disagree with him.
          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
            God is the authority
            He isn't telling me anything, and so to me, his authority is irrelevant.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              False. If I say, "I assembled my shed in 6 days", and my intended meaning is the ordinary, plain, straightforward understanding of it (6 literal 24-hour days), and then you come along and perform linguistic gymnastics to reinterpret it to fit your preconceived notions about centuries rather than days, then yes, you've told a lie about what I said. God said He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Exodus 20:11). You have no business telling God what He must have meant.
              Then I guess God lied to you, because the earth originated like all planets do.

              Also, it's everyone's business to be epistemologically sharp. You have no business reading your Bible without knowing what allegory meant to ancient people.




              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              I hold to the obvious fact that what the Bible teaches is true, and that's the only view that will rationally get you anywhere. If you wish to deny this then we need to have a discussion about epistemology.
              We can't have that discussion because you don't know what it means. Epistemology is supposed to help you answer questions about reliable knowledge. Instead, you're using the word as a gimmick to make your belief system sound sophisticated.

              Use epistemology the right way. It's there for you so you can process facts about the natural world that can cripple faith. It's your friend when you're doubting hard.





              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              Why would I do that? Craig's not the authority. Neither are you or I, nor is the magical "scientific" majority to which you're so fond of appealing. God is the authority and, quite frankly, the only One Who's qualified to tell me how man came about. Ignorant people who weren't there have no business telling me what supposedly happened "millions" and "billions" of years ago.




              1.) Last I checked Craig denied particles-to-people evolution, and merely held that, if it were true, it would not disprove Christian theism. If you've come across a change of mind on his part I'd love to see it.

              2.) But even then it would miss the point. Craig is not the authority. God is, and He's already told us how He brought man about.

              3.) By the way, I'd love to see the proof for this "irrefutable fact" that you're pushing. ;) And no, don't bother posting a bunch of links. If you do that I'll just send a bunch of counter links and we'll never get anywhere. You made the claim, so please present the evidence and argue for it yourself.
              You're right. It's more likely that archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists, and geneticists just made everything up. Let's go with that. Post it in your Facebook.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                The Bible as a whole (including Jesus in the NT) says Genesis is God's Word.
                So says your dogma. You're asking me to take your word for it that your interpretation of the "Bible as a whole" is the only correct one. Why should I?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                  If I say, "I assembled my shed in 6 days", and my intended meaning is the ordinary, plain, straightforward understanding of it (6 literal 24-hour days), and then you come along and perform linguistic gymnastics to reinterpret it to fit your preconceived notions about centuries rather than days, then yes, you've told a lie about what I said.
                  I have not necessarily lied. I could just be mistaken.

                  To make the situation analogous, it must be the case that (1) a shed is available for me to examine, (2) I have a document that I believe you wrote, and it includes the assertion that you built a shed in 6 days, and I have reason to believe I am looking at the shed referenced by that document, (3) I cannot consider the possibility that you made any mistakes when you wrote the document, (4) you are unavailable to me for any questioning about your intentions in writing the document, (5) I have what appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the shed could not have been built in less than a century, and (6) elsewhere in writings attributed to you is the statement: "As for as Mr. Black is concerned, a day and a century might as well be the same thing."

                  In that situation, would it not be reasonable for me to infer that your intended meaning of "6 days" was something other than its usual meaning in ordinary discourse?
                  Last edited by Doug Shaver; 08-28-2014, 01:53 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    False. If I say, "I assembled my shed in 6 days", and my intended meaning is the ordinary, plain, straightforward understanding of it (6 literal 24-hour days),
                    Where does Genesis say that? Every translation reads as "there was evening and there was morning" - That's a span of 12 hours, and night at that.
                    and then you come along and perform linguistic gymnastics to reinterpret it to fit your preconceived notions about centuries rather than days,
                    Centuries, millenia, thousands of millenia. That is a valid sub-definition of "day" in Hebrew. Interpreting "day" to mean anything else in Genesis 1 creates a contradiction with Genesis 2 - which states that all life was created in a day.
                    then yes, you've told a lie about what I said. God said He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Exodus 20:11). You have no business telling God what He must have meant.
                    How would reading things in a way that makes sense in any way achieve what you are claiming?

                    Genesis may be entirely mythical, it may be that Eden was not on Earth, it may be some combination of the two, or something else entirely - but it certainly was never intended to be interpreted as a six solar-day span for creation.




                    I hold to the obvious fact that what the Bible teaches is true, and that's the only view that will rationally get you anywhere. If you wish to deny this then we need to have a discussion about epistemology.
                    I thought you believed that the Bible was 100% inspired by God.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 08-28-2014, 01:59 AM.
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      "He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition."

                      To me, there is a bigger issue with Craig's statements. The above in particular. "He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are". According to what? I think it's interesting that so many theologians (primarily Christians), sort of "invent" what they think is true or false about God, his intents, desires, etc. The Bible tells us NONE of this. It is literally being extracted directly from the posterior of the person making the claim.

                      It's pretty simple: either God is wholly Good, or God is not wholly Good. If God can do those things which are said to not be Good (murder), then he is not wholly good. If God can do these things, and still remain wholly Good, then it is no longer meaningful to claim that x action is not Good. If God is wholly Good, he CANNOT do something which is not Good. Therefore, if God IS wholly Good, and God CANNOT do anything which is not Good, then anything God does can be considered Good, and therefore should be able to be committed by a human being just as well. Otherwise, again, the concept that "God is wholly Good" is rendered meaningless.

                      Now, if it is the case that "murder" is "wrong", and God can do this, then he is NOT wholly Good. If God is not wholly Good, then God certainly CAN do things that are not Good. Therefore, God CAN lie. If God can lie, and the Bible is the inspired word of God, then using the Bible as evidence that God did not lie, is insufficient, as He might have lied during the inspiration of the text. When you want to know if someone is lying, it's rarely a good idea to use a text produced by the liar-in-question as the means to determine the validity of their statements.

                      Granted, for all we know, the men who wrote the Bible (even if I grant that it was inspired by God) wrote whatever they pleased. I really don't know why people just assume that humans would definitely write the correct things down, and not lie during the process. Especially since another person in this thread so kindly pointed out that man is not just, righteous, etc. I personally don't share this view, but it's interesting to me that this viewpoint remains, while also simply trusting that the MEN who wrote the Bible did not leak their evil humanly ways into the mix. Seems like having your cake and eating it too.

                      Edit: To put it more simply...if there are things that God can do that are not "evil", but are "evil" if done by Man, then the concept of "Good and Evil" is rendered moot. They become nonsensical terms.
                      Last edited by NotSoHumblePie; 08-28-2014, 10:39 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        This is actually pretty easy to answer: God is justified in taking our lives whenever He wants, because our sins have made us deserving of death.
                        Why? I'm genuinely curious as to why we are "deserving of death", due to our sins? Most of us seem to sin in a very minimal way, such as perhaps telling our wives they don't look fat when they really do (lying). The death penalty seems harsh, albeit right at home in the Middle East. I mean, most man-made legislation (at least in the US and Europe) has eradicated the death penalty for the majority of crimes, and it only remains in some areas. I guess we're making more progress down in here on Earth in terms of the removal of barbarism from our justice system. Perhaps the heavens could take a few lessons.

                        A couple of other points: your comment says nothing about HOW we die. Only that we are deserving of death. Why not assume that this means that we are simply NOT deserving of living forever, rather than assuming this means we're deserving of having our lives cut short (say, perhaps before having even the opportunity to repent)? It seems to me that this is open a bit to interpretation, as there is so much talk bandied about relating to "eternal death" "first death" "second death" "spiritual death" "physical death". It's almost as confusing as fan-fiction.

                        If it is the case that we are deserving of death, and that is why it is okay for God to kill us, this says nothing about why it is wrong for another human to kill another human. In fact, it sounds like it would be perfectly suitable as a justification for killing our fellow man...no?
                        Last edited by NotSoHumblePie; 08-28-2014, 05:00 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                          If Cerebrum denies variations within kinds then I would disagree with him.
                          I don't deny that, and I tried to qualify my statements.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post


                            **Most do not, or they blind themselves to the evils inherent in his works, and still being accepted today as "science".
                            It must be embarrassing to be you.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by whag View Post
                              It must be embarrassing to be you.
                              This assumes I really care much about everyone's opinion of me.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                                This assumes I really care much about everyone's opinion of me.
                                If you didn't care, you wouldn't try so hard to sound informed. Unfortunately, you're informed by Henry Morris and the banana man. Very sophisticated stuff.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 09-14-2021, 05:15 AM
                                23 responses
                                174 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 09:03 AM
                                244 responses
                                1,299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 07:35 AM
                                1 response
                                25 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-28-2021, 05:41 PM
                                10 responses
                                78 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by MehdiR, 08-25-2021, 01:44 PM
                                9 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Working...
                                X