I found this interesting.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

That's obvious to the most amateur of logicians. I am not criticising the site, per se. I just wonder if there are more effective ways.

I imagine threatening death might be more effective, but I prefer the Biblical approach.

[RalphyS]

You know, this little site reminds me of that one statement about God being able to do anything?

If so, is he able to make something that not even he could move?

Ofcourse I don't expect to win souls by this obvious ploy, but neither will your obvious ploy!

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

You know, this little site reminds me of that one statement about God being able to do anything?

If so, is he able to make something that not even he could move?

Ofcourse I don't expect to win souls by this obvious ploy, but neither will your obvious ploy!

God can only do that which is within the parameters of His nature. The proposition you site is a contradiction, and since God cannot contradict Himself, No God cannot make something that He could not move.

If I could do miracles, I could walk through a wall. I could not however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time. That would defy the law of non-contradiction.

Again, winning souls is not up to me. I only relay the truth, and hope and pray that God uses it to draw people unto Himself.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

^^ Argument from exisitance is a ggod starting point UD don't get me wrong...

Indeed.lol

Quote:

Philosipohy has been asking that type of question for a long long time (I.E. The Chicken and the egg)

Indeed.

Quote:

but just being here doesn't answer anything but it is a good place to start.

I'd say it answeres a few things.

Quote:

Heck us just being here one could argue a few different things such as.... Wo is to say we didn't evolve with the starting point of Abiogenesis?

I could get into the science of this and show that this is, if not impossible, nearly so. But that is unnecessary. Abiogenesis does not explain anything, really. It pushes the argument back one step. Admitting abiogenesis, the argument then says: okay, how did whatever we evolved from get here?

Quote:

Whos says if there is a being powerful enough to create us... who says we are the main point of this universe or that he loves us at all?

I don't recall ever positing this, maybe you were responding to someone else. The argument from existance definitely does not prove God loves us.

Quote:

or maybe he is a loving caring god who wants our praise but has no affect on what goes on (there are many steps here so I will just say and so on and so on)

Indeed. I was not asserting that existance necessitated the Christian God, though I do believe that we can reach that conclusion eventually through similar means.

Quote:

Regardless every one here believes in some form of Abiogenesis (meaning life from non life) A sound theory is jugded as such for the when it makes the least possibe nubers of assumptions Christianity assmues much. Atheism (on the other hand) assumes one thing and then the logical progression from there. So based upon that I would say that Either Atheism or Deism (depending on the stripe of it) are more a viable theories because they really makes only 1 assumption.

First of all, I don't have a clue what these assumptions are that you are talknig about. The only thing I would say we assume, is our existance. I think you would agree that to get anywhere, we should assume that. After that, we make no more assumptions.

The Atheist's assumption of "abiogenesis" is not only not their only assumption, but is also not only an assumption--its an invention. There is no evidence for it. Whereas, the evidence for a god, higher being, necessary being, etc. comes from... us. Being here.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I'd say it answeres a few things.

Do Tell

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I could get into the science of this and show that this is, if not impossible, nearly so. But that is unnecessary. Abiogenesis does not explain anything, really. It pushes the argument back one step. Admitting abiogenesis, the argument then says: okay, how did whatever we evolved from get here?

Agreed abiogenesis is an assumption that both sides make mine is with out involvment from a deity you is with involvment of a deity. so yes either of us arguing this is moot at this point

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I don't recall ever positing this, maybe you were responding to someone else. The argument from existance definitely does not prove God loves us.

no you never did post it I was jus trying to put up a few things to cover some of the bases rather than falling in to the either or fallacy... I was just trying to be thurough. and you are correct in your stament that the argument form existance does not prove gods love

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Indeed. I was not asserting that existance necessitated the Christian God, though I do believe that we can reach that conclusion eventually through similar means.

I would like to the the progressive steps in wich you reach such a conclusion.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

First of all, I don't have a clue what these assumptions are that you are talknig about. The only thing I would say we assume, is our existance. I think you would agree that to get anywhere, we should assume that. After that, we make no more assumptions.

ok we will assume notting more than we are here.... that is the axiom of the discussion.

the assumptions that I was refering to when it comes to christianity are a few....
1. There is a god
2. He created the world and life on it and is involved in it
3. Jesus was his son and he was crucified.
4. everything in the bible is true (now I know that one may be different with you because the catholic church has said that some parts of the bible should be ignored and maybe you can outline that later)
5. that there is a heaven and hell
6. that prophacy (in the bible) has yet to happen

there are others but there are some good one that christianity assumes.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

The Atheist's assumption of "abiogenesis" is not only not their only assumption, but is also not only an assumption--its an invention. There is no evidence for it. Whereas, the evidence for a god, higher being, necessary being, etc. comes from... us. Being here.

ummm..... no

Abiogenis is not with out its questions true, but your jump form there to the necessity of a god is premature at this juncture in the discussion.


and if you actually want to read up on abiogenesis and get the facts of it (Uncertian or anyone else reading) then feel free to read the link over at talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/


or the probability of it click here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

No need to clarify as I mean both.

What so you want the privlage of having it both ways?? sorry it doen't work like that besides depening on the world view the person is probably gonna assume one way or the other wich makes it awfuly convienient for you doen't it?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Now this conclusion that you came to - Did you use the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic to come to that conclusion. If so, you came to the conclusion borrowing the foundation for reason from MY worldview. You used the Christian worldview in refuting the Christian worldview.

I'm sure that you will protest at that notion but tell me, what is YOUR foundation for reason. How do you justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in YOUR worldview?

A world view can be self refuting just as the bible is self refuting if you actually look and read the bible contradicts itself many many times over much as the christian world voew contradicts itself so you have a self refuting world view.

Point of contention here Logic and science and natualistic morality are all observable so they are not tottaly abstract they only seem abstract to the laymen but with some study you will find they are observable things in our world therefore comming back to a materialistic world view.... you try to take it in to the abstract by twisting words to make it seem as such

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Another point. Neutrality is a myth. Everyone evaluates EVERYTHING they encounter based on their already held beliefs - their presuppositions. Any evidence I produce you will evaluate based on your presupposition that God does not exist, just as I will evaluate anything you say based on my presuppositions that God does in fact exist. The only way that our argument can be satisfied is by evaluating each other's presuppositions to see who can support the preconditions for intelligibility. In other words, who can support logic and reason itself.

This is a moot point because I can not make you understand my world view but I understand your world view since I havve been there and I would have to go in favor of my world view when is comes to supporting logic and reason. I have the upper hand here because have held both world views in my life.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

My presupposition is that God exists and that His Word is true. His word gives us the foundations for logic (universal, abstract, invariants). His word also explains origins, science and the human condition.

I disagree I have read the book over and over and it does not explain science nor does it explain origins (tell me wich genesis account is true Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?) there are 2 sepperate stories there that in itself defies logic unless he made the wolrd twice.

Where doe you get the foundations of logic?? please do tell

Now as far as the human condition I am not gonna argue there the bible is a good book of myth and speaks of the human condition.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Now you may correct me if I am wrong, but since God is not your ultimate authority, I imagine that your own human reason is your ultimate authority. This is what I meant by being your own God. Even if you could be reasonably convinced of God's existence, what would be proven to you would not be God, since according to your worldview your reason would have higher authority than God, and can work without His existence.

You knwo what its the same on your side you stack the deck in gods favor even in the face of evidences that call him in to question you give him a couple extra so he can come ou on top. the finger can be pointed right back at you man.

I am not asking to be convinced I am asking for proof there is a difference. but christians I have found rarley use the words "proved existance" they use words like "I am convinced" so that leaves out proof... a god argument can convince anyone of most anything. but when it comes down to hard core irrefutable proof there is somethign lacking... and come on lets just face it. you would hope for irrefutable proof when sitting on the jury for a muder trial when some one's life hangs in the balance... why not ask for the same in our lives? the most important question the god question. why not ask for irrefutable proof instead of beign asked to be convinced?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

With that said, I challenge you to prove the validity of your human reason WITHOUT God.

no you don't get off that easy there... you're gonna have to prove the existance of god if you are gonna have me construct an arguemnt that big.
but you will find this all pointless due tothe facttaht you can nto prove his existance just like his non existance can not be universally proven... you can pick off gods one by one but can notknock them all out in one fell swoop because all gods have different attributes.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

When you realize that it cannot be done. I hope that you fall to your knees and thank the one true God of Christianity who makes even your ability to reason possibe.

Why Christianity? why believe in jesus? he is not unique in any way his stroy is a rehash of many dying and rising god over 1000 years before him. but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Thanks for the kind sentiment. I was wondering though what exactly do you mean by that.

meaning Peace be with you
I do not wish harm to come to anyone no matter how heated a debate gets I may get frustrated but I wish no harm on anyone... but I can not say the same about other religions who order the death of Atheists and blasphemers and disobedient children and so on and so on.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

P.S. I had a peak at that other forum. I hope you dont call me the same things here as you did there.

I try to refrain from using ad-hom attacks in debate it is pointless and get the debate nowhere I hope the same form you.... but if I am not in a debate I will let my feelings of frustration be known. venting on a fourm where a debate between us is not happening is something I see as fair game.. sorry if you take offense to the language that is how I talk but per request for a few here I refrain form using it in debate and on most sections of the board.


Peace be with you

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

God can only do that which is within the parameters of His nature. The proposition you site is a contradiction, and since God cannot contradict Himself, No God cannot make something that He could not move.

If I could do miracles, I could walk through a wall. I could not however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time. That would defy the law of non-contradiction.

Again, winning souls is not up to me. I only relay the truth, and hope and pray that God uses it to draw people unto Himself.

So God cannot do anything? He is bounded by the law of non-contradiction.

Well if he is bound by it, I surely am, therefore I cannot state absolutely that there is no absolute truth and therefore your whole site is meaningless.

Btw if God is unknowable (for the most part) and works in mysterious ways, how are you able to define the parameters of his nature? If you are not able to define them, how do you know what lies within these parameters?

Also, your supposition that atheists consider themselves gods is utter nonsense, we have non-belief in gods and we, humans, do not fall under any kind of definition for gods.

We don't deny a higher authority, because we do not want there to be one, but because there simply is none.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

So God cannot do anything? He is bounded by the law of non-contradiction.

God cannot contradict himself. That is all I said.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Well if he is bound by it, I surely am, therefore I cannot state absolutely that there is no absolute truth and therefore your whole site is meaningless.

You can state it but you would be contradiciting yourself. God cannot contradict Himself, we can. God cannot lie, we can.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Btw if God is unknowable (for the most part) and works in mysterious ways, how are you able to define the parameters of his nature? If you are not able to define them, how do you know what lies within these parameters?

He has revealed them to us in His Word.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Also, your supposition that atheists consider themselves gods is utter nonsense, we have non-belief in gods and we, humans, do not fall under any kind of definition for gods.

What is your ultimate authority?

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

We don't deny a higher authority, because we do not want there to be one, but because there simply is none.

You cannot prove a universal negative. You would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say there is NO God. You would have to be God to say there is no God. Hardly convincing.

Thanks for your comments Ralph,

Sye

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Do Tell
the assumptions that I was refering to when it comes to christianity are a few....
1. There is a god
2. He created the world and life on it and is involved in it
3. Jesus was his son and he was crucified.
4. everything in the bible is true (now I know that one may be different with you because the catholic church has said that some parts of the bible should be ignored and maybe you can outline that later)
5. that there is a heaven and hell
6. that prophacy (in the bible) has yet to happen

there are others but there are some good one that christianity assumes.

I realize that this was not addressed to me but if I may...

The Christian only assumes (read - presupposes) 2 things, that God exists, and that the Bible is His word. The rest are contained in His word.

The atheist assumes MANY things.
1. Matter from non-matter
2. Sentient matter from non-sentient matter
3. Intelligent matter from non-intelligent matter
3. Moral matter from non-moral matter
4. Universal, abstract, invariant laws exist (from randomness)
5. Nature is uniform (in a 'random' universe)
6. Human reasoning is valid on its own.

I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point.

Cheers,

Sye

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

What so you want the privlage of having it both ways?? sorry it doen't work like that besides depening on the world view the person is probably gonna assume one way or the other wich makes it awfuly convienient for you doen't it?

Either they exist or they do not. People are free to choose what they believe.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

A world view can be self refuting just as the bible is self refuting if you actually look and read the bible contradicts itself many many times over much as the christian world voew contradicts itself so you have a self refuting world view.

Merely stating this does not make it so. You will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on your presupposition that the Bible is NOT the infallible word of God. The Christian will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on their presupposition that the Bible IS the word of God. Your point is moot. We have to examine the validity of our presuppositions to reach any conclusion.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Point of contention here Logic and science and natualistic morality are all observable so they are not tottaly abstract they only seem abstract to the laymen but with some study you will find they are observable things in our world therefore comming back to a materialistic world view.

Please show me a law of logic or science.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Where doe you get the foundations of logic?? please do tell

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ho...ccount-for.php

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

I am not asking to be convinced I am asking for proof there is a difference.

I have given you proof. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You want to be CONVINCED that that proof is valid.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

no you don't get off that easy there... you're gonna have to prove the existance of god if you are gonna have me construct an arguemnt that big.

I have shown you the proof of God's existence. Rather than suggest that the argument supporting the validity of your human reason, without using human reason, is going to be 'Big,' just think about it first. You cannot do it. You may try if you like though.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Why Christianity? why believe in jesus? he is not unique in any way his stroy is a rehash of many dying and rising god over 1000 years before him. but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

For one, because Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logical foundation for universal, abstract, invariant laws. You may posit another. I will be pleased to refute it.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

meaning Peace be with you
I do not wish harm to come to anyone no matter how heated a debate gets I may get frustrated but I wish no harm on anyone... but I can not say the same about other religions who order the death of Atheists and blasphemers and disobedient children and so on and so on.

You realize that this is a nice sentiment but a meaningless statement coming from an atheist. How can an abstract concept 'be with' anybody in your worldview?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

I try to refrain from using ad-hom attacks in debate it is pointless and get the debate nowhere I hope the same form you.... but if I am not in a debate I will let my feelings of frustration be known. venting on a fourm where a debate between us is not happening is something I see as fair game.. sorry if you take offense to the language that is how I talk but per request for a few here I refrain form using it in debate and on most sections of the board.

You directed me to a forum where you called me a pretty low name. I have decided to answer some of your objections, but really after that, I certainly was not obliged to.

Cheers,

Sye

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

God cannot contradict himself. That is all I said.

Same difference.
Question: God can do anything.
Answer: God cannot contradict himself.
Conclusion: God cannot do anything => God is not omnipotent => the God of the bible cannot exist.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

You can state it but you would be contradiciting yourself. God cannot contradict Himself, we can. God cannot lie, we can.

Another proof that the God of the bible cannot exist, if I can do something he cannot. It also goes to the question of 'free will', apparently we have 'free will', but God himself hasn't.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

He has revealed them to us in His Word.

Unproven assumption.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

What is your ultimate authority?.

There is no such thing as far as my knowledge goes.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

You cannot prove a universal negative. You would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say there is NO God. You would have to be God to say there is no God. Hardly convincing.

This is correct, but now we also have to assume that Santa Claus, unicorns, goblins, giants, elfs and any other fantasy figure are real, since I cannot disprove them either. Atheists have always stated that the burden of proof lies with those who make the positive assertation, namely that God exists. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, unless your omniscient indeed, that does not stop us from intelligently deducing that some things do not exist.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Thanks for your comments Ralph,

Sye

You're welcome.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote:

Agreed abiogenesis is an assumption that both sides make mine is with out involvment from a deity you is with involvment of a deity. so yes either of us arguing this is moot at this point

I certainly do not make such an assumption. I have God creating the universe. You have nothing creatign the universe. Hence, I am obeying the rules of science and you aren't.

Quote:

I would like to the the progressive steps in wich you reach such a conclusion.

I'll do that when we come to an agreement about god existing in the first place

Quote:

ok we will assume notting more than we are here.... that is the axiom of the discussion.

Exactly. My answer to why we are here is God put us here. You don't really have an answer unless you have come up with somethign that millinos of atheists throughout history have failed to do.

Quote:

the assumptions that I was refering to when it comes to christianity are a few....

Okay let's see....

Quote:

1. There is a god

No an assumption. Here is the syllogism:

We exist. An effect needs a cause. Hence, something had to cause us. This effect is called God.

Quote:

2. He created the world and life on it and is involved in it

That he created the world is easy to show. That He is involved in it is not an assumption, and though might not be scientifically proveable (but then, plenty of things you take for granted aren't either), it is reasonable to assume He would create us for a purpose.

Quote:

3. Jesus was his son and he was crucified.

Well, we seem to be getting way off-topic here, but this is not an assumption. Based on the evidence, many believe that Jesus was God. This is not an assumption, it is a deduction.

Quote:

4. everything in the bible is true (now I know that one may be different with you because the catholic church has said that some parts of the bible should be ignored and maybe you can outline that later)

The Catholic Church does not say anything in the Bible is untrue. Indeed, the Catholic Church wrote and compiled the Bible's lsit of inspired books and holds it all to be the inspired word of God. However, the Church also admits the metaphorical speaking of Genesis which I believe you are refering to (the Church does not hold any young earth notions, etc.).

Quote:

5. that there is a heaven and hell

Well surely you understand this is not an assumption. This comes from many other things, i.e. Jesus, His apostles, the Church, etc.

Quote:

6. that prophacy (in the bible) has yet to happen

Huh? I dont understand this one.

Quote:

ummm..... no

Abiogenis is not with out its questions true, but your jump form there to the necessity of a god is premature at this juncture in the discussion.

Seems fine to me. You haven't been able to show why god isn't necessary.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Same difference.
Question: God can do anything.
Answer: God cannot contradict himself.
Conclusion: God cannot do anything => God is not omnipotent => the God of the bible cannot exist.

Where do you get the idea that God can do anything? God can't perform an evil act. That is something very simple which He can't do.

Quote:

Another proof that the God of the bible cannot exist, if I can do something he cannot. It also goes to the question of 'free will', apparently we have 'free will', but God himself hasn't.

Sure He does. But He can't do anything contrary to His nature. That doesn't take away His will. You can't become invisible. Does that mean you aren't free?

Quote:

This is correct, but now we also have to assume that Santa Claus, unicorns, goblins, giants, elfs and any other fantasy figure are real, since I cannot disprove them either. Atheists have always stated that the burden of proof lies with those who make the positive assertation, namely that God exists. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, unless your omniscient indeed, that does not stop us from intelligently deducing that some things do not exist.

Well at least you recognize that one can't disprove God. As for the burden of proof, I would say it is on you. For one thing, we need to have been created by someone, i.e. God. Seems like you have to come up with an alternative possibility (i.e. that something can come from nothing, thus disproving every rule of science we have and making your positions even more untenable), or else God wins.

[uncertaindrumer]

oops. double post

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Where do you get the idea that God can do anything? God can't perform an evil act. That is something very simple which He can't do.

As far as I've always heard, God is besides omniscient also omnipotent, which means he can do anything, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Sure He does. But He can't do anything contrary to His nature. That doesn't take away His will. You can't become invisible. Does that mean you aren't free?.

I don't get it, God did create us in his image, didn't he. So if he cannot do anything against his nature, why can we do things against his/our nature. Or did he create us with a different nature? Why did he create us as sinners than? Isn't it against his nature to create something that can act against his nature?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Well at least you recognize that one can't disprove God. As for the burden of proof, I would say it is on you. For one thing, we need to have been created by someone, i.e. God. Seems like you have to come up with an alternative possibility (i.e. that something can come from nothing, thus disproving every rule of science we have and making your positions even more untenable), or else God wins.

It's the question of the chicken and the egg. You say that nothing can come from nothing, but in the same sentence you state that God was the origin and therefore always was and therefore does not need a cause. This is circular logic, if every effect needs a cause, so does God, unless he was created by God's God.

The problem with believing in God is, that God must be the answer to everything, but he isn't. While a non-believer can simply say, I do not know.