Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Challenging you.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:36:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am prepared to challenge people (mainly atheist and agnostics) on their world views.

Relativism: the belief that there are NO absolutes. "Well it might be true for you, but it isn't for me." This view is self refuting, work it out. "Is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?" For there to be absolutes, God must exist to for us to reflect His understanding of what knowledge is and then for us to think that there are absolutes.

Empiricism: the belief that truth claims can only be answered by observation. "I totally believe that knowledge can only be found due to observation." This view is again self refuting, work it out. "How do you know that what your senses sense is totally true, don't you have to reason that what you are sensing are not hallucinations?" Do you?

Secularism: the belief that is sceptical towards religion and protests against it. "Religion is circular, for example Christians testify the Bible to be the Word of God, but only because the Word of God says it is the Word of God." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If the Word of God says it is the Word of God, then it must be the Word of God, and if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God at all, then it is just a book. And if it just a book, then there is nothing wrong about the book but the person believing it is the Word of God. And secularism says man's opinions (not God's Word) is true." Again this world view is self refuting.

Naturalism/Darwinism: the belief that all what exists is natural and if it is unnatural, it simply does not exist and that we have evolved due to that. "We have evolved and God does not exist." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If we did evolve then our ability to think and reason has only evolved to help us to survive, not to produce true beliefs like the belief in God or care to say, the belief in naturalism and Darwinism." Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

Have I missed any?

The Word of God says that God is our standard, not anything else. People say we ought to behavior a certain way, but if we have no absolute standard, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to behave. If what we sense is our standard then our feelings are subjectively absolutely right. If a man feels good about himself when he kidnaps a 9 year old, then his feelings are good. If our senses is our standard, the way we feel is also a standard by how we find knowledge. The Bible says that to fear God is the first step of wisdom, the Bible also states that those who say in their heart 'There is no God.' that they are a fool.

See why?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:57:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:36:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am prepared to challenge people (mainly atheist and agnostics) on their world views.

Relativism: the belief that there are NO absolutes. "Well it might be true for you, but it isn't for me." This view is self refuting, work it out. "Is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?" For there to be absolutes, God must exist to for us to reflect His understanding of what knowledge is and then for us to think that there are absolutes.

Empiricism: the belief that truth claims can only be answered by observation. "I totally believe that knowledge can only be found due to observation." This view is again self refuting, work it out. "How do you know that what your senses sense is totally true, don't you have to reason that what you are sensing are not hallucinations?" Do you?

Secularism: the belief that is sceptical towards religion and protests against it. "Religion is circular, for example Christians testify the Bible to be the Word of God, but only because the Word of God says it is the Word of God." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If the Word of God says it is the Word of God, then it must be the Word of God, and if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God at all, then it is just a book. And if it just a book, then there is nothing wrong about the book but the person believing it is the Word of God. And secularism says man's opinions (not God's Word) is true." Again this world view is self refuting.

Naturalism/Darwinism: the belief that all what exists is natural and if it is unnatural, it simply does not exist and that we have evolved due to that. "We have evolved and God does not exist." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If we did evolve then our ability to think and reason has only evolved to help us to survive, not to produce true beliefs like the belief in God or care to say, the belief in naturalism and Darwinism." Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

Have I missed any?

The Word of God says that God is our standard, not anything else. People say we ought to behavior a certain way, but if we have no absolute standard, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to behave. If what we sense is our standard then our feelings are subjectively absolutely right. If a man feels good about himself when he kidnaps a 9 year old, then his feelings are good. If our senses is our standard, the way we feel is also a standard by how we find knowledge. The Bible says that to fear God is the first step of wisdom, the Bible also states that those who say in their heart 'There is no God.' that they are a fool.

See why?

Although, off the top of what i read, youve kinda got secularism wrong there, sure, ill accept your challenge.

We can have absolute standards. Those standards are determined by ourselves, and the goals that we want to reach. Most of the time, our own standards tend to align with social standards.

But when you claim that God is the ultimate moral authority, you enter the euthaphros dilemma. Is it Moral because God says so, or does God say it is moral because it is?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:58:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:36:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am prepared to challenge people (mainly atheist and agnostics) on their world views.

Relativism: the belief that there are NO absolutes. "Well it might be true for you, but it isn't for me." This view is self refuting, work it out. "Is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?" For there to be absolutes, God must exist to for us to reflect His understanding of what knowledge is and then for us to think that there are absolutes.

You're seriously going to use the "No absolutes is an absolute!" argument? Ugh. But really, how can you know what the truth is? How can you have all the answers necessary to establish an absolute truth? Once you believe you have the truth, you stop searching for other answers... and then you could be stuck in ignorance. We could be missing vital components to life this very moment. We don't know everything! And until we do, absolute truths should be handled with care and skepticism. Do not exaggerate your intelligence with supposed answers.

Empiricism: the belief that truth claims can only be answered by observation. "I totally believe that knowledge can only be found due to observation." This view is again self refuting, work it out. "How do you know that what your senses sense is totally true, don't you have to reason that what you are sensing are not hallucinations?" Do you?

Couldn't this very argument be used against Objective truths? You are full of contradictions, GodSands.

Secularism: the belief that is sceptical towards religion and protests against it. "Religion is circular, for example Christians testify the Bible to be the Word of God, but only because the Word of God says it is the Word of God." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If the Word of God says it is the Word of God, then it must be the Word of God, and if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God at all, then it is just a book. And if it just a book, then there is nothing wrong about the book but the person believing it is the Word of God. And secularism says man's opinions (not God's Word) is true." Again this world view is self refuting.

You're basically saying since the book says it is The Word of God, we should believe it because if it isn't, it doesn't matter? Well, of course it matters! If I'm going to base my life and beliefs off of a book, I don't want it to be based off of circular logic! Plus, secularism stops from a religion taking precedence over another, especially in countries like America where it's extremely diverse. Does it always work? No, because religion seems to filter into politics all the time. If I'm not religious, I don't want to be ruled by religious laws. Just like you being Christian... would you want to be ruled by Islamic laws?

Naturalism/Darwinism: the belief that all what exists is natural and if it is unnatural, it simply does not exist and that we have evolved due to that. "We have evolved and God does not exist." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If we did evolve then our ability to think and reason has only evolved to help us to survive, not to produce true beliefs like the belief in God or care to say, the belief in naturalism and Darwinism." Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

No, you have it completely wrong. When we evolved, our brain became increasingly stronger through the stages. And at this point, we have a high enough intelligence, to not only contemplate our own death but also to entertain thoughts of higher beings. The presence of true beliefs, just like the absence of true beliefs, do not prove intelligent design. It proves that through Evolution, we have become a unique race. A superior race. Does that make us products of a God? No. Pick up a Biology book GodSands!

Have I missed any?

The Word of God says that God is our standard, not anything else. People say we ought to behavior a certain way, but if we have no absolute standard, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to behave. If what we sense is our standard then our feelings are subjectively absolutely right. If a man feels good about himself when he kidnaps a 9 year old, then his feelings are good. If our senses is our standard, the way we feel is also a standard by how we find knowledge. The Bible says that to fear God is the first step of wisdom, the Bible also states that those who say in their heart 'There is no God.' that they are a fool.

See why?

See why...what? That you're completely ignorant? Yes. You have not shown any valid arguments for the presence of a deity and instead, you have posted statements with demented circular logic, for the purpose to confuse the reader and not inform. You say God is our standard... no he is not. Our morals are not dependent on religion. And if believing there is no God makes me a fool... I would rather be a fool than a slave.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:01:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:58:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 8:36:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am prepared to challenge people (mainly atheist and agnostics) on their world views.

Relativism: the belief that there are NO absolutes. "Well it might be true for you, but it isn't for me." This view is self refuting, work it out. "Is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?" For there to be absolutes, God must exist to for us to reflect His understanding of what knowledge is and then for us to think that there are absolutes.

You're seriously going to use the "No absolutes is an absolute!" argument? Ugh. But really, how can you know what the truth is? How can you have all the answers necessary to establish an absolute truth? Once you believe you have the truth, you stop searching for other answers... and then you could be stuck in ignorance. We could be missing vital components to life this very moment. We don't know everything! And until we do, absolute truths should be handled with care and skepticism. Do not exaggerate your intelligence with supposed answers.

Empiricism: the belief that truth claims can only be answered by observation. "I totally believe that knowledge can only be found due to observation." This view is again self refuting, work it out. "How do you know that what your senses sense is totally true, don't you have to reason that what you are sensing are not hallucinations?" Do you?

Couldn't this very argument be used against Objective truths? You are full of contradictions, GodSands.

Secularism: the belief that is sceptical towards religion and protests against it. "Religion is circular, for example Christians testify the Bible to be the Word of God, but only because the Word of God says it is the Word of God." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If the Word of God says it is the Word of God, then it must be the Word of God, and if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God at all, then it is just a book. And if it just a book, then there is nothing wrong about the book but the person believing it is the Word of God. And secularism says man's opinions (not God's Word) is true." Again this world view is self refuting.

You're basically saying since the book says it is The Word of God, we should believe it because if it isn't, it doesn't matter? Well, of course it matters! If I'm going to base my life and beliefs off of a book, I don't want it to be based off of circular logic! Plus, secularism stops from a religion taking precedence over another, especially in countries like America where it's extremely diverse. Does it always work? No, because religion seems to filter into politics all the time. If I'm not religious, I don't want to be ruled by religious laws. Just like you being Christian... would you want to be ruled by Islamic laws?

Naturalism/Darwinism: the belief that all what exists is natural and if it is unnatural, it simply does not exist and that we have evolved due to that. "We have evolved and God does not exist." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If we did evolve then our ability to think and reason has only evolved to help us to survive, not to produce true beliefs like the belief in God or care to say, the belief in naturalism and Darwinism." Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

No, you have it completely wrong. When we evolved, our brain became increasingly stronger through the stages. And at this point, we have a high enough intelligence, to not only contemplate our own death but also to entertain thoughts of higher beings. The presence of true beliefs, just like the absence of true beliefs, do not prove intelligent design. It proves that through Evolution, we have become a unique race. A superior race. Does that make us products of a God? No. Pick up a Biology book GodSands!

Have I missed any?

The Word of God says that God is our standard, not anything else. People say we ought to behavior a certain way, but if we have no absolute standard, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to behave. If what we sense is our standard then our feelings are subjectively absolutely right. If a man feels good about himself when he kidnaps a 9 year old, then his feelings are good. If our senses is our standard, the way we feel is also a standard by how we find knowledge. The Bible says that to fear God is the first step of wisdom, the Bible also states that those who say in their heart 'There is no God.' that they are a fool.

See why?

See why...what? That you're completely ignorant? Yes. You have not shown any valid arguments for the presence of a deity and instead, you have posted statements with demented circular logic, for the purpose to confuse the reader and not inform. You say God is our standard... no he is not. Our morals are not dependent on religion. And if believing there is no God makes me a fool... I would rather be a fool than a slave.

I dont understand, maybe cause i skimmed his message as it was a tl;dr as always, but is Godsands saying that atheists are secularists, relativists, empiricists, and naturalists, all at the same time?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:04:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 9:01:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Godsands, you've read Alvin Plantinga?

Mind = blown.

Plantinga fails. His supposed solution to the problem of evil, fails.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:07:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 9:04:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/12/2010 9:01:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Godsands, you've read Alvin Plantinga?

Mind = blown.

Plantinga fails. His supposed solution to the problem of evil, fails.

To the logical PoE? No, not really.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:09:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Although, off the top of what i read, youve kinda got secularism wrong there, sure, ill accept your challenge.

We can have absolute standards. Those standards are determined by ourselves, and the goals that we want to reach. Most of the time, our own standards tend to align with social standards.

But when you claim that God is the ultimate moral authority, you enter the euthaphros dilemma. Is it Moral because God says so, or does God say it is moral because it is?


http://www.answers.com... - Secularism definition.

You don't have absolute standards because you yourself does not know everything. The goals that you may want to meet are relative and sujective. 'True for you, maybe not for me.'

God is all knowing, God is the foundational root to reality, all standards must derive from Him to be absolute. Morally and intellectually.

You are missing the point, God is the standard for everything, even my thought on whether or not is it moral because God says so or does God say it is moral because it is? Firstly morality is only present when good and evil are also, God does not get standards from us, but from Himself, He is the standard. That is the point you are missing.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:14:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 8/12/2010 8:58:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 8:36:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am prepared to challenge people (mainly atheist and agnostics) on their world views.

Relativism: the belief that there are NO absolutes. "Well it might be true for you, but it isn't for me." This view is self refuting, work it out. "Is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?" For there to be absolutes, God must exist to for us to reflect His understanding of what knowledge is and then for us to think that there are absolutes.

You're seriously going to use the "No absolutes is an absolute!" argument? Ugh. But really, how can you know what the truth is? How can you have all the answers necessary to establish an absolute truth? Once you believe you have the truth, you stop searching for other answers... and then you could be stuck in ignorance. We could be missing vital components to life this very moment. We don't know everything! And until we do, absolute truths should be handled with care and skepticism. Do not exaggerate your intelligence with supposed answers.

Empiricism: the belief that truth claims can only be answered by observation. "I totally believe that knowledge can only be found due to observation." This view is again self refuting, work it out. "How do you know that what your senses sense is totally true, don't you have to reason that what you are sensing are not hallucinations?" Do you?

Couldn't this very argument be used against Objective truths? You are full of contradictions, GodSands.

Secularism: the belief that is sceptical towards religion and protests against it. "Religion is circular, for example Christians testify the Bible to be the Word of God, but only because the Word of God says it is the Word of God." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If the Word of God says it is the Word of God, then it must be the Word of God, and if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God at all, then it is just a book. And if it just a book, then there is nothing wrong about the book but the person believing it is the Word of God. And secularism says man's opinions (not God's Word) is true." Again this world view is self refuting.

You're basically saying since the book says it is The Word of God, we should believe it because if it isn't, it doesn't matter? Well, of course it matters! If I'm going to base my life and beliefs off of a book, I don't want it to be based off of circular logic! Plus, secularism stops from a religion taking precedence over another, especially in countries like America where it's extremely diverse. Does it always work? No, because religion seems to filter into politics all the time. If I'm not religious, I don't want to be ruled by religious laws. Just like you being Christian... would you want to be ruled by Islamic laws?

Naturalism/Darwinism: the belief that all what exists is natural and if it is unnatural, it simply does not exist and that we have evolved due to that. "We have evolved and God does not exist." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If we did evolve then our ability to think and reason has only evolved to help us to survive, not to produce true beliefs like the belief in God or care to say, the belief in naturalism and Darwinism." Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

No, you have it completely wrong. When we evolved, our brain became increasingly stronger through the stages. And at this point, we have a high enough intelligence, to not only contemplate our own death but also to entertain thoughts of higher beings. The presence of true beliefs, just like the absence of true beliefs, do not prove intelligent design. It proves that through Evolution, we have become a unique race. A superior race. Does that make us products of a God? No. Pick up a Biology book GodSands!

Have I missed any?

The Word of God says that God is our standard, not anything else. People say we ought to behavior a certain way, but if we have no absolute standard, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to behave. If what we sense is our standard then our feelings are subjectively absolutely right. If a man feels good about himself when he kidnaps a 9 year old, then his feelings are good. If our senses is our standard, the way we feel is also a standard by how we find knowledge. The Bible says that to fear God is the first step of wisdom, the Bible also states that those who say in their heart 'There is no God.' that they are a fool.

See why?

See why...what? That you're completely ignorant? Yes. You have not shown any valid arguments for the presence of a deity and instead, you have posted statements with demented circular logic, for the purpose to confuse the reader and not inform. You say God is our standard... no he is not. Our morals are not dependent on religion. And if believing there is no God makes me a fool... I would rather be a fool than a slave.


I'll hit on this later today. It is earily in the morning, 5am earily lol.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:29:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 9:07:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/12/2010 9:04:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/12/2010 9:01:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Godsands, you've read Alvin Plantinga?

Mind = blown.

Plantinga fails. His supposed solution to the problem of evil, fails.

To the logical PoE? No, not really.

Uh, yes, it does. For example, Plantinga states that this world is the best possible world in which God does not sin and cannot interfere with free will. Yet this argument fails, in light of the existance of Heaven. Clearly, in heaven, God does not sin, he does no interfere with free will, yet Heaven is supposed to be better than this world. Clearly the premise does not hold.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:40:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 9:09:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
http://www.answers.com... - Secularism definition.
I fail to see where in that definition, does it state that secularists are protesting against religion.

You don't have absolute standards because you yourself does not know everything. The goals that you may want to meet are relative and sujective. 'True for you, maybe not for me.'
You dont have to know everything to have a standard to which you consider is absolute.

As for true to me but not to you, sure. Which is why i said, that these absolute morals depends on the goals that we want to reach.

There are a limited number of actions a person can take in a given situation. Depending on the goal, however, there are certain actions that are better at reaching that goal. And then, of course, there is the best possible action you can take that acheives this goal. This is what i would call, a moral absolute.

You are missing the point, God is the standard for everything, even my thought on whether or not is it moral because God says so or does God say it is moral because it is? Firstly morality is only present when good and evil are also, God does not get standards from us, but from Himself, He is the standard. That is the point you are missing.

So in other words, its moral because God says so. Okay.

Then my next question would be, how do you know God is the Good guy and the Devil is the bad guy?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 9:50:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 9:29:07 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/12/2010 9:07:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/12/2010 9:04:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/12/2010 9:01:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Godsands, you've read Alvin Plantinga?

Mind = blown.

Plantinga fails. His supposed solution to the problem of evil, fails.

To the logical PoE? No, not really.

Uh, yes, it does. For example, Plantinga states that this world is the best possible world in which God does not sin and cannot interfere with free will. Yet this argument fails, in light of the existance of Heaven. Clearly, in heaven, God does not sin, he does no interfere with free will, yet Heaven is supposed to be better than this world. Clearly the premise does not hold.

1) You fail to understand what a "possible world" is. A possible world is an exhaustive account of reality or how reality cold have been. Heaven wouldn't be a seperate "world" because different conceptions of heaven would be included in different accounts of possible worlds. It'd be apart of the conception of this world as the best possible world including the conception of heaven you just posited. You're either equivocating on the sense of (possible) "world" used in his argument by equating (possible) world with our earthly existence or you are ignorant of what a possible world actually is.

2) Plantinga also argues that it is logically possible (because that is all that is needed here) that all humans suffer from transworld depravity and that humans would do evil in any possible world that God actualizes.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 10:22:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 9:50:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
1) You fail to understand what a "possible world" is. A possible world is an exhaustive account of reality or how reality cold have been. Heaven wouldn't be a seperate "world" because different conceptions of heaven would be included in different accounts of possible worlds. It'd be apart of the conception of this world as the best possible world including the conception of heaven you just posited. You're either equivocating on the sense of (possible) "world" used in his argument by equating (possible) world with our earthly existence or you are ignorant of what a possible world actually is.

First off, no. There could not possibly be different conceptions of heaven, because the very definition of heaven in christianity is something to which, according to christians, is the ultimate plane of existance possible. Its the same with Omnipotence. Is there different concepts of omnipotece? Of course not, because omnipotence only has a single definition. There could not be different versions of heaven, if heaven is the best possible scenario.

Secondly, there is no equivocation fallacy, and heres why. Clearly, according to the Christian doctrine, God is capable of creating a universe where Only heaven exists, and no other physical realm exists alongside heaven. If so, then clearly, that universe would be superior to this one, in terms of sin and free will violation. But the reason there is no equivoation fallacy, is because i am looking at both unvierses, the universe with ONLY heaven, and the universe that contains both heaven and the other physical realm(i.e. Earth, planets, etc) each as a whole. In other words, its just as you said. They are both realities, with one containing just Heaven, and the other containing both Heaven and the known physical world. I am comparing them both, equally, as realities.

Thirdly, how have you come to the conclusion of determining that you have accounted for all the possible worlds that could have existed? This is another premise that fails. What plantinga is doing is presupposing that a God would want to create the best possible world without violating free will and committing sin. This is a premise that i reject because it is not shown to be true.

2) Plantinga also argues that it is logically possible (because that is all that is needed here) that all humans suffer from transworld depravity and that humans would do evil in any possible world that God actualizes.

Suffers the same problem as the number three up there.

However, theres another problem to this argument. Currently, we have discovered technology and medicine that eliminates much of the suffering that used to exist. And we continue to discover these things that continue to lessen our suffering. If God wants to create a universe that has the least amount of suffering, why didnt he give mankind this information, these discoveries, from the get-go? Clearly, if, 9000 years ago, all of mankind had what they know today, then the suffering of quite a few people would not have had to occur. I mean, we have created scenarios, within things like Science Fiction television shows, where many of the problems that plague society today do not exist, i.e. World Hunger. Clearly it is possible for humans to solve many of the causes of suffering. So why didnt God solve it first? Why cause unnecessary suffering of children who had smallpox 2000 years ago, when it is essentially cured today?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 11:17:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 10:22:17 PM, tkubok wrote:

First off, no. There could not possibly be different conceptions of heaven, because the very definition of heaven in christianity is something to which, according to christians, is the ultimate plane of aexistance possible.

Yes, there could be different conceptions of heaven (as a matter of fact there is different conceptions of heaven) because people are puzzling over what it means for heaven to be the ultimate plane of existance. What kind of people will be there, how they will feel, think, etc.

Its the same with Omnipotence. Is there different concepts of omnipotece? Of course not, because omnipotence only has a single definition.

Uh, yes. Check out the philosophical literature. There are like a dozen different conceptions of what it actually means to say that a being is omnipotent. It's not as simple as saying that being is all-powerful.

There could not be different versions of heaven, if heaven is the best possible scenario.

Yes, there could be if for no other reason then that heaven in another possible world might have a different set of people in it than in some other possible world.

Secondly, there is no equivocation fallacy, and heres why. Clearly, according to the Christian doctrine, God is capable of creating a universe where Only heaven exists, and no other physical realm exists alongside heaven.

It's not clear that this is possible if he wants to create creatures (humans at least) with morally signifcant, libertarian free will. I refer you to soul making theories - I'd rather not type out a whole explanation on them.

If so, then clearly, that universe would be superior to this one, in terms of sin and free will violation. But the reason there is no equivoation fallacy, is because i am looking at both unvierses, the universe with ONLY heaven, and the universe that contains both heaven and the other physical realm(i.e. Earth, planets, etc) each as a whole. In other words, its just as you said. They are both realities, with one containing just Heaven, and the other containing both Heaven and the known physical world. I am comparing them both, equally, as realities.

Taking the above into consideration it's not at all clear that the clarification you make helps your case in the slightest.

Thirdly, how have you come to the conclusion of determining that you have accounted for all the possible worlds that could have existed? This is another premise that fails. What plantinga is doing is presupposing that a God would want to create the best possible world without violating free will and committing sin. This is a premise that i reject because it is not shown to be true.

Well there are whole arguments for why free will is a great good but that is beside the point, that I again, don't feel like typing a whole explanation up.

Anyways, no wonder you reject his argument - you have no idea what he's actually trying to do. He doesn't have to show that his premises are true in the actual world. All he has to argue is that it is a logically consistent state of affairs that God MIGHT actualize. That's it. Full stop. End of story. All other considerations except questioning whether his proposed state of affairs is actually logically consistent are strictly speaking irrelevant.

Suffers the same problem as the number three up there.

Nope.

However, theres another problem to this argument. Currently, we have discovered technology and medicine that eliminates much of the suffering that used to exist. And we continue to discover these things that continue to lessen our suffering. If God wants to create a universe that has the least amount of suffering, why didnt he give mankind this information, these discoveries, from the get-go? Clearly, if, 9000 years ago, all of mankind had what they know today, then the suffering of quite a few people would not have had to occur. I mean, we have created scenarios, within things like Science Fiction television shows, where many of the problems that plague society today do not exist, i.e. World Hunger. Clearly it is possible for humans to solve many of the causes of suffering. So why didnt God solve it first? Why cause unnecessary suffering of children who had smallpox 2000 years ago, when it is essentially cured today?

It's not a problem for this defense because the defense doesn't seek to answer those questions. It's NOT a theodicy like you keep on trying to force it to be. He doesn't have to answer these particular questions because they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. All he is doing is producing a logically consistent state of affairs where God coexists with evil - it does not even have to be true. The fact it is logically possible defeats the logical PoE because the logical PoE claims it is logically impossible that God exist with evil.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 11:26:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Uhm, naturalism and Darwinism are not the same things.

Considering debating you on evolution (NOT Darwinism) or secularism.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 12:09:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yea, okay.

A resolution with something like "It is unreasonable to believe in evolution" or "Secularism is an unreasonable position" would work for me.

God would it suck to be one of the few to lose to GS though...
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 5:54:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You're seriously going to use the "No absolutes is an absolute!" argument? Ugh. But really, how can you know what the truth is? How can you have all the answers necessary to establish an absolute truth? Once you believe you have the truth, you stop searching for other answers... and then you could be stuck in ignorance. We could be missing vital components to life this very moment. We don't know everything! And until we do, absolute truths should be handled with care and skepticism. Do not exaggerate your intelligence with supposed answers.

Yeah I have, haven't I. I just used that argument, which is that 'there are no absolutes' is an absolute of it's self. The reason that I can know the truth is because God exists. You might say we cannot know the truth, but is that the truth? Truth comes through thought and understanding at a human level and none other. It is not a question of once I have claimed to have found truth I stop looking, well of course I would, why would I continue? If God is not mighty enough to be the truth, tell me what is? The truth is eternal, objective (universal) and logical. God is all those things.

Couldn't this very argument be used against Objective truths? You are full of contradictions, GodSands.

Yeah, please explain how though?

You're basically saying since the book says it is The Word of God, we should believe it because if it isn't, it doesn't matter? Well, of course it matters! If I'm going to base my life and beliefs off of a book, I don't want it to be based off of circular logic! Plus, secularism stops from a religion taking precedence over another, especially in countries like America where it's extremely diverse. Does it always work? No, because religion seems to filter into politics all the time. If I'm not religious, I don't want to be ruled by religious laws. Just like you being Christian... would you want to be ruled by Islamic laws?

Well if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God, then it doesn't does it. Or does it? If the Word of God is the Word of God is does matter and we should believe in it. If the Word of God is not the Word of God (not saying it is a work of fiction, to say that is a different matter) then it is our own fault for believing what the book says. And secularism says man is right (God doesn't exist) and thus if men believe in the Bible as the Word of God but it isn't actually the Word of God then it is down to man and his opinions, in which they would be wrong in this case. While at the same time secularism says mans way is the right way. So which way is the right way? We cannot know without the Word of God. Everything else other than the Word of God is opinionated to say the least.

No, you have it completely wrong. When we evolved, our brain became increasingly stronger through the stages. And at this point, we have a high enough intelligence, to not only contemplate our own death but also to entertain thoughts of higher beings. The presence of true beliefs, just like the absence of true beliefs, do not prove intelligent design. It proves that through Evolution, we have become a unique race. A superior race. Does that make us products of a God? No. Pick up a Biology book GodSands!

Don't you mean as we evolve, since if evolution is true was are always evolving. By saying when you are implying stages of evolution when really it is a consistent flow of progress which is extremely show. So it is our brain is increasingly growing stronger though time, not stages. And therefore the drive of that is to survive, our thoughts and are ability to reason came through the attempt to be able to survive, this is why we are the most successful being on the planet according to evolution. But why then are there true beliefs such as the belief in God and Darwinism? They don't help us to survive, for one the belief in Jesus Christ implies that we should love our enemies, when evolution say otherwise to that. And the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' business has never been observed, yes we seen animals helping each other out, but we haven't observed when it first began. So that argument should not be used for evolution.

See why...what? That you're completely ignorant? Yes. You have not shown any valid arguments for the presence of a deity and instead, you have posted statements with demented circular logic, for the purpose to confuse the reader and not inform. You say God is our standard... no he is not. Our morals are not dependent on religion. And if believing there is no God makes me a fool... I would rather be a fool than a slave.

Then be a fool.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 8:06:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Another fallacy that people (usually atheists) who believe in evolution make is this:

How do you know that the universe is old if there is not another known universe to compare this one by? You assume this universe is old in relation to the Word of God which clearly says that the universe is 6,000 years old. So if there are other universes created by other Big Bangs which are 100's of billions of years old, then this universe is a young universe, no doubt about it. However those who believe in a old universe say it is old based off of the claim which the Bible makes, and that is we live in a young universe. The Bible says people will be willingly ignorant of God's Word, why then do you compare you world view to a one that you believe is false, aren't you just holding yourself up?

Instead you compare the age of the universe by how you feel the age of the universe should be ages as, which is old and that is done by comparing your world view to the Bible in which they believe is false. "Whaaaaa????"

Shouldn't you find another source to decide whether we live in a young or old universe, but instead you use the account which the Bible makes, in which you do not believe.

Self refuting to me.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 8:51:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:36:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am prepared to challenge people (mainly atheist and agnostics) on their world views.

We have world views?

Relativism: the belief that there are NO absolutes. "Well it might be true for you, but it isn't for me." This view is self refuting, work it out. "Is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?" For there to be absolutes, God must exist to for us to reflect His understanding of what knowledge is and then for us to think that there are absolutes.

I can see how you are led to reject moral objectivism under an atheistic worldview, but epistemological relativism as well? No.

Empiricism: the belief that truth claims can only be answered by observation. "I totally believe that knowledge can only be found due to observation." This view is again self refuting, work it out. "How do you know that what your senses sense is totally true, don't you have to reason that what you are sensing are not hallucinations?" Do you?

When are atheists empiricists? Most well-read folks of philosophy would support some combination of empiricism and rationalism (the amount is the debate).

Secularism: the belief that is sceptical towards religion and protests against it. "Religion is circular, for example Christians testify the Bible to be the Word of God, but only because the Word of God says it is the Word of God." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If the Word of God says it is the Word of God, then it must be the Word of God, and if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God at all, then it is just a book. And if it just a book, then there is nothing wrong about the book but the person believing it is the Word of God. And secularism says man's opinions (not God's Word) is true." Again this world view is self refuting.

lolwut.

Naturalism/Darwinism: the belief that all what exists is natural and if it is unnatural, it simply does not exist and that we have evolved due to that. "We have evolved and God does not exist." This view is self refuting, work it out. "If we did evolve then our ability to think and reason has only evolved to help us to survive, not to produce true beliefs like the belief in God or care to say, the belief in naturalism and Darwinism." Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

You can find refutations of Plantinga elsewhere; any effort on my part to try to convince you would be wasted.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 9:47:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 5:54:22 AM, GodSands wrote:
You're seriously going to use the "No absolutes is an absolute!" argument? Ugh. But really, how can you know what the truth is? How can you have all the answers necessary to establish an absolute truth? Once you believe you have the truth, you stop searching for other answers... and then you could be stuck in ignorance. We could be missing vital components to life this very moment. We don't know everything! And until we do, absolute truths should be handled with care and skepticism. Do not exaggerate your intelligence with supposed answers.

Yeah I have, haven't I. I just used that argument, which is that 'there are no absolutes' is an absolute of it's self. The reason that I can know the truth is because God exists. You might say we cannot know the truth, but is that the truth? Truth comes through thought and understanding at a human level and none other. It is not a question of once I have claimed to have found truth I stop looking, well of course I would, why would I continue? If God is not mighty enough to be the truth, tell me what is? The truth is eternal, objective (universal) and logical. God is all those things.

'When I say we cannot know the objective truth, that is a truth, since I don't believe right now that we have the necessary knowledge to claim we do have objective truths. But when I say "We don't have the truth yet", it is obviously not objective since research will continue that will (hopefully) refute that some day. And no, truth is not objective. God is not true. And you think God is. So no, he is not mighty enough to be the truth. Otherwise there would be a lot less debate over religion.

Couldn't this very argument be used against Objective truths? You are full of contradictions, GodSands.

Yeah, please explain how though?

If we could be living in an alternative reality or if we're hallucinating.... that means our "truths" right now would actually be false. Since they're built upon the science we've gathered as we try to understand our surroundings but do not have a hallucinogenic world as a factor. And then there would be no objective truths...

You're basically saying since the book says it is The Word of God, we should believe it because if it isn't, it doesn't matter? Well, of course it matters! If I'm going to base my life and beliefs off of a book, I don't want it to be based off of circular logic! Plus, secularism stops from a religion taking precedence over another, especially in countries like America where it's extremely diverse. Does it always work? No, because religion seems to filter into politics all the time. If I'm not religious, I don't want to be ruled by religious laws. Just like you being Christian... would you want to be ruled by Islamic laws?

Well if the Word of God isn't actually the Word of God, then it doesn't does it. Or does it? If the Word of God is the Word of God is does matter and we should believe in it. If the Word of God is not the Word of God (not saying it is a work of fiction, to say that is a different matter) then it is our own fault for believing what the book says. And secularism says man is right (God doesn't exist) and thus if men believe in the Bible as the Word of God but it isn't actually the Word of God then it is down to man and his opinions, in which they would be wrong in this case. While at the same time secularism says mans way is the right way. So which way is the right way? We cannot know without the Word of God. Everything else other than the Word of God is opinionated to say the least.

First of all, secularism does not mean "there is no god". It's the separation of religion and politics... Secondly, if the Word of God isn't really from God and there's the chance that he's not even there, why believe in him? You pick God over man... Well, I'm surrounded by humankind. I'm dependent on humankind. And I'm thankful for (some :P) humankind. Even if everything else is opinionated like you claim, those opinions are what separates you from me. You want a God. You crave a God. You need a God. And you love God. I deny any God. I don't need any God. I want freedom from delusion for humankind. I don't need that delusion to survive like you.

No, you have it completely wrong. When we evolved, our brain became increasingly stronger through the stages. And at this point, we have a high enough intelligence, to not only contemplate our own death but also to entertain thoughts of higher beings. The presence of true beliefs, just like the absence of true beliefs, do not prove intelligent design. It proves that through Evolution, we have become a unique race. A superior race. Does that make us products of a God? No. Pick up a Biology book GodSands!

Don't you mean as we evolve, since if evolution is true was are always evolving. By saying when you are implying stages of evolution when really it is a consistent flow of progress which is extremely show. So it is our brain is increasingly growing stronger though time, not stages. And therefore the drive of that is to survive, our thoughts and are ability to reason came through the attempt to be able to survive, this is why we are the most successful being on the planet according to evolution. But why then are there true beliefs such as the belief in God and Darwinism? They don't help us to survive, for one the belief in Jesus Christ implies that we should love our enemies, when evolution say otherwise to that. And the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' business has never been observed, yes we seen animals helping each other out, but we haven't observed when it first began. So that argument should not be used for evolution.

And so I should choose, "Humans having beliefs aren't natural. So God must have planted them in my head." Once again, no delusion please. Even through your nit-picking of past tense words, my argument still stands. Our brain is becoming steadily stronger. We need meaning for everything... that is why we philosophize. Why are we here? What's our meaning in life? Do we have a purpose? With such an intelligent species that is naturally curious... these questions wouldn't be ignored. And to say they are the work of a God is submitting to your crave of delusion, GodSands. You want this to be true... you're clinging on the hopes that it is true... but it isn't. It's perfectly naive...

See why...what? That you're completely ignorant? Yes. You have not shown any valid arguments for the presence of a deity and instead, you have posted statements with demented circular logic, for the purpose to confuse the reader and not inform. You say God is our standard... no he is not. Our morals are not dependent on religion. And if believing there is no God makes me a fool... I would rather be a fool than a slave.

Then be a fool.

You've already chosen to be the slave. And for what? Based on fallible work by humans on the speculation of Gods... Remember, this was during a time that they thought disease came from sin. How can their views be trusted as truth?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 9:54:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Word of God says that God is our standard, not anything else.:

So you take the bible's traffic laws to heart then?

People say we ought to behavior a certain way, but if we have no absolute standard, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to behave.:

How do you know what standard is absolute and what standards follow moral relativism?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 10:00:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 11:17:21 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Yes, there could be different conceptions of heaven (as a matter of fact there is different conceptions of heaven) because people are puzzling over what it means for heaven to be the ultimate plane of existance. What kind of people will be there, how they will feel, think, etc.
Great. Then please explain how their concept of heave can be the best possible scenario, whilst many different multiple scenarios existing all at once. There can only be one "Best", after all, so which one would it be?

Uh, yes. Check out the philosophical literature. There are like a dozen different conceptions of what it actually means to say that a being is omnipotent. It's not as simple as saying that being is all-powerful.
No no, all the "concepts" are people placing qualifiers on the definition, in an attempt to solve a specific problem. But this necessarily means that one must always provide the qualifier, which only proves that they are knowingly using a different definition for the word. Im fine with that, if people want to apply new definitions to their God, but cannot create a new word for their definition. However, all of this comes with an understanding that they are, in effect, using a new word with a new definition. Its not the same as Simple Omnipotence.

Yes, there could be if for no other reason then that heaven in another possible world might have a different set of people in it than in some other possible world.

Why would there necessarily be a different set of people? According to most christian doctrines, humans who are worthy will bodily ascend into heaven like Jesus Christ did.

It's not clear that this is possible if he wants to create creatures (humans at least) with morally signifcant, libertarian free will. I refer you to soul making theories - I'd rather not type out a whole explanation on them.

You're right, its not clear. Which is why i would never claim that this is necessarily the best possible world availeable, on the assumption that God wants to create the best world possible. This is why the argument fails. The premise is not True.

Taking the above into consideration it's not at all clear that the clarification you make helps your case in the slightest.

No no, you accused me of making an equivocation fallacy. Ive corrected that, by showing that the equivocation that im making is infact valid because i view both as realities and not simply physical realms. Your above objection has to do with souls, and has nothing to do with the equivocation fallacy youve accused me of using.

Well there are whole arguments for why free will is a great good but that is beside the point, that I again, don't feel like typing a whole explanation up.

No no, i never dismissed the fact that free will is a great good. Read my argument again.

Anyways, no wonder you reject his argument - you have no idea what he's actually trying to do. He doesn't have to show that his premises are true in the actual world. All he has to argue is that it is a logically consistent state of affairs that God MIGHT actualize. That's it. Full stop. End of story. All other considerations except questioning whether his proposed state of affairs is actually logically consistent are strictly speaking irrelevant.

No no, fail. There are many things that are logically consistent, but fail, because they are not Sound. Logical consistency does not dismiss the fact that the argument is not sound. I can easily construct a logical syllogism that is logically consistent, regarding invisible aliens within the Sun, for example, but since the premise are not shown to be true, my syllogism would fail in soundness, and therefore be useless.

Nope.
Well, if thats the only response you have, then it must be true!

It's not a problem for this defense because the defense doesn't seek to answer those questions. It's NOT a theodicy like you keep on trying to force it to be. He doesn't have to answer these particular questions because they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. All he is doing is producing a logically consistent state of affairs where God coexists with evil - it does not even have to be true. The fact it is logically possible defeats the logical PoE because the logical PoE claims it is logically impossible that God exist with evil.

But thats the problem you are failing to recognize. An unfounded premise can make any logical contradiction, logically consistent. Basically, what Plantinga has done, is put an unfounded qualifier on Gods omnipotence, claiming that God could not have created a world without suffering without violating free will and sin in the process. He has reduced the Premise of "God is omnipotent" by changing the definition of Omnipotence. Well, congratulations, cause if two premises contradict, like, for example, "I am a human" and "I am an apple", if i change the definition of one of the words of the premises, there is no longer a contradiction. And my objection is No you can't produce an unfounded premise from nowhere.

It's the difference between whether the logical argument is valid, and whether it is sound.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 12:43:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 8:06:52 AM, GodSands wrote:
Another fallacy that people (usually atheists) who believe in evolution make is this:

How do you know that the universe is old if there is not another known universe to compare this one by? You assume this universe is old in relation to the Word of God which clearly says that the universe is 6,000 years old. So if there are other universes created by other Big Bangs which are 100's of billions of years old, then this universe is a young universe, no doubt about it. However those who believe in a old universe say it is old based off of the claim which the Bible makes, and that is we live in a young universe. The Bible says people will be willingly ignorant of God's Word, why then do you compare you world view to a one that you believe is false, aren't you just holding yourself up?

Instead you compare the age of the universe by how you feel the age of the universe should be ages as, which is old and that is done by comparing your world view to the Bible in which they believe is false. "Whaaaaa????"

Shouldn't you find another source to decide whether we live in a young or old universe, but instead you use the account which the Bible makes, in which you do not believe.

Self refuting to me.

That didn't even make any sense. We know the Earth alone is far older than 6,000 years. That makes the Earth older than the only point of reference we do have, which is recorded human experience, ie history. Anything older than history is old. And whether it should be called old or young really doesn't matter, that doesn't change how old it actually is. "Old" and "young" are relative terms.

And were you going to challenge me to a debate or not?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 4:47:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We have world views?

Yes you do, everyone does.

I can see how you are led to reject moral objectivism under an atheistic worldview, but epistemological relativism as well? No.

Explain yourself on your second point.

When are atheists empiricists? Most well-read folks of philosophy would support some combination of empiricism and rationalism (the amount is the debate).

Well atheists crave evidence, for God and other things that cannot be sensed. Seems logical at first, but if it cannot be sensed that that leaves room for interpretation. We, atheist or monotheist both have the facts, but it is the way we interpretate the facts that gives us our own world views.

lolwut.

Yeah, do you not understand?

You can find refutations of Plantinga elsewhere; any effort on my part to try to convince you would be wasted.

You have your atheistic world view glasses on.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 4:49:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 4:47:12 PM, GodSands wrote:
We have world views?

Yes you do, everyone does.

I can see how you are led to reject moral objectivism under an atheistic worldview, but epistemological relativism as well? No.

Explain yourself on your second point.

When are atheists empiricists? Most well-read folks of philosophy would support some combination of empiricism and rationalism (the amount is the debate).

Well atheists crave evidence, for God and other things that cannot be sensed. Seems logical at first, but if it cannot be sensed that that leaves room for interpretation. We, atheist or monotheist both have the facts, but it is the way we interpretate the facts that gives us our own world views.

lolwut.

Yeah, do you not understand?

You can find refutations of Plantinga elsewhere; any effort on my part to try to convince you would be wasted.

You have your atheistic world view glasses on.

They're called Aviators.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 5:45:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
'When I say we cannot know the objective truth, that is a truth, since I don't believe right now that we have the necessary knowledge to claim we do have objective truths. But when I say "We don't have the truth yet", it is obviously not objective since research will continue that will (hopefully) refute that some day. And no, truth is not objective. God is not true. And you think God is. So no, he is not mighty enough to be the truth. Otherwise there would be a lot less debate over religion.

To make sense I must start with God's Word, or I will fall into a trap. The Word of God is my standard, not anything else. Since you do not begin with God's Word as the standard, you have no other choice but to make other things like morality, empiricism (your senses), free thought and so on your standard, this results is relativism which is self refuting. You lack much on the knowledge of who God is. If God created everything that is, and what is not, is not created by God, how then can anything other be greater than God? If God is love it's self as the Bible claims, what can be greater than that? You come across to be willingly ignorant of God by just your language, "God is not true. And you think God is. So no, he is not mighty enough to be the truth. Otherwise there would be a lot less debate over religion." - Prime example.

Couldn't this very argument be used against Objective truths? You are full of contradictions, GodSands.

Yeah, please explain how though?

If we could be living in an alternative reality or if we're hallucinating.... that means our "truths" right now would actually be false. Since they're built upon the science we've gathered as we try to understand our surroundings but do not have a hallucinogenic world as a factor. And then there would be no objective truths...

How do you know we are not hallucinating? You trust what man says, what the scientists say, your senses being in the right, how do you know that what you are sensing is not a load of meaningless goop?

First of all, secularism does not mean "there is no god". It's the separation of religion and politics... Secondly, if the Word of God isn't really from God and there's the chance that he's not even there, why believe in him? You pick God over man... Well, I'm surrounded by humankind. I'm dependent on humankind. And I'm thankful for (some :P) humankind. Even if everything else is opinionated like you claim, those opinions are what separates you from me. You want a God. You crave a God. You need a God. And you love God. I deny any God. I don't need any God. I want freedom from delusion for humankind. I don't need that delusion to survive like you.

You don't know that your world view is correct, like 1+1=2, otherwise everyone would believe the same thing. But you believe it is, otherwise you wouldn't believe in it. Same with God with me.

Here is a question, if everyone believed in God but you, would you then believe in God? Would you conform?
Mankind believes in all kinds of things, I am surrounded by humanity too like everyone else, but that does not stop humanity asking such questions as 'What is the meaning to life?' And 'Is there a God?' In fact it would encourage many to question those questions even more, since there is more at stake.

If the Word of God is really the Word of God, then I am not opinionated. But if the Bible isn't the Word of God, then I am being opinionated. However we can never know this while we are alive. Unless Jesus Christ returns before I die.

You say you want freedom from delusion, but how do you know that you are not delusional yourself? There are two ways of knowing whether you are delusional or not, either you can examine yourself or you can examine every other world view but your own, which would take all your life up. Best go with the first option, EXAMINE YOURSELF. To have life, we all need God, but not everyone wants God, they just want heaven without God there. There are two ways you know God, you can know God theologically and personally. I know my mother well, but her doctor knows more about her body and how it all works than I do. However I know my mum more in what she likes, what she does not like, what her favorite colour is, where in the world she want to go, etc. Do you think science can answer those questions, do you think science can answer why I prefer blue to orange? In the same way, do you think science will answer the meaning to the universe and life altogether?

And so I should choose, "Humans having beliefs aren't natural. So God must have planted them in my head." Once again, no delusion please. Even through your nit-picking of past tense words, my argument still stands. Our brain is becoming steadily stronger. We need meaning for everything... that is why we philosophize. Why are we here? What's our meaning in life? Do we have a purpose? With such an intelligent species that is naturally curious... these questions wouldn't be ignored. And to say they are the work of a God is submitting to your crave of delusion, GodSands. You want this to be true... you're clinging on the hopes that it is true... but it isn't. It's perfectly naive...

You say that the human brain is becoming more intelligent, but how do you know that? We have philosophy, we have all the big questions in mind, what's the next step, us knowing these answers? Don't be darft. But if there is no God, nothing like God but nature, then there is no purpose to the universe in a whole and your wasting your time trying to figure them out. If you are trying to eliminate the belief in God, you must think up something equal to God which will make people deny their belief in God for your version. Face it, we all have our world views, we all have the same facts, and the facts will sing for you any song you wish. In other words, you can make up anything from facts. You can say anything and believe in it. This is why the Word of God is so very important, the problem is, it is about our relationship with God and it deals with how God mends the problem. The issue is, you are that problem. If there was a equal source, and it did not say anything about us being a curse, then you wouldn't have a problem with it and you could happily believe in it. I think that is the bottom line, you, if the Word of God is really the Word of God, cannot do want you want. That is the bottom line, as long as you get to do what you want then all is good. But the Bible says you cannot do what you want.

You've already chosen to be the slave. And for what? Based on fallible work by humans on the speculation of Gods... Remember, this was during a time that they thought disease came from sin. How can their views be trusted as truth?

A slave yes, but one to righteousness and truth. If you prefer to be a fool, how then do you know, if not wanting to be a slave is foolishness?

Disease did come from sin, the reason that there is death and suffering is because of what Adam did. But waving your hand over some food that has fallen into dung will not make the food safe to eat. They believed if a person prayed over the food which had cow pat on it, the cow pad would not be harmful, O how wrong were they? Ignorance and conformity is not of God.