Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The atheist wager.

MilitaryAtheist
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 4:49:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:05:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you mean Pascal's wager?

The atheist wager is the Atheism version of Pascals Wager.

The Atheist Wager claims that a benevolent god would reward good people, no matter if they were theistic.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:48:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:49:23 AM, MilitaryAtheist wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:05:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you mean Pascal's wager?

The atheist wager is the Atheism version of Pascals Wager.

The Atheist Wager claims that a benevolent god would reward good people, no matter if they were theistic.

And if the god was not benevolent, but narcissistic?
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 5:24:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.strongatheism.net...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 5:42:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: its sound but I didn't find pascals Wager convincing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:49:23 AM, MilitaryAtheist wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:05:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you mean Pascal's wager?

The atheist wager is the Atheism version of Pascals Wager.

The Atheist Wager claims that a benevolent god would reward good people, no matter if they were theistic.

Depends on what you're considering good, and whether God agrees with you on that. For the wager to be accurate, God would have to consider atheists good even though they maligned Him, portrayed His beleivers as ignorant and unneducated, and sued to have any reference to Him removed from public veiw wherever possible because the very idea of Him offended them. They not only deny His existence and dispute the Bible, but they do so publicly thus influencing others not to follow His word, and turn against Him. They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

If God does indeed exist, then the Bible is true and God is moral perfection. Steering people away from Him would amount to steering people away from what is good, toward evil.

In spite of all this, could God still judge this person "good"??
For God to be considered benevolent, does it mean that He is required to ignore all that?? If that is the case, then it really doesn't matter how we veiw God while we're alive, so long as we do what we think is "good", God must reward us.

Then there's the whole issue of faith in Christ, repentance, and forgiveness of sins through faith, not works. No one gets to the Father but through the Son, Narrow is the gate..., For God so loved the world... etc. There are numerous verses that could be listed, showing what is required for entrance to Heaven. Does the atheist contend that for God to be benevolent, He must remove all entrance requirements??

I guess maybe that's why it's called the Atheist "Wager", because they're taking such a huge gamble.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:49:23 AM, MilitaryAtheist wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:05:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you mean Pascal's wager?

The atheist wager is the Atheism version of Pascals Wager.

The Atheist Wager claims that a benevolent god would reward good people, no matter if they were theistic.

Depends on what you're considering good, and whether God agrees with you on that. For the wager to be accurate, God would have to consider atheists good even though they maligned Him, portrayed His beleivers as ignorant and unneducated, and sued to have any reference to Him removed from public veiw wherever possible because the very idea of Him offended them. They not only deny His existence and dispute the Bible, but they do so publicly thus influencing others not to follow His word, and turn against Him. They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

If God does indeed exist, then the Bible is true and God is moral perfection. Steering people away from Him would amount to steering people away from what is good, toward evil.

In spite of all this, could God still judge this person "good"??
For God to be considered benevolent, does it mean that He is required to ignore all that?? If that is the case, then it really doesn't matter how we veiw God while we're alive, so long as we do what we think is "good", God must reward us.

Then there's the whole issue of faith in Christ, repentance, and forgiveness of sins through faith, not works. No one gets to the Father but through the Son, Narrow is the gate..., For God so loved the world... etc. There are numerous verses that could be listed, showing what is required for entrance to Heaven. Does the atheist contend that for God to be benevolent, He must remove all entrance requirements??

I guess maybe that's why it's called the Atheist "Wager", because they're taking such a huge gamble.

The Fool: no it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. "Good" physcal symble to communicate the Idea of Good. So we must already know the idea it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:45:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First edit:
The Fool: No it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. The word "Good" is a Physical symbol to communicate the Idea of Good in english. The Bible was not written in English but Greek, Thus the necessary condition to translated the 'word' In the first place depends on the translator knowing the "idea" of Good Corresponds to terms in more then one langauge. So we must already know the "idea" it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:50:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

The Fool: There is not demarcation factor in that the Bible has any more truth. Then any mythology ever created since the beginning of time.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
First edit:
The Fool: No it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. The word "Good" is a Physical symbol to communicate the Idea of Good in english. The Bible was not written in English but Greek, Thus the necessary condition to translated the 'word' In the first place depends on the translator knowing the "idea" of Good Corresponds to terms in more then one langauge. So we must already know the "idea" it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)

It's not really relevant to even squabble over word meanings on this, assign any word, or meaning that you like. If God exists, then He will judge based on what His criteria is. If He says good, then He will judge based on what He considers good, not man's definition. If God exists, as the Bible says, then He is the epitome of benevolence, so to say that He must act in a way that atheists approve of is laughable. This is very similar to the PoE, in that we end up arguing over what benevolence means. If that's the case though, then the argument against God fails.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:16:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:50:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

The Fool: There is not demarcation factor in that the Bible has any more truth. Then any mythology ever created since the beginning of time.

I think you're missing the bigger point that I wanted to make. When all is said and done, the atheist beliefs are no different than any religion, except that our faith is placed in a higher power. The atheist faith is placed in man, or science. Neither side can disprove the other's beliefs, but they also can't empirically prove their own. In spite of this lack of proof, atheists believe theists to be delusional, but they don't see themselves that way, even though everything that applies to us, also applies to them.

I guess I should distinguish between atheists and anti-theists. What I said applies to anti-theists, not true atheists.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:22:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:59:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
First edit:
The Fool: No it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. The word "Good" is a Physical symbol to communicate the Idea of Good in english. The Bible was not written in English but Greek, Thus the necessary condition to translated the 'word' In the first place depends on the translator knowing the "idea" of Good Corresponds to terms in more then one langauge. So we must already know the "idea" it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)

It's not really relevant to even squabble over word meanings on this, assign any word, or meaning that you like. If God exists, then He will judge based on what His criteria is.

The Fool: yes it is completly depend on the langauge because that is how even learned about any of it in first place. Even what the word 'God' refers too was learned linguistical meaning. Alll you claims about any of it depend on that specifcally. There is no HIDING IN YOUR MIND NOW! I GOT YOU OPEN. YOU CANT RUN! Nore hide!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:27:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 10:16:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:50:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

The Fool: There is not demarcation factor in that the Bible has any more truth. Then any mythology ever created since the beginning of time.

I think you're missing the bigger point that I wanted to make. When all is said and done, the atheist beliefs are no different than any religion, except that our faith is placed in a higher power.

The Fool: You don't even know what a HIGHER POWER MEANS!! LMFAO!!> you can;t hide..

The atheist faith is placed in man, or science. Neither side can disprove the other's beliefs, but they also can't empirically prove their own.

The Fool: Everybody can see the success of science. EVERYBODY!!

The concept proof comes from Logic/math. There is not other meaining. These conceptions or not in the original Bible. You case doesn't make any sense.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:28:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Your mind is possesed by something. And its not Good
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:41:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No need to wage.. Just choose Pantheism and existence itself as GOD and you are all in! As in, existence is all inclusive! :) WIN WIN!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 10:22:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:59:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
First edit:
The Fool: No it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. The word "Good" is a Physical symbol to communicate the Idea of Good in english. The Bible was not written in English but Greek, Thus the necessary condition to translated the 'word' In the first place depends on the translator knowing the "idea" of Good Corresponds to terms in more then one langauge. So we must already know the "idea" it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)

It's not really relevant to even squabble over word meanings on this, assign any word, or meaning that you like. If God exists, then He will judge based on what His criteria is.

The Fool: yes it is completly depend on the langauge because that is how even learned about any of it in first place. Even what the word 'God' refers too was learned linguistical meaning. Alll you claims about any of it depend on that specifcally. There is no HIDING IN YOUR MIND NOW! I GOT YOU OPEN. YOU CANT RUN! Nore hide!

It doesn't matter what word you assign to it, or even require that we have a word for it. The concept exists, and it doesn't change with translation into another language.

The Bible tells me to question all things, so my mind is always open to sensible arguments.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:14:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 10:52:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:22:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:59:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
First edit:
The Fool: No it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. The word "Good" is a Physical symbol to communicate the Idea of Good in english. The Bible was not written in English but Greek, Thus the necessary condition to translated the 'word' In the first place depends on the translator knowing the "idea" of Good Corresponds to terms in more then one langauge. So we must already know the "idea" it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)

It's not really relevant to even squabble over word meanings on this, assign any word, or meaning that you like. If God exists, then He will judge based on what His criteria is.

The Fool: yes it is completly depend on the langauge because that is how even learned about any of it in first place. Even what the word 'God' refers too was learned linguistical meaning. Alll you claims about any of it depend on that specifcally. There is no HIDING IN YOUR MIND NOW! I GOT YOU OPEN. YOU CANT RUN! Nore hide!

It doesn't matter what word you assign to it, or even require that we have a word for it. The concept exists, and it doesn't change with translation into another language.

The Fool: you Even need to know what CONCEPT means. RIGHT first before it makes anysense to even say it.

The Bible tells me to question all things, so my mind is always open to sensible arguments.

The Fool: No the BIble Tell you to OBAY!. Its not even the Real Bible. ITs a Rip off, from the Orginal Greek ORTHADOX/True Christianity. This one got revised by the Westarn Roman Empire hundreds of years later. Lastly you need to understand what the words mean First before you can understand anything Read in the bible. Therefore its false. And there is your proof
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:39:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 10:27:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:16:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:50:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

The Fool: There is not demarcation factor in that the Bible has any more truth. Then any mythology ever created since the beginning of time.

I think you're missing the bigger point that I wanted to make. When all is said and done, the atheist beliefs are no different than any religion, except that our faith is placed in a higher power.

The Fool: You don't even know what a HIGHER POWER MEANS!! LMFAO!!> you can;t hide..

ummm...ok...lol

The atheist faith is placed in man, or science. Neither side can disprove the other's beliefs, but they also can't empirically prove their own.

The Fool: Everybody can see the success of science. EVERYBODY!!

Who's arguing that science isn't successful?? I'm a paramedic, I practice science's success everytime I treat a patient. Science helps to explain the world around us, but it does not in any way, mean that God doesn't exist. It simply strives to learn how God accomplished everything.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:44:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 10:41:41 PM, TheJackel wrote:
No need to wage.. Just choose Pantheism and existence itself as GOD and you are all in! As in, existence is all inclusive! :) WIN WIN!

That might work for you, as long as God is ok with it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 1:08:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:39:52 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:27:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:16:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:50:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:14:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
They started their own religion, proselytize and recruit, and declare faith in another being, while ridiculing the faith that beleivers place in God.

The Fool: There is not demarcation factor in that the Bible has any more truth. Then any mythology ever created since the beginning of time.

I think you're missing the bigger point that I wanted to make. When all is said and done, the atheist beliefs are no different than any religion, except that our faith is placed in a higher power.

The Fool: You don't even know what a HIGHER POWER MEANS!! LMFAO!!> you can;t hide..

ummm...ok...lol

The Fool: The notion power has no meaning without a relation to anything. higher power. Descibes notihing alone but a magnitude. You have to already presuppose someform of supernatural enity first. If you go to somebody complety new and say 'Higher Power' nobody will know what the hell you are talking about. Its completly ambious Just like the word void.

The atheist faith is placed in man, or science.

The Fool: Atheist is not a faith, nore has it ever been or even consider as. Firsly of there must be a object/subject to have faith in. To have faith in non-existence is nonsense. This is just a modern Theologin Reinterpretation. Its a quite modern and new and intentional form of deception. The second Bible says nothing about Athiest having a faith. Christains and theologins have all the motive and a 2000 year old repuation of deception, and a long tract record of great catastophies of humanity.

The Athiest has no motive to decieve. We wouild all love answers to fall in our lap so easy, and have a promise of after life. I they could make is sensible we would all believe. Seconldy, The Atheist cant use non-extistence decieve anyone. Non-existence is not a thing. Nobody should have to accept anything ever by faith. Any intellegent and educated critical thinker past the niavity of youth, would never later think of believing it. To ask acceptence with out rational justification is demand obedience.

Neither side can disprove the other's beliefs, but they also can't empirically prove their own.

The Fool: Non-existence doesn't exist to be proven nore does it need to. It follows by necessity of what non-existence is(or better said is not). You should feel shame about even thinking of such notions. AND LASTLY THERE IS NO ATHIEST SIDE THAT IS PURE IGNORANCE. Athiest are not a team in anysense. There are athiest with other ideologies. e.g. Marxist, or anarchist etc. .. There are non-god based religions. Science is a default for the rest, which is just derived from philosophy. In the case of Natural science.

The Fool: Everybody can see the success of science. EVERYBODY!!

Who's arguing that science isn't successful??

The Fool: knowbody is? The point which you avoided is that science can be known to everybody. But Ideologies can't. They are not universal or objctive. They demand obedience/acceptence.

An Athiest in the Biblical sense has to be taken off Faith that the bible is a reliable source of knowledge. There is many many many rational reasons to reject it. Secondly the demonstration of God in the bible is CIRCULAR. If we pass those two irrational notions, in which there is nt good reason too. The "word" Athiest in the bible may or may not correspond with anything in reality. The Bible version Athiest is not necessarly the modern sense of the term whatsoever. Its based on a 1st century understanding of the world when people were much more vulnderable to believing in anything. Christianity is just continious now because it corrupting the mind of children to early.The changes of a Rational educated adult who is then introduct to mythology is very very very unlikley. Its mostly people ignorant or in desparation. Thus Christianity would be have not been able to survive with that alone.

A belief/faith/trust is an expectation that the idea/conception/thought in our mind correponds to a reality other then simply the 'idea' in our mind.

For example I have and 'idea' of a "unicorn" but I don't believe in unicorns. That is I don't Expect that my "idea" of a unicorn corresponds to anything more then the "idea" itself. Athiest do not expect anything nor is it a hypothesis. Its not even close. Thus notions are only rampit in America Latly because of the low accidemic success rates. Its only other fundementalist middle eastern countries that have any such notions left. They are not rationally sustainable.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 1:09:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:45:31 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The Fool: Everybody can see the success of science. EVERYBODY!!

We also see its failures and limitations.

The Fool: Exactly, It is only upon failure that you could know truth. If something cannot be falsified that there is not demarcating criteria to tell the difference.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 1:11:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:14:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Don't hide medic. You didn't account for this either. In fact YOU CAN]t ITs a FACT.

The Fool: yes it is completly depend on the langauge because that is how even learned about any of it in first place. Even what the word 'God' refers too was learned linguistical meaning. Alll you claims about any of it depend on that specifcally. There is no HIDING IN YOUR MIND NOW! I GOT YOU OPEN. YOU CANT RUN! Nore hide!

It doesn't matter what word you assign to it, or even require that we have a word for it. The concept exists, and it doesn't change with translation into another language.

The Fool: you Even need to know what CONCEPT means. RIGHT first before it makes anysense to even say it.

The Bible tells me to question all things, so my mind is always open to sensible arguments.

The Fool: No the BIble Tell you to OBAY!. Its not even the Real Bible. ITs a Rip off, from the Orginal Greek ORTHADOX/True Christianity. This one got revised by the Westarn Roman Empire hundreds of years later. Lastly you need to understand what the words mean First before you can understand anything Read in the bible. Therefore its false. And there is your proof
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 1:59:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:44:52 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:41:41 PM, TheJackel wrote:
No need to wage.. Just choose Pantheism and existence itself as GOD and you are all in! As in, existence is all inclusive! :) WIN WIN!

That might work for you, as long as God is ok with it.

The Fool: God can't even break logical logical rules. Firstly making a contradiction is to error and so he is not perfect.
God cannot break the logical Rule Existence.

Argument from existence

what is IS.
What is not does not exist.
Therefore there is only existence.

What exist=exist!
If an all powerfull Creator exist it follows by necessity that he must exist.
God IS
He cannot be all powerfull if he is subsumed under this logical principle.
For even God cannot escape existence for then he would not exist.
God is not.
Therefore an all powerfull creator does not exist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:18:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:14:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:52:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 10:22:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:59:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:45:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
First edit:
The Fool: No it doesn't depend on what God considers "Good". For we must know what the Good is in order to know that God is Good. The word "Good" is a Physical symbol to communicate the Idea of Good in english. The Bible was not written in English but Greek, Thus the necessary condition to translated the 'word' In the first place depends on the translator knowing the "idea" of Good Corresponds to terms in more then one langauge. So we must already know the "idea" it refers too or the Good in the bible or in any such sense would be meaningless.
<(8J)

It's not really relevant to even squabble over word meanings on this, assign any word, or meaning that you like. If God exists, then He will judge based on what His criteria is.

The Fool: yes it is completly depend on the langauge because that is how even learned about any of it in first place. Even what the word 'God' refers too was learned linguistical meaning. Alll you claims about any of it depend on that specifcally. There is no HIDING IN YOUR MIND NOW! I GOT YOU OPEN. YOU CANT RUN! Nore hide!

It doesn't matter what word you assign to it, or even require that we have a word for it. The concept exists, and it doesn't change with translation into another language.

The Fool: you Even need to know what CONCEPT means. RIGHT first before it makes anysense to even say it.

The Bible tells me to question all things, so my mind is always open to sensible arguments.

The Fool: No the BIble Tell you to OBAY!. Its not even the Real Bible. ITs a Rip off, from the Orginal Greek ORTHADOX/True Christianity. This one got revised by the Westarn Roman Empire hundreds of years later. Lastly you need to understand what the words mean First before you can understand anything Read in the bible. Therefore its false. And there is your proof

The fact it originates from corrupt Greek texts, and Greek tells you that it's hardly "original".. And if you ever read the fount of Knowledge, Orthodox Christianity is essentially Pantheism.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:29:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The most damning and destructive question to Christian theology is this simple question:

What is GOD without Existence?

And then you ask them about the Pantheist GOD to which is Existence and it quickly becomes a showcase of circular arguments, denial, frantic "OMG, another religions GOD exists" in light of their monotheistic beliefs, and the realization that their GOD requires another religions GOD to even exist as a mythical fallacy.. See the thing is, the Pantheist GOD does exist, and is the totality of causality, every force to cause, and literally everything in and of itself (existence).. It even governs cognition, cognitive systems, and conscious entities that rely on those systems to even be an emergent property of those systems... The Christian GOD is a laughable joke, and pales in comparison to existence itself to which is the actual source origin of everything in and of existence.

And the only GOD of existence is existence itself.. So Atheists understand why the concept of GOD is moot... We understand why the Christian GOD is nonsensical.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:47:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 1:09:36 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/13/2012 11:45:31 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The Fool: Everybody can see the success of science. EVERYBODY!!

We also see its failures and limitations.

The Fool: Exactly, It is only upon failure that you could know truth. If something cannot be falsified that there is not demarcating criteria to tell the difference.

I disgaree whole-heartly. If something is in fact truth...why should it be acceptable to falsification? Would you not be taking something that is truth-pure and deluting it? Fact is regardless who believes it and who rejects it...The truth is the truth regardless if you can falsifiy it or not. Actual truth is not acceptable to be falsified. You should look up falsification- it is to decieve.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:51:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:29:04 AM, TheJackel wrote:
The most damning and destructive question to Christian theology is this simple question:

What is GOD without Existence?

That is a circular question. It is not answerable. God is existance. the real question is what is existance without God?

And then you ask them about the Pantheist GOD to which is Existence and it quickly becomes a showcase of circular arguments, denial, frantic "OMG, another religions GOD exists" in light of their monotheistic beliefs, and the realization that their GOD requires another religions GOD to even exist as a mythical fallacy.

How hypocritical you are..As if your entire statement and question is not Circular.

. See the thing is, the Pantheist GOD does exist, and is the totality of causality, every force to cause, and literally everything in and of itself (existence).. It even governs cognition, cognitive systems, and conscious entities that rely on those systems to even be an emergent property of those systems... The Christian GOD is a laughable joke, and pales in comparison to existence itself to which is the actual source origin of everything in and of existence.

And the only GOD of existence is existence itself.. So Atheists understand why the concept of GOD is moot... We understand why the Christian GOD is nonsensical.

You understand little about what you try to appear too.
TheAsylum