Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

For The Thinking Christian

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:17:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, proving that you have a head is hard enough- so don't worry too much if it's hard to prove your experience of God!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:38:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:17:03 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Also, proving that you have a head is hard enough- so don't worry too much if it's hard to prove your experience of God!

The problem with God in the most general sense, is that nothing can ever disprove it, you can always come up with some rationalization or possibility to over come what ever problem/objection.

The question is, when you adhere to some rationalization to overcome what ever objection, is it reasonable to adhere to that rationalization ? My problem is that the stuff you have to tell yourself and others to make what ever religious beliefs your trying to justify.....well lets just say there are intellectual honesty issues.

Speaking of overcoming objections........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:39:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
IF one day those calling themselves xtians actually sat down and did some rational thinking, they wouldn't claim to be xtians henceforth, but tell the truth for the very first time by admitting they lied & fabricated that title because they discovered they DO NOT legitimately manifest the requirements & manifestations ' already a given ' of a said Story book believer!

Your mentor & personal successful literal Saviour, moi!

Me Composer the ongoing successful & vindicated Cult buster!
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Illegal,

Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:04:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:



Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.

I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone, I only need to prove my commitment to His grace and mercy to Him; to 'make every effort to enter through the narrow gate'..

Salvation is His, not ours.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:05:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

Hence any problem of evil will be committed to that vile type of God-level assumptions that seek to disprove God, and in turn, itself. Thus at best, given the your preference of more pleasure than what you experience, at best you shouldn"t like God, you should be angry at him. But given that you can"t be angry at what doesn"t exist, then it follows that you can"t reasonably affirm that he doesn"t exist. That would not only be inflating the conclusion, but self-delusional.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:05:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

Religous dogma..........

You wouldn't just accept such statements of faith such as it only happens as Allah wills it........

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

Nah Harris goes way more into the religious manuveaurs people are pulling, its not just as simple as pain exists therefore God doesn't.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

If God exists then God could create a better world than the one we live in, your just not going to get away with making claims about a maximal being just can't seem to find a way to not xyz.

Rationalize it how ever you want, can only ever be asserted, never proven.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:11:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:05:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

Religous dogma..........

Augustinian Philosophy and Theology.

You wouldn't just accept such statements of faith such as it only happens as Allah wills it........

Right, because as "Allah wills it" would be parasitic to my experience, there wouldn't be any need of it apart from external evidence or whatever.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

Nah Harris goes way more into the religious manuveaurs people are pulling, its not just as simple as pain exists therefore God doesn't.

Do tell.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

If God exists then God could create a better world than the one we live in, your just not going to get away with making claims about a maximal being just can't seem to find a way to not xyz.

Rationalize it how ever you want, can only ever be asserted, never proven.

No assertions, I gave a first-order predicate universal quantification of pain. You've yet to show that as incoherent.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:11:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:05:14 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

Hence any problem of evil will be committed to that vile type of God-level assumptions that seek to disprove God, and in turn, itself. Thus at best, given the your preference of more pleasure than what you experience, at best you shouldn"t like God, you should be angry at him. But given that you can"t be angry at what doesn"t exist, then it follows that you can"t reasonably affirm that he doesn"t exist. That would not only be inflating the conclusion, but self-delusional.

^speak to this Illegal.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:13:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, you never said anything about Origins Essentialism that undercuts all of Harris's claims.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:37:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:11:46 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:05:14 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

Hence any problem of evil will be committed to that vile type of God-level assumptions that seek to disprove God, and in turn, itself. Thus at best, given the your preference of more pleasure than what you experience, at best you shouldn"t like God, you should be angry at him. But given that you can"t be angry at what doesn"t exist, then it follows that you can"t reasonably affirm that he doesn"t exist. That would not only be inflating the conclusion, but self-delusional.

^speak to this Illegal.

I don't think Harris is angry at God, for the same reason he isn't angry at Santa Claus for not giving all children presents at christmas. The angry is directed at the religious b*llshit.

Delusion huh ? lets talk delusion, one day there was a man, man gets religious indoctrination, scripture after scripture, doctrine after doctrine. One day this man thinks, hey God talks to me, God has told me this stuff.

Can you imagine that ? people being religious indoctrinated then thinking there beliefs have been informed by a super natural agent, crazy eh ? And of course cause their beliefs come from God himself they feel quite justified to tell there fellow man all sorts of interesting things including, who and what God hates, even what God has said, even to condem them. Hey its not their fault people don't accept what they have to say, that just proves how evil the world is, they are just the messengers of truth, GODS TRUTH, cause you know, God told them, no really he did.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:45:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:37:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:11:46 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:05:14 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

Hence any problem of evil will be committed to that vile type of God-level assumptions that seek to disprove God, and in turn, itself. Thus at best, given the your preference of more pleasure than what you experience, at best you shouldn"t like God, you should be angry at him. But given that you can"t be angry at what doesn"t exist, then it follows that you can"t reasonably affirm that he doesn"t exist. That would not only be inflating the conclusion, but self-delusional.

^speak to this Illegal.

I don't think Harris is angry at God, for the same reason he isn't angry at Santa Claus for not giving all children presents at christmas. The angry is directed at the religious b*llshit.

Delusion huh ? lets talk delusion, one day there was a man, man gets religious indoctrination, scripture after scripture, doctrine after doctrine. One day this man thinks, hey God talks to me, God has told me this stuff.

Can you imagine that ? people being religious indoctrinated then thinking there beliefs have been informed by a super natural agent, crazy eh ? And of course cause their beliefs come from God himself they feel quite justified to tell there fellow man all sorts of interesting things including, who and what God hates, even what God has said, even to condem them. Hey its not their fault people don't accept what they have to say, that just proves how evil the world is, they are just the messengers of truth, GODS TRUTH, cause you know, God told them, no really he did.

Well even if you're right (which I don't contest that folks make many false claims to experience God, but then how to false claims undercut true ones... looks like we'll need reason and argumentation ;-)- which I'm not getting from you. No where in that rant (it was a rant, a new-atheist rant) did I see a sound refutation of my pain quantification or my charge of the fallacy of false precision. None of which appealed to divine revelation. Illegal if we can't have a reasoned discussion I don't know how we'll learn from each other on a Kalam debate. This is proving grounds brah, tighten up!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:08:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:45:00 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:37:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:11:46 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:05:14 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:56:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Illegal,


Pain, as well as pleasure, is a logical consequence of agent existence.
For to feel what we prefer is just as much a part of who and what we are, as to feel want we don"t prefer. And since physical happenings are both indifferent to preference but necessary for our existence- and since love presupposes its object, God can"t be called unloving for bringing about my existence and especially since he submits himself to what he submits his creation to, physical pain though Christ's atonement. Existence then is to blame, not God"s love.

For any agent A, if A exists then A can feel pleasure and pain. So asking why God would allow pain is really like asking why God would allow existence.

As Sam Harris asks, why then would the world God created be so arranged as to offer seemingly pointless pain? This objection assumes that there is a "best" possible world which isn"t merely God"s being sans whatever creation.

But why think that if such a best possible world exists, then it could be known? It"s a fallacy of false precision to suppose so, since our only criteria of judging which world is "second best" is the world where there is no creation, namely God himself subsisting.

Hence any problem of evil will be committed to that vile type of God-level assumptions that seek to disprove God, and in turn, itself. Thus at best, given the your preference of more pleasure than what you experience, at best you shouldn"t like God, you should be angry at him. But given that you can"t be angry at what doesn"t exist, then it follows that you can"t reasonably affirm that he doesn"t exist. That would not only be inflating the conclusion, but self-delusional.

^speak to this Illegal.

I don't think Harris is angry at God, for the same reason he isn't angry at Santa Claus for not giving all children presents at christmas. The angry is directed at the religious b*llshit.

Delusion huh ? lets talk delusion, one day there was a man, man gets religious indoctrination, scripture after scripture, doctrine after doctrine. One day this man thinks, hey God talks to me, God has told me this stuff.

Can you imagine that ? people being religious indoctrinated then thinking there beliefs have been informed by a super natural agent, crazy eh ? And of course cause their beliefs come from God himself they feel quite justified to tell there fellow man all sorts of interesting things including, who and what God hates, even what God has said, even to condem them. Hey its not their fault people don't accept what they have to say, that just proves how evil the world is, they are just the messengers of truth, GODS TRUTH, cause you know, God told them, no really he did.

Well even if you're right (which I don't contest that folks make many false claims to experience God, but then how to false claims undercut true ones... looks like we'll need reason and argumentation ;-)-

Right, how about is it reasonable to think there is any book or document on earth that is just so great, it just can't be the product of humans and must be the work of some divine intelligence. Some one just writes down.....Then God said, Then God did this...

I mean really, is that good enough ? cause as we all know we live in a world where we can just check with God with what he said exactly, say for example whether he sent a certain earthquake in response to gay marraige, or maybe something else, or maybe it didn't send it at all, this is kind of important information to know if you don't want to get on such a beings bad side eh ?

Its not like we just live in a world where any one can just write something down and attribute it to God, oh crap yes we do.

No its not a rant, I am just undercutting certain faith based beliefs here.

which I'm not getting from you. No where in that rant (it was a rant, a new-atheist rant) did I see a sound refutation of my pain quantification or my charge of the fallacy of false precision. None of which appealed to divine revelation. Illegal if we can't have a reasoned discussion I don't know how we'll learn from each other on a Kalam debate. This is proving grounds brah, tighten up!

Blah blah blah.

My original point was about intellectual honesty. Sam Harris video was just showing some moves people pull in order to overcome and enforce there religious beliefs.

You must be new here, no, debates are generally of a higher quality than forums, so no this isn't the proving grounds.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 5:08:57 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Well even if you're right (which I don't contest that folks make many false claims to experience God, but then how to false claims undercut true ones... looks like we'll need reason and argumentation ;-)-

Right, how about is it reasonable to think there is any book or document on earth that is just so great, it just can't be the product of humans and must be the work of some divine intelligence. Some one just writes down.....Then God said, Then God did this...

Whoever claimed I believed that? I can analyze the scripture as historical documents from the view of a historian- and in my personal time meditate on a verse here and there without sacrificing any intellectual integrity. Sure some folks argue that the bible must be true because it's 'so great.' But that's not how I approach the truth of Christianity. Nor is it how Craig up there spoke about. An immediate experience of the personal inner witness of God is veridical for the person who trull has it, so that external arguments and evidence will just supplement such an experience- but it doesn't take the place of such an experience.

Now you as an atheist can provide a defeater for a person having that experience but insofar as there is none, the Christian is amply justified in his belief of God. Merely calling the Christian names isn't going to add numbers to your cause.

I mean really, is that good enough ? cause as we all know we live in a world where we can just check with God with what he said exactly, say for example whether he sent a certain earthquake in response to gay marraige, or maybe something else, or maybe it didn't send it at all, this is kind of important information to know if you don't want to get on such a beings bad side eh ?

Like I said before, just because folks make false claims of an experience of God, can't logically undercut true claims to an experience of God. There's a difference between knowing and showing Christian truth. Obviously you can't know what I know until I show you.. when it comes to my experience of God I can only show you through arguments and evidence, which is all I've appealed to so far.

Its not like we just live in a world where any one can just write something down and attribute it to God, oh crap yes we do.

No its not a rant, I am just undercutting certain faith based beliefs here.

Well they're not my "faith based beliefs" ... in order to undercut my properly basic belief that my personal witness of the holy spirit is illusory you would have to somehow show that say God is incoherent like a round square, that CHrist never existed or never rose, or that un-embodied minds are an impossibility, or that the PoE is more compelling, etc. You've only gone on a rant, no undercutting. To see what undercutting is look up, defeaters.

which I'm not getting from you. No where in that rant (it was a rant, a new-atheist rant) did I see a sound refutation of my pain quantification or my charge of the fallacy of false precision. None of which appealed to divine revelation. Illegal if we can't have a reasoned discussion I don't know how we'll learn from each other on a Kalam debate. This is proving grounds brah, tighten up!

Blah blah blah.

My original point was about intellectual honesty. Sam Harris video was just showing some moves people pull in order to overcome and enforce there religious beliefs.

You must be new here, no, debates are generally of a higher quality than forums, so no this isn't the proving grounds.

Craig is being intellectual honest since he's being philosophically consistent, he's a foundationalist! Foundationalism isn't a "move people pull to enforce their beliefs." If anything a move someone pulls to enforce their belief is what the new-atheists are doing by calling names who disagree with them. Mischaracterizing views, etc.

I consider this the proving grounds even if no one else does. Your interaction with me here will determine whether or not I'll debate you. And so far I can tell, you're a new-atheist. And I don't mean this as an insult but even to atheist in my philosophy dept, new atheism is the but of about as many jokes as creationists are.

Until I see or we cash out some decent reasoning going on between us, I simply don't think I'll learn anything in a debate.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:40:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 5:30:38 AM, Apeiron wrote:


Well they're not my "faith based beliefs" ... in order to undercut my properly basic belief that my personal witness of the holy spirit is illusory you would have to somehow show that say God is incoherent like a round square, that CHrist never existed or never rose, or that un-embodied minds are an impossibility, or that the PoE is more compelling, etc. You've only gone on a rant, no undercutting. To see what undercutting is look up, defeaters.


Any one can justify anything by claiming hey, I have an authentic experience of the holy spirit, and unless you give a defeater I win, ner ner.

Plantinga and Craig for the win.

PS: Craig believes that anyone who rejects christian truth, no matter what objection or discrepancy they can point out is just being an evil little bastard/rejecting God.

I dunno is that honest reasoning ? or is that just a way to insulate a faith based proposition against any and all reason and counter argument.

What do you think, cause if you adhere to something like this, I just don't feel like being lectured to by some one who has faith based beliefs that are invulnerable to reason and argument.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:55:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 5:40:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 5:30:38 AM, Apeiron wrote:


Well they're not my "faith based beliefs" ... in order to undercut my properly basic belief that my personal witness of the holy spirit is illusory you would have to somehow show that say God is incoherent like a round square, that CHrist never existed or never rose, or that un-embodied minds are an impossibility, or that the PoE is more compelling, etc. You've only gone on a rant, no undercutting. To see what undercutting is look up, defeaters.


Any one can justify anything by claiming hey, I have an authentic experience of the holy spirit, and unless you give a defeater I win, ner ner.

That's my point, they can't! I don't justify TO YOU that God exists because of my experience, like I said there's a difference between showing and knowing your experience. Have you even read my post? This'll be my last one to you since you've violated the principle of charity in a significant way.

Plantinga and Craig for the win.

PS: Craig believes that anyone who rejects christian truth, no matter what objection or discrepancy they can point out is just being an evil little bastard/rejecting God.

I dunno is that honest reasoning ? or is that just a way to insulate a faith based proposition against any and all reason and counter argument.

What do you think, cause if you adhere to something like this, I just don't feel like being lectured to by some one who has faith based beliefs that are invulnerable to reason and argument.

I gave a list of ways to undercut my self-authenticating experience. Just because a belief is properly basic doesn't mean it's incorrigible or defeasible. This is the third time you've violated the principle of charity and so I think we're done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 6:07:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 5:55:07 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/15/2012 5:40:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 5:30:38 AM, Apeiron wrote:


Well they're not my "faith based beliefs" ... in order to undercut my properly basic belief that my personal witness of the holy spirit is illusory you would have to somehow show that say God is incoherent like a round square, that CHrist never existed or never rose, or that un-embodied minds are an impossibility, or that the PoE is more compelling, etc. You've only gone on a rant, no undercutting. To see what undercutting is look up, defeaters.


Any one can justify anything by claiming hey, I have an authentic experience of the holy spirit, and unless you give a defeater I win, ner ner.

That's my point, they can't! I don't justify TO YOU that God exists because of my experience, like I said there's a difference between showing and knowing your experience. Have you even read my post? This'll be my last one to you since you've violated the principle of charity in a significant way.

Plantinga and Craig for the win.

PS: Craig believes that anyone who rejects christian truth, no matter what objection or discrepancy they can point out is just being an evil little bastard/rejecting God.

I dunno is that honest reasoning ? or is that just a way to insulate a faith based proposition against any and all reason and counter argument.

What do you think, cause if you adhere to something like this, I just don't feel like being lectured to by some one who has faith based beliefs that are invulnerable to reason and argument.

I gave a list of ways to undercut my self-authenticating experience. Just because a belief is properly basic doesn't mean it's incorrigible or defensible. This is the third time you've violated the principle of charity and so I think we're done.

I don't think your are being charitable, your proposed ways to undercut self authenticating experience is a stacked deck.

God is incoherent like a round square, as long as its logically possible its coherant.

that CHrist never existed or never rose, Kinda hard to prove something didn't happen.

or that un-embodied minds are an impossibility, or that the PoE is more compelling, etc.

I got a few idea's for defeaters I if may.

How about the fact that "God" doesn't give you any useful information you didn't already know. Of course lack of such information is what we would expect if contact with a divine intelligence wasn't taking place.

How about religious indoctrination/persuasion, you know like people don't think that there was some guy named Jesus 2000 years ago who died for there "sins" and belief that this event took place is essential to not suffering in hell for eternity etc because God just told them, they get told this by humans THEN after the religious persuasion takes place, hey its the an authentic holy spirit experience im having...... really ?

Does this work for muslims too ? does it work for "christians" who are considered heretics by evangelicals ? does their claim that they have authentic witness of the holy spirit end the argument ? I don't think so.

Suffice to say im skeptical as to what exactly is going on here, and I think you should too.

Be honest who told you what, God or man, I don't know about you, but I think this distinction is kind of important.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 6:27:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem I have is that I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Christians are filled with the holy spirit when they don't act congruently with what that should entail. It's very strange that if Christianity is true, and if Christians have an inner dialogue with god that everyone else is shut out from, there's rarely if ever any fundamental difference between Christians and everyone else. Crime rates, prison statistics and so on show no difference between Christians and everyone else. But it isn't just that. Christians don't seem to be different in any way than members of other religions, except in superficial ways like the particular religious ceremonies they undertake. If you really are having inner experiences of Christ, wouldn't we expect some outer expression of that? Why, then, is there nothing whatsoever as far as I can tell that separates Christians from other people?
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 7:49:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:04:22 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:



Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.

I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone, I only need to prove my commitment to His grace and mercy to Him; to 'make every effort to enter through the narrow gate'..

Salvation is His, not ours.

Really? So going into the world, preaching the Gospel, Baptizing in the name of the trinity....not your cup of tea, eh?

1Peter3:15 "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in."

Typical "Christian".
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 9:27:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 7:49:41 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:04:22 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:



Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.

I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone, I only need to prove my commitment to His grace and mercy to Him; to 'make every effort to enter through the narrow gate'..

Salvation is His, not ours.

Really? So going into the world, preaching the Gospel, Baptizing in the name of the trinity....not your cup of tea, eh?

That's simple obedience; it is still God that saves, not us.

1Peter3:15 "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in."

Typical "Christian".

I think, by the grace of God, I'm about the best example of making a defence you're likely to meet..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 9:50:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:38:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:17:03 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Also, proving that you have a head is hard enough- so don't worry too much if it's hard to prove your experience of God!

The problem with God in the most general sense, is that nothing can ever disprove it, you can always come up with some rationalization or possibility to over come what ever problem/objection.


Right. Can you tell which philosophy, in principle, DOESN'T have that very problem for it's adherents? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Even in (philosophy of) science it's well known that it's VERY, VERY, VERY rare that a some scientific theory is just "disproved" - after all, one could just change a couple auxiliary hypotheses and keep the core theory intact to "accomodate" the "anomaly" - they just tend to fade out of use.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:31:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:37:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Delusion huh ? lets talk delusion, one day there was a man, man gets religious indoctrination, scripture after scripture, doctrine after doctrine. One day this man thinks, hey God talks to me, God has told me this stuff.

Can you imagine that ? people being religious indoctrinated then thinking there beliefs have been informed by a super natural agent, crazy eh ? And of course cause their beliefs come from God himself they feel quite justified to tell there fellow man all sorts of interesting things including, who and what God hates, even what God has said, even to condem them. Hey its not their fault people don't accept what they have to say, that just proves how evil the world is, they are just the messengers of truth, GODS TRUTH, cause you know, God told them, no really he did.

You guys like to make fun of theists but have you ever really stopped and thought about what you believe??

One day, before there were days, nothing caused nothing to explode/expand. Out of that came all the elements that we know about, as well as all the space, time, and matter that would ever exist. All that stuff arranged itself into an organized system so that life could create itself from a rock. This life was so intelligent that it arranged itself into a structure that is more complicated than the space shuttle, the cell, then began dividing itself. It then came up with the plan to evolve into more complex organisms, and even created another way to reproduce which required a male and a female, and it devised a way to develop both of those. This life was so intelligent and resourceful that it could even evolve itself into its own food source. It continued to evolve and millions of years later an intelligent organism resulted who has the ability to reason, emotions, and morality. This organism would take dominion over everything that currently exists. And why did all this happen?? You don't know, your best guess is random chance, but people who believe in a creator seem delusional to you. Really??
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:54:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 9:27:02 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 7:49:41 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:04:22 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:



Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.

I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone, I only need to prove my commitment to His grace and mercy to Him; to 'make every effort to enter through the narrow gate'..

Salvation is His, not ours.

Really? So going into the world, preaching the Gospel, Baptizing in the name of the trinity....not your cup of tea, eh?

That's simple obedience; it is still God that saves, not us.


1Peter3:15 "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in."

Typical "Christian".

I think, by the grace of God, I'm about the best example of making a defence you're likely to meet..

Mr, Blowes, you're the worst example I've met. The Christian position on preaching the Gospel is a radical, self-sacrificing one. "Beautiful are the feet" of those that walk this earth to spread the Gospel. "The Harvest is plentiful" but the laborers are few.
You seriously think that a position of indifference is glorifying God? "I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone,.."

Nothing worse than a luke-warm Christian. It's cowardly, even in God's eyes.
Revelations 3:15- "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

You're lazy.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 11:42:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:54:44 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/15/2012 9:27:02 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 7:49:41 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:04:22 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:



Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.

I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone, I only need to prove my commitment to His grace and mercy to Him; to 'make every effort to enter through the narrow gate'..

Salvation is His, not ours.

Really? So going into the world, preaching the Gospel, Baptizing in the name of the trinity....not your cup of tea, eh?

That's simple obedience; it is still God that saves, not us.


1Peter3:15 "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in."

Typical "Christian".

I think, by the grace of God, I'm about the best example of making a defence you're likely to meet..

Mr, Blowes, you're the worst example I've met. The Christian position on preaching the Gospel is a radical, self-sacrificing one. "Beautiful are the feet" of those that walk this earth to spread the Gospel. "The Harvest is plentiful" but the laborers are few.
You seriously think that a position of indifference is glorifying God? "I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone,.."

Nothing worse than a luke-warm Christian. It's cowardly, even in God's eyes.
Revelations 3:15- "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

You're lazy.

I read the entirety of Johns gospel (takes over 2 hours) out in public , 5 days a week in 5 separate locations, I have been chucked out of my church for not letting women teach me..

Lazy or lukewarm is not the reputation I have..

Even still, I CANNOT SAVE ANYONE, salvation is His alone!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 11:52:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 11:42:27 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 10:54:44 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/15/2012 9:27:02 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 7:49:41 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:04:22 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:15:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:



Plato quotes Heraclitus,

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."

Which is what Craig meant by the 'shifting sands' of evidence and argument.

I know many Christians can get bogged down by the pressure to always prove by evidence what they experience on the inside. So I hope this video helps you all to put it in focus.

I took Craig's advice and pulled back from studying all the evidence, to just focussing on one problem until I was satisfied; the problem of evil.

This is done while still cultivating the personal and spiritual side of our human selves in communion with each other and with God.

I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone, I only need to prove my commitment to His grace and mercy to Him; to 'make every effort to enter through the narrow gate'..

Salvation is His, not ours.

Really? So going into the world, preaching the Gospel, Baptizing in the name of the trinity....not your cup of tea, eh?

That's simple obedience; it is still God that saves, not us.


1Peter3:15 "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in."

Typical "Christian".

I think, by the grace of God, I'm about the best example of making a defence you're likely to meet..

Mr, Blowes, you're the worst example I've met. The Christian position on preaching the Gospel is a radical, self-sacrificing one. "Beautiful are the feet" of those that walk this earth to spread the Gospel. "The Harvest is plentiful" but the laborers are few.
You seriously think that a position of indifference is glorifying God? "I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone,.."

Nothing worse than a luke-warm Christian. It's cowardly, even in God's eyes.
Revelations 3:15- "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

You're lazy.

I read the entirety of Johns gospel (takes over 2 hours) out in public , 5 days a week in 5 separate locations, I have been chucked out of my church for not letting women teach me..

Lazy or lukewarm is not the reputation I have..

Even still, I CANNOT SAVE ANYONE, salvation is His alone!

Well then you should probably not say stupid things like: "I feel no pressure to prove anything to anyone.."
You should feel immense pressure to prove everything to everyone. Why?
As you said:"Salvation is his", but he clearly get's to choose the method. The method being:" Faith comes by hearing, the preaching of the word of God."

Wasn't it Spurgeon who stated that if people had an "E" printed on their back, he would limit his ministry to the obvious elect, but since they don't..he preaches as if every single person is one verse away from salvation.
He also didn't claim to save.
An drunk, homeless man once approached him and said:" I heard you preach once. You saved me!"
Spurgeon replied:"You look like something I saved."

What you've shown is incredible condascending disregard for your fellow man, by stating that you have nothing to prove to them. You should want to die for the opportunity to prove something to them.
That, of course all hinges on the authority of scripture. If you don't really believe you owe anything to God, I can see why you would feel similarly about other people.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)