A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 06:28 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Arguments for the existence of God have been around for centuries. Since I am only 29, it is not possible that I could be the first person in history to defend them.

Defense is not proof you dishonest fuck. Now shoo.

Consider

Consider

Facepalm

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are presented as one type of evidence for the existence of God. They have been used by Christian philosophers and scientists for centuries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 06:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to provide an argument or evidence for your truth claim. You claim that the Old and New Testament texts are not divinely inspired.

It's unnecessary. Inspiration was not the criteria for inclusion in the canon (which you would know if you had ever studied the Bible), AND Timothy (3:16) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking," when there WAS no OT or NT so your point is both irrelevant and unnecessary.

(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To argue that this fact necessarily means that the texts are not divinely inspired is a non-sequitur.


No it's not a "non-sequitur". You need to look up the meaning of that label.

(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Saying that the bible is not divinely inspired because it was written by humans is not an argument, it is a truth claim.

ONLY to a Pesuppositionalist, such as yourself. The CLAIM is that it's inspired. The opposite is default unless demonstrated.

(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The criteria are the moral superlative attributes of God. God essentially is good, just, loving, compassionate, longsuffering etc. etc.

Just another restated/rehashed evasion. I asked for the ORIGINS of the "moral superlative attributes". You don't even get the question, or what Euthyphro's Dilemma was asking, as your head is so far up your Presuppositionist ass.

(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What reasons or arguments do you have for thinking the above to be true?

Thanks for demonstrating you have no answer to that.

(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have provided several arguments for the existence of God.

You have not. You're provided bullshit, and NOT ONE person here agrees they are proof of anything. There are no "proofs" or arguments for god. St. Paul told you faith was a gift, and Jebus told you "No one shall come to me UNLESS the Father draw him". Seems your capricious deity didn't draw some of us, and seems YOU think YOU know better than your Jebus ("For many are called but few are chosen").

(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Who said a human being could? I certainly did not.

YOU said that was the job of a human, you lying troll.

Do you want to be drawn by Christ and to become so enamored by His goodness that you desire nothing more than to present your life as a living sacrifice to Him?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:28 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  Defense is not proof you dishonest fuck. Now shoo.

Consider

Consider

Facepalm

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are presented as one type of evidence for the existence of God. They have been used by Christian philosophers and scientists for centuries.

They are not, and never will be proof.
Defense of something is not proof of it.
Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you are so stupid you can't grasp simple ideas.
Which is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
23-06-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:28 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  Defense is not proof you dishonest fuck. Now shoo.

Consider

Consider

Facepalm

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are presented as one type of evidence for the existence of God. They have been used by Christian philosophers and scientists for centuries.

And if I present you with this...
[Image: santa-hat1.jpg]
Will you finally believe Santa Clause is lord?

This "evidence" I'm attempting to present is in my defense of Santa Claus (which is itself proof that Santa is real, apparently) kinda sucks, huh?

I wonder what kind of dipshit would believe that could convince anyone, much less stand up to sane scrutiny Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheGulegon's post
23-06-2014, 07:25 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 07:06 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Consider

Consider

Facepalm

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are presented as one type of evidence for the existence of God. They have been used by Christian philosophers and scientists for centuries.

They are not, and never will be proof.
Defense of something is not proof of it.
Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you are so stupid you can't grasp simple ideas.
Which is it?

I did not say defense of something is proof of something.

I said arguments for the existence of God are evidences for the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 07:27 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Consider

Consider

Facepalm

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are presented as one type of evidence for the existence of God. They have been used by Christian philosophers and scientists for centuries.

And if I present you with this...
[Image: santa-hat1.jpg]
Will you finally believe Santa Clause is lord?

This "evidence" I'm attempting to present is in my defense of Santa Claus (which is itself proof that Santa is real, apparently) kinda sucks, huh?

I wonder what kind of dipshit would believe that could convince anyone, much less stand up to sane scrutiny Consider


It's "Claus" bro, not "Clause" O Sane One.

A Santa Claus hat and a philosophical argument for the existence of God in the form of a deductive syllogism are not exactly comparable.

The Kalam I am sure will stand up to sane scrutiny. I can PM it to you and let you mull over it a bit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 07:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 07:06 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  They are not, and never will be proof.
Defense of something is not proof of it.
Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you are so stupid you can't grasp simple ideas.
Which is it?

I did not say defense of something is proof of something.

I said arguments for the existence of God are evidences for the existence of God.

Wrong again boy wonder!

Quote:Arguments for the existence of God have been around for centuries. Since I am only 29, it is not possible that I could be the first person in history to defend them.

Arguments are not evidence. Defense of arguments is not evidence.
You can call it evidence or you can call it proof, you have provided neither.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
23-06-2014, 07:55 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  And if I present you with this...
[Image: santa-hat1.jpg]
Will you finally believe Santa Clause is lord?

omg Laugh out loadWeepingBowing

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
23-06-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 07:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  And if I present you with this...
[Image: santa-hat1.jpg]
Will you finally believe Santa Clause is lord?

This "evidence" I'm attempting to present is in my defense of Santa Claus (which is itself proof that Santa is real, apparently) kinda sucks, huh?

I wonder what kind of dipshit would believe that could convince anyone, much less stand up to sane scrutiny Consider


It's "Claus" bro, not "Clause" O Sane One.

A Santa Claus hat and a philosophical argument for the existence of God in the form of a deductive syllogism are not exactly comparable.

The Kalam I am sure will stand up to sane scrutiny. I can PM it to you and let you mull over it a bit.

Prove Santa Claus isn't real, then! Right now!
If you can't feel free to reply to this post with a simple "you win" Drinking Beverage

No, seriously! Prove my lord and savior Santa Claus doesn't exist! No? I win Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheGulegon's post
23-06-2014, 08:01 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:28 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  Defense is not proof you dishonest fuck. Now shoo.

Consider

Consider

Facepalm

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are presented as one type of evidence for the existence of God. They have been used by Christian philosophers and scientists for centuries.

I could make a philosophical argument for anything I choose and it would suffice for some. It is not "one type of evidence" for god, it is THE ONLY TYPE OF EXPLANATION where something make believe can make some sense.

And I cannot chill out when you carry on with the same shit that you know cannot convince any person here, and refuse to give direct answers to the same questions over and over and over and over....! It is so pathetic to watch you flounder with these bright folks on this forum who appear to have more knowledge than you can wish you have concerning the origins of your fantasy control group. Give it a freaking rest!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: