Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 09:47 AM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 09:23 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 09:20 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How come?
Facepalm

Because if omnipotence means able to do anything,, including the logically impossible, then the argument that omniscience precludes free will fails with an omnipotent god.

You're saying paradoxes like:
"Can God create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?" Are negated by God being constrained to logical possibility.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 09:23 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 09:20 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How come?
Facepalm

Because if omnipotence means able to do anything,, including the logically impossible, then the argument that omniscience precludes free will fails with an omnipotent god.

There's no need for a facepalm if I am not familiar with the argument you are referring to or am asking for specific details before I start discussing it. It just shows you up as being arrogant or that you are struggling. Or is that you expect me to be a mind reader and to know exactly what you are thinking in your own head? I am not a 2,000 year Jewish zombie you know.

An omnipotent being cannot do something 'logically impossible' because then it would not be 'logically impossible'. The very first half of the sentence is logically inconsistent yet you complain about logical inconsistency of atheist arguments? This does not bode well.

Have you considered that perhaps an atheist argument can be logically inconsistent because it is using logically inconsistent Christian concepts such as free-will, and an entity being omni-{scient,potent,present}?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
26-02-2014, 09:53 AM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 09:24 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 09:07 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Why is it impossible for god to stop cancer?
This is turning into a logical fallacy thread. This is an example of a red herring.

Is it? You were all set to define God's omnipotence for us, after explaining atheists use a different definition than you do to. Questions like "Is it impossible for God to stop cancer?" Or
"Would an omnipotent, omniscient God allow suffering?"
Are reasonable if you're going to claim to define both categories, and have logical answers to them.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
I thought alpha male should be brave not run away from relevant question like a pussy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 10:15 AM by le_bard.)
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 06:52 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 06:40 AM)le_bard Wrote:  Anti-theists are usually against theists in general....

As I've posted before, most of us are up for a fair debate if it people don't spout the same apologetics since the dawn of man. Because doing so is simply ignorance on he part of the apologist and it no longer is a debate, but a school session with someone who refuses to learn but challenges the knowledge
Seems to me that skeptics spout the same arguments over and over. For example, on every atheist forum you'll see arguments that omniscience precludes free will, and also arguments that omnipotence means "can do anything." Is that ignorance on the part of the skeptic and no longer a debate, but a school session with someone who refuses to learn but challenges the knowledge?
The quibbles about omnipotence and whatever have nothing to do, however, with the fact that any god attributed with being spaceless, timeless, and immaterial is indistinguishable from a non existent god and should be treated as such. I enjoy going into the heart of the debate, the questions of the dangers of faith and the fact that having faith before evidence, be it defined as trust or "confidence in the unseen and assurance in what's hoped for" is nothing but a self delusory process. You have to understand how meaningless it is to refute the big bang or evolution in the conversation about the existence of god. At the end of the day (while evolution IS a fact) these things are useless to debate over as if being wrong about a scientific theory will make the existence of god anymore likely. So, go to the heart of it all: what evidence is there for god? It's a constantly restated question, of course, but there's a reason for this. The atheist position comes from realizing how the arguments and provided evidences for god aren't at all sufficient to justify the belief in one.

Both parties spout the same thing, but the problem with theists is often that they spout more non sequiturs and non arguments for the existence of god AS arguments for the existence of god, so much so that it gets tiring.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:14 AM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Eh, he did the same thing after asking for evidence of Abiogenesis in the Probability thread.

As soon as it was provided, he read an AiG article, giggled, and ran for the hills.

I just expected more instruction in this thread on what is, and what is not logical, but perhaps he can't find an AiG article on logic.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 09:55 AM)donotwant Wrote:  I thought alpha male should be brave not run away from relevant question like a pussy.

You don't get to -25 rep by calmly answering straight questions.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-02-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 10:14 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Eh, he did the same thing after asking for evidence of Abiogenesis in the Probability thread.

As soon as it was provided, he read an AiG article, giggled, and ran for the hills.

I just expected more instruction in this thread on what is, and what is not logical, but perhaps he can't find an AiG article on logic.

Well at least he gets educated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:23 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 10:14 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Eh, he did the same thing after asking for evidence of Abiogenesis in the Probability thread.

As soon as it was provided, he read an AiG article, giggled, and ran for the hills.

I just expected more instruction in this thread on what is, and what is not logical, but perhaps he can't find an AiG article on logic.

THAT was funny as hell, i won't lie. "what do the formations of hydrocarbons have to do with life (which is in fact, carbon based. Ain't that some suspicious coincidental shit)

But again, alpha, what's sad is that the current theory of abiogenesis being debunked TOMORROW will have no impact, whatsoever, that the god you believe in did anything to create life. That's a false dichotomy. Now, what's again more worth discussing is the possibilities for any being to hold the power to create something out of nothing, the ability to raise the dead, and so forth. Because without knowledge to deem something as possible, all parties forfeit any argument for such a thing's possibility. So anyone who believes a being could do such a thing has to have faith. Again, where did that faith come from, and is it really a valid reason for faith? Did you gain confidence in the veracity of the bible(or whatever religious text you hold to) before or AFTER you had faith, and did you have faith before or AFTER evidence?

These are the important questions, and I'm certain you and I both agree that evidence-less belief and faith in something is ripe for our imaginations to fill in the gaps whenever.

To say an atheist operates from such a position of faith is just dishonest really. To say the atheist has a prophet (dawkins, hitchens, what have you) is more dishonest projection. To not understand the lack of faith needed for any scientific endeavor to be proven true is ludicrous, but these are the falsities and projections i hear completely missing the point of the questions asked.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes le_bard's post
26-02-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(25-02-2014 02:27 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Drich. Do not dismiss arguments by telling people that they are doing something completely different to what they know they are doing or that their history happened differently. How can you hope to convince anybody if you make this stuff up?
It's like you guys simply switch off when someone points out that your not doing something you think you can argue the oppsite way.


Quote:You tell me why I have respect for Buddhists and Quakers yet I never said why I do. You can make an assumption why I am thinking about things in a certain way but do not tell me what I am thinking or what I remember.
Not true what you are thinking is demonstrated in your post. The only thing you haven't done is to freely admit what your thoughts on the subject has already revealed.

Quote:You tell me that the Buddhists scientists I have heard about were in theoretical or fringe science (theoretical science isn't real science?) yet I never mentioned which science or how I heard about them.
Simple logic.
The reason I pointed out that there are Christian who are scientist, is to eliminate any admiration you had on a generally religious person being involved in Any Scientific field. Meaning if you had respect for any religious person for being in a scientific field, then it would stand to reason that your respect would also extend to the Christian as well.

As you orginal statement said, it does not. your respect is focoused on Buddhists and Quakers. As Quakers are not able to be involved in science then Buddhism was the only religious people who earn your respect for being scientists. If there are Christians who are also scientist, and you do not extent them respect then it stands to reason that the buddhist are in a field that the Christians are not. This field (generally speaking) is theoritical/fringe science. Why? Because at large fringe science is anti God. To which the Buddhist would not have a problem being apart of.

Therefore it is a very safe to conclude that whatever field you are speaking of specifically, your buddhists are indeed apart of some sort of fringe science. Otherwise you would have to amend your orginal statement to also includ Christians as they are indeed apart of the Scientific community as well.

Quote:It's like me telling you that you have attachment issues with your aunt and that your beliefs can be dismissed since you only converted because you are insecure about your acne. Only you know what you felt at the time and currently believe. How does it help anyone to make stuff up like this?
If you have to resort to such tactics then you really are struggling.

On the surface it may seem that way, and I am more than willing to let my 'enemy think I am weak when I am strong' as that is (according to SunTzu) how great battles are won. But you should know by now the difference between what I do and what you have accused me of is the logic I employ to get to my final conclusion. I have present my entire chain of logic on this matter above. If I am wrong I ask that you point out where. when you do be ready to also amend your statement.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: