Questions for Apologists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2012, 07:59 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(20-07-2012 04:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  So your God creates people/souls for the express purpose of sending them to hell to be tortured forever through no fault of their own.

Don't you see the insanity of your belief?
Chas, you're silly, can't you see that it's all part of God's perfect plan?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(21-07-2012 01:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-07-2012 12:47 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Luke wrote Acts, Mark wrote mark, and Matthew wrote Matthew.
Except they didn't. Mark was written likely by a Syrian, who was not named Mark, who used the Q source, and Matthew was certainly not written by Matthew, who also used the Q source.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-07-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
Geez, I really wasn't trying to pick on KC or his beliefs. Nevertheless, I still think phrasing Pascal's wager with the insertion of another religion as the one being wagered on is a good plan. The only way for an apologist to shoot it down is to erect a double standard or to admit that it's a bad wager, which is not going to happen... too many people come to Christianity through this wager.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2012, 10:47 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2012 10:56 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(21-07-2012 08:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-07-2012 01:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  
Except they didn't. Mark was written likely by a Syrian, who was not named Mark, who used the Q source, and Matthew was certainly not written by Matthew, who also used the Q source.

But isn't the q source merely hypothetical? And as far as I understand it, it only applies to mark and luke.

Thanks for bringing that up though I learned something new XD!!

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2012, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2012 11:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(21-07-2012 10:47 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(21-07-2012 08:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Except they didn't. Mark was written likely by a Syrian, who was not named Mark, who used the Q source, and Matthew was certainly not written by Matthew, who also used the Q source.

Good point. But isn't the q source merely hypothetical?
It has never been found, (yet). However an "inferred" text is a legitimate historical methodological element.
And actually I misstated it. Matthew and Luke used Q, and Mark, which was first, and unique did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2012, 08:54 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(21-07-2012 10:21 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Geez, I really wasn't trying to pick on KC or his beliefs. Nevertheless, I still think phrasing Pascal's wager with the insertion of another religion as the one being wagered on is a good plan. The only way for an apologist to shoot it down is to erect a double standard or to admit that it's a bad wager, which is not going to happen... too many people come to Christianity through this wager.

It's cool.

I'm used to it. I'm just an easy target here because I am so visible and open with my beliefs.

But really, I was just trying to offer apologetic answers for the questions.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
27-07-2012, 10:28 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
Alright, so I've finally made a list of questions based on some of what you guys brought up.
It's not much, but chances are I'm not going to get all the questions asked or answered.
Once I get answers, I'm going to write them down and them bring them back to this Thread to be analyzed (maybe).

1.) How does God "act" or "think" before spacetime existed?

2.) How is God NOT special Pleading (Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption - Wikipedia)?

3.) What is one property of existence that does not require time?

4.) Is there proof of non-infinite regression?

5.) If God is "Perfect", why does He need worship and adulation? Why did He need to create human beings if He is already perfect?

Then, a personal question -
Why do we claim the same evidence for the existence of God where others use the same evidence for the claim of Gods non-existence?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(27-07-2012 10:28 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Then, a personal question -
Why do we claim the same evidence for the existence of God where others use the same evidence for the claim of Gods non-existence?

I hypothesize that either that ain't evidence either way, or there's gotta be some derp in there somewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2012, 11:08 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
If people can live happy, enduring lives without God, why should anyone believe in God other than to avoid Hell? If someone is living with an evidentialist mindset, there is not any physical evidence of this realm. What is the difference between living a satisfied secular life and living a satisfied Christian life?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: Questions for Apologists?
(27-07-2012 11:08 AM)PeacefulSkeptic Wrote:  If people can live happy, enduring lives without God, why should anyone believe in God other than to avoid Hell? If someone is living with an evidentialist mindset, there is not any physical evidence of this realm. What is the difference between living a satisfied secular life and living a satisfied Christian life?

It's the difference between living the truth and living a lie.

If I found that my worldview was false, I would not want to continue living believing that God exists. If it is false, I don't want to believe it.

It is also an issue of exclusivity. When a worldview makes a claim that reality is such and such way, the consequences in that worldview can be something serious and not just passive.

A classic example -
A massive amount of people are in a calm river. For the most part, the people see no danger ahead, so they will just continue swimming.
But then some guy comes along and tells the people that they are swimming toward a massive waterfall that will kill them all!
Well, that mans worldview seems to pose a problem since all the people are in the river with the said waterfall.
So in that situation, it's an issue of life or death.

In other words, I believe it's important enough.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: