The TTA Theological Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2013, 04:22 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 02:12 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(15-02-2013 01:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Hmm, invalid logic leading to the desired conclusion. Are you sure you're not a Christian? Wink
I was Christian a long time ago. Maybe this is just some left over debris...

What's my logical flaw? I use 'can,' rather than 'must,' to avoid making absolute statements.

If I had to pick a mistake I'd say it's #2 since I don't know 100% if gods exist or not.
The first premise, "A religious text requires human beings to exist", is only true if there is no god so a religious person would never buy it.

Also, I think the last statement, "Religious text is not proof of a god", should say "Religious text is not proof that a god created it". For the record, I do believe that religious text is not proof of a god, but I don't think that was the conclusion that your arguments led to.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 10:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  What do you think of this syllogism?
Most religions have a Satan or adversary or opposing force. It inspired false religious texts. The many texts are proofs of an adversary to some truth or some God.

It doesn't work. The form of your logical argument is invalid. I'm going to rewrite it a bit more formally, and then explain why...

1. Most religions speculate that their god has an adversary.

So far, so good.

2. The adversary inspired false religious texts.

I don't think this is true at all. I think belief in false gods inspired false religions, but nonetheless, the structure of your argument is what I'm examining and it's fine so far.

3. The false religious texts prove that there is an adversary, therefore...
Conclusion: There is a god.

Why would premise 3 follow from the first 2 premises? In premise 2 you're talking about texts being written about an adversary, but that adversary doesn't actually have to exist to be written about. There are many Hollywood movies that include stories about villains, but those stories don't prove that either the villains or the heroes exist (Dracula, for example, was inspired by a non-existent adversary to Van Helsing). So "inspiration" doesn't lead to "proof".

But even if we accepted premise 3 (and we ought not to, because it doesn't follow logically from either of the first 2 premises), the conclusion doesn't follow, either. Why would God have to exist even if his adversary existed? This assumption is built upon the idea that the adversary exists for the singular purpose of being an adversary, but it could be true that the adversary is drawn from real life or real experiences that make such a character the perfect antagonist while the main character of these texts is fictional for the sake of the story having a protagonist.

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
16-02-2013, 12:35 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There are elements of 9/11 in novels widely published and widely read before 9/11. That makes for a possible, even plausible, link between those novels and the "brainstorming" of the 9/11 terrorists but is not proof. If you brought a lawsuit against Bible publishers claiming this theory, you'd be laughed out of court for claiming circumstantial evidence as a smoking gun.

Perhaps now we can talk about the sophistication of the Bible (PJ hears sniggering from the readers of this post. Takes a deep breath. Presses on.) The biblical flood story provides, regardless if you want to argue its plausibility (this from memory):

The dimensions of the ark
Its materials used in construction
Its builders and how long they worked
The reaction of the people who scoffed at their building
The time pre-flood in the ark, in the ark, post-flood in the ark, the rubric for determining if the flood had receded
The height of the waters above the peaks of the mountains
Etc., etc., etc.

YES, there are elements common to the Bible in the Gilgamesh epic.

But...

I teach in a variety of arenas. Golf is an example. The Bible is "Pre-set your left hips, turn back three-quarters extended, cock your wrists, bring your left hip back, approach the ball from the inside, hit it in a parabola that flies 200 yards, draws left, rolls 50 yards along the ground." Gilgamesh is "Grip it and rip it."

I started on Page 4 of the thread so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you trying to claim that since the Bible is more detailed than the stories that came before it, that makes it the more probable and "sophisticated" one? So if I put out a story tomorrow depicting Jack's backpack and what he took with him when he ascended the beanstalk and the height of the stalk and how long it took him to climb it, and then I proclaim this story to be truth, does that make it any more true than the previous story? Does it also mean that I didn't rip off the previous fairy tale, since I added things to it?

Again, I only scanned this thread so I might be addressing nothing here.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
Quote:I started on Page 4 of the thread so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you trying to claim that since the Bible is more detailed than the stories that came before it, that makes it the more probable and "sophisticated" one? So if I put out a story tomorrow depicting Jack's backpack and what he took with him when he ascended the beanstalk and the height of the stalk and how long it took him to climb it, and then I proclaim this story to be truth, does that make it any more true than the previous story? Does it also mean that I didn't rip off the previous fairy tale, since I added things to it?

Again, I only scanned this thread so I might be addressing nothing here.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am saying that we can look at the Bible and define its writers as sophisticated, detailed and elegant, as both Christian and secular commentators have agreed. Now we have to ask about their textual and perhaps hidden agendas.
Then we can also go into the Noah story. The ark's dimensions show several things worthy of note:
1. A size and length-to-width ratio that matches the most sophisticated and long lasting wooden ships ever built in modern history.
2. A remarkable allusion to a human coffin, touching the pictures of Baptism it provides. The type and shadow/foreshawdowing of the Flood, the ark, the rescue, etc. allude to Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection (and trusting Christ for salvation) in remarkable ways.
Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 09:03 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(20-02-2013 07:48 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am saying that we can look at the Bible and define its writers as sophisticated, detailed and elegant, as both Christian and secular commentators have agreed. Now we have to ask about their textual and perhaps hidden agendas.


I fail to see your point. I wrote an atheist book. Both Christians and secular readers could define me as a sophisticated, detailed, elegant author. What does that have to do with the validity of the content of my book?


Quote:Then we can also go into the Noah story. The ark's dimensions show several things worthy of note:
1. A size and length-to-width ratio that matches the most sophisticated and long lasting wooden ships ever built in modern history.

Where are you getting this information? Here's a list of "longest wooden ships" in all of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lon...oden_ships

Even the longest wooden ship ever built is 100 feet shorter than Noah's Ark. And the widths are random and varying, not ascribing to any particular ratio.


Quote:2. A remarkable allusion to a human coffin, touching the pictures of Baptism it provides. The type and shadow/foreshawdowing of the Flood, the ark, the rescue, etc. allude to Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection (and trusting Christ for salvation) in remarkable ways.
Thanks.

That's a completely subjective interpretation. God simply killed everyone and started over again. I fail to see redemption or salvation in that case.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
20-02-2013, 09:18 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
"God simply killed everyone and started over again."

What god?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 09:36 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(20-02-2013 09:18 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "God simply killed everyone and started over again."

What god?

Well God DOES exist... within the confines of the literary realm that he was created in. I can discuss the persistent cognitive dissonance that must exist within the mind of Charlie Brown, trusting in Lucy to hold the ball but knowing full well that she's going to pull it away at the last second, but that doesn't imply that I'm suggesting Charles has transcended his fictional boundaries.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
20-02-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(20-02-2013 09:36 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(20-02-2013 09:18 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "God simply killed everyone and started over again."

What god?

Well God DOES exist... within the confines of the literary realm that he was created in. I can discuss the persistent cognitive dissonance that must exist within the mind of Charlie Brown, trusting in Lucy to hold the ball but knowing full well that she's going to pull it away at the last second, but that doesn't imply that I'm suggesting Charles has transcended his fictional boundaries.
Smartass.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(20-02-2013 07:48 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am saying that we can look at the Bible and define its writers as sophisticated, detailed and elegant, as both Christian and secular commentators have agreed. Now we have to ask about their textual and perhaps hidden agendas.
Then we can also go into the Noah story. The ark's dimensions show several things worthy of note:
1. A size and length-to-width ratio that matches the most sophisticated and long lasting wooden ships ever built in modern history.
2. A remarkable allusion to a human coffin, touching the pictures of Baptism it provides. The type and shadow/foreshawdowing of the Flood, the ark, the rescue, etc. allude to Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection (and trusting Christ for salvation) in remarkable ways.
Thanks.


[Image: Vfj7d.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-02-2013, 12:35 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(21-02-2013 12:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-02-2013 07:48 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am saying that we can look at the Bible and define its writers as sophisticated, detailed and elegant, as both Christian and secular commentators have agreed. Now we have to ask about their textual and perhaps hidden agendas.
Then we can also go into the Noah story. The ark's dimensions show several things worthy of note:
1. A size and length-to-width ratio that matches the most sophisticated and long lasting wooden ships ever built in modern history.
2. A remarkable allusion to a human coffin, touching the pictures of Baptism it provides. The type and shadow/foreshawdowing of the Flood, the ark, the rescue, etc. allude to Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection (and trusting Christ for salvation) in remarkable ways.
Thanks.


[Image: Vfj7d.jpg]
Bowing

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: