Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 10:49 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  
(19-12-2013 10:45 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Either your deity exists or not: if it does, it does so in a form of nature, time and space are in such a way irrelevant to the concept of straight existence, and thus requires a creator by your own rules man, if not, then that speaks for itself.
Nature proves the need for the uncreated Creator in the first post so the uncreated Creator exists and proved who He is specifically as was described as only the uncreated Creator can resurrect Himself.

Quote:Assuming you are right and the deity does not require a creator, why make an exception only for your deity and why can't the universe have existed 'forever' and merely had a self-contained reality which we perceive? In such a way the 'nature' to which you refer would have existed in the same way as your deity; without itself and the universe would have existed in and of itself by it's own virtue of existence outside time and space.

Please excuse me whilst I go stack turtles upon turtles.
There is no exception for the Christian God, but only the Christian God stands up the evidence as described in the first post.

Since nature proves the need for an uncreated Creator as described in the 1st post then the uncreated Creator is proven.

I don't usually quote myself, but for you I will make an exception.

LostandInsecure Wrote:That sounds like crazy talk to me, love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Losty's post
20-12-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:14 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  This probably doesn't interest you, but incidentally, Craig is not a Christian because he is into works based salvation, rejecting John 10.28 which says those who are born-again "they shall never perish." Craig thinks if his works are not good enough he could still go to Hell. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believe the same heresy quite similar to all other religions. Naturally, Craig flocks to this heresy because of his prolific work which he erects as an idol before God and others. Yet it does not bring him one inch closer to salvation. God's way transcend man's idea of salvation. Salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. In fact, I can assure you the location in Hell Craig is going to will be far more punishing than the one you go to, because he knows better with so much knowledge....

That would explain Craig's unclear thinking on this matter since he does not have the Holy Spirit in his innerman.
I used to be like you. Quite assertive about things I didn't know and couldn't prove. It doesn't matter that your judging WLC based on a biased opinion about an unreliable and probably fraud letter (Ephesians). It doesn't matter that most of Christianity for most of history has disagreed with your biased opinion, reading the same texts.


(20-12-2013 02:29 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  Delusion is the foremost condition of being an atheist.
Psychological Projection

(20-12-2013 02:50 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  It's not about numbers, but cause and effect. Everything we observe in nature has a cause. This is why we might have to spend considerable time on the fact that non-existence can't cause anything before we get into infinite regress, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. Don't be delusional.

The reason why a billion pound gorilla doesn't flatten cities is because he doesn't exist so the billion pound gorilla can't cause anything because it does not exist. It is just fantasy, like claiming non-existence caused a mud pie.

What a goofy reason to reject God.

More psychological projection

Refine your apologetics and give it another try in a few months

Good luck sir

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
20-12-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 08:48 AM)natachan Wrote:  I wish you luck if you intend to continue, but know that any preaching will not be met well. Any intellectual dishonesty (I like to believe that shown in your OP was innocent of intent) will be met worse.
[Image: frabz-spoken-like-a-true-sir-Thats-my-son-03e750.jpg]

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like IndianAtheist's post
20-12-2013, 10:10 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:47 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 02:34 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I am not prepared to rule out spontaneous generation, not without strong evidence against it and a more precise definition of terms.

We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature and no spontaneous generation of anything, for that which does not exist can't cause anything to exist. That which does not exist always does not exist, always and anon. This is the evidence. I can only go with the evidence, which is why I am speaking to you the way I am. These trillions of cause and effects are an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Think of yourself like a gambler who is rolling the dice and hoping to come up with a 1 in a 10 trillion sided die. Good luck with that. What you are engaging in is called false humility. If trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence to the contrary is not good enough for you then nothing will be. That's why Hell is necessary for the obstinate and belligerent.

First, you are attempting to establish a universal rule from specific data. Doing so requires a reasoning from the specific to the general, which is forbidden under deductive logic. It only takes a single exception to make your rule false. It is quite a reasonable step to take with inductive logic, but even then the logician is advised to recall the possibility of error, hold on to a measure of doubt, and not extrapolate too far from one's data set. This is exactly what I am doing. Humanity's long experience in a wide variety of subjects underscores the wisdom of this reserved doubt. Consider Aristotle's observation that all bodies come naturally to rest. This was true... in the high-friction, Earthbound environment which made up the entirety of Aristotle's existence. His extrapolation from his specific dataset to the more general realm of celestial events was a reasonable step, inductively, yet proved nonetheless flawed. Intellectual history is rife with such examples, and yet recalling that this logical step is a frequent stumbling point is called false humility? Are you to demand that I ignore that evidence even while you demand I focus on other evidence?

Second, the "trillions" of examples you cite (even if I cannot personally claim to have made note of that high a number of events) mostly exist within the particular time-frame of the near-present. To extend this to the hypothesized beginning of the universe is most definitely extrapolating beyond our data set. Moreover, such a beginning would be exceptional in some way or another. Why should it not be exceptional in the way of lacking causation, rather than in the ways you wish to imply?

And third, why would Hell be necessary for the obstinate and belligerent, if it does not actually do a thing to prevent (what you describe as) obstinacy and belligerence? That's like a carpenter saying that splinters make an allen wrench necessary.

(20-12-2013 02:50 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 02:46 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  It makes fine sense if one understands the notion of an infinite set, unbound above OR below, from a mathematical standpoint.

It's not about numbers, but cause and effect. Everything we observe in nature has a cause. This is why we might have to spend considerable time on the fact that non-existence can't cause anything before we get into infinite regress, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. Don't be delusional.

The reason why a billion pound gorilla doesn't flatten cities is because he doesn't exist so the billion pound gorilla can't cause anything because it does not exist. It is just fantasy, like claiming non-existence caused a mud pie.

What a goofy reason to reject God.




It's about SOME NUMBER of causes and effects, and your insistence that such chain of cause and effect, extended into the past, cannot be infinite in number. That's pretty much the claim that there must be some lowest negative number. The mapping is so basic it almost maps itself. Sorry to break this to you (well, not really), but any time you start talking about infinity you're getting into math.

Also, this isn't a case of me rejecting God. That is a much, much larger discussion. This is a case of me rejecting a flawed argument. The two are not the same. Please do not confuse them. A believer could reject your argument and still be a believer, after all.

Second, I will agree that something that is non-existant cannot cause anything, by definition. For it to cause something, it must exist. Fine. But I will not equate this with the possibility of an uncaused effect. That notion is distinct. It is true that nonexistence cannot cause existence, and yet if some element of existence is itself uncaused, this definitional tautology does not apply.

Third, that video? Does not address a single point I have raised, save to assert without proof, nor does it make any new points. 10 minutes wasted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
20-12-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  Reltzik created us! It all makes sense now!

Really? Because I'm pretty sure the evidence in the strata of the board user logs shows that there were a lot of people here before I ever showed up in the record.

(20-12-2013 04:27 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 02:29 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  ...
Delusion is the foremost condition of being an atheist.

A classic case, I fear:



He's not projecting! WE'RE projecting! Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:29 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  Here's another analogy. Imagine people arguing on a train. When the train arrives at the central station of a large city they are still arguing. After they get off they are stilling arguing. At some point they continue steadfast in their obstinacy and you can see them going off into the distance each building their own shacks to live in. If you were to go to the window of one of their cabins, you could peek inside and see them repeating the phrase, "I told you so."

Delusion is the foremost condition of being an atheist.

Here's an analogy. The theists sit in the back of the train and claim that unicorns are pulling it down the track. The atheists take the time to walk up to the front of the train and find an engineer operating an engine. The atheists get off the train and eat lunch while the theists sit in the back and talk about how the unicorn's horns are the source of their power, as a unicorn would not be able to pull such a heavy train without a power source, thus proving both the unicorns' existence and explaining how the train moves.

Enjoy the unicorns.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like guitar_nut's post
20-12-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 10:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ...
He's not projecting! WE'RE projecting! Laughat

Oh, yeah!

Sorry.

Silly me.

Blush

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
20-12-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 10:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Really? Because I'm pretty sure the evidence in the strata of the board user logs shows that there were a lot of people here before I ever showed up in the record.

Stop being logical, God.




We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
20-12-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
I'm always amazed of the vast knowledge theist have of nothingness (if there's such thing). They can tell you how it works and what it makes as if they've seen it all their lives. Amazing

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
20-12-2013, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 03:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
The question is not "what caused the universe ?".
(As I pointed out, and he ignored), what appear logical to human brains only works in certain bandwidths of this universe, so saying "everything has a cause", when virtual particles come and go SPONTANEOUSLY, a gazilliion (un-caused) times a nano-second, is crap .... all this "logic" shit is worthless. He appears to have NO science background...
but the REAL question is, "what caused Causality ?". The universe cannot be "caused" UNLESS the *principle* of Causality is ALREADY in place. THAT does lead to infinite regress and Special Pleading. No being, (divine or otherwise), can *cause* Causality UNLESS there exists (a priori) a structure of, or principle of Causality ALREADY in place.
Where did THAT come from ? That is the real question. Kalam is such a short-sight pile of shit, and THAT is but one of it's problems. It answers NONE of the real questions. A deity which *exists*, of necessity, MUST participate in Reality, therefore cannot be the creator of very Reality in which it is REQUIRED to participate.

So, what is this unsavedchaff ? A Freshman at Biola-crap-college, who suddenly thinks he's competent to "do" Apologetics. LMFAO.

The total energy of the universe is zero. Gravity can have a negative energy, as Krauss points out in "A Universe From Nothing".
Before you ask "What caused *something* ?", you have to demonstrate there IS (a positive) *somethng*.
Unsavedchaff can't do that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: