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, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 12:18 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist and not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  For me there is no debate between atheism and theism, because I know the universe can't from nothing, that which does not exist, for that which does not exist can't cause anything as it does not exist. So the universe has to come from something.

No, you don't know that. Even if you did know that (and could show it beyond a reasonable doubt in peer review); that still would not imply a deity, let alone any one particular deity (or attached religion).


(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But what is that something? For starters, that something can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress further contradicts itself because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you should have never existed, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point now today.

As of right now, the only thing I'm convinced of is your absolute complete lack of understanding of these concepts; and your unabashed lack of shame in pretending to known things you in fact don't know.


(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Therefore, it stands to reason that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated that we can call the uncreated Creator that always existed.

No, it does not stand to reason. You are making unjustified assumption after unjustified assumption, and what you're left with is a house of cards built upon quicksand.


(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  And since the uncreated Creator can't be less than us, it must have a mind for that which less than a mind can't cause a mind. A mind is needed to create a mind. And we are personal so the uncreated Creator must be personal for the impersonal can't cause the personal. And as we are accessible so is the uncreated Creator must be accessible. There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible with enough adherents to span the globe and not hidden from plain view: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

More unjustified assumptions and presuppositions.


(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But Hinduism is false, because that would be silly for you to come back as a chicken if you were a bad human and never effectively deals with sin receiving endless chances.

So now the nature or state of reality is determined by what you find ridiculous?


(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  And the god of Hinduism, Brahma, is considered impersonal, it is said, which is below our nature of being personal. Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later to claim Jesus never even went to the cross, contrary to the scores of evidence, Jesus died on the cross as the most documented person in antiquity who has more sources written about Him than any ten figures combined within 150 years of their deaths.

You fail to notice that Christianity has no proof that Jesus went on the cross. The burden of proof is not on Islam to disprove Christianity, it is on Christianity to prove it's own claims; and it fails miserably to do so. Christianity is not the default position against which all others must be judged.



(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Without knowing anything else, we know, therefore, Christianity must be true.

Once again, Christianity is not true just because all other religions appear to be false. Christianity can also, and indeed is most likely, false as well.

Religion: They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.



(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But the proof for Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God as only God can resurrect Himself. Since there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the multiple eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, therefore, it must be true they were with Jesus for 40 days after resurrection. Group hallucinations are medically impossible. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. The swoon theory wouldn't convince anyone Jesus is the risen Lord.

What evidence do you have for all of this? Nothing outside of the Gospels. What are the Gospels? At best they are the decades later recording of hearsay upon hearsay written down by non-eyewitnesses and is a record of what the Christians believed. It is not proof of anything outside of professed belief. Not only that but they make plenty of extraordinary claims that have no corroboration or attestation in history (there is no contemporary accounts of the Jewish saints that arose and 'appeared unto many' according to Matthew), and all were written anonymously (the names attributed to the Gospels were added far later in the third century). The Bible is the claim, not the proof.



(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I also believe God is infinitely greater than us so no amount of work or self-improvement can bridge the gap between us and God. We will always fall short. Islam and Hinduism follow this works based faith scheme of self-improvement. Only in Christianity do you find God personally enters His creation to save us when we can't save ourselves, by taking upon Himself the sins of the world to forgive any who would receive Him to be saved and receive eternal life.

I just wanted you to know why I believe what I believe, for I don't know how to overturn this evidence, thus, locked into my faith as a Christian as that is the God I gave my life to: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28). I would only ask that you hold yourself to the highest standard of evidence I have provided here.

There is no evidence to overturn, as your understanding of what constitutes 'evidence' and 'reason' is so infantile as to be laughable. Ultimately you have none, just your own biased and personally subjective 'feelings' and 'beliefs' that fall apart under the lightest of scrutiny.


TL;DR Version.

You suck at logic, have no grasp of what constitutes real evidence, and would have trouble reasoning yourself out of a wet paper bag. What you have here is a massive pile of subjective baseless assertions with nothing to support them. Nobody has any reason at all to take anything you've said seriously, it is not compelling in the slightest. All it does is illustrate your own dire need of an education, in general and about your religion. You are frighteningly ignorant of your own professed Christianity, which unfortunately is par for the course for laypeople.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-12-2013, 12:18 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 08:02 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
DIPSHIT FUCKWIT LyinIRC SAID:


Quote:"Shouting in CAPS LOCK isnt evidence either.

No one said it was.

Quote:And you are doing exactly what you accuse savedwheat of doing, viz; gainsaying without justification.


BULLSHIT. Calling Bullshit on the bullshit ad hoc assertion of an ignorant fuckwit (like YOU) isn't the same as making said bullshit ad hoc assertion. Not even close. No surprise that an idiot theotard shitwipe like you hasn't even a child's understanding of basic logic and reason.

Quote:You just 'plead' and hope that your gainsaying of the claim will be more accepted than the claim.

Oh, look at the idiot theist trying to shift the burden of proof. no surprise here.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
I prefer ad HoC to ad hoc Tongue

Bullshti - the latest Goddess of the Hindu pantheon...

Hey Wheaty Smile Welcome in forum nostra.

Afraid your argument's not convincing... loadsa people telling ya why Wink

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
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
20-12-2013, 12:39 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  a) I dont have to meet your standard of proof.
b) I have all the evidence I need. Smile
c) If you dont like the God conclusion, thats YOUR problem not mine.

a) Yes, you do, considering that your standard is subpar.
b) What you consider evidence is not evidence at all.
c) The god conclusion is not based on reality, so the problem still lies with those who accept it as factual.

(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The most extraordinary claim is the one made by folk like you - that in the entire history of human kind, every single reported instance of the supernatural is false.
Every single, last one of them - ALL wrong. No discarnate consciousness. No afterlife. No sensus divinatus. No miracles. NOT ONE OF THEM has any basis in truth.

If there is no verifiable evidence to support its existence, then of course it is false. Someone making a claim based on a clear delusion does not equate to reality.

(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  If you want God to jump through your empirical evidentiary hoops like some little dog obeying you on command before you decide whether or not to obey Him in return,
then Im afraid you have things gravely upside down.

One would think that a real god would ensure its creations knew for a fact that he existed, rather than playing the silly game of faith which is reliant upon childish and unrealistic devotion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Foxen's post
20-12-2013, 12:56 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  a) I dont have to meet your standard of proof.
b) I have all the evidence I need. Smile
c) If you dont like the God conclusion, thats YOUR problem not mine.

You have the evidence you need for you and that's great. If you want *us* to accept *your* conclusion then the burden of proof is on you. That's all.

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
[+] 7 users Like morondog's post
20-12-2013, 01:00 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 12:39 AM)Foxen Wrote:  
(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  a) I dont have to meet your standard of proof.
b) I have all the evidence I need. Smile
c) If you dont like the God conclusion, thats YOUR problem not mine.

a) Yes, you do, considering that your standard is subpar.
b) What you consider evidence is not evidence at all.
c) The god conclusion is not based on reality, so the problem still lies with those who accept it as factual.

(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The most extraordinary claim is the one made by folk like you - that in the entire history of human kind, every single reported instance of the supernatural is false.
Every single, last one of them - ALL wrong. No discarnate consciousness. No afterlife. No sensus divinatus. No miracles. NOT ONE OF THEM has any basis in truth.

If there is no verifiable evidence to support its existence, then of course it is false. Someone making a claim based on a clear delusion does not equate to reality.

(19-12-2013 11:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  If you want God to jump through your empirical evidentiary hoops like some little dog obeying you on command before you decide whether or not to obey Him in return,
then Im afraid you have things gravely upside down.

One would think that a real god would ensure its creations knew for a fact that he existed, rather than playing the silly game of faith which is reliant upon childish and unrealistic devotion.

YOU.


.....are MY New Best Friend.



...Gawd help you....




Tongue




...WUV all my Bestest Fwiendzes...

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
20-12-2013, 01:19 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 01:42 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
First off, welcome to the board! Some of us don't bite. Evil_monster We're pretty welcoming IF you don't engage in bigotry, repetitions of the same fallacies, or, you know, general trolling behavior. For a list of things NOT to do, read PJ's posts.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I just wanted you to know what I believe, why I believe it and why I can't change what I believe, because the evidence is too substantial and powerful.

In that case I'll share what I believe about what you believe. As for evidence being too substantial and powerful, it would be a welcome exchange from the flimsy, dubious, ever-repeated-despite-being-long-debunked stuff that normally gets thrown our way. Hit us with your best shot.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  For me there is no debate between atheism and theism, because I know the universe can't come from nothing--that which does not exist--for that which does not exist can't cause anything as it does not exist. So the universe has to come from something.


..... dammit, this is Kalam, isn't it? This is that flimsy, dubious, ever-repeated-despite-being-long-debunked stuff that either bores us, or pisses us off like a telemarkerter who won't take no for an answer even after we've called her out on her known scam the past thirty times she's called.

But, you're new here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and (if this IS Kalam) I'll walk you through what's wrong with it.

So far, you have ignored the possibility of an eternal universe, or non-eternal time, or the possibility of a causeless effect. Let's see if you address these possibilities as you go.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But what is that something? For starters, that something can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress further contradicts itself because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you should have never existed, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point now today.

False on every count.

First, your argument against infinite regress on the grounds of never reaching the present is a common error. It's like saying that the universe can't extend infinitely in every direction, because we'd never have reached this present point from the edge. Or it's akin to saying that infinite negative numbers are nonsensical, because we'd have no place to start counting and thus the number 4 could never be reached. This is patently false. We start counting at 0, or 1, or wherever, and we can count either forward or back. This is also how we view time. We are in the present, and when we examine history we are attempting to view backwards. We don't have to start at some arbitrary beginning to reach the present. This sort of misunderstanding is very common among people who know just enough math to vaguely get the notion of infinity, but not nearly enough to begin to understand it. Which is, most everyone with a basic math education. That said, infinity is quite tame for those with the proper mathematical tools to analyze it (I'd be happy to share if you'd like), and does not actually suffer from the obstacles that your argument assumes as its central premise.

Yet if you won't accept that infinite regress is viable, you have bought yourself nothing. Your argument is basically that 1 (infinite regress) is impossible, 2 (a universe with infinite history) implies 1, and that therefore 2 is also impossible and one must accept its negation (a universe with finite history). The logic is valid in its structure but premise 1 is flawed. Here's the problem. Or at least one problem.

Consider a very basic sequence of cause and effect. (We'll ignore the quantum for simplicity, but factoring quantum mechanics in changes little.) Imagine a particle, say an air molecule, moving through room from point Alpha to point Omega in the course of 4 minutes. For simplicity, we'll say it doesn't get redirected significantly. This simple event can be seen as part of a sequence of cause and effect. Once at point Omega, its presence there, with its particular velocity, can cause all sorts of events that its absence would not have permitted. On the other side of the room, something caused that particle to be present at point Alpha, with the velocity that would eventually carry it forward to point Omega. In short, there is an event of moving from point Alpha to point Omega, which is caused by some other event and in turn causes one or more other events.

So far, so good.

Now let's divide this path in half. Let's look at the midpoint halfway between Alpha and Omega. We can ask, what about the event of traveling from Alpha to the midpoint, and then the separate event of traveling from the midpoint to Omega? Obviously, the first causes the second. Let's redefine these as two paths. The first half of the trip is path 1, beginning at Alpha-1 (the original Alpha) and ending at Omega-1 (the original midpoint). Path 2 continues where path 1 left off, beginning at Alpha-2 (the original midpoint, which is also Omega-1... yes, I'm using two different names for the same point) and ends at Omega-2. Note that the overall course of the molecule is identical, but we've classified its passage as 2 events rather than 1. That said, if the molecule moving across that larger interval of space is to be called an event, so to must be the molecule moving across the smaller intervals of space.

You might have seen the problem. But in case you haven't, here it is. Let's take those 2 intervals and divide both in half. Now we have 4 intervals and 4 events, still taking place over the course of a minute, each event being the cause of the next in turn. Divide those in half. 8 events in 4 minutes. Divide in half again. 16 in 4 minutes. Divide again, and again, and again.... and there's no limit. No bar to keep us from dividing up intervals forever. No granularity to space. Nothing to keep this simple event of a particle crossing a room from actually being an infinite number of events, each a link in a chain of causation. Infinite regression... in the course of 4 minutes.

So unless you wish to maintain that the universe began less than 4 minutes ago, positing a finite universe does not get you away from infinite regression. (And even if you did wish to posit that it's only 1 minute old, we can look at the case of the particle crossing the room in 30 seconds. And so forth for any age you wish to suggest, unless you wish to suggest it began this very instant. And... this instant. And... this instant.) In short, while premise 2 (an infinite history) implies premise 1 (infinite regression), taking the negation of premise 2 (a finite history) ALSO implies premise 1 (infinite regression). This disproves your premise that infinite regression is impossible. It is, in fact, necessity.

This is known as Zeno's Paradox. (Or, rather, one of many of Zeno's Paradoxes, all built around the same theme.) The name's something of a misnomer, because it's not actually a paradox. It used to be, but it isn't any more. You see, the ancient Greeks used a very different system of mathematics than we do. Greek mathematics was built on notions of geometry and proportionality, especially in triangles and ruler-and-compass constructions. There was no room in Greek mathematics for nullity (the number 0), or negative numbers, or irrational numbers (literally, numbers that can't be constructed as a fraction or ratio, though the pejorative "irrational" also comes from a criticism that one is constructing wacky, non-Greek numbers.) There was no room in Greek mathematics for the infinite, or the infinitesimal. Greek mathematics was very limited, and very flawed. Zeno of Elea proposed his paradoxes to highlight some of the consequences of these flaws. Greek math could not handle the scenarios he portrayed. Modern math does not suffer from the same limitations as Greek math, and can handle Zeno's paradoxes easily, as any calculus student knows. The infinite, including infinite regress, is simple to tame.

You've most likely encountered the Kalam Cosmological Argument from William Lane Craig or one of his parrots, but it was formulated by a Muslim attempting to prove the existence of Allah. However, the Kalam Cosmological Argument was itself a minor refinement on the existing plain vanilla Cosmological Argument, codified in ancient Greece by Aristotle. Aristotle employed the logic of Greek mathematics heavily into his reasoning, including his rejection of the infinite in his Cosmological Argument. (He also used proportionality of similar triangles as a justification for aristocracy. The mind boggles.) When he did this, he introduced the same flaws into the Cosmological Argument that Zeno made the world aware of... and those flaws have lingered there ever since. (Nor could Aristotle claim ignorance. He was well aware of Zeno's paradoxes. He included them in one of his works, and while he attempted to refute some of them, he could not refute them all... nor would any refutation have actually been possible in Greek mathematics.)

So, before we go on, let me just make this clear. Whatever trusted source you absorbed this argument from, whoever you believed when they told it to you? Either they concealed from you, or didn't know, or didn't care, or didn't understand, that it has been debunked for over two dozen centuries. Even by the standards of intellectual conservatism, waiting a quarter-myriad of years to notice a criticism is pushing it. When you call on us to hold ourselves to a high standard of evidence (and I dare say that I hold myself to a higher standard than you have provided here), I suggest that you demand that same standard from whoever taught you this never-sufficiently-staked-in-the-heart claptrap.

Now. Moving on to your assertion that we would have existed before? No we wouldn't have. You are assuming that infinite time is enough to overcome infintesimal probability. This is a mathematically invalid argument. In some cases it certainly is, in some cases it can be, and in some cases it definitively isn't. Sometimes infinities cancel and sometimes they don't. I can easilly construct a dry, boring thought-experiment of a random number which has virtually zero probability of being generated (though is technically within the realm of possibility), no matter how many times we run our random number generator. But I'll spare you the math. Suffice to say that you are operating on a naive, intuitive notion of infinity, when there is nothing about infinity that behaves intuitively and it will eat unsuspecting naivety for breakfast.

I ran a bit long there. I've knocked the foundation out of Kalam, but I'll continue redundantly pointing out the further flaws. But as the main task is already done, I'll be brief(er).

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Therefore, it stands to reason that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated that we can call the uncreated Creator that always existed.

And how does this Creator avoid the same problems of infinite regression that you imagine exist for an infinite universe? Again, Kalam hoists itself on its own petard.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  And since the uncreated Creator can't be less than us,

Assertion made without support. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  ... it must have a mind for that which is less than a mind can't cause a mind.

A claim supported by an unsupported assertion. In particular, it utterly ignores models of evolution or even random assemblage... which your notions of infinity would demand becomes certainty with an infinite history. Ignoring alternatives is not acceptable when one wishes to argue that one's hypothesis is true by virtue of being the only possibility.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  A mind is needed to create a mind--with self-awareness and God-consciousness.

Not only unsupported, but undefined.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  And we are personal so the uncreated Creator must be personal for the impersonal can't cause the personal. And as we are accessible so is the uncreated Creator must be accessible as His standards cannot be below our own.

All of this is based on the unsupported assertion that your (unjustified) Creator is like us. Also, you leave "accessibility" undefined.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible with enough adherents to span the globe and not hidden from plain view or difficult to access: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

Why is popularity true? When Christianity didn't have the numbers to span the globe, say, 1800 years ago, did that make it false? If not, why do the small numbers of present cults, or old polytheisms, make them false? What about Judaism? Was it false 2500 years ago? If so, how can Christianity be true? If not, how do you dismiss it as false today? I'll let these criticisms stand as a taste of the flaws here, but to be comprehensive I'd have to walk you through every last religion on the globe. Including Pastafarianism. AND we'd have to consider the possibility that the "true" religion has yet to be revealed to the world at large... just as the Yahweh or whatever you call your god had yet to be revealed to the world at large in the time before Abraham, or make himself accessible, or whatever you call it in your own religion's narrative. Was your god false then and true now? Again, your argument is self defeating. It does not survive its own standards.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But Hinduism is false, because that would be silly for you to come back as a chicken if you were a bad human and never effectively deals with sin by receiving endless chances. And the god of Hinduism, Brahma, is considered impersonal it is said which is below our nature of being personal.

In the Hindu belief system Brahma is father of other gods. How is this impersonal? Also, why would impersonal be below the personal? You have not supported this in the slightest. Why not above impersonal, or to the side?

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later to claim Jesus never even went to the cross, contrary to the scores of evidence, Jesus died on the cross as the most documented person in antiquity who had more sources written about Him than any ten figures combined from antiquity within 150 years of their deaths.

The documents in question are almost incestuously authored. This argument from sheer numbers would be akin to granting legitimacy to the Harry Potter tale from the sheer number of fanfics. For that matter, these documents were selectively preserved in the ages since, and almost certainly most of these would have been lost if not for the observation, confirmation, and selection biases of Christians of later generations. The fact that they were preserved by believers proves only that they believed, not that their beliefs were true.

Also, IIRC correctly, Islam maintains that Jesus APPEARED to have been crucified but instead brought into heaven, which would have been totally consistent with the accounts you name where witnesses were left with the perception that he was, in fact, crucified.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Without knowing anything else, we know, therefore, Christianity must be true.

Any support for this claim in this argument has by now been removed.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  But the proof for Christianity (the 66 books of the Bible proves itself to be true) is the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God as only God can resurrect Himself

.... why is God the only one who can resurrect himself? Where is the support that Jesus resurrected himself, rather than being resurrected by an outside agency? For that matter, by now every sentence of your "proof" of Christianity which you have offered lies debunked, and as that is the basis of your present claims, those claims also lie unsupported.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Since there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the multiple eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, therefore, it must be true they were with Jesus for 40 days after resurrection. Group hallucinations are medically impossible. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. The swoon theory wouldn't convince anyone Jesus is the risen Lord. The only plausible explanation is Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

Gee, you're not even pretending not to plagiarize Craig at this point. But I would suggest, as a plausible alternative explanation, that the documents you earlier mentioned were authored, say, starting 80 years after the supposed resurrection. This would have been outside of living memory of a historical Jesus, if such existed, or outside of understanding that the tale was a fiction, if the tale was fiction. The eyewitness accounts were part of the authoring, or perhaps passed down through less reliable means than written word, and were never genuine, and those who "died for a lie" were not the ones who knew it was a lie. Alternatively, if that is not a plausible explanation in your eyes, the adherents may have believed that the Jesus tale was metaphorical truth, worth dying for, and the nature of the metaphor has since been forgotten.

But even if neither of these scenarios are plausible (and yet, somehow, the highly fantastical notion of a divine manifestation and resurrection is), please answer these two questions for me:

Do the multiple accounts of Elvis reappearing and walking the world, authored decades after his supposed death, prove that The King is resurrected?

Do the multiple people willing to die for Jim Jones prove that Jim Jones's ministry was true?

If these are not proofs of Elvis's resurrection and Jones's honesty, respectively, then your accounts of witnesses and martyrs are similarly insufficient. Any plausible explanation which you might apply to Elvis or Jones, might in turn be applied to Jesus.

Also, since you are attempting to rely on documentation from the era in question (er, from at least half a century after the era in question), could you explain the utter lack of an eclipse, or accounts of the dead walking in Jerusalem, from independent sources? Greek philosophers should have convened on that city en masse at the reports of an unpredicted eclipse and the dead walking. Thousands of competing explanations, in terms of Pagan gods if nothing else, should have been spun out and debated and written up and sent hither and tither across the Roman Empire. Instead... nothing. Utter silence, utter silence from every conceivable witness, save for the accounts in the Bible.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I also believe God is infinitely greater than us so no amount of work or self-improvement can bridge the gap between us and God. We will always fall short and never fully satisfy God's heart. Islam and Hinduism follow this works based faith scheme of self-improvement, and they can never sure if they are saved. Only in Christianity do you find God personally enters His creation to save us when we can't save ourselves, by taking upon Himself the sins of the world to forgive any who would receive Him to be saved and receive eternal life. Instead of us working our way up to God, God condescends Himself for our benefit and pays the penalty in our stead. That is the greatest love ever known!

I just wanted you to know why I believe what I believe, for I don't know how to overturn this evidence, thus, locked into my faith as a Christian for that is the God I gave my life to be kept when I certainly couldn't keep myself saved. God draws all, but sadly many "draw back unto perdition" (Heb. 10.39). "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28)

Now you're just listing beliefs without even an attempt to make it sound deep. Also, Bible quotes aren't persuasive to someone who doesn't believe that the Bible is true, which would cover almost any atheist on this board. So why post them? We're not the choir, so why are you preaching to us as if we are? But if it helps, the "evidence" you don't known how to overturn, has now been overturned for you.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I would only ask that you hold yourself to the highest standard of evidence I have provided here. Don't accept anything less.

Held to, and greatly exceeded. Also, "highest" standard? Didn't you claim at the beginning of all this that you had far greater evidence than what you were sharing? (EDIT: Whoops, you weren't claiming that, noticed that on my reread. Withdrawn.)

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Praise the Lord!

Aaaaaand now you're telling us to do stuff, when not three paragraphs before you said you were just sharing what you believed.

EDIT: Ye gads, that took me how many hours to write? Lookit all the people who replied before I did. This is all probably redundant by now.
2nd EDIT: Fixed a buncha typos and stuff, a few omitted words, nothing major.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like Reltzik's post
20-12-2013, 01:25 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 02:23 AM by BlackMason.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I just wanted you to know what I believe, why I believe it and why I can't change what I believe, because the evidence is too substantial and powerful.

This opening right here says you're an irrational person. You're actually wasting our time with your post since you'll not reconsider your position no matter what. Not a good start but I'll entertain you regardless.

(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  For me there is no debate between atheism and theism, because I know the universe can't come from nothing--that which does not exist--for that which does not exist can't cause anything as it does not exist. So the universe has to come from something.

No, if there is no debate between atheism and theism, it is because theism lacks evidence and is plain ridiculous. Firstly are you familiar with what scientists consider to be nothing? For example evidence for dark matter is being sought. Dark matter is an energy currently imperceivable and would be considered nothing in ordinary language parlance. However there is something there.

Secondly, I've noticed you've used quite a bit of the argument from ignorance fallacy in your post. I'll take the time to point it out where necessary. You can't make the statement that something can't come from nothing. You don't have an example of nothing to examine and run tests on to confirm your statement. I agree that inductive reasoning will lead us to believe that something can't come from nothing (ordinary language parlance meaning), but you can't make an absolute statement out of that. You'll have to reserve a penultimate position for your statement until further notice.

I'm gonna refer to your paragraphs by number because my phone's acting up. Paragraph 3: I don't believe in infinite regress models and I don't agree with your use of the infinite regress. I don't see why a person has to have existed before simply because of infinity. For example why can't we be on the cusp, the very pinnacle of infinity right now? This is a similar idea to how the universe is thought to be continually expanding. Why can't we be existing on the very horizon of that expansion and we simply never existed before? Also your strange idea assumes that humans have existed since the beginning of time. That is crap. Go look at the cambrian explosion and look at estimated timelines where mammalian species started showing up.

I also disagree with your conclusion of people not existing because of the historical infinite regress. To this I say why can't the point at which people came into existence be the critical mass sum total of past events?

"Therefore, it stands to reason that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated that we can call the uncreated Creator that always existed."

False conclusion! Why can't the cause be nature in it's inception?

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 01:26 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I just wanted you to know what I believe, why I believe it and why I can't change what I believe...

For me there is no debate between atheism and theism...

I also believe.....

I just wanted you to know why I believe what I believe...

I would only ask that you hold yourself to the highest standard of evidence......Don't accept anything less.

So I took the opportunity to edit your OP. I figured it might be helpful and polite of me to restructure your arguments with all the known fallacies, baseless assertions, and claims of evidence that ain't actually evidence removed, and false claims to knowledge. I figured this would help you better convey your thoughts and make a dialog slightly more fluid and cordial.

The quote contained in this post is what is left with the above list of problems removed. Now on to the discussion!

What I gather is that you believe something and you want us to know that you believe and why you do, that we should hold claims to extremely high standard of evidence while also providing no evidence at all, let alone to the "high standard" you your self say we should have, for the thing you want us to know you believe.
So my argument to that is.....Yes? Maybe?Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
20-12-2013, 01:31 AM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(19-12-2013 10:14 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I just wanted you to know what I believe, why I believe it and why I can't change what I believe, because the evidence is too substantial and powerful.

For me there is no debate between atheism and theism, because I know the universe can't come from nothing--that which does not exist--for that which does not exist can't cause anything as it does not exist. So the universe has to come from something.

But what is that something? For starters, that something can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress further contradicts itself because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you should have never existed, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point now today.

Therefore, it stands to reason that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated that we can call the uncreated Creator that always existed.

And since the uncreated Creator can't be less than us, it must have a mind for that which is less than a mind can't cause a mind. A mind is needed to create a mind--with self-awareness and God-consciousness. And we are personal so the uncreated Creator must be personal for the impersonal can't cause the personal. And as we are accessible so is the uncreated Creator must be accessible as His standards cannot be below our own. There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible with enough adherents to span the globe and not hidden from plain view or difficult to access: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

But Hinduism is false, because that would be silly for you to come back as a chicken if you were a bad human and never effectively deals with sin by receiving endless chances. And the god of Hinduism, Brahma, is considered impersonal it is said which is below our nature of being personal. Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later to claim Jesus never even went to the cross, contrary to the scores of evidence, Jesus died on the cross as the most documented person in antiquity who had more sources written about Him than any ten figures combined from antiquity within 150 years of their deaths.

Without knowing anything else, we know, therefore, Christianity must be true. But the proof for Christianity (the 66 books of the Bible proves itself to be true) is the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God as only God can resurrect Himself. Since there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the multiple eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, therefore, it must be true they were with Jesus for 40 days after resurrection. Group hallucinations are medically impossible. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. The swoon theory wouldn't convince anyone Jesus is the risen Lord. The only plausible explanation is Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

I also believe God is infinitely greater than us so no amount of work or self-improvement can bridge the gap between us and God. We will always fall short and never fully satisfy God's heart. Islam and Hinduism follow this works based faith scheme of self-improvement, and they can never sure if they are saved. Only in Christianity do you find God personally enters His creation to save us when we can't save ourselves, by taking upon Himself the sins of the world to forgive any who would receive Him to be saved and receive eternal life. Instead of us working our way up to God, God condescends Himself for our benefit and pays the penalty in our stead. That is the greatest love ever known!

I just wanted you to know why I believe what I believe, for I don't know how to overturn this evidence, thus, locked into my faith as a Christian for that is the God I gave my life to be kept when I certainly couldn't keep myself saved. God draws all, but sadly many "draw back unto perdition" (Heb. 10.39). "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28). I would only ask that you hold yourself to the highest standard of evidence I have provided here. Don't accept anything less.

Praise the Lord!
Are you, perchance, William Lane Craig's parrot? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: