With God All Things Are Possible!

[bornagainathiest]

 

What did you think of the explanation? I'm not asking if you agreed with it, but do you think 

I, at least, presented the alternate view well?

Considering the fact that BAA doesn't believe in scientific principles, then I'll help you with your skeptical analysis.

 

Do you believe that if Jesus said that he could cause water to freeze solid without exposing the water to air having a temperature 32 degrees or less that he could cause it to freeze?

 

If you say 'yes' then I would say you definitely have faith.

 

Do you think BAA can prove that water can't freeze unless it is exposed to air temperature of 32 degrees or less.

 

The person claiming to know what I believe about scientific principles doesn't seem to understand that science doesn't prove anything.  (Except in math.)

 

The science of the physical world (i.e., the properties of water) only ever offers the best explanation according to the available evidence.

 

If you say 'yes' then I would say you definitely have faith.

 

 

Awaiting Ironhorse's response to Justus with interest.

 

Btw, Ironhorse, are you going to pick up Justus on his unsubstantiated claim about me or will you just accept it by faith?

[Justus]

(Except in math.)

 

 

 

Btw, Ironhorse, are you going to pick up Justus on his unsubstantiated claim about me or will you just accept it by faith?

No, I proved it by your science "science ... only ever offers the best explanation according to the available evidence."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVUCUvX7hBw

[bornagainathiest]

Sorry Justus,

 

But you totally failed to do that. 

You informed Ironhorse that I don't believe in scientific principles.  But this is a claim of yours that has so far been totally unsupported by any evidence from you.  In this thread we only have your word that I do what you say I do.  Or don't, in this case.

 

Your word doesn't count as evidence about me.  It's hearsay.

So, rather than offering the best explanation according to the available evidence . . .you've offered only your explanation.  Also, if I have actually made a statement to this effect somewhere in Ex-C, then there is available evidence for you to cite.  But you haven't done so in this thread.  Instead, you've asked Ironhorse to accept what you say about me on faith - in the total absence of any cited or quoted evidence.

 

.

.

.

Now, where have I said these things?

 

Cite your evidence.

 

Quote me.

 

Put up or shut up.

[Vigile]

 

 

11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14

 

 

Fail and fail.

 

 

I understand why you think it fails and it does fail if this is used like a blank check to ask for anything

and expect any request to be fulfilled. 

 

It just cannot be read as a magical verse to have all our dreams come true.

 

If I believed that, I would also have to say my Christian faith failed and Jesus lied.

If God had to answer every request he was given in the name of Jesus, the world would be even more chaotic. The film Bruce Almighty gave some examples of how such unlimited power could be used in foolish ways.

"Whatever you ask in my name," Jesus said, "I will do it" (John 14:13).

In my name is the key to understanding what Jesus meant.

The request must be in line with Gods will.

"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." verse 13

 

Even Jesus as he faced the cross made a request that was turned down:

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” John 22:42

 

 

Translation: In order to protect my fragile faith, the words can't mean what they actually mean. Betcha like pretzels, huh? 

[Lycorth]

If this is the correct interpretation, then the Christian faith is not true. 

 

I agree on both counts.

 

I remember doing insane mental gymnastics like those. 

[rjn]

 

If this is the correct interpretation, then the Christian faith is not true. 

 

I agree on both counts.

 

I remember doing insane mental gymnastics like those. 

 

 

Yes, that seems to be a recurring thing.

 

Guys, just admit that your faith is just that: faith. I've yet to come across any apologetics that actually makes any sense and that does not require insane amounts of mental gymnastics. And you know what? If you have faith, and are happy with your religion, good for you!

 

By the way Lycorth: love your signature! In Old Norse/Icelandic, I think that part is condensed in a saying that goes something like this "Ek trui a matt minn ok megin".

[disillusioned]

Considering the fact that BAA doesn't believe in scientific principles...

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on these boards who thinks that.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Considering the fact that BAA doesn't believe in scientific principles...

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on these boards who thinks that.

 

 

Why don't you ask Justus just what these 'scientific principles' are, Disillusioned?

 

The ones I'm not supposed to believe in.

 

You could be surprised by his answer.

[disillusioned]

Why don't you ask Justus just what these 'scientific principles' are, Disillusioned?

 

The ones I'm not supposed to believe in.

 

You could be surprised by his answer.

 

Care to weigh in Justus?

[♦ ficino ♦]

I understand why you think it fails and it does fail if this is used like a blank check to ask for anything

and expect any request to be fulfilled. 

 

It just cannot be read as a magical verse to have all our dreams come true.

 

If I believed that, I would also have to say my Christian faith failed and Jesus lied.

If God had to answer every request he was given in the name of Jesus, the world would be even more chaotic.

IH, your Christian faith fails, and the words put into the mouth of the Jesus character are lies.

 

Our Christian bro, Rod, was found to have advanced cancer. EVERYONE labored in prayer, even little children, that he would be healed..

 

Rod died anyway. In contravention of express promises in the mouth of the Jesus character.

 

That was when Toto pulled the curtain away to expose the old man fiddling with the controls. But the old ballonist's influence was strong, and I went along for a while, paying no attention to him at the controls and still bowing down before the image of the mighty wizard.

 

Eventually the joke went far enough, and I saw the smoke and mirrors for what they were.

 

You know what helped? Realizing that my experiences only are instances among countless instances of what must be pronounced as divine injustice, if Bible God exists. One can only for so long continue to adjust word meanings to save the inerrancy thesis about a collection of old writings.

[disillusioned]

 

I understand why you think it fails and it does fail if this is used like a blank check to ask for anything

and expect any request to be fulfilled. 

 

It just cannot be read as a magical verse to have all our dreams come true.

 

If I believed that, I would also have to say my Christian faith failed and Jesus lied.

If God had to answer every request he was given in the name of Jesus, the world would be even more chaotic.

IH, your Christian faith fails, and the words put into the mouth of the Jesus character are lies.

 

Our Christian bro, Rod, was found to have advanced cancer. EVERYONE labored in prayer, even little children, that he would be healed..

 

Rod died anyway. In contravention of express promises in the mouth of the Jesus character.

 

That was when Toto pulled the curtain away to expose the old man fiddling with the controls. But the old ballonist's influence was strong, and I went along for a while, paying no attention to him at the controls and still bowing down before the image of the mighty wizard.

 

Eventually the joke went far enough, and I saw the smoke and mirrors for what they were.

 

You know what helped? Realizing that my experiences only are instances among countless instances of what must be pronounced as divine injustice, if Bible God exists. One can only for so long continue to adjust word meanings to save the inerrancy thesis about a collection of old writings.

 

 

But IH believes. And something about Bono.

[sdelsolray]

I think a more telling observation about Ironhorse's posts in this thread is the methodology he uses.  As is quite common with theists, he starts with his conclusion and unassailable assumptions (i.e., his religious faith) and attempts to justify them with a variety of techniques, such as "interpreting" Biblical passages by adding words and speculative explanations to them, ignoring empirical evidence which contradicts them, relying on the apologetics of others and ignoring/accepting their frequent lies, misrepresentations and fallacies (e.g., the one he references above in Post #7), ignoring others' questions, etc. 

 

This methodology is the exact opposite of skeptical and critical thinking, where conclusions are reached last, not first.  I simply doubt Ironhorse has ever skeptically analyzed his religious faith.  I don't think he has the intellectual training, skills, honesty or emotional fortitude to employ skepticism or critical thinking concerning his religion.  His claims otherwise are likely based on his ignorance of how skepticism and critical thinking are employed, or are perhaps intentional lies.  Religious indoctrination since birth can and often does stunt intellect, curiosity and internal honesty for life.

 

To drill down a bit deeper, here is a short deconstruction of the apologetics copied and pasted by Ironhorse inPost #7 above.

 

 

Selected from: 

http://www.apologeti...11&article=1240

 

Both Christians and atheists generally have assumed that if the God depicted in the Bible exists, He can do anything—since He is represented as being all-powerful. However, this assumption is incorrect. The Bible does not claim that the omnipotence of God implies that He can do anything and everything. In reality, “omnipotence” does not, and cannot, apply to that which does not lend itself to power. Skeptics and atheists have posed queries that they feel nullify the notion of omnipotence, thereby demonstrating the nonexistence of God. For example, “Can God create a boulder so large that He, Himself, cannot lift it?”

 

This apologist avoids the simple fact that he wishes to redefine the term "omnipotence" to suit his own needs.  Instead, he attempts to lecture the reader with a non-sequitur (that the Bible does not imply that the Christian sky fairy can do anything and everything), he ignores other evidence to the contrary (Biblical passages which say otherwise), raises metaphysical nonsense (omnipotence cannot apply unless power is involved) and invokes a strawman fallacy (that atheists use the lack of omnipotence in this entity to claim it does not exist (all atheists say is that a lack of omnipotence means an omnipotent god does not exist). 

 

 

 

Separate and apart from the fact that God is not, Himself, physical, and that He created the entire physical Universe, though He is metaphysical and transcendent of the Universe, the question is a conceptual absurdity. It’s like asking, “Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?” No, He cannot—but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He does not exist or that He is not omnipotent. Rather, it is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology.

 

This starts with mere assertions (that the apologist's god is not physical, he created the entire universe, is metaphysical and trancendental) and then launches into a non-sequitur that therefore the original question is a "conceptual absurdity".  Cute.  This is followed by a failed analogy (round square, 4-sided triangle), which are simply examples of words which have definite definitions not in dispute and which anyone would agree are nonsense items.  Again, this analogy fails.  Then he raises and attacks the strawman he created in the first paragraph above (that atheists say that if the Christian God is not omnipotent he therefore does not exist (which is not what atheists say)).  He concludes with the same non-sequitur put forth in the first sentence of this his paragraph.

 

 

 

Rather than saying God cannot do such things, it would be more in harmony with the truth to say simply that such things cannot be done at all! God is infinite in power, but power meaningfully relates only to what can be done, to what is possible of accomplishment—not to what is impossible! It is absurd to speak of any power (even infinite power) being able to do what simply cannot be done. Logical absurdities do not lend themselves to being accomplished, and so, are not subject to power, not even to infinite power.

 

Note the "in harmony with the truth" claim.  That's funny.  There is no difference between not being able to do something and something that cannot be done.  Again, this apologist is simply attempting to define "omnipotence" for his own needs as "being able to do anything except when you can't" instead of "being able to do anything".  Good for him.  His attempt to embellish this with window dressings of "logical absurdities" and "infinite power" doesn't change things.

 

So, this apologist, and presumably to Ironhorse (he often lives through the words of others), have a special definition for the term "omnipotence" that is different than the standard definition of that word.  Whipitty Do.

[bornagainathiest]

Perhaps in the new thread Ironhorse proposes to start, he'll present the two (2) skeptical appraisals he's made of his faith to us... in chronological order?

 

Firstly, the one he'd spent years compiling... which he first informed us about last summer.

 

And which I've been patiently and repeatedly asking him to show us.

 

Then, the one he referred to two days ago (post # 22) which he is currently working on.

 

Which he has yet to show us.

.

.

.

Though, I can't quite see the logic of starting another skeptical appraisal, if he's already got one to hand?  

.

.

. 

Or if sdelsolray is on target, neither appraisal will be skeptical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Justus]

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on these boards who thinks that.

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on these boards who thinks that.

 

Maybe you are right but I can only go by what the man says.

 

For one, in earlier conversations BAA has refuted the validity of Thomas Paine’s quote, “Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed.” Thus no legitimate science is based upon merely a hypothesis or beliefs but rather on established and accepted scientific principles, (in Paine’s writings he goes a much better job of explaining this than I could in this brief response.)

 

Second, in his post he makes the comment “The science of the physical world (i.e., the properties of water) only ever offers the best explanation according to the available evidence.” Obviously he again refutes scientific principles since they prove what will happen or won’t happen, not what might happen. .

But then again, my statement was “Do you think BAA can prove that water can't freeze unless it is exposed to air temperature of 32 degrees or less. If you say 'yes' then I would say you definitely have faith.” And in such, BAA responded “The person claiming to know what I believe about scientific principles doesn't seem to understand that science doesn't prove anything.”

 

Personally it is clear that BAA doesn’t believe in scientific principles, but you can believe whatever you choice as well. But I would submit that:

1. It is also a known and observed fact that a water molecule (H²0) on earth exists in one of three states, solid, liquid or gas.
2.  It is also a known and observed fact that a water molecule in the liquid state changes into a solid state at 32 degrees (F).

• Thus, based upon these two facts the principle is formed which holds each and every time, without exception, that a water molecule will freeze, or rather convert from a liquid state into to a solid state at 32 degrees (F).

Thus a legitimate scientific principle will always hold true from the beginning of the physical world, just as it will be found to be true today, as it will also be true in this physical world today.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Go get him, Disillusioned!

[Justus]

Why don't you ask Justus just what these 'scientific principles' are, Disillusioned?

 

The ones I'm not supposed to believe in.

 

You could be surprised by his answer.

Then why don't you answer the question posed in my comment to Ironhouse. Or better yet just answer the direct question of whether or not you believe scientific principles can definitely prove whether something is true or not?

[sdelsolray]

Justus "I Derail Threads for a Living" speaks.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Why don't you ask Justus just what these 'scientific principles' are, Disillusioned?

 

The ones I'm not supposed to believe in.

 

You could be surprised by his answer.

Then why don't you answer the question posed in my comment to Ironhouse. Or better yet just answer the direct question of whether or not you believe scientific principles can definitely prove whether something is true or not?

 

 

Why, Justus?

 

Because I have chronological precedence over you.  That's why.

You still haven't answered the question I put to you in # 28.  Your comments to Ironhorse in #24 were addressed to Ironhorse and not me.  

I won't be answering your latest question until I see you you respond to my outstanding one in #28, either with a citation/quotation or with a retraction of your claim about me.

 

You repeated the same claim about me in #39, also without evidence to back it up.

 

Evidence to support the claims you've made about me...or a retraction, please!

[Justus]

 

Go get him, Disillusioned!

Ipso facto

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Why don't you ask Justus just what these 'scientific principles' are, Disillusioned?

 

The ones I'm not supposed to believe in.

 

You could be surprised by his answer.

Then why don't you answer the question posed in my comment to Ironhouse. Or better yet just answer the direct question of whether or not you believe scientific principles can definitely prove whether something is true or not?

 

 

Why, Justus?

 

Because I have chronological precedence over you.  That's why.

You still haven't answered the question I put to you in # 28.  Your comments to Ironhorse in #24 were addressed to Ironhorse and not me.  

I won't be answering your latest question until I see you you respond to my outstanding one in #28, either with a citation/quotation or with a retraction of your claim about me.

 

You repeated the same claim about me in #39, also without evidence to back it up.

 

Evidence to support the claims you've made about me...or a retraction, please!

 

 

Bumped for your attention, Justus.

[Justus]

Bumped for your attention, Justus.

That is the same excuse you use every time.

 

Then again, you response satisfies the statement I made to Ironhouse, if he thought you could prove anything then he obviously has faith.

[duderonomy]

If we're assuming Biblegod, and all things means all things,what do you think, Justus? Are all things possible with God? 

 

So far, the Bible says yes, and our friend Ironhorse says no. What do you say?

[mymistake]

I'm still waiting for Ironhorse to admit that yes, according to Ironhorse's apologetics, I am just as all-powerful as God.

 

 

 

 

(It's true the other way as well because I wrote a story in which I created a whole universe using only my words.  I would have to be all-powerful if I can create a universe in a story.)

[Justus]

Yet

If we're assuming Biblegod, and all things means all things,what do you think, Justus? Are all things possible with God? 
 
So far, the Bible says yes, and our friend Ironhorse says no. What do you say?

If one has faith in the Word, then if all things are possible with God then one must conclude that it must be possible that all things are not possible with God, or else all things would not be possible with God.

Jesus said unto him, If thou can't believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. Mark 9:23

As written in Proverbs 14:15: The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Hebrews 6:18


 

[duderonomy]

Yet

If we're assuming Biblegod, and all things means all things,what do you think, Justus? Are all things possible with God? 

 

So far, the Bible says yes, and our friend Ironhorse says no. What do you say?

If one has faith in the Word, then if all things are possible with God then one must conclude that it must be possible that all things are not possible with God, or else all things would not be possible with God.

 

Jesus said unto him, If thou can't believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. Mark 9:23

 

As written in Proverbs 14:15: The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

 

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Hebrews 6:18

 

 

 

 

Do you think there are things Biblegod cannot do?

 

Do you think Biblegod set things up this way, and thereby limited himself?