Why It's Hard To Debate With Christians.

[♦ ficino ♦]

In other words, you have no answer to the glaring problems throughout the whole subject.

 

As far as the scientific proof of God's existence, I would not show it on internet. You'd have to be a personal friend.

 

So, only your personal friends are worthy of genuine evidence? The very thing that could prove to us that we're wrong, you refuse to share? Sounds rather suspicious, I must say.

 

If it's a scientific proof and not apologetics to make already-convinced Christians (your personal friends?) feel better about their beliefs, then you should have no hesitation to work it up into publishable form and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal or deliver it as a paper at a SCHOLARLY (not a Christian) conference. If you're worried that someone will steal your intellectual property and pass off your proof as his/her own work, fair enough, I have had the same hesitations about things I've come up with in other domains. Since you deem people on this site to be merely science readers and not real scientists like you, you may not think BAA or anyone else here could understand your conclusions, but you should at least have the courtesy to direct us to the refereed venue in which your conclusions appear or will appear. Or, you could take the risk and throw them out here anyway. A scientific argument can be analyzed, no matter whether its author is a believer or not. Or you could PM them to a few people, so that onlookers don't steal your work.

[jackbauer]

I just thought of another thing. When a Christian (or any religious fanatic) states their opinion, they are speaking as if they have God's truth. Disagreeing with them = disagreeing with God. But to the skeptic, they are just stating their opinion on what God wants. They aren't any more right than anyone else who claims to have the "truth".

 

That also makes it hard for them to understand that we see Christianity as divided and confusing. The word of God is misinterpreted and many Christians are fighting with each other. However, since they have "the truth", they'll dismiss the other Christians as not truely Christian. In reality, their word is as good as anyone elses.

[JayL]

We're waiting for your scientific proof of God's existence, your response to Citsonga's list, your criteria for identifying a true Christian...

 

 

The criteria for a true Christian has already been answered in another board:

 

 

Romans 10:9 (NIV)

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

 

So there are 2 conditions. 1. "Believe in your heart that Jesus Christ has resurrected." This is not just mental assent but this should be the deepest conviction within your heart based on Biblical facts and personal revelations. That conviction leads you to the second condition.

2. "Declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord'." That is, confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is God the Son and He is above you. He fully deserves your obedience and loyalty.

 

 

If you meet these 2 conditions, you are a Christian. Otherwise, you are just a seeker or a church goer.

 

By this, then, you cannot say that I was not a Christian, since that was me to a T.

 

 

 

Really?? I AM impressed.

[JayL]

In other words, you have no answer to the glaring problems throughout the whole subject.

 

As far as the scientific proof of God's existence, I would not show it on internet. You'd have to be a personal friend.

 

So, only your personal friends are worthy of genuine evidence? The very thing that could prove to us that we're wrong, you refuse to share? Sounds rather suspicious, I must say.

 

If it's a scientific proof and not apologetics to make already-convinced Christians (your personal friends?) feel better about their beliefs, then you should have no hesitation to work it up into publishable form and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal or deliver it as a paper at a SCHOLARLY (not a Christian) conference. If you're worried that someone will steal your intellectual property and pass off your proof as his/her own work, fair enough, I have had the same hesitations about things I've come up with in other domains. Since you deem people on this site to be merely science readers and not real scientists like you, you may not think BAA or anyone else here could understand your conclusions, but you should at least have the courtesy to direct us to the refereed venue in which your conclusions appear or will appear. Or, you could take the risk and throw them out here anyway. A scientific argument can be analyzed, no matter whether its author is a believer or not. Or you could PM them to a few people, so that onlookers don't steal your work.

 

 

Thank you so much for your constructive comment. You are the kind of person I want to meet and talk about my scientific proof.

 

( But I will not throw it out here. )

[JayL]

Hello Jay, Citsonga and Centauri have already said what I would have said in response to your two criteria for a true Christian. I'll add that your criteria fit me, too - I believed with my whole heart, as far as I can say anything about "whole hearts" (see below), that Jesus was God, rose from the dead, was my personal savior and Lord. You left out many other criteria, as C. pointed out. You also slipped in later Christian doctrinal criteria, as Centauri pointed out, for "son of God" is a term that claims far less than the term you used, "God the Son." Paul does not say that belief in the divinity of Christ is a condition for salvation, but you added that. It's fine if you're going to go with historic Christian creeds as tests of orthodoxy, and therefore, of who can be saved, but then you need to go the whole hog and consider whether you are orthodox, and by what historical standard.

 

 

I am humbled by your thoughtful comments. I come here on sundry times - mainly for amusing banters and so on. But I do respect your intellect and honest intention.

 

Now I am a bit scared. If someone like you can become an atheist... Hmmm.. I will remember your name and will try to be serious.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[Thackerie]

... As far as the scientific proof of God's existence, I would not show it on internet. You'd have to be a personal friend.

 

So, you have the evidence to convince all of us to reconvert and thereby save us from an eternity of suffering but you're withholding it? I don't think Jesus would be pleased.

[stryper]

... As far as the scientific proof of God's existence, I would not show it on internet. You'd have to be a personal friend.

 

So, you have the evidence to convince all of us to reconvert and thereby save us from an eternity of suffering but you're withholding it? I don't think Jesus would be pleased.

 

Agreed and very penisy move.

 

However, unsurprising.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thank you so much for your constructive comment. You are the kind of person I want to meet and talk about my scientific proof.

 

( But I will not throw it out here. )

 

Thanks for yours. If you have a scientific proof of God's existence, that's HUGE! How can you sit on it? Dude, that's like the guys who sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls for generations. In the spirit of Socrates with Parmenides, I'd urge you to try it out on the toughest critics you can find, to see whether it holds up. What matters is whether it's conclusions are true, not who says it (of course that matters for its author's receiving credit!). I'd offer to see it but I only managed to struggle through first-semester calc and physics.

[JayL]

Thank you so much for your constructive comment. You are the kind of person I want to meet and talk about my scientific proof.

 

( But I will not throw it out here. )

 

Thanks for yours. If you have a scientific proof of God's existence, that's HUGE! How can you sit on it? Dude, that's like the guys who sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls for generations. In the spirit of Socrates with Parmenides, I'd urge you to try it out on the toughest critics you can find, to see whether it holds up. What matters is whether it's conclusions are true, not who says it (of course that matters for its author's receiving credit!). I'd offer to see it but I only managed to struggle through first-semester calc and physics.

 

 

Well, of course, it may not be that good when looked at under super critical lights. I haven shown it personally to 2 PhD's and one MD - all my personal friends. They were quite impressed, even stunned that such an argument could be made. Personally I have benefited from it because it really affected my own faith life. Having been trained in physics and mathematics, I needed something like this.

 

But is it really that great? Well, I am not Roger Penrose....

[♦ ficino ♦]

I understand your hesitation. I also appreciate your seriously-meant comments, like your God is love comment just now on another thread, and the banter can liven things up. But don't you see that part of the reason why you are seen as a troll is things like this with your proof? You boast of having formulated something that, if it's what you say it is, would really shake up the intellectual world. You refer to yourself as doing science when other people like BAA only are "readers of science." Yet, you don't formulate a real argument. You give some links to websites or throw in a few bible verses and otherwise content yourself with assertions. So the overall impression is that your main purpose is indeed, as you say above, to have amusing banter. Isn't that the definition of a troll - someone who comes onto a site and pulls people's strings with opposing opinions but doesn't really engage the issues?

 

You've made it clear that you have had deep experiences and that you put your faith in God's love and in going to heaven. It's cool that your way enhances your life. For most of "us" on here (i.e. the ex christians), our way enhances our life, and we've practiced your way very seriously and for some time. We find our life much better than the old life in the christian belief system. If you have a real proof of God's existence, then it would make a difference to the world. David "served his generation." Yours...? So far, since you only showed it to three personal friends, I'm left to suspect that your proof is not a "scientific proof" in the standard sense of that term. But I don't have the background to evaluate it.

[Spectrox]

Thank you so much for your constructive comment. You are the kind of person I want to meet and talk about my scientific proof.

 

( But I will not throw it out here. )

 

Thanks for yours. If you have a scientific proof of God's existence, that's HUGE! How can you sit on it? Dude, that's like the guys who sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls for generations. In the spirit of Socrates with Parmenides, I'd urge you to try it out on the toughest critics you can find, to see whether it holds up. What matters is whether it's conclusions are true, not who says it (of course that matters for its author's receiving credit!). I'd offer to see it but I only managed to struggle through first-semester calc and physics.

 

 

Well, of course, it may not be that good when looked at under super critical lights. I haven shown it personally to 2 PhD's and one MD - all my personal friends. They were quite impressed, even stunned that such an argument could be made. Personally I have benefited from it because it really affected my own faith life. Having been trained in physics and mathematics, I needed something like this.

 

But is it really that great? Well, I am not Roger Penrose....

 

A scientific proof of God!? Maybe Jay L has succeeded where thousands of others have failed? Do I smell a Nobel prize coming his way?

 

Mind you, proof denies faith - some Xians won't be too happy.

 

Does this "proof" have any evidence or data from the real world or is it purely deductive reasoning?

 

 

In terms of being saved by "believing in your heart that Jesus is resurrected." What does this really mean? I don't believe stuff in my heart. My heart pumps blood. If this is an appeal to emotion, then it also fails. I can only believe what my mind accepts is true.

How do we determine the truth of any claim?

 

Let us examine the following claims:

1. Atoms and gravity exist.

2. Pluto orbits the earth every 248 years (even though we've only known of its existence since 1930).

3. Man has landed on the Moon.

4. Socrates existed.

5. Robin Hood existed.

6. Big Foot exists.

7. Alien abduction is real.

8. Stage magicians don't use tricks. They use real magic.

9. Every Xmas a jolly fat man flies around in a sleigh driven by flying reindeer and delivers presents to children across the world in a matter of hours.

10. 2000 years ago a man died for a weekend and then resurrected himself. At some later point he flew up into the sky.

 

Why should I believe claim 10 when I have good reasons for rejecting claims 5 to 9? Even claim 4 I'm not convinced about.

[Thought2Much]

Spectrox, as far as I know, claim number 2 is also demonstrably false, unless we're going back to geocentrism.

[Spectrox]

Spectrox, as far as I know, claim number 2 is also demonstrably false, unless we're going back to geocentrism.

 

Shit! What a blunder!

 

Well spotted!

 

Those claims again:

 

1. Atoms and gravity exist.

2. Pluto orbits the sun every 248 years (even though we've only known of its existence since 1930).

3. Man has landed on the Moon.

4. Socrates existed.

5. Robin Hood existed.

6. Big Foot exists.

7. Alien abduction is real.

8. Stage magicians don't use tricks. They use real magic.

9. Every Xmas a jolly fat man flies around in a sleigh driven by flying reindeer and delivers presents to children across the world in a matter of hours.

10. 2000 years ago a man died for a weekend and then resurrected himself. At some later point he flew up into the sky.

 

You see. Unlike the Bible I can self-correct when there's an obvious gaff.

 

A christian answer would have been something like "Well the earth orbits the sun and is closer to the sun than Pluto, so in a sense Pluto orbits (travels around) the earth!"

[LivingLife]

If JL ha this immutable proof *laughs in sleeve* he obviously want to do the xian thing and make some wholesome dolloros off the concept just like any other snake oil salesman. Hmmm, freely ye have received, freely give

 

If he put it out there as an immutable proof, the sceptics will tear it to pieces so best release it as a book where it is safe from the refutations of real scientists.

 

Any gullible fool's $$$$ will do....

[bdp]

I haven shown it personally to 2 PhD's and one MD - all my personal friends. They were quite impressed, even stunned that such an argument could be made.

 

bullshit. I'm saying it outright - you're a goddamned liar. I can believe though that three people constitute all your personal friends.

[Guest Valk0010]

Thank you so much for your constructive comment. You are the kind of person I want to meet and talk about my scientific proof.

 

( But I will not throw it out here. )

 

Thanks for yours. If you have a scientific proof of God's existence, that's HUGE! How can you sit on it? Dude, that's like the guys who sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls for generations. In the spirit of Socrates with Parmenides, I'd urge you to try it out on the toughest critics you can find, to see whether it holds up. What matters is whether it's conclusions are true, not who says it (of course that matters for its author's receiving credit!). I'd offer to see it but I only managed to struggle through first-semester calc and physics.

 

 

Well, of course, it may not be that good when looked at under super critical lights. I haven shown it personally to 2 PhD's and one MD - all my personal friends. They were quite impressed, even stunned that such an argument could be made. Personally I have benefited from it because it really affected my own faith life. Having been trained in physics and mathematics, I needed something like this.

 

But is it really that great? Well, I am not Roger Penrose....

When, spew it, if not I am going to call bullshit to given reason otherwise. BTW, it has to prove THEISM, if all you get is deism out of it, I am not interested.

[bdp]

I am not Roger Penrose....

 

 

You're not even who you say you are.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Well, of course, it may not be that good when looked at under super critical lights. I haven shown it personally to 2 PhD's and one MD - all my personal friends. They were quite impressed, even stunned that such an argument could be made. Personally I have benefited from it because it really affected my own faith life. Having been trained in physics and mathematics, I needed something like this.

 

But is it really that great? Well, I am not Roger Penrose....

When, spew it, if not I am going to call bullshit to given reason otherwise. BTW, it has to prove THEISM, if all you get is deism out of it, I am not interested.

 

This is one of the problems with so many Christian arguments. They seem to think that if they can prove that there has to be a deity, then that automatically proves the Christian God. Nothing could be further from the truth, though. Whether or not some sort of deity extists is still up in the air for me (I kind of doubt it, but I'm open to the possibility), but the Christian God is absolutely 100% fiction (this I do not doubt).

 

I find it interesting that after I showed JayL in great detail (in another thread) that the resurrection accounts are hopelessly contradictory and the NT's alleged prophetic fulfillments were fabricated by taking OT texts completely out of context, thus proving that the Bible is completely unreliable as a source of information, JayL seems to have the issue on ignore. He was seriously "pwned," yet he wants to pretend that all is well in his worldview. This does not display the sort of critical thinking ability that would be expected of a scientist with iron-clad evidence that can shake the world.

[Guest Valk0010]

Well, of course, it may not be that good when looked at under super critical lights. I haven shown it personally to 2 PhD's and one MD - all my personal friends. They were quite impressed, even stunned that such an argument could be made. Personally I have benefited from it because it really affected my own faith life. Having been trained in physics and mathematics, I needed something like this.

 

But is it really that great? Well, I am not Roger Penrose....

When, spew it, if not I am going to call bullshit to given reason otherwise. BTW, it has to prove THEISM, if all you get is deism out of it, I am not interested.

 

This is one of the problems with so many Christian arguments. They seem to think that if they can prove that there has to be a deity, then that automatically proves the Christian God. Nothing could be further from the truth, though. Whether or not some sort of deity extists is still up in the air for me (I kind of doubt it, but I'm open to the possibility), but the Christian God is absolutely 100% fiction (this I do not doubt).

 

I find it interesting that after I showed JayL in great detail (in another thread) that the resurrection accounts are hopelessly contradictory and the NT's alleged prophetic fulfillments were fabricated by taking OT texts completely out of context, thus proving that the Bible is completely unreliable as a source of information, JayL seems to have the issue on ignore. He was seriously "pwned," yet he wants to pretend that all is well in his worldview. This does not display the sort of critical thinking ability that would be expected of a scientist with iron-clad evidence that can shake the world.

I usually avoid active participation in NT scholarship threads, because I am just not superduper knowledgable about them. But yeah...I often think about what I have learned about the bible and the concepts of it, like theodicy and wonder, how the hell could anybody believe this crap unless they just didn't care about what is true. I got that impression about Jay when I first got here and he said that the christian god wasn't all powerful.

[centauri]

This is one of the problems with so many Christian arguments. They seem to think that if they can prove that there has to be a deity, then that automatically proves the Christian God. Nothing could be further from the truth, though. Whether or not some sort of deity extists is still up in the air for me (I kind of doubt it, but I'm open to the possibility), but the Christian God is absolutely 100% fiction (this I do not doubt).

Yes, this is a pattern we've seen over and over again.

They assume their version of "God" must be the only one allowed to exist.

Considering how they've kidnapped the Hebrew deity and morphed it into a "Trinity", I find their theological "proofs" to be both self-serving and pompous.

 

I find it interesting that after I showed JayL in great detail (in another thread) that the resurrection accounts are hopelessly contradictory and the NT's alleged prophetic fulfillments were fabricated by taking OT texts completely out of context, thus proving that the Bible is completely unreliable as a source of information, JayL seems to have the issue on ignore.

That's another recurring pattern exhibited by the traveling internet preachers that visit this forum.

You'll likely be told that if you don't have a Holy Spirit decoder ring, you aren't qualified to hold them accountable for their claims.

It's a wonderfully airtight world they live in.

[Xerces]

Yes, he did cry out to God, ' My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?? ' He said it because that was his condition on the cross at the time. He really was forsaken by God. But he did not lose his trust in God. Far from it. After that anguished cry, he stated, 'Father, into your hands, I commit my spirit.'.

 

Hey look a bible lesson! It isn't as if most of here were christians for fucking years. Thank you Jay you're SO INSIGHTFUL AND INFORMATIVE.

[CDFree]

So are you not going to share with us JayL, don't you want us to be saved?

[★ Citsonga ★]

So are you not going to share with us JayL, don't you want us to be saved?

 

Looks like he doesn't really believe in the Great Commission.

[CDFree]

All Christians are the same, full of hot air, run away when challenged!

[mcdaddy]

Don't feed the troll. if you think he actually has something, you're as insane as he is.