HymenaeusAlexander Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Ben, they seem to be tiring of your rhetoric. Redeem yourself quickly!!! Hold up now. We’ve seen the cosmological argument, the moral argument, the fine-tuning argument, the EAAN, the argument from miracles, die for a lie, argument from sensus divinitatis, argument from holy scripture (ad nauseum), and argument from admired yet unnamed scholars. He’s already admitted that argument from personal testimony is out, so by my count that still leaves a transcendental argument, an ontological argument and Pascal’s Wager. So we’ve still got at least three to go here Also, I really think it's only fair to wait and see if he gets to page 7 and at least attempts to answer Bhim and ficino. They've waited so patiently. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I am a sinner who deserves God's wrath. That pretty well sums up what christian brainwashing is all about. He's up to his ears in it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 26, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2013 At this point, nobody is seriously expecting answers. So, he should still have the text squirreled away for three more classic "arguments" we've heard a thousand times....why not! Pascal is my favorite, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 It is hard to distinguish between a troll and a real believer since their activities are pretty much identical but no matter, all of the Ex-C's here have provided a wonderful service refuting scripture so, in case he is a real believer he will go away with some food for thought. As an aside, I've always favored a result-based definition of trolling over an intent-based definition. It's difficult to deduce intent from mere words on the screen but results are usually clear. Well, after a while even those with noble intent just become irritating trolls if their view is not accepted yet they relentlessly spew their opinions that go against the general philosophy of the website. But the Lion's Den encourages Christians to come here and give it their best shot. We can always just refuse to feed the troll, can't we? Ha ha. Of course we can't! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 2) Jesus makes no claim to provide history with undeniable proof, but makes it clear that people will deny it. If there were undeniable proof that Christ was the savior of the world, it would make him a liar and not the savior of the world. If there were undeniable proof that 2 + 2 = 4 then 2 + 2 would not equal 4. Illogical! Illogical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 So you are for predestination? I don't get it at all. I am glad I don't have to understand this convoluted mess anymore. I am not "for" predestination like one roots for a football team, rather the Bible teaches that God predestines everyone to salvation through Jesus' work on the cross. Every sin has already been paid for in full. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.(1Jn2) I guess you think ole Jeff will get some kind of punishment, but we have the "righteousness of Christ" whatever that means. It is all complete baloney. Makes no sense whatsoever. When Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison, he was a baptized believer who trusted in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins. Jesus carried Dahmer's sins to the cross. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.(2Cor5) In Christ, Jeffrey Dahmer is my brother, and the righteousness of God. Fuck Dahmer. He was a homicidal cannibal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I am a sinner who deserves God's wrath. If you think you're a loser, then you're a loser. If you think you're a winner, then you're a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 it's pretty predictable really.. as soon as we show our knowledge base or logical ability... they run for the hills. Christian are under the fallacious assumption that exes are either ignorant of scripture or debased and immoral. when we show we are neither... they run for the hills. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 http://www.yuksrus.com/celebs_jeffery_dahmer.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 it's pretty predictable really.. as soon as we show our knowledge base or logical ability... they run for the hills. Christian are under the fallacious assumption that exes are either ignorant of scripture or debased and immoral. when we show we are neither... they run for the hills. I guess the argument I used against BB a while back about how it's in my best interest not to hurt others, when he insisted that it was in my best interest to hurt others, was probably frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 HA, many thanks for your comments on EAAN in #274, which I snip to save space. I think I agree that probably the best we can hope for is beliefs that stand up under repeated testing and are consistent with the other beliefs in our belief set. We get into a lot of tortured discussions partly because there is more than one sense in which people speak of knowing things, or at least, people use "know" in a range of contexts over which the degree of certainty attributed to the knower is not constant. If God does not reveal, we do not know anything. But we know things. Therefore God reveals. Something like the above is your standardization of TAG etc. as consequentialist arguments, no? Lots of room for maneuver around premise 2. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 " I am a sinner who deserves God's wrath." If intellectual dishonesty is a sin, then your'e right, you are a sinner. bill 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymenaeusAlexander Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 HA, many thanks for your comments on EAAN in #274, which I snip to save space. I think I agree that probably the best we can hope for is beliefs that stand up under repeated testing and are consistent with the other beliefs in our belief set. We get into a lot of tortured discussions partly because there is more than one sense in which people speak of knowing things, or at least, people use "know" in a range of contexts over which the degree of certainty attributed to the knower is not constant. If God does not reveal, we do not know anything. But we know things. Therefore God reveals. Something like the above is your standardization of TAG etc. as consequentialist arguments, no? Lots of room for maneuver around premise 2. Yep. Much of that tortured discussion seems to occur when the definition of "know" being used in premise 1 is different from the one being used in premise 2. Perhaps our faculties may not always lead us to true beliefs, but there is much evidence to suggest that when certain tried and true methods are employed, we at least appear to become less wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I remember reading in Augustine years ago, forget which of his many works, that the unbeliever has "faith" just as much as the Christian. For example, the unbeliever exercises 'faith' when sitting down upon a chair, that the chair won't collapse. for starters, huge equivocation on "faith" then there's the falsifiability of our beliefs in the domain of sitting on chairs, esp. on any particular chair, vs. the unfalsifiability of our beliefs in the domain of Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymenaeusAlexander Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 then there's the falsifiability of our beliefs in the domain of sitting on chairs, esp. on any particular chair, vs. the unfalsifiability of our beliefs in the domain of Christianity When they move from trying to pass off those unfalsifiable beliefs as equal in value to falsifiable ones and then begin claiming that their circular arguments are just as problematic as induction, they go from being not even wrong to being wronger than wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 then there's the falsifiability of our beliefs in the domain of sitting on chairs, esp. on any particular chair, vs. the unfalsifiability of our beliefs in the domain of Christianity When they move from trying to pass off those unfalsifiable beliefs as equal in value to falsifiable ones and then begin claiming that their circular arguments are just as problematic as induction, they go from being not even wrong to being wronger than wrong. HA, many thanks for your comments on EAAN in #274, which I snip to save space. I think I agree that probably the best we can hope for is beliefs that stand up under repeated testing and are consistent with the other beliefs in our belief set. We get into a lot of tortured discussions partly because there is more than one sense in which people speak of knowing things, or at least, people use "know" in a range of contexts over which the degree of certainty attributed to the knower is not constant. If God does not reveal, we do not know anything. But we know things. Therefore God reveals. Something like the above is your standardization of TAG etc. as consequentialist arguments, no? Lots of room for maneuver around premise 2. Yep. Much of that tortured discussion seems to occur when the definition of "know" being used in premise 1 is different from the one being used in premise 2. Perhaps our faculties may not always lead us to true beliefs, but there is much evidence to suggest that when certain tried and true methods are employed, we at least appear to become less wrong. What is tried and true with respect to the "spirit" HA? Here's your chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymenaeusAlexander Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 What is tried and true with respect to the "spirit" HA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 What is tried and true with respect to the "spirit" HA? KITTEN MEMES!!! DEFEAT ME BRAYNES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 What is tried and true with respect to the "spirit" HA? You lost me sir. What is tried and true with respect to the "spirit" HA? Perhaps I don't understand your thoughts, but just looking at some of your truths, you seem rather foobarred. Just my tried and true with respect to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Real spirits are sold down at the liquor store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Real spirits are sold down at the liquor store. so we should annul words and their defintions at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Real spirits are sold down at the liquor store. so we should annul words and their defintions at this point? No, not at all. But you want real meaning regarding things that are imaginary. What is true regarding the imaginary concept of spirit? I suppose some people find it useful. There isn't much else you can do with it. If there was substance to it then we would have turned it into a science by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 As long as the people with brainz like HA continue to have egos like HA, then we will fail to address it scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Can it be addressed scientifically we know where consciousness comes from biologically speaking we know what makes us age we know how our DNA effects our inclination to certain behavioral traits we don't know if an ethereal concept like a soul exists and if it even has an effect on this world how would one test it anyways? What traits do you assign to a soul that could be testable? does it influence our consciousness/behaviors? does it effect our biology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 As long as the people with brainz like HA continue to have egos like HA, then we will fail to address it scientifically. You've got a lab. Measure the Spirit of God. Make a prediction and test it. Observe under controlled conditions and compare to a control group. In Luke 4:1 was God the Son really full of God the Spirit? What criteria did the author of Luke use to establish this? I mean, what if Jesus was only half full of the Spirit . . . or even half empty of the Spirit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts