LuthAMF versus Joshpantera: informal debate on the bible as demonstrably false

[LuthAMF]

 

@Joshpantera I dont think I quite have the authority to tell @sdelsolray this is currently not an open forum.

18 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Folks and lurkers, note the projection from this one.

 

[LuthAMF]

On 7/30/2019 at 7:26 AM, Joshpantera said:

after christianity took over and the western world digressed into the "dark ages"

I suppose details matter little here too. We've seen what is included as Christian here. But the dark ages were not the result of the Christian mind bearing effect upon society, the sciences etc. Its a hard subject to pinpoint.

[LuthAMF]

@Joshpantera

In the other thread you said,

"They can easily look up these debates. They read and watch for themselves internet apologist's epic failing when they're challenged, like you've been, to first substantiate their truth claims. You can't do it. No apologist's before you have been able to do it either. You can't name me so much as one christian who has in the past first substantiated the existence of god before running off into false and deceptive oriented "truth" claims about the said god."

To Which "debates" do you refer? I've witnessed hundreds. Some "apologists" are begging to get the stuffing beat out of them. Others have their atheistic opponents running all over the landscape to get away. Who have you observed to be so inept? Am I to take it that every atheist in debate wins by default? We have proven that the very nature of the debate (Does God Exist?) renders the atheist impotent. Who in their right mind argues against a nothing?

 

And teenagers or young adults who are hooked on social media for their very subsistence are the standard for you claiming "religion" is on the decline in America? (Although the study also includes Synagogues and Mosques)

 

It has been demonstrated that the "truth claim" of which you speak is nothing like you make it to be.

On 8/1/2019 at 4:40 PM, Griffin said:

New here. First post. Maybe I'm rehashing an old topic. If so provide the link.

 

Before any debate takes place, shouldn't the facts be established?  In a Christian debate, I think Christians need to prove beyond any doubt Jesus existed as his story is told in the inerrant word of god. Same goes for the god of Jewry and Islam.

 

This is not provable. It relies entirely on speculation and assumption. Just like Genesis 1:1 But these facts are not convincing enough to change your view, are they @LuthAMF ?

No, Josh. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FACT!!!! They are bald assertions on your part because you've already settled the issue in your own mind even though you claim to still be open. 

 

"You can't name me so much as one christian who has in the past..."

No, Josh, YOU cannot name one. 

[Joshpantera]

You are trying to twist your way out of the hot seat, Luth. And I won't allow you to get away with it.

 

People reading through our dialogue can see that you started out, from the beginning, with the assertion that (1) the bible is true and (2) it's god really exists. 

 

It's not up to me to go and provide you with the evidence that (1) god does not exist or that (2) christians have not in the past already proven the existence of god and the factual truth of the bible. 

 

It's entirely up to you to provide the evidence for your own claims. These are your claims. You haven't substantiated your own claims. Instead you're trying to poke holes in other areas of interest, other peoples beliefs, and find other areas of speculation to try and take the attention off of the FACT that you yourself have not been able to substantiate your own claims. The only person between us who is strapped to making any absolute truth claims is you. Again, I will not allow you to muddy the waters or take the attention off of yourself and where you stand in this informal debate.

 

So let's look again at what Griffin posted elsewhere: 

 

12 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

On 8/1/2019 at 4:40 PM, Griffin said:

New here. First post. Maybe I'm rehashing an old topic. If so provide the link.

 

Before any debate takes place, shouldn't the facts be established?  In a Christian debate, I think Christians need to prove beyond any doubt Jesus existed as his story is told in the inerrant word of god. Same goes for the god of Jewry and Islam.

 

 

This is entirely reasonable in my opinion. It's entirely reasonable because it should apply to ANYONE making absolute truth claims.

 

If I wanted to argue that UFO's absolutely exist, I would be in the same hot seat for the same reason. If I wanted to argue that only consciousness exist's, and the material universe is merely illusion, I'd be in the same hot seat that you are currently in because I, just like you, could not provide skeptics and by standers evidence substantial enough to firm up the truth claims. The point being, if you can't prove a claim as true and absolute, don't make the claim!!! Be vocal and honest about the fact that it's speculation on your part. A hunch. An intuitive feeling. But make clear to everyone that you are not dealing in terms of hard evidence and proven fact. 

 

A christian is nothing more than a person who is making an absolute truth claim (like so many others doing the same thing about different subjects) who has the inability to prove it. And who goes ahead anyways carrying on about the truth of their claims without first having substantiated the claims in the first place. As if they don't have to prove it in order make their truth claims.

 

12 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

No, Josh. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FACT!!!! They are bald assertions on your part because you've already settled the issue in your own mind even though you claim to still be open. 

 

"You can't name me so much as one christian who has in the past..."

No, Josh, YOU cannot name one.

 

Bald assertions? Really? 

 

Until the minute you prove your own claims, your claims can not be considered FACT!!!

 

They remain speculation on your part, not fact and not "truth." Again, it's up to you to name ME one christian in the past who has met this challenge and proven (1) the bible is factually true and (2) that it's god really exists. It's not up to me to show you all of the christians who have failed or not even tried to prove their own claims, it's entirely up to you to provide the citation to the one or many who have! 

 

The wait continues. 

[LuthAMF]

@Griffin

I'm sure you're not aware but this particular thread is designated as an informal debate between Josh and myself.

But feel free to hammer on me anywhere else!

[Joshpantera]

@Griffin

 

The replies have been removed for moderating purposes. This was a two verses one informal debate in the beginning, but William opted out and we'll just leave it the way it is currently with Luth and myself as the only participants. 

 

For new comers wanting to chime in on the debate just follow this link to the side gallery where everyone is welcome to discuss the content among themselves: 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

On 8/1/2019 at 4:40 PM, Griffin said:

New here. First post. Maybe I'm rehashing an old topic. If so provide the link.

 

Before any debate takes place, shouldn't the facts be established?  In a Christian debate, I think Christians need to prove beyond any doubt Jesus existed as his story is told in the inerrant word of god. Same goes for the god of Jewry and Islam.

Josh, you replied,

"This is not provable. It relies entirely on speculation and assumption. Just like Genesis 1:1 But these facts are not convincing enough to change your view, are they @LuthAMF ?"

 

So, not seeing what "these facts"  are other than you charging "speculation and assumption", I think I rightly responded that these are not facts. 

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The point being, if you can't prove a claim as true and absolute, don't make the claim!!! Be vocal and honest about the fact that it's speculation on your part

So you seriously contend that this is the very FOUNDATION for Christianity; that is has NEVER been proven (or provABLE) and that the entirety of Christian scholarship and history is a ruse. You contend that Christian writers have not and cannot make sense of scripture and that NO ONE has ever substantiated the truth claim? Is that a correct summary of your view?

 

 

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You are trying to twist your way out of the hot seat, Luth. And I won't allow you to get away with it.

I'm doing no such thing. I am not being made uncomfortable by your charges in any way.

 

How about the premise of the debate being "The bible: Demonstably false or not?"

And then took off into YT vids and cosmological models which DO NOT disprove the bible. They are merely alternative theories; your Great "What ifs?" And I fell for it.

 

I've said it to several different ones here that there is a doctrine of scripture that evidently you are all unaware of or ignore. I also said we would probably be all over the landscape. Maybe just to steer us back on course...

 

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Josh, you replied,

"This is not provable. It relies entirely on speculation and assumption. Just like Genesis 1:1 But these facts are not convincing enough to change your view, are they @LuthAMF ?"

 

So, not seeing what "these facts"  are other than you charging "speculation and assumption", I think I rightly responded that these are not facts. 

 

Speculation and assumption is the default position. Because Genesis 1 hasn't presented us provable facts. What else do we call something unproven? Is it a fact that something which is as of yet unproven, is speculation and assumption UNTIL PROVEN? 

 

The facts are that the bible sets forward unproven assumption about the origins of the universe and the earth. The issue is that anyone claiming that these ARE proven facts has the burden of proof on their shoulders. If you answer that yes, the bible IS true, you automatically take on the burden of proof. 

 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

So you seriously contend that this is the very FOUNDATION for Christianity; that is has NEVER been proven (or provABLE) and that the entirety of Christian scholarship and history is a ruse. You contend that Christian writers have not and cannot make sense of scripture and that NO ONE has ever substantiated the truth claim? Is that a correct summary of your view?

 

How could the foundation be anything different? 

 

Tell us the foundation and provide the evidence that substantiates the foundational claims if you care to disagree with the sentiment. Writers trying to make sense of the bible is a matter of apologetic's. And apologetic's don't prove the claims of the bible, do they? If you think they do, again, I challenge you prove these claims. If you find that the claims are not provable, just be honest and say so. 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I'm doing no such thing. I am not being made uncomfortable by your charges in any way.

 

How about the premise of the debate being "The bible: Demonstably false or not?"

 

If the bible claims to be true, but can't demonstrate that it is true, then what is it? You tell me. Does that make the bible demonstrable false or not? 

 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I've said it to several different ones here that there is a doctrine of scripture that evidently you are all unaware of or ignore. I also said we would probably be all over the landscape. Maybe just to steer us back on course...

 

State it. 

[LuthAMF]

Recall this quote?

 

"They read and watch for themselves internet apologist's epic failing when they're challenged, like you've been, to first substantiate their truth claims. You can't do it. No apologist's before you have been able to do it either. You can't name me so much as onechristian who has in the past first substantiated theexistence of god before running off into false anddeceptive oriented "truth" claims about the said god."

 

So you indict the entirety of Christian history as idiots who basically say "Hey. These are obviously bogus claims,  but let's write cogent, historically accurate,  logical and reasonable defenses anyway"?

Seriously? You think they / we are that flipping stupid and they have NEVER made a solid case for anything.

Dude, that is some serious malice at work in you right there. 

 

AND these works are recognized and praised by notable scholarship as some of the greatest classic works of historical value and useful AS TEXTBOOKS at University level. But they're all known liars. Right

 

[LuthAMF]

You seem to be focused solely on the Genesis account and the act of Creation. If Creation is not proven or proveable to your satisfaction (which is itself presumptive arrogance) the bible itself fails. But the bible does not rely upon the Creation account in order to be what it is. The creation account has it's role in confirming the bible's truth. I dont think you get that.

[LuthAMF]

Piscator

Diodati

Van den Belt

AA Hodge

Warfield

Kruger

 

 

Advanced scholarship. University Presidents for pete's sake. All liars. None understanding unsubstantiated claims or burden of proof? 

 

Nope. All idiots. All deceiving con men. All dead wrong in light of your objections. 

[LuthAMF]

You've not read anyone of significance regarding the Christian doctrine on scripture but im supposed to accept DeMattei?

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

So you indict the entirety of Christian history as idiots who basically say "Hey. These are obviously bogus claims,  but let's write cogent, historically accurate,  logical and reasonable defenses anyway"?

 

Nothing you've shown is very reasonable. I've picked out entire sections of apologetic's which are very unreasonable and plainly stated why. The problem here is that you assume that because christianity has a history of existence, that it has existed for around 2,000 years and has tried defending itself against critics during that time, well then it must be accurate.

 

This is another broken record issue. I'm not sure how many times we've gone around so far. But nothing's changed. You still face the same problem that I've been pointing out. 

 

What about the other religions which have existed just as long or longer, each with their own apologists? Do you think that Buddhist's and Hindu's have it all right based on the number of years they've existed and the number of times their apologist's have concluded that they are right and their detractors are wrong? And what about credentials? Do any Buddhist or Hindu's have higher level academic credentials? If so, does that make them automatically right? 

 

Now of the christians, hindu's, and buddhist's, I would wager that some of them are convinced they are right, regardless of the issues pertaining to hard evidence for their claims. And they have zeal regardless. But no doubt there are some who do understand that they are making bogus claims and continue to do so based on the general idea of, "the end justifies the means." All parties involved I see as having members who venture deep enough to realize a lot of this, but carry on anyways.

 

My evidence is only anecdotal. I know christian religious leaders who bit this bill. Because we've had discussions about issues that they know are not historically sound, but toe the party line anyways, at least in public. Behind closed doors we've conversed otherwise on some of the issues. Issues such as Genesis. And the Patriarchs. And the real uncertainties involved. Extending to the uncertainties pertaining to the gospels and epistles. These men are considerably "agnostic theist's" at least behind closed doors. Because they know and understand that a lot of this isn't actually known. 

 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Seriously? You think they / we are that flipping stupid and they have NEVER made a solid case for anything.

Dude, that is some serious malice at work in you right there. 

 

We've been asking you to make a solid case for some time now. Where is it? The solid case, I don't see one yet. What else am I supposed to think when not you or anyone else that I'm aware of has made a solid case?

 

When I ask for citation or examples, you give me horribly presented attempts at making a solid case. The problem doesn't rest with me, the problem rests with those who try and fail to make or even present a solid case. Maybe we need to come to terms with what a solid case consists of. Because maybe you think that you or someone you've cited has already made a solid case. But I don't see anything remotely solid, so that's an issue that needs clarified further. 

 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

AND these works are recognized and praised by notable scholarship as some of the greatest classic works of historical value and useful AS TEXTBOOKS at University level. But they're all known liars. Right

 

Here's another problem. You are talking about what? What, pray tell, are some of the greatest classic works of historical value which have something to do with the context of this debate?

 

(1) What are you talking about here and (2) what relevance does it have with our debate and christians PROVING the claims of the bible correct? What university level text books are in circulation which PROVE the claims of the bible? Some context please. 

 

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You seem to be focused solely on the Genesis account and the act of Creation. If Creation is not proven or proveable to your satisfaction (which is itself presumptive arrogance) the bible itself fails. But the bible does not rely upon the Creation account in order to be what it is. The creation account has it's role in confirming the bible's truth. I dont think you get that.

 

That's because we started off with reading the bible from square one, Genesis 1:1! What else? 

 

I don't want it proven to my own personal satisfaction, I want to see you prove it to a universal satisfaction of the burden proof requirement. If someone claims that UFO's exist, is there some universal standard that everyone could agree would satisfy the burden of proof? This is not left field or unreasonable. Who is exempt from having to prove their own claims? 

 

Why should I or anyone else take some one at their word when extraordinary claims are being made?

 

Someone wrote Genesis 1. As to who, your guy thinks Moses wrote it and secular scholarship generally thinks an Elohist priest leaving tell tale signs in the text wrote it. It doesn't matter who, actually. What matters is that someone writing a text has put forward many claims. How do we know if those claims have any merit? 

 

You seem to be saying, 'just read further on through bible, that will solve everything.' 

 

And I've said, ok, then proceed past Genesis 1 if you'd like. Do any and everything that it takes to show me and everyone reading WHAT DOES SUBSTANTIATE THESE CLAIMS. Please do. We're all eyes and ears. 

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Piscator

Diodati

Van den Belt

AA Hodge

Warfield

Kruger

 

 

Advanced scholarship. University Presidents for pete's sake. All liars. None understanding unsubstantiated claims or burden of proof? 

 

Nope. All idiots. All deceiving con men. All dead wrong in light of your objections.

 

What does any of this even mean? Credentials automatically equal right? Are you saying that academic credential might, equals right? 

 

Here's the skinny, anyone who believes an unsubstantiated claim and then perpetuates that unsubstantiated claim under false pretense, knowing that it's unprovable and outside of intellectually honest abilities, is a liar to some degree. Does anyone mentioned above fit that bill? If so, the rest falls into place. 

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

You've not read anyone of significance regarding the Christian doctrine on scripture but im supposed to accept DeMattei?

 

What would that change? You decide who you want to put up as significant in your own opinion, I'll read, and then I'll let you know what's wrong with their approach if I see anything obvious.

 

And no, you're not supposed to accept DiMattei. I never thought that you would. It's for people to read through and contrast with the claims of christian apologist's. And I really hope that at least some people who were not already familiar have looked at it. It adds much to the table in terms of possibilities and shows where modern theologians have been off base in a lot of their approaches towards the bible. 

 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

The problem here is that you assume that because christianity has a history of existence, that it has existed for around 2,000 years and has tried defending itself against critics during that time, well then it must be accurate

I make no such assumption and that is a stupid way to try to explain it back to me. Sorry, but it is. 

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

And no, you're not supposed to accept DiMattei. I never thought that you would. It's for people to read through and contrast with the claims of christian apologist's

EXACTLY!  And we offer the classic Christian doctrines that have been precisely and cogently spelled out for people to read through and contrast with the claims of atheistic objections. Tell me WHY there's a difference.

 

This is the historic battle. Yet you think we need to cower and run away just because you present something. Error branches off and we're supposed to chase down every twig you point to. I've told you this.

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

Nothing you've shown is very reasonable.

Didn't answer my point at all.

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

What about the other religions which have existed just as long or longer, each with their own apologists?

Totally irrelevant. You are not taking issue with ANY of them because they present no challenge to you. Buddhism vs evolution? What do they care?

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I know christian religious leaders who bit this bill. Because we've had discussions about issues that they know are not historically sound, but toe the party line anyways, at least in public. Behind closed doors we've conversed otherwise on some of the issues. Issues such as Genesis. And the Patriarchs. And the real uncertainties involved. Extending to the uncertainties pertaining to the gospels and epistles. These men are considerably "agnostic theist's" at least behind closed doors. Because they know and understand that a lot of this isn't actually known. 

Again, utterly irrelevant. So what that you speak to closet apostates who secretly agree with you? Their opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the REASONS Christians have confidence in the text of scripture and quite frankly neither do yours.

So I'm going to address some of those. Ok?

Unless, a priori, I'm wrong. Because that's the trigger. A person says hes a Christian...he's wrong.

Says he believes scripture? Hes wrong. You need to hear nothing from him because you've already determined it cannot be true. There's no debate or openness there. 

 

Or am I still missing something?

[LuthAMF]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

As to who, your guy thinks Moses wrote it

My guy. Christ Himself said so.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

A person says hes a Christian...he's wrong.

 

If christianity is wrong, and a person says they're a christian, how are they NOT also wrong for the exact same reasons? 

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Says he believes scripture? Hes wrong.

 

If scripture is wrong, and a person says they believe scripture, how are they NOT wrong for the exact same reasons? 

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

You need to hear nothing from him because you've already determined it cannot be true. There's no debate or openness there. 

 

Or am I still missing something?

 

Am I missing something?

 

Do you think for one moment that opposition to christianity can be true and correct? Do you entertain that possibility in your open minded perspective? Why don't you let us know just how wide open of a perspective you have. Could you be wrong and the opposing side right? 

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Again, utterly irrelevant. So what that you speak to closet apostates who secretly agree with you? Their opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the REASONS Christians have confidence in the text of scripture and quite frankly neither do yours.

 

Maybe you're not very open minded at all. At least not yet. 

 

'Oh those dirty apostate buggers. How dare they admit that there are uncertainties involved in the bible and with christian origins? To hell with them, immediately!!!'

 

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The problem here is that you assume that because christianity has a history of existence, that it has existed for around 2,000 years and has tried defending itself against critics during that time, well then it must be accurate

I make no such assumption and that is a stupid way to try to explain it back to me. Sorry, but it is. 

 

Then for crying out loud, please explain what YOU DO MEAN when you keep repeating that theologians have been at this for centuries. That these so called confessions reveal who the REAL christians are. And who you think the real christians are not as it goes. Pompous. Arrogant. You and you alone stand correct among the rest of the dregs of christian society according to your views. Is that the big message? Calling me arrogant only shines a bright light on your own arrogance, which, far exceeds anything I have to offer as it turns out. You actually win the arrogance contest hands down, Calvinist......

 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

13 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

You and you alone stand correct among the rest of the dregs of christian society according to your views. Is that the big message?

Nope. Ever heard "We stand on the shoulders of giants?" I stand with them but above no one. The ground is level at the Cross.

Christianity has never been disproven under any scrutiny; has endured every attack. You still think you've done so. All you've  done is object. Even what you have offered does not refute the Genesis account. But it does offer you your prized "What if?"

 

You cannot seem to grasp the fact that scripture itself draws the line between truth and error; between false professions and true. You know...sheep and goats. But then you say it's God who is the arrogant one for making such distinctions as though he's unfair to humans in doing so.

 

...Calvinist? Let's have you tell us what you think that is.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

47 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Nope. Ever heard "We stand on the shoulders of giants?" I stand with them but above no one. The ground is level at the Cross.

Christianity has never been disproven under any scrutiny; has endured every attack. You still think you've done so. All you've  done is object. Even what you have offered does not refute the Genesis account. But it does offer you your prized "What if?"

 

Disproving and proving are two separate issues, Luthy ole boy! 

 

And like I've said, it's up to the guy who claims that Genesis is true to prove that. It's not up to the guy who calls bullshit on your positive claim to disprove it. And for the lurkers (because no doubt every logical point has been lost on you so far) I'll explain and qualify that statement. 

 

If we read a story about Santa Claus, written by people, and one person says, "I believe this story. Santa Claus is real and lives at the north pole," that person simply stated a belief. Let's say the other person who just heard the story together with the Santa Claus believer, doesn't believe the story. And proclaims their lack of belief. If the Santa Claus believer goes further and starts claiming that Santa Claus is real, and that the story is factual, the non-believer could ask the believer how they know it's real. And even ask them to prove it. It's not up to the Santa Claus non-believer to disprove the existence of Santa Claus, it's up to the person making the positive claims about the existence of Santa Claus to prove it. 

 

You don't seem to have any understanding whatsoever of what the burden of proof requirement entails, or why you bear the burden of proof in this instance. All I've done is object? What else to I have to do? That's the point, Luth. I simply don't believe the positive claims coming from the bible. These have not been proven. Not now, not before, and not likely after this debate. See how careful I was there? NOT LIKELY after this debate. Because I don't speak in terms of absolute's. I am not strapped with the burden of proof requirements that speakers in absolute's are chained at the ankle with. 

 

Only the Sith speak in absolutes, take a lesson from Obi Won.....

 

BTW, about Calvinist reformed christian beliefs. I'll just leave a link to our recent thread about those arrogant, self righteous buggers: 

 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

Since you have no qualms about screwing with truth, you neither have any regarding screwing with "burden of proof'. It's like revisionist history - tell the lie often enough and people begin to believe you. You've bought a lie that your position bears no such burden. So your Santa Claus scenario is worthless because no one has an entire historical record of thousands of years to establish the fact of Santa. Because there IS such a historical positive record with revealed and substantiated proof for the Person of Christ, any denier bears the burden of proving wrong what has already been established as true.

To you, there is no truth. Truth has no content. Truth has no object. Since truth and logic are inseparable, how can you be making logical points to be "lost on me" to begin with? 

 

I bear no burden. No Christian bears the burden. Scripture itself bears the burden and does so successfully so we stand upon it. And YOU cannot disprove scripture. 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

I simply don't believe the positive claims coming from the bible

You don't believe them. SO WHAT? That still does not mean you're off the hook at disproving what scripture has ALREADY PROVED!

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

These have not been proven. Not now, not before, and not likely after this debate

They have! Christ proved his Deity and all his works when he raised himself from the dead.

You make this absurd ABSOLUTE claim but then because you toss in "not likely" you think that undoes your positive statement "These have not been proven." 

THEN TURN around and say

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

Because I don't speak in terms of absolute's

K-RAP-OLA. You use absolutes on a regular basis just like everyone else. That's sheer cowardice.

Words have meaning, words have absolute meaning and are necessarily logical. "Otherwise if dog is the equivalent of not dog and if 2=3=4. Zoology and mathematics disappear." Gordon Clark

YOU bear the burden of proof that it IS NOT the Word of God because when it says it is, it proves itself.

 

What is lost on you? The same thing that has been lost on every other joker with a Fisher Price hammer trying to smash an iron anvil. 

 

You say you live life by "What ifs?" That is logical nonsense, you know, because there is no meaning to "What if..." it's a vacant concept. It is not instructive.

However, If / then statements are logically coherent. We can use them in scripture. One of the proofs.

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Because there IS such a historical positive record with revealed and substantiated proof for the Person of Christ, any denier bears the burden of proving wrong what has already been established as true.

To you, there is no truth. Truth has no content. Truth has no object. Since truth and logic are inseparable, how can you be making logical points to be "lost on me" to begin with? 

 

I bear no burden. No Christian bears the burden. Scripture itself bears the burden and does so successfully so we stand upon it. And YOU cannot disprove scripture. 

 

We're still not getting much of anywhere. Are we talking about the bible proving god exists or that an historical jesus existed in 1st century Palestine? We haven't taken issue with jesus yet, but in both cases it's up to the person making the positive claim to prove the claim. No, it's not up to anyone to prove that jesus didn't exist as an historical figure according to the gospel tales. That is an incredibly huge lie on your part. And it's yet another issue of uncertainty. Surprise everyone!!! 

 

The problem here is that we don't actually know IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, Luth Sidius! 

 

As for scripture, it's a mess. That's why we're here. Why have you made additional positive claims now, after all we've just discussed about the burden of proof for making positive claims, without bring forward your proof that, "Scripture itself bears the burden and does so successfully so we stand upon it." The NT starts off just horrible. Are you telling me that you want to fast forward and go there now? Would you like to start with Matthew as it's incorrectly arranged, start out with the Pauline Epistles in correct historical order and then read through in order to the best of our knowledge each gospel according to when scholarship can detect they might have been penned? 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You don't believe them. SO WHAT? That still does not mean you're off the hook at disproving what scripture has ALREADY PROVED!

 

You haven't shown me or anyone else reading, here or elsewhere at ex-C, what you are positively claiming "scripture has already proved." What are we supposed to make of such a statement coming from you? You have yet to prove any of it. Understand? Still unclear? People are literally waiting to see you prove any of it. 

 

Are you going to keep rattling around a make believe saber or prove something? 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

They have! Christ proved his Deity and all his works when he raised himself from the dead.

You make this absurd ABSOLUTE claim but then because you toss in "not likely" you think that undoes your positive statement "These have not been proven." 

THEN TURN around and say

 

That isn't proven at all. Do you have the jewish or roman court records of jesus execution in the first place? Contemporary to his execution? Contemporary historians making note of it who were writing in 1st century Palestine before 40 CE? What do you think you have that proves this? This is pure speculation on your part, oh Lord of the Dark arts. You are lying for the Lord as we speak. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Because I don't speak in terms of absolute's

K-RAP-OLA. You use absolutes on a regular basis just like everyone else. That's sheer cowardice.

 

Wisodom, knowledge and strength leads one to avoid making absolute claims about things which can not be established, "absolutely." Calling me a coward for taking a stronger position than you is laughable. I'm the one who called you into this debate. And I'm the one holding the spot light on you now. 

 

And I've told everyone that I have no absolute position on (1) the origin of the universe and earth or (2) the origins of life on earth. I don't believe that ancients creation myths reveal the truth of our origins. Nor do I assume that as of 2019 science has it completely figured out. This is the future, Luth. This is the sort of model of human being which operates completely immune to your proselytizing efforts, your attempts at spiritual and / or intellectual bullying with dishonesty, and most importantly your HALLOW claims and threats. People who can think for themselves, fact check anyone who makes extraordinary claims, and won't be bullied by superstitious narcissistic, self righteous and self important personalities like yourself. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Words have meaning, words have absolute meaning and are necessarily logical. "Otherwise if dog is the equivalent of not dog and if 2=3=4. Zoology and mathematics disappear." Gordon Clark

YOU bear the burden of proof that it IS NOT the Word of God because when it says it is, it proves itself.

 

Are you drunk typing these nonsensical posts at me? This might be the most ignorant and ill conceived response you've post yet. Is this not embarrassing for you? I don't understand how someone can be this thick. 

 

So let me get this straight. Do YOU bear the burden of proof that the Hindu texts are NOT the word of Brahman because YOU don't believe the Hindu texts?

 

I don't expect that you believe that Brahman is absolute, transcendent consciousness which informs the world and all things, do you? Or that Vishnu is a manifestation of Brahman? Or that ultimately we are all manifestations of Brahman, of an absolute consciousness referred to in Vedic tradtion and Advaita Vedanta and written about in ancient texts far older than the christian texts? 

 

It's written. People believe it. Hindu apologist's attempt to defend it. So that must be it? The Vedic tradition proves the Vedic tradition true then?

 

Or are you just special pleading again only for you own personal beliefs? Your beliefs are proven true by your own preferred ancient texts? 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You say you live life by "What ifs?" That is logical nonsense, you know, because there is no meaning to "What if..." it's a vacant concept. It is not instructive.

However, If / then statements are logically coherent. We can use them in scripture. One of the proofs.

 

What are you saying? Maybe something in scripture might be true, therefore that equals a proof based on the ability to speculate? 

 

Speculation is NOT proof. 

 

Speculation about abiogenesis is not proof, it's speculation. Speculation about the book of Genesis isn't proof either, it's also speculation. And someone who tries taking speculation and claiming that's it's absolutely true, fails. You are failing miserably at providing credible evidence and proving your assertions in this dialogue. To be honest, Luth, you're sitting in the corner wearing a dunce cap at this point. Have you no shame? 

 

Good morning, btw. 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

And like I've said, it's up to the guy who claims that Genesis is true to prove that

And like I've said, we don't look to Genesis to prove the bible. It seems you think it is supposed to. 

 

And you also need to stop making it the claim of the individual person. "A guy" doesnt make the claim. GOD makes the claim and thats what you all cannot tolerate. You despise us because you cant manhandle God. (And thats no persecution complex if someone was set to go there) Don't get me wrong...You certainly DO abuse the text of scripture in order to manhandle God but it just leaves you frustrated.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 7:45 AM, Joshpantera said:

If I wanted to argue that UFO's absolutely exist, I would be in the same hot seat for the same reason.

No, it is NOT for the same reason. See, you use this as an actual valid argument. You all do. I once thought you might be above it but you also are content to level these silly charges as though theyre equivalent to what we're dealing with here. 

 

But nobody is running around saying "Believe in Santa! Believe on the tooth Fairy! Believe in Bigfoot!" IN THE SAME GROUNDS knowing that theres no real supporting evidence. So please, stop using such ridiculous examples. 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Do you think for one moment that opposition to christianity can be true and correct? Do you entertain that possibility in your open minded perspective? Why don't you let us know just how wide open of a perspective you have. Could you be wrong and the opposing side right? 

I think that would be obvious by my presence. Christianity is a falsifiable position. We admit it and we've never run from it. You are 99.999% certain (Because there is no certainty in your world) you have successfully falsified it. Then we look at how you claim to have done so and it turns out...

 

 

 

btw, I wrote this just as your last post appeared and before I had read it.

[LuthAMF]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

That isn't proven at all. Do you have the jewish or roman court records of jesus execution in the first place? Contemporary to his execution? Contemporary historians making note of it who were writing in 1st century Palestine before 40 CE? What do you think you have that proves this? This is pure speculation on your part, oh Lord of the Dark arts. You are lying for the Lord as we speak. 

And there it is!!!!!

For all the lurkers, THAT is what is called imposing upon the text of scripture and history. Telling us what ought to have been rather than what was done.

[Joshpantera]

Quote

Clarkian presuppositionalism[edit]

Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. Like all axioms, this axiom is considered to be self-evident truth, not to be proven, but used for proof. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

 

 

 

 

I'll address the last two posts later. But for now let's let everyone read through the issue we've been facing concerning presuppositional apologetic's. We have basically exhausted this avenue during the last five pages. And there's no good reason to continue exhausting it any further at this point. Because it boils down to either presupposing that the bible is correct and then treating everything else according to that apriori, presupposition, or disbelieving the presupposition.

 

Not finding any credible looking evidence to substantiate the presupposition, I lack belief in it. I'm not a non-believer because of any ideological reason, I'm a non-believer simply because I don't believe there's any merit to this presupposition. Luth is free to believe it if he chooses. I just don't buy in to it at all. And I will go further and encourage others to make a careful consideration of the existing facts before taking any type of presuppositionalist at their word. 

 

A presuppositional Buddhist or Hindu. 

 

A presuppositional New Age cult. 

 

A presuppositional Christian. 

 

A presuppositional Occultist, etc., etc.

 

That's all for the moment....

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/8/2019 at 8:23 AM, LuthAMF said:

And like I've said, we don't look to Genesis to prove the bible. It seems you think it is supposed to. 

 

And you also need to stop making it the claim of the individual person. "A guy" doesnt make the claim. GOD makes the claim and thats what you all cannot tolerate. You despise us because you cant manhandle God. (And thats no persecution complex if someone was set to go there) Don't get me wrong...You certainly DO abuse the text of scripture in order to manhandle God but it just leaves you frustrated.

 

Presuppositional apologetic's.

 

On 8/8/2019 at 8:23 AM, LuthAMF said:

But nobody is running around saying "Believe in Santa! Believe on the tooth Fairy! Believe in Bigfoot!" IN THE SAME GROUNDS knowing that theres no real supporting evidence. So please, stop using such ridiculous examples. 

 

On 8/8/2019 at 12:08 PM, LuthAMF said:

And there it is!!!!!

For all the lurkers, THAT is what is called imposing upon the text of scripture and history. Telling us what ought to have been rather than what was done.

 

More presuppositional apologetic's. All caught up for now. And the glaring point remains that this avenue can only go so far. And we've taken it as far as it can go as of the 5th page. 

 

Where else could this go? We'll have to look towards some new considerations at this point.