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

[LuthAMF]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The delusion you're experiencing is pretty wild. It blinds you to the facts on the table. 

 

Has christianity proven the existence of god? Direct me to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity. 

 

 

"Facts on the table"? Oh please. You've repeatedly admitted you have no "fact" just alternative guesses since you outright reject with hubris what is presented before you.

But please PLEASE tell me why you suddenly interject this into our debate? What purpose does it serve but to treat this now as sport? What happens when it becomes sport? All seriousness ends (if it was ever serious to begin with).

 

Anyone who defines themselves by their unbelief and who asks this question is NEVER interested in anything being said AND YOU ALL KNOW IT!

I'm not stupid. The pack of wolves  surround, licking their chops. But the thing is, nothing can be said that has not already been said. God, in scripture, does not try to "convince" that He is.

Why would I presume to do more than he? Why do you lie in wait for more? To deny this only makes you a pack of LYING wolves.

Does this mean there are no "proofs"? God is not stupid either. He knows the heart and mind of unbelief. You have the whole of scripture and Christian history against you yet demand that I come up with something new to titillate? Because that's all you're after. Why? Because you've already made up your mind. So your request is as disingenuous as they come. And you all know that too. You just want something to mock and get your little rocks off. Like I'm to consider there are those of you that are saying "I really want to believe if someone would just convince me." Yeah, right.

 

You think you've heard it all? Then so have we. I can guess what you'll say and where you'll say it.

 

And lest you charge me with it, I'm not shifting my feet, hemming or hawing and trying to wiggle off some imaginary hook you think you have me on.

I'll debate the proposed topic but you were out of bounds to try and wedge this in.

Now let your field day commence. 

 

[LuthAMF]

+

 

On 8/22/2019 at 5:46 PM, sdelsolray said:

Poster LuthAMF is a plagiarizer.  I now add “disingenuous” to Poster LuthAMF’s list of character attributes of which I have observed.

 

Poster LuthAMF’s following post (in another thread on this site) contains copy and pasted text.  Poster LuthAMF has plagiarized this text and has failed to provide original sources or attribution.

 

 

 

Original Sources:

 

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/turretinscripture.html

 

http://servantsofgrace.org/francis-turretin-21-questions-on-the-doctrine-of-scripture/

 

https://thechristianmindng.org/2012/11/04/scripture/

 

There are several other unattributed sources.

 

@LuthAMF

 

The rules around here state that you must give proper linkage and citation. No copy and pasting with out clearly stating what you've done and where you've copied and pasted from. 

 

 

Since this has now become an issue, first of all, I apologize. I knew better. It won't happen again.

Next, I can admit I may or may not be good at debate and I may be the absolute worst apologist you've ever encountered here at ExC. Third, I may be a poor Christian in your eyes. All this can re rectified. It is here I will attempt to do so, if I am allowed. Outside, make your comments, state your opinions of me and throw invective at will. To spare us all the angst and headache, if anyone has anything to say to me, use the PM button. Fair enough?

 

Unless you decide, @Joshpantera to no longer continue, I will remain. In the words of G.W. Bush, "Stay the course." But here's the thing for me and I think it deserves an answer.

If I boil it down to it's essence, we are stuck in The Bible vs What If's.

We address the text and you immediately jump to a "What if...?" So we scurry over there to see if that "what if" could be true. Not that one? Well, then "what if...". So we buzz up there, then trot over there...

"WHAT IF" cannot be debated. "What if's" are inconsistent. Dr. James White has demonstrated repeatedly in his debates that "Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument."

I told you it seems to me I'm chasing down every twig of objection and you disagreed saying "I'm airing out atheist objections as we go along."

But a pile of "what if's" cannot be proven or objected to on any rational grounds, so how can it assist in debate? 

 

You will recall Griffin's post:

"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."

Your response?: 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."

and

"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."

I sure hope you two are not in ANY way involved in our justice system because you are the epitome of terrorizing tyrants with Presumption of Guilt syndrome.  ."Guilty until proven innocent"!!! "Liars until proven true!!!"

1) You've admitted the equivalent of mankind being no more than The Dreamer's Dream. How am I supposed to counter that? 

2) A Multiverse. More "Dreamer's dream' at this point.

 

I'll be wide open concerning "sources". who have been major influence just as you have yours.

 

Yes, I rely heavily upon Francis Turretin's  Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Why? Because by definition, he engages all the opposing arguments against the scope of Christian doctrine and thought. It is comprehensive in scope. 

 

It seems everyone wants my "original thoughts" and "beliefs". I have done so. It is in expressing that when I read Turretin or Calvin or Matthew Henry or The Puritans (who are termed 'The Masters, you know' or Louis Berkhof or John Brown or Lorraine Boettner or Grant Osborn  or Patrick Fairbairn (I dare ANY of you to tackle him). Modern day gives me Douglas Wilson, Bahnsen, Dan Wallace or James White. And then I get the take from the sceptic / atheist on the same passages, and find a vast chasm of understanding. So, I tell you my original thought that most here are ill-equipped when handling scripture, but yet you boast as though you are all experts and screech like banshees when the outworkings of your own ideas is brought to bear. That's where I actually began and started this whole firestorm. I DARED to critique an article where I thought  the author to be horribly calloused and biased. 

 

Those are my original thoughts and beliefs, that the atheist has abandoned any claim to a right grasp of theology etc. so ought not be trying to do so. I could stay far far away and let you self-congratulate in your community here but the thing is, you don't stay here. The atheist is all over YT and other SM sites. I read your articles and books. So I happened to find a concentration; a seedbed of unbelief and check it out. So here I am. If you can't handle it...

 

So, having learned a thing or two in my limited capabilities, I think too much has been left out in this excuse for a  "debate". Another "original thought". So, either  allow it or stay in the land of "What if?"

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/22/2019 at 5:46 PM, LuthAMF said:

On 8/22/2019 at 5:05 PM, Joshpantera said:

The christian doctrinal foundation for scripture necessary begins with presupposing.

It does NOT! 

This is another bald assertion that you cannot make a case for yet you keep repeating it as tho that makes it so.

 

1) This is where I told you, again, that christian doctrinal foundation for scripture necessarily begins with presupposing the existence of god. It has to presuppose the existence of god because the assertion of the existence of god remains UNPROVEN. 

 

2) You say this is a bald assertion on my part that I can not make a case for. 

 

3) I make the case crystal clear in the very next post: 

 

On 8/23/2019 at 8:33 AM, Joshpantera said:

Has christianity proven the existence of god? Direct me to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity. 

 

4) You then respond with: 

 

On 8/23/2019 at 9:30 AM, LuthAMF said:

This isnt our debate.

 

This is exactly where the debate has led. I went over the beginnings of what is demonstrably false about Genesis 1 (not even demonstrating what is demonstrably false the rest of the way through yet) to hammer down the fact that the bible starts off with demonstrably false claims.

 

Your responses have led to claims of authority and truth in scripture. Which PRESUPPOSES the existence of god (the god of Genesis 1:1 which is preassumed to really exist, btw, as of Genesis 1:1, with no proof of the existence established - a presupposition).

 

So here we are stuck at this point. If you want to continue debating then simply answer the question because it's relevant to the debate. 

 

I am making the case that christianity depends on presussposing the existence of god. The god of Genesis 1:1 in fact, which is on topic. You have disagreed about christianity presupposing the existence of god. Providing evidence to the contrary in order to disagree with my statement, you will have to show that christianity DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

 

Me: Does presuppose the existence of god. 

 

You: Does not presuppose the existence of god. 

 

And your evidence for the existence of god is what? Why do I have to ask you again? You either do or do not have that evidence OR you presuppose the existence of god without the evidence which substantiates the presuppositional belief. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/23/2019 at 9:04 PM, LuthAMF said:

God, in scripture, does not try to "convince" that He is.

 

I explained above how and why we've come to this question. 

 

I take the above as you admitting, finally, that christianity has not proven the existence of god. Meaning that you were wrong, and I was right because that does make it NECESSARY that christianity presupposes the existence of god. This is the very foundation of god belief - a presupposition which you admit is not proven in scripture because god, "does not try and convince us that he is."

 

You've been wrong now on two very critical points because: 

 

1) The bible IS demonstrably false from the outset. 

 

2) Christianity HAS to presuppose the existence of god in order to then carry on with any theological discussion ABOUT the PRESUPPOSED GOD. 

 

Wrong, and then wrong again on your part. So what does that mean?

 

It demonstrates that the bible IS demonstrably false from the outset as it gets started, and that there is no evidence for the existence of god at the base of any and all theological discussion about god. It brings out the truth of what people are dealing with when dealing with christianity. And what applies to christianity here also applies to any given number of other religions which follow the same pattern of demonstrably false claims and presupposing the existence of their gods. These do not amount to foundations of "truth", but foundations of "speculation." Presupposed, and unfounded speculations. 

 

It means that these religions, like christianity and others, are pure speculation. Has that point sunk in yet?

 

People ought to be made aware of that truth. Lying and claiming that they are not pure speculation but "absolute truth," is not only intellectually dishonest but extremely unflattering and amounts to a false advertising gimmick by the person making the false claim (you in this case).

 

The point here is to keep it honest, call it as it is, and if you want to convince someone of something, well then make clear to them that what you're trying to convince them of is purely speculative. And if they want to join you in belief via these intellectually honest terms, well, so be it! At least everyone's being honest about the beliefs. 

 

There's nothing more that I or anyone else can say. And to each his own as far as that goes. But keep it honest. Don't stoop to lying in order to try and convince people that your personal beliefs are absolutely true and not merely pure speculation on your part. And don't lie to people and claim that god belief isn't a complete presupposition, assumed, apriori style belief. Because it necessarily is. 

 

* Is the bible demonstrably false more and more as we read into it? Of course it is. 

 

* Do apologist's try and deny that fact? Of course they do. 

 

* Can I refute their refutations over and over again like this? Of course I can.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

This informal debate remains open for any christian who would like to try and succeed where LuthAMF has failed to substantiate his claims about the bible, truth, etc. However this attempt has to be a serious one. No dodging. No taking up multiple pages without having answered the questions and substantiated the claims.