Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
476

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Right, and how do we prove the existence of God? Remember, non believers need proof. We must always be ready to provide them with something.
[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more. I argue from the point of what’s called the “Cosmological Argument”. Which is acually better described as an argument style. It’s an argument style because it can start at any point with anything physical or metaphysical and still always reach the same conclusion. There must be an “Uncaused-Cause” or “Unmoved-mover”.

Wiki actually has a pretty good over view.

Pay particular attention to the “Argument from contingency” .

This argument is worth knowing and worth knowing well. It has been around over 2000 years and has never been refuted. But not for a lack of effort. Further, when your average atheist seeks to prove God does not exist, this is the argument they go after.

There are two points they concentrate on with counter arguments. One is that causes don’t necessitate their effects. Currently, trying to prove randomness exists in the universe is latest thing. They seem to feel that, for instance, the weirdness of quantum mechanics proves their case. However, weird behavior or unknown reasons for a result doesn’t mean it was uncased.

The second, is they argue that an infinite regress exists. Infinite regresses are circular and beg the question. That doesn’t mean that infinity doesn’t exist, it does. It means you cannot dissect things infinitely, you run out of things to dissect.

The last point I’d like to make here, is about burden of proof. Atheists always feel that the burden of proof belongs to the theist to prove God exists. But here’s what I want you to think about, an atheist necessarily claims that all that exists, came from or comes from nothing. The theist claims something from something. Which is actually more logical? When you think about the word ‘nothing’ we are talking about a complete lack of existence, not a void, vacuum, empty space, or energy. Nothing is an state of absolute absence, which means its not even a state, it’s nothing.[/quote]

Awesome points. Really liking debating with you.

My issue is this: Why is it assumed this “first cause” is sentient and has a plan? Gravity causes things to fall down… gravity doesn’t think about what it’s pulling down, it just is.

480

I also used firmament a couple of times.

While it is wiki, it suffices in this case.

482

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And when it comes to theology you can’t even answer a basic question about the origin of sin and death. It’s not complicated like you made it out to be unless you have to figure out a way to mix and match the distinctly different world views of uniformitarianism/evolutionism and creationism. Good luck with your struggle, friend.[/quote]

I do want to address this, since it’s rather uncharitable. When it comes to theology? I’m not using theology to deal with CALism. So, why allow myself to be detoured into a theological debate? As for my theology, if you wish, you might visit a number of sites dealing with Catholic theology/apologetics. But, I’m not here for that.

As of now, I’m dealing with observations the vast majority of CALs wouldn’t dispute. We do not live on land rising from the middle of a giant basin, set into what might be an infinite amount of water. There is not a dome with lights set in it, above our heads. There is not a body of water above, and kept at bay, by this dome.

And since the vast majority (barring some niche sects) wouldn’t dispute these things, they in fact are not literalists. Theology here would be a distraction when simple observation does the trick.[/quote]

Man, you know how to run and hide. This thread is titled “…Religious Debate.”

Now where did sin and death come from in your world view. Just answer the basic simple question. I can do it in two words, “Adam’s sin.” Why is this such a big bite for you to chew on? Why the reticence?[/quote]

If, if, I choose to go down a theological/sectarian road (which it’ll turn into) it will only be after the CAL is put to bed.

484

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And when it comes to theology you can’t even answer a basic question about the origin of sin and death. It’s not complicated like you made it out to be unless you have to figure out a way to mix and match the distinctly different world views of uniformitarianism/evolutionism and creationism. Good luck with your struggle, friend.[/quote]

I do want to address this, since it’s rather uncharitable. When it comes to theology? I’m not using theology to deal with CALism. So, why allow myself to be detoured into a theological debate? As for my theology, if you wish, you might visit a number of sites dealing with Catholic theology/apologetics. But, I’m not here for that.

As of now, I’m dealing with observations the vast majority of CALs wouldn’t dispute. We do not live on land rising from the middle of a giant basin, set into what might be an infinite amount of water. There is not a dome with lights set in it, above our heads. There is not a body of water above, and kept at bay, by this dome.

And since the vast majority (barring some niche sects) wouldn’t dispute these things, they in fact are not literalists. Theology here would be a distraction when simple observation does the trick.[/quote]

Exactly. The people who wrote the bible were explaining the world around them to the best of their ability, but once humans were able to gather more data, it was disproven.[/quote]

No, Sloth is hung up on one word that I think must come from a Catholic translation that more accurately should be translated as “expanse.”[/quote]

Catholic? Try ancient hebrew. That’s an illustration of what their view of the earth and the universe was. This is completely indisputable. Even the hebrews understood it to be a solid dome. A firmament. In fact, that word is used in the illustration. With windows to let in the rain, even! That’s the literalist view.

487

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And when it comes to theology you can’t even answer a basic question about the origin of sin and death. It’s not complicated like you made it out to be unless you have to figure out a way to mix and match the distinctly different world views of uniformitarianism/evolutionism and creationism. Good luck with your struggle, friend.[/quote]

I do want to address this, since it’s rather uncharitable. When it comes to theology? I’m not using theology to deal with CALism. So, why allow myself to be detoured into a theological debate? As for my theology, if you wish, you might visit a number of sites dealing with Catholic theology/apologetics. But, I’m not here for that.

As of now, I’m dealing with observations the vast majority of CALs wouldn’t dispute. We do not live on land rising from the middle of a giant basin, set into what might be an infinite amount of water. There is not a dome with lights set in it, above our heads. There is not a body of water above, and kept at bay, by this dome.

And since the vast majority (barring some niche sects) wouldn’t dispute these things, they in fact are not literalists. Theology here would be a distraction when simple observation does the trick.[/quote]

Exactly. The people who wrote the bible were explaining the world around them to the best of their ability, but once humans were able to gather more data, it was disproven.[/quote]

No, Sloth is hung up on one word that I think must come from a Catholic translation that more accurately should be translated as “expanse.”[/quote]

Catholic? Try ancient hebrew. That’s an illustration of what their view of the earth and the universe was. This is completely indisputable. Even the hebrews understood it to be a solid dome. A firmament. In fact, that word is used in the illustration. With windows to let in the rain, even! That’s the literalist view.[/quote]

Dome is not a Hebrew word.[/quote]

Edited:

I know. It’s an accurate english description of a general shape. You may substitue firmament, if you wish. As I said, I used the word myself. This firmament kept the waters above and below seperated. The waters above, being outside of the firmament. The lights (stars, moon, sun) and the terrestial water being inside the firmament. None of this even touches upon the basin.

490

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I know. [/quote]

You remind me a little of the Jehovah’s Witness guy. Take one seemingly ambiguous word that meant one thing when it was translated a long time ago and semantically means something different now…and build an entire distorted theology around it. Then dance and dance and dance on that word until you drive it into the ground and bury it.[/quote]

I edited some into that post if you want to take another look.

491

Of course, this view of the world and universe didn’t originate with Genesis, in the first place.

492

Jesus’s “Walking on water miracle” debunked

maybe Jesus was a liquid mountaineer?

494

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Captain, I’m not going to childishly put you on Ignore like some of your zealous brethren have done but I’m not going to keep revisiting old ground with you. If you want to use the taunting method of debate I will either dismiss you or flay you alive in front of your comrades.[/quote]

hahahahaha. Flay me alive… by what diverting the debate to what my age is? Btw, its 56. Or 17. Or 25. Or 30. Or older than you. Or younger than you.

Or, bringing up my age is just a sad, pathetic tatic by a sad, pathetic little guy.

Answer this one point I keep bringing up: If the bible is taken to be literal historic fact, why do ALL dating methods consistantly show objects to be older than the bible says the earth is?
[/quote]

Diversion is a common tactic of his. Age is is favorite.