[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Neither one of you gets anything even close the point I was making.[/quote]
I was really confused by the conversation leading up to this. Was part of the issue: formal versus material heresy? Can someone explain a little clearer what the issue was on each side Chris? Tiribulus?[/quote]
Yes, it is a matter of formal and material heresy. As far as I know Von Til wasn’t a Catholic, so if he truly believed his faith to be the truth, then he was a material heretic. He wasn’t a formal heretic like Calvin and Luther, who knew the Catholic faith to be true, yet later held heresy to be true and was a schismatic.
Now, I am not saying that any and every thing that people hold as true is the truth. I am not, that is a heresy. However, if they hold that their faith is the truth AND that part of their faith holds to some of the Catholic truths AND they do not deny the truths of the Catholic faith, then they are related to Catholics in part because of their salvific truths that are actual truths AND those things that they deny separate us from them.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Neither one of you gets anything even close the point I was making.[/quote]
I was really confused by the conversation leading up to this. Was part of the issue: formal versus material heresy? Can someone explain a little clearer what the issue was on each side Chris? Tiribulus?[/quote]
Yes, it is a matter of formal and material heresy. As far as I know Von Til wasn’t a Catholic, so if he truly believed his faith to be the truth, then he was a material heretic. He wasn’t a formal heretic like Calvin and Luther, who knew the Catholic faith to be true, yet later held heresy to be true and was a schismatic.
Now, I am not saying that any and every thing that people hold as true is the truth. I am not, that is a heresy. However, if they hold that their faith is the truth AND that part of their faith holds to some of the Catholic truths AND they do not deny the truths of the Catholic faith, then they are related to Catholics in part because of their salvific truths that are actual truths AND those things that they deny separate us from them. [/quote]
Out of curiosity, would I be both a formal and a material heretic? I was born in a Catholic hospital, and back then they baptized all infants regardless of faith.
No, but he could have knocked it out in seconds. Hell, he can blow everything into existence instantly. Truth fully, he could have created the universe 2 seconds ago complete with us and the memories we think we have.[/quote]
Oh wait. You mean when you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (without proof or willingness to test), you can make up anything you want? You can just say any damned thing and explain it with “god used god powers”?
Again, just making it up as you go.[/quote]
What are you talking about… I address you differently because you believe different things. I am talking to somebody about the bible, which you clearly think is all bullshit, so I wouldn’t discuss this with you. I was discussing possibilities, are you contending that there are no possibilities outside of what you personally know?
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, that’s all I am asking. You know there’s no God, I presented arguements (and counter arguments) and now I will drum this mantra.
Prove me wrong.
Shouldn’t be hard, I am just a dumb Christian who believes in fairy tails.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Neither one of you gets anything even close the point I was making.[/quote]
I was really confused by the conversation leading up to this. Was part of the issue: formal versus material heresy? Can someone explain a little clearer what the issue was on each side Chris? Tiribulus?[/quote]
Yes, it is a matter of formal and material heresy. As far as I know Von Til wasn’t a Catholic, so if he truly believed his faith to be the truth, then he was a material heretic. He wasn’t a formal heretic like Calvin and Luther, who knew the Catholic faith to be true, yet later held heresy to be true and was a schismatic.
Now, I am not saying that any and every thing that people hold as true is the truth. I am not, that is a heresy. However, if they hold that their faith is the truth AND that part of their faith holds to some of the Catholic truths AND they do not deny the truths of the Catholic faith, then they are related to Catholics in part because of their salvific truths that are actual truths AND those things that they deny separate us from them. [/quote]
Out of curiosity, would I be both a formal and a material heretic? I was born in a Catholic hospital, and back then they baptized all infants regardless of faith. [/quote]
I will look into it a little deeper, but I don’t believe you’re a formal heretic. Even though being a Catholic is like the Marines or the made man, once you are one…you will always be one.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How there are heretics under grace.
[/quote]
Explain to me Tirib, how Von Til was under grace, and where I said that Von Til was under grace*. I said he was after truth. He held some truths of the Catholic Church and therefore holds relation to us through partial Salvific truth.
If not a formal Catholic the only sacraments and instruments of grace that one has to his advantage is baptism and Holy Matrimony. He is not able to receive the other five sacraments, until he formally comes into the Catholic Church.[/quote]In your opinion, and don’t give me this, “well only God knows the heart” crap. In YOUR opinion, to the best of your knowledge with your sacerdotal slide ruler in hand, did he go to heaven? IN YOUR OPINION, yes or know? That’s pretty much the same question as do YOU believe that if Jesus were to crack the eastern sky right now that I would go to heaven. What do YOU believe. If I were to drop dead this second, according to your vaaaaaaaast store of divine tradition, what saith the church? Come on Chris. Make a frickin stand here will ya?
[/quote]
Have no clue. I don’t know the history Von Til’s history enough to even guess where he is now. The only people I know who are in Heaven are the Saints.[/quote]How bout me? Don’t be shy now. I can take it and with a smile yet. Or, since I really doubt I can pry anything like an answer to that one out of you, answer this… I beg of thee. No ring around the rosies, no absolutely definite non committals. Please. Can a heretic go to heaven AS A HERETIC. A person holding false doctrine concerning a life and death tenet of the faith. Forlife seems to have missed that this was what we were actually discussing and Pat somehow went off on creation.
Oh yeah. It’s Van Til, he was Dutch, not German as in Von Til =]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How there are heretics under grace.
[/quote]
Explain to me Tirib, how Von Til was under grace, and where I said that Von Til was under grace*. I said he was after truth. He held some truths of the Catholic Church and therefore holds relation to us through partial Salvific truth.
If not a formal Catholic the only sacraments and instruments of grace that one has to his advantage is baptism and Holy Matrimony. He is not able to receive the other five sacraments, until he formally comes into the Catholic Church.[/quote]In your opinion, and don’t give me this, “well only God knows the heart” crap. In YOUR opinion, to the best of your knowledge with your sacerdotal slide ruler in hand, did he go to heaven? IN YOUR OPINION, yes or know? That’s pretty much the same question as do YOU believe that if Jesus were to crack the eastern sky right now that I would go to heaven. What do YOU believe. If I were to drop dead this second, according to your vaaaaaaaast store of divine tradition, what saith the church? Come on Chris. Make a frickin stand here will ya?
[/quote]
Have no clue. I don’t know the history Von Til’s history enough to even guess where he is now. The only people I know who are in Heaven are the Saints.[/quote]How bout me? Don’t be shy now. I can take it and with a smile yet. Or, since I really doubt I can pry anything like an answer to that one out of you, answer this… I beg of thee. No ring around the rosies, no absolutely definite non committals. Please. Can a heretic go to heaven AS A HERETIC. A person holding false doctrine concerning a life and death tenet of the faith. Forlife seems to have missed that this was what we were actually discussing and Pat somehow went off on creation.
Oh yeah. It’s Van Til, he was Dutch, not German as in Von Til =]
[/quote]
On you, again that is not my place. I do not have an intimate relationship with you in order to even come close to saying. And, that is a good question, however I do not have the answer at the moment, but I can get back to you on that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< On you, again that is not my place. I do not have an intimate relationship with you in order to even come close to saying. And, that is a good question, however I do not have the answer at the moment, but I can get back to you on that.[/quote]Chris, assuming we have been honest here and I have no reason to believe you haven’t been and I know I have been. Assuming that, I’m betting we know each other by this time, in some ways even better than most people in the real world (for lack of a better term.) What could I tell you in a living room that I haven’t already told you here?
Here’s the problem I’m having. When I hear the phrase “after God’s own heart”, being a serious student of the bible, I immediately think of David whom God Himself said that about in those words. Quite famous. He said that because by God’s immeasurable grace David agreed with God like a whole lot of the time. Now you come along and claim that Cornelius Van Til, an avowed enemy of Rome, while a heretic (your word), is nevertheless a man “after God’s heart” presumably like David or why say that?
Am I therefore an unreasonable heathen for choking on the idea that my friend Chris, who routinely displays significant erudition in the area of Catholic life and doctrine, has just said that a heretic can at the same time be a man “after” God’s heart? I further am now waiting for my friend Chris to report back with a thus saith the papacy on whether God welcomes heretics into heaven. I just can’t believe I’m even typing stuff like this.
I had to look up erudition, but now I am back. I am not anywhere close to having “erudition” in the area of the Catholic life and doctrine. But, I digress.
I’ll break it down for you…
My comment was not well prepared, but it still fits (kinda).
“After God’s own heart”
Jesus is God’s heart.
Jesus is Truth.
If a man is after the truth, he is after Jesus.
If Van Til was after the truth, he was after God’s own heart.
I do not know if Van Til was, I do not know him. And, even if Van Til was after the truth, does not mean that he is Heaven.
No, but he could have knocked it out in seconds. Hell, he can blow everything into existence instantly. Truth fully, he could have created the universe 2 seconds ago complete with us and the memories we think we have.[/quote]
Oh wait. You mean when you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (without proof or willingness to test), you can make up anything you want? You can just say any damned thing and explain it with “god used god powers”?
Again, just making it up as you go.[/quote]
What are you talking about… I address you differently because you believe different things. I am talking to somebody about the bible, which you clearly think is all bullshit, so I wouldn’t discuss this with you. I was discussing possibilities, are you contending that there are no possibilities outside of what you personally know?
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, that’s all I am asking. You know there’s no God, I presented arguements (and counter arguments) and now I will drum this mantra.
Prove me wrong.
Shouldn’t be hard, I am just a dumb Christian who believes in fairy tails.[/quote]
Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: “I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”
Jill: “I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.”
Bill: “How can anyone be against highway improvements?”
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
“You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”
That last sentence? Not mine. From the site. Think about that. Your exact argument is such a well known fallacy that it appears as an example on a website about fallacies.
What does that tell you, pat?
The problem with “disprove god!” is that every ___-damned time a claim about god, or a claim from the bible can be disproven, it is. And all you do is make up more damn cop outs.
Believers said God lived in the sky. Went to sky. No god. Believers claimed god is invisible.
Believers said garden with flaming sword. No garden, no sword. Believers claimed God used godmagikpowerz to poof it away.
Believer says “I refuse to test god!”, because every time God is tested, God fails.
Any proof I could give you that disproves God will just be met with another made up “fact” about god that covers your ass.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof >>>[/quote]Oh look Lord another tragically comedic attempt by fallen man to outsmart you, the infinite creator and sustainer of all.
No, but he could have knocked it out in seconds. Hell, he can blow everything into existence instantly. Truth fully, he could have created the universe 2 seconds ago complete with us and the memories we think we have.[/quote]
Oh wait. You mean when you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (without proof or willingness to test), you can make up anything you want? You can just say any damned thing and explain it with “god used god powers”?
Again, just making it up as you go.[/quote]
What are you talking about… I address you differently because you believe different things. I am talking to somebody about the bible, which you clearly think is all bullshit, so I wouldn’t discuss this with you. I was discussing possibilities, are you contending that there are no possibilities outside of what you personally know?
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, that’s all I am asking. You know there’s no God, I presented arguements (and counter arguments) and now I will drum this mantra.
Prove me wrong.
Shouldn’t be hard, I am just a dumb Christian who believes in fairy tails.[/quote]
Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: “I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”
Jill: “I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.”
Bill: “How can anyone be against highway improvements?”
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
“You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”
That last sentence? Not mine. From the site. Think about that. Your exact argument is such a well known fallacy that it appears as an example on a website about fallacies.
What does that tell you, pat?
The problem with “disprove god!” is that every ___-damned time a claim about god, or a claim from the bible can be disproven, it is. And all you do is make up more damn cop outs.
Believers said God lived in the sky. Went to sky. No god. Believers claimed god is invisible.
Believers said garden with flaming sword. No garden, no sword. Believers claimed God used godmagikpowerz to poof it away.
Believer says “I refuse to test god!”, because every time God is tested, God fails.
Any proof I could give you that disproves God will just be met with another made up “fact” about god that covers your ass.[/quote]
LOL! Really?
I didn’t just make a claim, I presented an argument too. Any ‘burden of proof’ I may have had was fulfilled. I not only presented the arguments, I even gave you counter arguments to help you counter.
If this is all you got, I think you need to rethink your position.
Any the logical fallacy you committed was the classic ‘Red Herring’. You tried to divert the conversation from proving or disproving cosmology to ‘burden of proof fallacy’. I always provide the argument first, to avoid this fallacy.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof >>>[/quote]Oh look Lord another tragically comedic attempt by fallen man to outsmart you, the infinite creator and sustainer of all.
[/quote]
So when you dont have an argument, scream louder that you’re right. Gotcha.
I’m glad I live in the time I do. I can call this stuff out and the worst Tiribulus can do is call me “sinful, fallen man” and insult my “insolence”. Back when (and this is why religion got to be so popular) he or some group of believers would have labeled me a heretic and tortured or killed me.
But I’m sure the religious folk today don’t like that part of their history, not one little bit. Lets just pretend it didn’t happen.
[quote]forlife wrote: <<< I’m not sure why you’re throwing a fit, given your own admission that YOU were a a spiritually dead heretic, and despite being a spiritually dead heretic, God loved you and chose to save you over the other spiritually dead heretics that God doesn’t love. Obviously, you believe at least some spiritually dead heretics are in the mind and heart of God.
[/quote] God indeed can and does love and elect whomsoever He pleases and many truly horrific specimens have come to gloriously testify of His transforming power and grace. However, now stay with me here, He changed them in the act of saving them and they were universally well aware that it was happening. There is absolutely no such thing as Christian who does not know they are, nor is there or can there be any such thing as a heretic who is presently bound for heaven. That is another gospel which the apostle called anathema. Think with me for a second. IF that is true, how many people are in for the most eternally heartbreakingly rude awakening fathomable.
[/quote]
Yeah, because he cherry picks his saved folks the rest of us can just go to hell. So really you are on the right path because you have no choice. God already damned you, so get you a hooker and an 8-ball of cocaine and go nuts…Hell get two hookers, you weren’t one of the cool kids God picked to be on his team…
/sarcasm [/quote]
…so, his unproven all-everything being doesn’t act the way you think it should. Clearly he has it wrong, and your all-everything being is the real one.
Or, you’re both just making this shit up as you go and you don’t like the shit he made up and prefer the shit you made up.
[/quote]
Or maybe we should just not care or try and stick with shit you make up.[/quote]
No, but he could have knocked it out in seconds. Hell, he can blow everything into existence instantly. Truth fully, he could have created the universe 2 seconds ago complete with us and the memories we think we have.[/quote]
Oh wait. You mean when you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (without proof or willingness to test), you can make up anything you want? You can just say any damned thing and explain it with “god used god powers”?
Again, just making it up as you go.[/quote]
What are you talking about… I address you differently because you believe different things. I am talking to somebody about the bible, which you clearly think is all bullshit, so I wouldn’t discuss this with you. I was discussing possibilities, are you contending that there are no possibilities outside of what you personally know?
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, that’s all I am asking. You know there’s no God, I presented arguements (and counter arguments) and now I will drum this mantra.
Prove me wrong.
Shouldn’t be hard, I am just a dumb Christian who believes in fairy tails.[/quote]
Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: “I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”
Jill: “I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.”
Bill: “How can anyone be against highway improvements?”
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
“You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”
That last sentence? Not mine. From the site. Think about that. Your exact argument is such a well known fallacy that it appears as an example on a website about fallacies.
What does that tell you, pat?
The problem with “disprove god!” is that every ___-damned time a claim about god, or a claim from the bible can be disproven, it is. And all you do is make up more damn cop outs.
Believers said God lived in the sky. Went to sky. No god. Believers claimed god is invisible.
Believers said garden with flaming sword. No garden, no sword. Believers claimed God used godmagikpowerz to poof it away.
Believer says “I refuse to test god!”, because every time God is tested, God fails.
Any proof I could give you that disproves God will just be met with another made up “fact” about god that covers your ass.[/quote]
No, but he could have knocked it out in seconds. Hell, he can blow everything into existence instantly. Truth fully, he could have created the universe 2 seconds ago complete with us and the memories we think we have.[/quote]
Oh wait. You mean when you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (without proof or willingness to test), you can make up anything you want? You can just say any damned thing and explain it with “god used god powers”?
Again, just making it up as you go.[/quote]
What are you talking about… I address you differently because you believe different things. I am talking to somebody about the bible, which you clearly think is all bullshit, so I wouldn’t discuss this with you. I was discussing possibilities, are you contending that there are no possibilities outside of what you personally know?
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, that’s all I am asking. You know there’s no God, I presented arguements (and counter arguments) and now I will drum this mantra.
Prove me wrong.
Shouldn’t be hard, I am just a dumb Christian who believes in fairy tails.[/quote]
Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: “I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”
Jill: “I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.”
Bill: “How can anyone be against highway improvements?”
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
“You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”
That last sentence? Not mine. From the site. Think about that. Your exact argument is such a well known fallacy that it appears as an example on a website about fallacies.
What does that tell you, pat?
The problem with “disprove god!” is that every ___-damned time a claim about god, or a claim from the bible can be disproven, it is. And all you do is make up more damn cop outs.
Believers said God lived in the sky. Went to sky. No god. Believers claimed god is invisible.
Believers said garden with flaming sword. No garden, no sword. Believers claimed God used godmagikpowerz to poof it away.
Believer says “I refuse to test god!”, because every time God is tested, God fails.
Any proof I could give you that disproves God will just be met with another made up “fact” about god that covers your ass.[/quote]
LOL! Really?
I didn’t just make a claim, I presented an argument too. Any ‘burden of proof’ I may have had was fulfilled. I not only presented the arguments, I even gave you counter arguments to help you counter.
If this is all you got, I think you need to rethink your position.
Any the logical fallacy you committed was the classic ‘Red Herring’. You tried to divert the conversation from proving or disproving cosmology to ‘burden of proof fallacy’. I always provide the argument first, to avoid this fallacy.
It even has my least favorite, the Kalam version…[/quote]
You are making a claim, several in fact, but the first and most important of which is “My God exists.” You are trying to defend this claim by challenging me to disprove it. Burden of proof fallacy, to the letter.
Your cosmology argument is another fallacy, argument from ignorance. You illustrate how “Something happened and we dont know how”, then insert “The only thing that could do it is my God”. In other words, “We dont know, therefore (my) God.” Argument from ignorance.
Then you provide a false dichotomy, and says “Its my God or nothing.” You challenge me to come up with something better, when I’ve already admitted I dont know. Anything I come up with will have holes, because I don’t know. It would be just a guess. But I refuse to claim to believe in a specific theory, because your intent is clearly to have something to attack and say “I found a flaw in your theory, yet none exist in mine! I am right!” While you continue to ignore all the gaping flaws in your theory or patch them over with cop outs.
The universe could have been created by any number of known or unknown forces with or without omnipotence. The universe could have been created by a God who is totally unlike yours in every way. The universe could have been created by a god whos only power is to create a universe, after which he ceases to exist. Yet I’m sure you reject the possibility of another God existing, yet dont understand why I reject the possibility of yours, when your holy book is full of untruths and the God you worship doesn’t make one lick of sense. The universe could have been created by unconscious natural forces that we simply don’t yet understand because we lack the tools to do so.
[quote]forlife wrote: <<< I’m not sure why you’re throwing a fit, given your own admission that YOU were a a spiritually dead heretic, and despite being a spiritually dead heretic, God loved you and chose to save you over the other spiritually dead heretics that God doesn’t love. Obviously, you believe at least some spiritually dead heretics are in the mind and heart of God.
[/quote] God indeed can and does love and elect whomsoever He pleases and many truly horrific specimens have come to gloriously testify of His transforming power and grace. However, now stay with me here, He changed them in the act of saving them and they were universally well aware that it was happening. There is absolutely no such thing as Christian who does not know they are, nor is there or can there be any such thing as a heretic who is presently bound for heaven. That is another gospel which the apostle called anathema. Think with me for a second. IF that is true, how many people are in for the most eternally heartbreakingly rude awakening fathomable.
[/quote]
Yeah, because he cherry picks his saved folks the rest of us can just go to hell. So really you are on the right path because you have no choice. God already damned you, so get you a hooker and an 8-ball of cocaine and go nuts…Hell get two hookers, you weren’t one of the cool kids God picked to be on his team…
/sarcasm [/quote]
…so, his unproven all-everything being doesn’t act the way you think it should. Clearly he has it wrong, and your all-everything being is the real one.
Or, you’re both just making this shit up as you go and you don’t like the shit he made up and prefer the shit you made up.
[/quote]
Or maybe we should just not care or try and stick with shit you make up.[/quote]
What shit do I make up, exactly?[/quote]
That ‘nothing makes something’[/quote]
No, Pat, that’s a lie. Thats the resut of your false dichotomy of “Its my god or nothing.” Stop projecting the “you chose the nothing option!” on me.
I never said “nothing makes something”. I said “We dont know what made something.” Big, big, difference that I already explained.
Now you’re simply guilty of putting words in my mouth. Its unethical and childish, stop doing it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m glad I live in the time I do. I can call this stuff out and the worst Tiribulus can do is call me “sinful, fallen man” and insult my “insolence”. Back when (and this is why religion got to be so popular) he or some group of believers would have labeled me a heretic and tortured or killed me.
But I’m sure the religious folk today don’t like that part of their history, not one little bit. Lets just pretend it didn’t happen.[/quote]
Don’t kid yourself. You are not a heretic. You are just an unbeliever. We won’t waste our good firewood on that.
No, but he could have knocked it out in seconds. Hell, he can blow everything into existence instantly. Truth fully, he could have created the universe 2 seconds ago complete with us and the memories we think we have.[/quote]
Oh wait. You mean when you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (without proof or willingness to test), you can make up anything you want? You can just say any damned thing and explain it with “god used god powers”?
Again, just making it up as you go.[/quote]
What are you talking about… I address you differently because you believe different things. I am talking to somebody about the bible, which you clearly think is all bullshit, so I wouldn’t discuss this with you. I was discussing possibilities, are you contending that there are no possibilities outside of what you personally know?
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, that’s all I am asking. You know there’s no God, I presented arguements (and counter arguments) and now I will drum this mantra.
Prove me wrong.
Shouldn’t be hard, I am just a dumb Christian who believes in fairy tails.[/quote]
Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: “I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”
Jill: “I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.”
Bill: “How can anyone be against highway improvements?”
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
“You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”
That last sentence? Not mine. From the site. Think about that. Your exact argument is such a well known fallacy that it appears as an example on a website about fallacies.
What does that tell you, pat?
The problem with “disprove god!” is that every ___-damned time a claim about god, or a claim from the bible can be disproven, it is. And all you do is make up more damn cop outs.
Believers said God lived in the sky. Went to sky. No god. Believers claimed god is invisible.
Believers said garden with flaming sword. No garden, no sword. Believers claimed God used godmagikpowerz to poof it away.
Believer says “I refuse to test god!”, because every time God is tested, God fails.
Any proof I could give you that disproves God will just be met with another made up “fact” about god that covers your ass.[/quote]
LOL! Really?
I didn’t just make a claim, I presented an argument too. Any ‘burden of proof’ I may have had was fulfilled. I not only presented the arguments, I even gave you counter arguments to help you counter.
If this is all you got, I think you need to rethink your position.
Any the logical fallacy you committed was the classic ‘Red Herring’. You tried to divert the conversation from proving or disproving cosmology to ‘burden of proof fallacy’. I always provide the argument first, to avoid this fallacy.
It even has my least favorite, the Kalam version…[/quote]
You are making a claim, several in fact, but the first and most important of which is “My God exists.” You are trying to defend this claim by challenging me to disprove it. Burden of proof fallacy, to the letter.
[/quote]
Incorrect. I never made such a claim with out an argument. Find where I did that, and good luck because it never, ever happened except in your head. Therefore, no fallacy exists on my part.
You have no idea what the argument says, do you? It doesn’t say that, it does not assert that or infer that. You are as completely wrong as you can be. An argument from ignorance states that one will adhere to a conclusion even if it is proven false. Show me where the conclusion has been proven false and I am fallaciously adhering to it. If you think that is happening, show specifically how and where.
Now THAT is the ‘argument from ignorance’. I asked you to prove the argument wrong. Not only did you not, you claim that ‘I don’t know’ trumps the argument. That is beyond ridiculous. You’re drowning here.
Hell, you have not even attempted to counter the argument, nor have you poked a single hole. You say ‘I don’t know’ and insist I should give up because you don’t know and don’t care? Right.
Well, now you’ve made a claim, so back it up. You don’t want to make a ‘burden of proof’ fallacy, do you?
[quote]forlife wrote: <<< I’m not sure why you’re throwing a fit, given your own admission that YOU were a a spiritually dead heretic, and despite being a spiritually dead heretic, God loved you and chose to save you over the other spiritually dead heretics that God doesn’t love. Obviously, you believe at least some spiritually dead heretics are in the mind and heart of God.
[/quote] God indeed can and does love and elect whomsoever He pleases and many truly horrific specimens have come to gloriously testify of His transforming power and grace. However, now stay with me here, He changed them in the act of saving them and they were universally well aware that it was happening. There is absolutely no such thing as Christian who does not know they are, nor is there or can there be any such thing as a heretic who is presently bound for heaven. That is another gospel which the apostle called anathema. Think with me for a second. IF that is true, how many people are in for the most eternally heartbreakingly rude awakening fathomable.
[/quote]
Yeah, because he cherry picks his saved folks the rest of us can just go to hell. So really you are on the right path because you have no choice. God already damned you, so get you a hooker and an 8-ball of cocaine and go nuts…Hell get two hookers, you weren’t one of the cool kids God picked to be on his team…
/sarcasm [/quote]
…so, his unproven all-everything being doesn’t act the way you think it should. Clearly he has it wrong, and your all-everything being is the real one.
Or, you’re both just making this shit up as you go and you don’t like the shit he made up and prefer the shit you made up.
[/quote]
Or maybe we should just not care or try and stick with shit you make up.[/quote]
What shit do I make up, exactly?[/quote]
That ‘nothing makes something’[/quote]
No, Pat, that’s a lie. Thats the resut of your false dichotomy of “Its my god or nothing.” Stop projecting the “you chose the nothing option!” on me.
I never said “nothing makes something”. I said “We dont know what made something.” Big, big, difference that I already explained.
Now you’re simply guilty of putting words in my mouth. Its unethical and childish, stop doing it.[/quote]
There are only two options, existence is contingent on something or nothing, period. There are no other choices here.
