Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[pat]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.

If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.

Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.

And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]

LOL @ people who comment about a book they never read. What other books haven’t you read that you care to comment about? Is there like some little atheist sowing circle where you get together and discuss things you don’t know shit about?[/quote]

I’ve read the Bible cover to fucking cover more than once. Been a while as I moved on from fiction, but I’ve done it. Any other fairy tales you want to believe about me to make your arguments more friendly to your views? [/quote]

You demonstrate no knowledge of it, therefore you’re a fucking liar. I can tell when someone has read it and someone has not, I can tell you have not.

Here’s a fairy tale, something from nothing. You either have to prove that or cop out like the rest of your weak minded cronies and claim you can’t be bothered with it because things just are, which is circular and therefore bad logic.

You’re just another silly little angry atheist with some chip on his shoulder. Atheism is a complete fallacy unsupportable by any method of logic.Atheists are so predictable, it’s like they read the same book. [/quote]

The fairy tale is easy to match or better… something from nothing?

How about everything, all the time.

And I maybe wrong, but I don’t think I’m seen as the angry atheist type. As an fyi…I want to believe.
[/quote]

Not you. You don’t wag your dick around in the breeze thinking nobody’s going to smack it down. I don’t see you as angry or atheist. You tend to lean toward agnosticism/ deism at times.

Everything all the time is fallacious because it’s circular. It’s a logically impossible position. We could break it down further but there is no point, it’s already circular.

[pat]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.

If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.

Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.

And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]

LOL @ people who comment about a book they never read. What other books haven’t you read that you care to comment about? Is there like some little atheist sowing circle where you get together and discuss things you don’t know shit about?[/quote]

I’ve read the Bible cover to fucking cover more than once. Been a while as I moved on from fiction, but I’ve done it. Any other fairy tales you want to believe about me to make your arguments more friendly to your views? [/quote]

You demonstrate no knowledge of it, therefore you’re a fucking liar. I can tell when someone has read it and someone has not, I can tell you have not.

Here’s a fairy tale, something from nothing. You either have to prove that or cop out like the rest of your weak minded cronies and claim you can’t be bothered with it because things just are, which is circular and therefore bad logic.

You’re just another silly little angry atheist with some chip on his shoulder. Atheism is a complete fallacy unsupportable by any method of logic.

Atheists are so predictable, it’s like they read the same book. [/quote]

One of us sounds very angry right now like he has a chip on his shoulder. And also called me a fucking liar.

Hint: It’s the believer. It’s you. I already put that I don’t care if you don’t believe me. Raised Methodist in a small Kansas town and was a believer until I got to be about 19 or 20. It wasn’t an overnight thing (me becoming agnostic or atheist) by any means but a gradual process of moving away from the church and it’s ways of thinking.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but that’s the truth. Would it help if I said God’s honest truth? Now you believe me?

Also LMAO at the burden of proof being on us. You think a God exists. I don’t. It’s up to me to prove I’m right where you get to just be right because hey man you’re already right anyways so I gotta prove you wrong. And also, just for fun, you’ll dismiss about 100% of the things we use as proof anyways. But the burden is ALL on non-believers. Interesting. You’d think as the correct one you’d feel a bit more stronger in your case.

Strong hypocrisy in the first part, strong being a poor Christian, and strong logic. Well done, that was a terrific post! [/quote]

Yes, I called you a liar, and I stand by it. The things you said about the bible make no sense and if at all accurate are out of context. That demonstrates no knowledge of it. That means you didn’t read it, or you have the worst reading comprehension on the planet. I simple google proof quiz could prove it.

The argument has been made in this thread many times, and sustained many times over. I’d have figured you’d have done your research and actually read an old thread you resurrected before you showed your ass and insulted everybody you could in one fell swoop. I have made the arguments, beat down ever single possible counter argument without effort. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong. You just have to find out what I said. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself a thousand times. If you wanted to debate that, you should have started a new thread, I don’t feel it’s worth my time to repeat what I have already said because you don’t want to hit the ‘back’ button.

What athiest tend not to realize is they are not asserting a ‘negative’, they are asserting a new theory on existence and how it got their which is predicated on ‘something from nothing’ which must necessarily be true, if you are to prove your position is correct.

Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. If you come in showing your ass, someone just might kick it.

For the record, I am not a creationist, at least not in the traditional sense.

[H_factor]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.

If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.

Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.

And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]

LOL @ people who comment about a book they never read. What other books haven’t you read that you care to comment about? Is there like some little atheist sowing circle where you get together and discuss things you don’t know shit about?[/quote]

I’ve read the Bible cover to fucking cover more than once. Been a while as I moved on from fiction, but I’ve done it. Any other fairy tales you want to believe about me to make your arguments more friendly to your views? [/quote]

You demonstrate no knowledge of it, therefore you’re a fucking liar. I can tell when someone has read it and someone has not, I can tell you have not.

Here’s a fairy tale, something from nothing. You either have to prove that or cop out like the rest of your weak minded cronies and claim you can’t be bothered with it because things just are, which is circular and therefore bad logic.

You’re just another silly little angry atheist with some chip on his shoulder. Atheism is a complete fallacy unsupportable by any method of logic.

Atheists are so predictable, it’s like they read the same book. [/quote]

One of us sounds very angry right now like he has a chip on his shoulder. And also called me a fucking liar.

Hint: It’s the believer. It’s you. I already put that I don’t care if you don’t believe me. Raised Methodist in a small Kansas town and was a believer until I got to be about 19 or 20. It wasn’t an overnight thing (me becoming agnostic or atheist) by any means but a gradual process of moving away from the church and it’s ways of thinking.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but that’s the truth. Would it help if I said God’s honest truth? Now you believe me?

Also LMAO at the burden of proof being on us. You think a God exists. I don’t. It’s up to me to prove I’m right where you get to just be right because hey man you’re already right anyways so I gotta prove you wrong. And also, just for fun, you’ll dismiss about 100% of the things we use as proof anyways. But the burden is ALL on non-believers. Interesting. You’d think as the correct one you’d feel a bit more stronger in your case.

Strong hypocrisy in the first part, strong being a poor Christian, and strong logic. Well done, that was a terrific post! [/quote]

Yes, I called you a liar, and I stand by it. The things you said about the bible make no sense and if at all accurate are out of context. That demonstrates no knowledge of it. That means you didn’t read it, or you have the worst reading comprehension on the planet. I simple google proof quiz could prove it.

The argument has been made in this thread many times, and sustained many times over. I’d have figured you’d have done your research and actually read an old thread you resurrected before you showed your ass and insulted everybody you could in one fell swoop. I have made the arguments, beat down ever single possible counter argument without effort. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong. You just have to find out what I said. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself a thousand times. If you wanted to debate that, you should have started a new thread, I don’t feel it’s worth my time to repeat what I have already said because you don’t want to hit the ‘back’ button.

What athiest tend not to realize is they are not asserting a ‘negative’, they are asserting a new theory on existence and how it got their which is predicated on ‘something from nothing’ which must necessarily be true, if you are to prove your position is correct.

Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. If you come in showing your ass, someone just might kick it.

For the record, I am not a creationist, at least not in the traditional sense.
[/quote]

Wow I’m surprised this thread is still going on. Seems a lot of people are continuing to discuss it. Are they aware you already solved it? Are they aware you already proved it and demolished all of them. You might say something to Dr. Matt and Trib and others who are continuing to discuss as if the undeniable solution hasn’t already been presented to them by you. What day will you collect your Nobel Prize? I’d say this is a pretty big development.

You might be a creationist or not, but if you’re a Christian you aren’t following the good book very well.

Wrap this thread up boys, go back to where Pat solved it all for us and move on. I’d fully expect no more religious debate in this forum, he’s found the correct answer and you can’t counter it.

Just for fun, what part did I get wrong? If I don’t accept Jesus will I or will I not be punished for all eternity for this decision? You’re arguing that is incorrect? Odd.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

…As an fyi…I want to believe.

[/quote]
[/quote]

In respect to this, there is a threshold at which people are willing to accept a position as true. I reckon in Neuro’s case, he needs to know what it takes for him to believe. Then a path can be taken to either fulfill or dispell the belief in question.

It’s kind of the point of my Skepticism thread. People are so busy trying to tear down other people’s arguments, they forgot to put their own to the test. It’s the biggest reason why their arguments fail.
You can see the difference between a person like Kamui, who has clearly done his homework and H factor who just looks like an over blown ass.

[H_factor]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

…As an fyi…I want to believe.

[/quote]
[/quote]

In respect to this, there is a threshold at which people are willing to accept a position as true. I reckon in Neuro’s case, he needs to know what it takes for him to believe. Then a path can be taken to either fulfill or dispell the belief in question.

It’s kind of the point of my Skepticism thread. People are so busy trying to tear down other people’s arguments, they forgot to put their own to the test. It’s the biggest reason why their arguments fail.
You can see the difference between a person like Kamui, who has clearly done his homework and H factor who just looks like an over blown ass.[/quote]

Lol. Are you sure YOU’VE read the Bible? Or do you just not follow its teachings, but assume it is all correct? Nothing like Bible beaters attacking people, saying the f bomb, calling people asses, and losing their mind in thread after thread. What would Jesus do bracelet get lost?

[smh23]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
I know I’m not Tirib. but here goes.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, what Tirib is talking about has very little to nothing to do with math and everything to do with his epistemiological base for his world view. And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken Tirib. [/quote]

I understand what he’s trying to do, I just don’t believe he does it.

“Yes, it must be the triune God…”

Why? He certainly hasn’t proved this yet.

You seem like a smart guy, Fletch. Let me ask you this: do you believe there exists a simple–simple enough for a 6-year-old to both wholly grasp and easily internalize–logical proposition or argument which brings on the inevitable conclusion that the God of the Christian Bible is the one true God?

I doubt that you do. Even the truly devout do not believe this–otherwise the word “faith” would vanish from Christian lexicon.

Tirib and Pat do a fantastic job of eviscerating the firm ground that naive atheists believe they stand on. They have a truly impressive grasp of the uncertainty inherent in the human experience.

But then Tirib (Pat doesn’t do this) takes it a step further: “Anyone who denies Christianity is both totally and DEMONSTRABLY wrong.”

The problem is that he doesn’t go on to demonstrate this.

[H_factor]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
I know I’m not Tirib. but here goes.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, what Tirib is talking about has very little to nothing to do with math and everything to do with his epistemiological base for his world view. And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken Tirib. [/quote]

I understand what he’s trying to do, I just don’t believe he does it.

“Yes, it must be the triune God…”

Why? He certainly hasn’t proved this yet.

You seem like a smart guy, Fletch. Let me ask you this: do you believe there exists a simple–simple enough for a 6-year-old to both wholly grasp and easily internalize–logical proposition or argument which brings on the inevitable conclusion that the God of the Christian Bible is the one true God?

I doubt that you do. Even the truly devout do not believe this–otherwise the word “faith” would vanish from Christian lexicon.

Tirib and Pat do a fantastic job of eviscerating the firm ground that naive atheists believe they stand on. They have a truly impressive grasp of the uncertainty inherent in the human experience.

But then Tirib (Pat doesn’t do this) takes it a step further: “Anyone who denies Christianity is both totally and DEMONSTRABLY wrong.”

The problem is that he doesn’t go on to demonstrate this.[/quote]

The confusing thing is all the I’ve already shown you guys type talk in these threads. As if the work has been done, the proof has been made, and asking questions about the proof is tedious because “we showed you this already.” I’ve NEVER seen it laid out line by line after reading countless posts on various forums, reading books on the subject, and taking philosophy classes. Laid out line by line where no one can question it. I really like your faith point as well. You don’t need faith if it is provable. All some of us are asking is for it to be proved. If it can’t be proved just say that. Just admit you can’t prove it.

I’ll FULLY admit I can’t prove without any questions one way or the other. This is one of the oldest questions in existence and people have been arguing this for forever. I can’t prove God exists. I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. I’ll never claim to be able to. I don’t think the burden is on me though as they want to say. Why is it on me for questioning things? Why is it in my fault as an agnostic that I can’t PROVE God doesn’t exist. I’m not the first person to attempt it or ponder it, I won’t be the last. But they haven’t wrapped it up like they’d like to say. A lot of what Dr. Matt has pointed out has gone largely unchallenged. And considering a bunch of people who question haven’t said Oh you’re right I see it perfectly now, acting as if it’s OVER like Pat thinks is crazy.

[smh23]

[quote]H factor wrote:
I can’t prove God exists. I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. [/quote]

This is the most important thing to understand in this particular debate. We can have a truly productive discussion, and we can passionately make our case–whatever that case may be.

But until both sides admit what you’ve admitted here, it’s pointless. (It’s worth making a distinction here: being certain of something and being able to prove that thing are entirely different. You can say you’re certain that God exists–I sometimes say I’m certain of things I can’t necessarily prove. But if you tell me that not only are you certain, but I too should be certain–then we’re getting into an area in which demonstration and argumentation are key. If you tell me you can prove you’re right, then do it. Don’t wonder miles and miles in circles, all the while teasing with “oh boy, you’re gonna see the error of your ways once I reveal the truth!”).

I can’t speak for Pat, but I do know that he’s been nothing but a good guy to me, and with regard to the topic at hand, I’ve never seen him aver that he has some sort of logically-certain proof of the existence of the Christian God.

[H_factor]

[quote]pat wrote:

The argument has been made in this thread many times, and sustained many times over. I’d have figured you’d have done your research and actually read an old thread you resurrected before you showed your ass and insulted everybody you could in one fell swoop. I have made the arguments, beat down ever single possible counter argument without effort. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong.[/quote]

Smh: This is what I was talking about. And FWIW I didn’t resurrect this thread in the least bit Pat. I posted 15 minutes after the post before me for my first post in this thread.

[smh23]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The argument has been made in this thread many times, and sustained many times over. I’d have figured you’d have done your research and actually read an old thread you resurrected before you showed your ass and insulted everybody you could in one fell swoop. I have made the arguments, beat down ever single possible counter argument without effort. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong.[/quote]

Smh: This is what I was talking about. And FWIW I didn’t resurrect this thread in the least bit. [/quote]

Gotcha.

My biggest problem–not a personal problem at all, as I like him, but an intellectual one–is with Tirib, who refuses to come clean and either (in a lucid, pointed manner) demonstrate that his worldview is logically and/or evidentially inevitable OR admit that his faith is just that: faith.

[pat]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

…As an fyi…I want to believe.

[/quote]
[/quote]

In respect to this, there is a threshold at which people are willing to accept a position as true. I reckon in Neuro’s case, he needs to know what it takes for him to believe. Then a path can be taken to either fulfill or dispell the belief in question.

It’s kind of the point of my Skepticism thread. People are so busy trying to tear down other people’s arguments, they forgot to put their own to the test. It’s the biggest reason why their arguments fail.
You can see the difference between a person like Kamui, who has clearly done his homework and H factor who just looks like an over blown ass.[/quote]

Lol. Are you sure YOU’VE read the Bible? Or do you just not follow its teachings, but assume it is all correct? Nothing like Bible beaters attacking people, saying the f bomb, calling people asses, and losing their mind in thread after thread. What would Jesus do bracelet get lost? [/quote]

Quite certain. I just don’t fit your stereotype.

[Legionary]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The argument has been made in this thread many times, and sustained many times over. I’d have figured you’d have done your research and actually read an old thread you resurrected before you showed your ass and insulted everybody you could in one fell swoop. I have made the arguments, beat down ever single possible counter argument without effort. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong.[/quote]

Smh: This is what I was talking about. And FWIW I didn’t resurrect this thread in the least bit. [/quote]

Gotcha.

My biggest problem–not a personal problem at all, as I like him, but an intellectual one–is with Tirib, who refuses to come clean and either (in a lucid, pointed manner) demonstrate that his worldview is logically and/or evidentially inevitable OR admit that his faith is just that: faith.[/quote]

Exactly. It is self evident that agnosticism is the single most rational worldview based on what we as humans can observe in the known Universe. Believe in God? Great. Don’t believe in God? Great. The problem occurs when someone from either camp claims to have knowledge of the existence or non existence of such a deity. Therefore, it follows that the two most rational schools of thought within the two respective camps are those of the Agnostic Theist and the Agnostic Atheist.

[pat]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
I know I’m not Tirib. but here goes.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, what Tirib is talking about has very little to nothing to do with math and everything to do with his epistemiological base for his world view. And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken Tirib. [/quote]

I understand what he’s trying to do, I just don’t believe he does it.

“Yes, it must be the triune God…”

Why? He certainly hasn’t proved this yet.

You seem like a smart guy, Fletch. Let me ask you this: do you believe there exists a simple–simple enough for a 6-year-old to both wholly grasp and easily internalize–logical proposition or argument which brings on the inevitable conclusion that the God of the Christian Bible is the one true God?

I doubt that you do. Even the truly devout do not believe this–otherwise the word “faith” would vanish from Christian lexicon.

Tirib and Pat do a fantastic job of eviscerating the firm ground that naive atheists believe they stand on. They have a truly impressive grasp of the uncertainty inherent in the human experience.

But then Tirib (Pat doesn’t do this) takes it a step further: “Anyone who denies Christianity is both totally and DEMONSTRABLY wrong.”

The problem is that he doesn’t go on to demonstrate this.[/quote]

The confusing thing is all the I’ve already shown you guys type talk in these threads. As if the work has been done, the proof has been made, and asking questions about the proof is tedious because “we showed you this already.” I’ve NEVER seen it laid out line by line after reading countless posts on various forums, reading books on the subject, and taking philosophy classes. Laid out line by line where no one can question it. I really like your faith point as well. You don’t need faith if it is provable. All some of us are asking is for it to be proved. If it can’t be proved just say that. Just admit you can’t prove it.

I’ll FULLY admit I can’t prove without any questions one way or the other. This is one of the oldest questions in existence and people have been arguing this for forever. I can’t prove God exists. I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. I’ll never claim to be able to. I don’t think the burden is on me though as they want to say. Why is it on me for questioning things? Why is it in my fault as an agnostic that I can’t PROVE God doesn’t exist. I’m not the first person to attempt it or ponder it, I won’t be the last. But they haven’t wrapped it up like they’d like to say. A lot of what Dr. Matt has pointed out has gone largely unchallenged. And considering a bunch of people who question haven’t said Oh you’re right I see it perfectly now, acting as if it’s OVER like Pat thinks is crazy. [/quote]

I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist. And like I said the argument has been made in this thread, by me laid out concisely. Just peruse backwars, look for Jerry and you find them. Or you can look at where I shred Dawkin’s mindless and patently false ramblings. It’s one thing to present a counter argument, it’s another to invent an argument that previously didn’t exist and then counter argue that.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
I know I’m not Tirib. but here goes.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, what Tirib is talking about has very little to nothing to do with math and everything to do with his epistemiological base for his world view. And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken Tirib. [/quote]

I understand what he’s trying to do, I just don’t believe he does it.

“Yes, it must be the triune God…”

Why? He certainly hasn’t proved this yet.

You seem like a smart guy, Fletch. Let me ask you this: do you believe there exists a simple–simple enough for a 6-year-old to both wholly grasp and easily internalize–logical proposition or argument which brings on the inevitable conclusion that the God of the Christian Bible is the one true God?

I doubt that you do. Even the truly devout do not believe this–otherwise the word “faith” would vanish from Christian lexicon.

Tirib and Pat do a fantastic job of eviscerating the firm ground that naive atheists believe they stand on. They have a truly impressive grasp of the uncertainty inherent in the human experience.

But then Tirib (Pat doesn’t do this) takes it a step further: “Anyone who denies Christianity is both totally and DEMONSTRABLY wrong.”

The problem is that he doesn’t go on to demonstrate this.[/quote]

I’m hoping he’ll clarify his tautologies and provide an understanding for problem of the one and many and Kamui too. As of right now, no I don’t believe Tirib has made argument that the triune Christian God is the one and only god but there is a lot of internal consistency in his belief as I understand it now which is a lot more than most believers or unbelievers. I’m now trying to figure out what belief is made from preference and what is logical and where logic will break down.

[smh23]

[quote]pat wrote:

I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]

I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).

Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?

[pat]

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The argument has been made in this thread many times, and sustained many times over. I’d have figured you’d have done your research and actually read an old thread you resurrected before you showed your ass and insulted everybody you could in one fell swoop. I have made the arguments, beat down ever single possible counter argument without effort. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong.[/quote]

Smh: This is what I was talking about. And FWIW I didn’t resurrect this thread in the least bit. [/quote]

Gotcha.

My biggest problem–not a personal problem at all, as I like him, but an intellectual one–is with Tirib, who refuses to come clean and either (in a lucid, pointed manner) demonstrate that his worldview is logically and/or evidentially inevitable OR admit that his faith is just that: faith.[/quote]

Exactly. It is self evident that agnosticism is the single most rational worldview based on what we as humans can observe in the known Universe. Believe in God? Great. Don’t believe in God? Great. The problem occurs when someone from either camp claims to have knowledge of the existence or non existence of such a deity. Therefore, it follows that the two most rational schools of thought within the two respective camps are those of the Agnostic Theist and the Agnostic Atheist.
[/quote]

I disagree, unless you are actively seeking the answers I reckon agnosticism to be a cop out, and decision not to decide. I don’t think it’s terribly rational, it’s either a midway point, or fence straddling but it’s not an end in itself.

Observation can only take you so far, it can give you correlation with varying degrees of certainty, but it doesn’t answer how or why. It leads to more questions really.

Observation can imply existence, from that you have to decide whether things exist for a reason or for no reason. That are the core, is the only thing that matters in such a discussion.

[pat]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]

I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).

Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?[/quote]

No, God by definition would have to be beyond the constraints of a particular religion. Religion is a means, not an end and that’s where people mess up. Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God. It’s a means to communicate or relate to Him. Religion functions off the philosophical proposition that God exists. It’s obviously pointless if He does not.

Where Christianity and philosophy agree, is that God is the ‘creator’ or source of existence. Therefore, even if all it’s tenets were wrong, it’s compass is at least pointed in the right direction.
That’s why these notions that it’s as likely as Zeus or Ra or what ever is not true. Those beliefs function off explanation models of ‘God of gaps’ motifs. Existence itself necessitates an entity that is not a function of itself, but is the reason for it. The properties which such an entity must have to be what it is, indicates that God as understood by Christianity, is one in the same as said entity. That’s merely because the Christian understanding of God has those very same properties. And by logical necessity, only one such being can exist.

[pat]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
I know I’m not Tirib. but here goes.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, what Tirib is talking about has very little to nothing to do with math and everything to do with his epistemiological base for his world view. And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken Tirib. [/quote]

I understand what he’s trying to do, I just don’t believe he does it.

“Yes, it must be the triune God…”

Why? He certainly hasn’t proved this yet.

You seem like a smart guy, Fletch. Let me ask you this: do you believe there exists a simple–simple enough for a 6-year-old to both wholly grasp and easily internalize–logical proposition or argument which brings on the inevitable conclusion that the God of the Christian Bible is the one true God?

I doubt that you do. Even the truly devout do not believe this–otherwise the word “faith” would vanish from Christian lexicon.

Tirib and Pat do a fantastic job of eviscerating the firm ground that naive atheists believe they stand on. They have a truly impressive grasp of the uncertainty inherent in the human experience.

But then Tirib (Pat doesn’t do this) takes it a step further: “Anyone who denies Christianity is both totally and DEMONSTRABLY wrong.”

The problem is that he doesn’t go on to demonstrate this.[/quote]

I’m hoping he’ll clarify his tautologies and provide an understanding for problem of the one and many and Kamui too. As of right now, no I don’t believe Tirib has made argument that the triune Christian God is the one and only god but there is a lot of internal consistency in his belief as I understand it now which is a lot more than most believers or unbelievers. I’m now trying to figure out what belief is made from preference and what is logical and where logic will break down.

[/quote]

I don’t talk religion with the non-religious, the proposition is philosophical. The metaphysics is the boss, everything else is just pawns.

[smh23]

[quote]pat wrote:
Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God.[/quote]

Define is perhaps the wrong word but religion certainly seeks to discern God’s character, his likes and dislikes, his will. This is what is at play when a preacher claims to know that God disdains homosexuality or abortion. It is in the details that Christianity distinguishes itself from Judaism and Islam.

And this is the problem with your logical proofs. They lead to a supranatural first and uncontingent cause, but they say nothing of the details.

As a matter of fact, if we were to take Occam’s razor to the question of religion, taking as a given premise that one of your proofs is both valid and sound, we would inevitably choose Deism as our worldview: it makes the least assumptions.

The number of assumptions necessary to leap from a logical proof of God’s existence to acceptance of Christian doctrine, on the other hand, is unfathomable.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I can’t prove God exists, I can prove he must exist.
[/quote]

I assume here that you refer here to a copy or variation of one of the classical “proofs” of “God’s” existence (e.g. from contingency, the cosmological proof, etc.).

Do you contend that you can prove that the God of the Christian Bible must exist, along with the consequent proposition that Christian doctrine is demonstrably and necessarily true and faith is unnecessary?[/quote]

No, God by definition would have to be beyond the constraints of a particular religion. Religion is a means, not an end and that’s where people mess up. Religion doesn’t nor was it ever meant to define God. It’s a means to communicate or relate to Him. Religion functions off the philosophical proposition that God exists. It’s obviously pointless if He does not.

Where Christianity and philosophy agree, is that God is the ‘creator’ or source of existence. Therefore, even if all it’s tenets were wrong, it’s compass is at least pointed in the right direction.
That’s why these notions that it’s as likely as Zeus or Ra or what ever is not true. Those beliefs function off explanation models of ‘God of gaps’ motifs. Existence itself necessitates an entity that is not a function of itself, but is the reason for it. The properties which such an entity must have to be what it is, indicates that God as understood by Christianity, is one in the same as said entity. That’s merely because the Christian understanding of God has those very same properties. And by logical necessity, only one such being can exist.[/quote]

That almost sounds like you’re saying that there are only less or more correct religions. With the caveat that the religion has The necessary God. But that doesn’t explain why the Christian triune God is necessary.