Religious Questions of Logic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
we don’t need a religion to justify our rape, pillage and taking over of our neighbor’s land.[/quote]

But it certainly helps ease the conscience if you think you’ve been divinely ordered to commit such atrocities.[/quote]

Everybody who is evil has a justification for evil. It helps the conscious too if you feel your evil acts happen in a vacuum and you never reap what you sow. Not giving a fuck about others is equally comforting.[/quote]

But I will reap what I sow. If I kill someone, I will be accordingly punished. I don’t know how you think atheists work, but I could just as easily argue we shouldn’t put people in jail for child molestation because GOD WILL PUNISH HIM SO WE DON’T NEED TO BOTHER.

Humans are social creatures, our survival has depended strongly on our ability to care for each other. And we did just fine for a very long segment of our existence without fairy tales invented to exert control for personal gain.

102

There are logical positivist in this thread? That viewpoint suffers from the same criticism that I showed for scientism.

Anyways I feel this video pertains with the topic of this thread, hopefully someone enjoys it.

103

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
There are logical positivist in this thread? That viewpoint suffers from the same criticism that I showed for scientism.

Anyways I feel this video pertains with the topic of this thread, hopefully someone enjoys it.

I have yet to hear a strong argument out of Craigs’ mouth…virtually every debate he has ever taken part in he gets destroyed, then he has to go off and talk about and make a lecture/video on his opponent after the fact, when his opponent is not around.

104

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The usual suspects. The same tired arguments.

Dead End.

Iron, run now while you can, unless your boredom is stronger than your intellectual stamina.

Pat will rely upon the age old and hotly disputed cosmological argument to prove his creator. He will ignore the inherent flaws in the CA and challenge you to “disprove” something that cannot be disproven or proven, because we have incomplete knowledge.

Brother Chris will ultimately tell you, “because the Catholic Church says so”. Where the rubber meets the pavement, that’s the basic foundation of all his arguments.

The other guy, I forget his name, will be along any time now to tell you the bible is the LITERAL word of God and that you, Pat and BC and the rest of the Catholics (and Muslims and Jews, and everyone else) has it all wrong.

Did I miss anyone? :)[/quote]

Because the Catholic Church says so is my argument to Catholics and those that say they take the Bible is inerrant. Otherwise it is a bad argument.

After all, “whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver,” said St. Aquinas.

105

Kami- you missed all of my points. I didn’t ask if you NEEDED religion to justify killing, but rather if it makes more sense that a perfect loving god ordered it or that a human made it up to justify it. Sure, you don’t have to justify it, but everyone jumps on board faster when there’s a spiritually-determined bad guy. 9-11 is a perfect example.

  • the egyptians and the pagans had slightly different ideas of the afterlife. However, it’s generally accepted that they made it up so that they could feel more secure. What is the difference between them making up an idea of the afterlife and the Jews making up an idea of the afterlife to satisfy the same insecurity of death?

  • i am saying that “right interpretation” changes with time. For instance, if you were born 1000 years ago, your right interpretation of the Bible would be that Gods gave the rulers of the land their power and it was your duty to serve them in a much more extreme way than we nowbelieve. Also, you would believe that if you didn’t take a day off of work, you were committing a very serious sin, and in addition, women were far inferior to men. Even the women would tell you that. The right interpretation has changed due to cultural needs in the labor force and infant and child survivor rates, and a capitalistic society. Now, all of a sudden, passages are meant “in spirit” and not literally.

  • show me one large society without wide-spread reading abilties that has passed down customs without relgion.

-Humans are imperfect on their own and came indirectly from a perfect God.

106

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
There are logical positivist in this thread? That viewpoint suffers from the same criticism that I showed for scientism.

Anyways I feel this video pertains with the topic of this thread, hopefully someone enjoys it.

The Thoughts of William Lane Craig - YouTube [/quote]

I have yet to hear a strong argument out of Craigs’ mouth…virtually every debate he has ever taken part in he gets destroyed, then he has to go off and talk about and make a lecture/video on his opponent after the fact, when his opponent is not around. [/quote]
Which debates? I have seen plenty of them and it seems to me he wins most of his debates, I haven’t seen the one with Quentin Smith thought I wanted to see how he debates.

Its easy to say that his arguments aren’t convincing but harder to say what is wrong with them. What argument you have a problem with?

107

[quote]kamui wrote:

i will offer two suggestions here :

  1. The universe is the summation of all things, but not a thing itself.
    To be a thing, it would need to be finite and/or definite. And it could very well be infinite (if not in time and space, in informations) and/or indefinite.
    [/quote]
    I argue that existence is existence despite it’s other properties. Even if the universe is the sum of it’s parts or the universe at large is greater than the sum of it’s parts, “it” still exists at least in concept. Even in concept, the principle of sufficient reason applies unless you can make an argument that states that something can exist without a higher level function or dependency.

Facts are things, no? Abstract maybe, but things nonetheless. I don’t see the difference in existence between metaphysics and physical existence. Both still exist and both are a function of something else as must be the case

I don’t see this at all. Existence itself demands a reason for it, unless an argument could be made where something other than a singular Uncaused-caused, but multiple uncause ‘things’.

An uncaused-cause is necessarily eternal because by definition it has to be. Since it would not have existed in time and is not bound by its creation it’s eternal by default.

Correct, but it doesn’t matter if it’s concrete or abstract all that matters is existence. We know ‘something’ exists, if the rest is illusory it still exists and exists as a function of either something or nothing. Since nothing is property-less than something must be it’s contingency.

108

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
we don’t need a religion to justify our rape, pillage and taking over of our neighbor’s land.[/quote]

But it certainly helps ease the conscience if you think you’ve been divinely ordered to commit such atrocities.[/quote]

Everybody who is evil has a justification for evil. It helps the conscious too if you feel your evil acts happen in a vacuum and you never reap what you sow. Not giving a fuck about others is equally comforting.[/quote]

But I will reap what I sow. If I kill someone, I will be accordingly punished. I don’t know how you think atheists work, but I could just as easily argue we shouldn’t put people in jail for child molestation because GOD WILL PUNISH HIM SO WE DON’T NEED TO BOTHER.

Humans are social creatures, our survival has depended strongly on our ability to care for each other. And we did just fine for a very long segment of our existence without fairy tales invented to exert control for personal gain.[/quote]

Religion has always existed to some degree or another. Right, wrong or indifferent, people inatly know their smallness in the greater universe and that the power with in the universe is actually tappable.

Now I don’t really give a shit about that. I want to know how as an atheist, how you propose this
“But I will reap what I sow. If I kill someone, I will be accordingly punished.” works…What if you were never caught, would you still reap what you sow?

109

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.

110

this first proposition (“a perfect loving god ordered killing”) make be self-contradictory. But no one in this thread support this proposition. It’s a strawman.

the last proposition (a human made it up to justify killing) doesn’t make more sense. An exceptionnal (and deviant) use of religion doesn’t explain the origin and nature of religion.

if religion is human made, it has not been made up for this reason.

[quote]

  • the egyptians and the pagans had slightly different ideas of the afterlife. However, it’s generally accepted that they made it up so that they could feel more secure. What is the difference between them making up an idea of the afterlife and the Jews making up an idea of the afterlife to satisfy the same insecurity of death?[/quote]

the egyptians and the pagans had vastly different ideas of the afterlife. But the vast majority of these ideas presented a quite grim afterlife.
The notion of a “Paradise” is quite recent and quite exceptionnal in the history of religion. And you should remember that it’s only one of the possible ultimate destinations. There is Hell too.
It could be argued that the “afterlife” has been made up by some humans to frighten other humans. Not to feel more secure.
Both could be argued in the same time. But in any cases, it would not explain why these afterlifes has been made like this, with these properties, etc. And THIS is essential.

Again, your proposition make no real sense. It “sounds good” but doesn’t explains anything.

[quote]

  • i am saying that “right interpretation” changes with time. For instance, if you were born 1000 years ago, your right interpretation of the Bible would be that Gods gave the rulers of the land their power and it was your duty to serve them in a much more extreme way than we nowbelieve. Also, you would believe that if you didn’t take a day off of work, you were committing a very serious sin, and in addition, women were far inferior to men. Even the women would tell you that. The right interpretation has changed due to cultural needs in the labor force and infant and child survivor rates, and a capitalistic society. Now, all of a sudden, passages are meant “in spirit” and not literally.[/quote]

if the “right interpretation” changes with time, then there is no truth. or only temporary truth, and in both cases, all our debates are useless. Including this one.

It would prove nothing one way or the other.
Even if you could establish such a correlation, it won’t prove that this the primary function of religion, and its ultimate meaning. And it would still not explain what’s specifically religious in religion.
Reducing it to a variety of cultural factors is not an explanation at all. Reductionnism is never a valid approach.

111

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
There are logical positivist in this thread? That viewpoint suffers from the same criticism that I showed for scientism.

Anyways I feel this video pertains with the topic of this thread, hopefully someone enjoys it.

I have yet to hear a strong argument out of Craigs’ mouth…virtually every debate he has ever taken part in he gets destroyed, then he has to go off and talk about and make a lecture/video on his opponent after the fact, when his opponent is not around. [/quote]

Obviously you haven’t listened to a lot of his debates, even atheists admit that no has beat his argument.

112

William Lane Craig and others debating well known Atheists (500+ debates): Luke Muehlhauser

113

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.

114

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
There are logical positivist in this thread? That viewpoint suffers from the same criticism that I showed for scientism.

Anyways I feel this video pertains with the topic of this thread, hopefully someone enjoys it.

I have yet to hear a strong argument out of Craigs’ mouth…virtually every debate he has ever taken part in he gets destroyed, then he has to go off and talk about and make a lecture/video on his opponent after the fact, when his opponent is not around. [/quote]

Obviously you haven’t listened to a lot of his debates, even atheists admit that no has beat his argument.[/quote]

I’ve listened to many of his debates, and he never actually debates. He simply presents his information, then presents more of it, even after questions are asked regarding his statements.

See this: William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman Debate "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

It is a very interesting debate in text between Bible Scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman. I’m not asking you to agree with Ehrman’s argument but simply observe Craig’s lack of debate. After this debate Craig went on to make a bunch of videos slandering Ehrman without Dr. Ehrman there to defend himself.

115

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.

116

Kami- so you think that the god which those responsible for 9-11 serve is real?

Which do you personally find more firghtening: knowing what happens when you die or not knowing? Which one do you think scares people more?

Your third reply is a logical error. You are saying that if interpretation of one proposed set of ideas changes with time, then all interpretations of proposed ideas change with time. You then jumped into this meaning that the truth changes. Then you said that if the truth changes, there is no truth. First of all, the interpretation of certain things which are considered true have not changed in far longer than any religion has existed. For example, it’s considered true that women produce children. This has been considered true without a chqnge in interpretation for quite a while. What has changed is the role women should play in society. But the interpretation that women give birth has never changed. Also, I am proposing that the truth hasn’t changed, merely the reasoning given about an action which was never true. For example, hindu’s believed that cows are too sacred to eat. This was told to the masses as a spiritual issue, but in reality they were more valuable to the people as milk and cheese than they were as meat. The fact is, the cows had value. That truth was valid and they have less value now that there are too many of them. What was never “true” was that the value was spiritual. You can find this phenomenon in every religion and to deny its presence in your own is lying to yourself.

How is “reducing” religion to a mechanism for a culture’s survival not a valid explanation for its existance? We don’t say that cultural survival isn’t a valid explanation for capitalism. Why is religion different?

117

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.

118

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< this first proposition (“a perfect loving god ordered killing”) make be self-contradictory. But no one in this thread support this proposition. It’s a strawman. >>>[/quote]If I’m understanding you correctly I AM supporting that proposition and always have. A perfect, all loving, all compassionate, spotlessly just, righteous and blindingly holy creator God commanded, not simply killing, but the outright genocidal extermination of whole tribes of man, women, child and beast. Here, Ill go ya one better. Try this: Jeremiah 16:4 NASB [quote]<<< They will die of deadly diseases, they will not be lamented or buried; they will be as dung on the surface of the ground and come to an end by sword and famine, and their carcasses will become food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth. >>>[/quote] This is the LORD Jehovah Himself speaking of His OWN covenant people Israel when He was fixin ta send the godless pagan Babylonians after em for their idolatry and abuse of His law !!! Was that perfect, all loving, all compassionate, spotlessly just, righteous and blindingly holy? You better believe it was.

“HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE!?!?!?!?!” LOL!!! Once this God resurrects somebody and makes Himself intimately real to them this arrogant question takes care of itself. He can do it n we can’t. BTW, He doesn’t do it anymore and never will again in this universe according to Himself so anyone claiming violence and or conquest in His name and for His covenants like was the case in ancient times is deluded or lying or both. All His eternal wrath was laid on His own sinless Son on the cross of calvary, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world on behalf of all those who will repent and believe. He satisfied and fulfilled all the law and He who know no sin was made to be sin for us that we may be made the very righteousness of God in Him.

119

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< this first proposition (“a perfect loving god ordered killing”) make be self-contradictory. But no one in this thread support this proposition. It’s a strawman. >>>[/quote]If I’m understanding you correctly I AM supporting that proposition and always have. A perfect, all loving, all compassionate, spotlessly just, righteous and blindingly holy creator God commanded, not simply killing, but the outright genocidal extermination of whole tribes of man, women, child and beast. Here, Ill go ya one better. Try this: Jeremiah 16:4 NASB [quote]<<< They will die of deadly diseases, they will not be lamented or buried; they will be as dung on the surface of the ground and come to an end by sword and famine, and their carcasses will become food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth. >>>[/quote] This is the LORD Jehovah Himself speaking of His OWN covenant people Israel when He was fixin ta send the godless pagan Babylonians after em for their idolatry and abuse of His law !!! Was that perfect, all loving, all compassionate, spotlessly just, righteous and blindingly holy? You better believe it was.

“HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE!?!?!?!?!” LOL!!! Once this God resurrects somebody and makes Himself intimately real to them this arrogant question takes care of itself. He can do it n we can’t. BTW, He doesn’t do it anymore and never will again in this universe according to Himself so anyone claiming violence and or conquest in His name and for His covenants like was the case in ancient times is deluded or lying or both. All His eternal wrath was laid on His own sinless Son on the cross of calvary, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world on behalf of all those who will repent and believe. He satisfied and fulfilled all the law and He who know no sin was made to be sin for us that we may be made the very righteousness of God in Him.
[/quote]

Certainly not eternal though if you are espousing the bible to be literally true and god is an actor in history and part of the narrative of scripture and its not merely metaphor. God is both subject to time and changes in a literal reading of the bible. If God is eternal and separate from time then he isn’t part of such a narrative. He could be a first cause if eternal but not part of a narrative that has a timeline he changes in.

120

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.