Interesting email response Part II

[MDoranD]

The next chapter of email between my friend and I....

If you missed the first one (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5016512&an=0&page=0#Post 5016512)
-----------------------------------------

I wrote:

I appreciate your feedback.
>
>1. Is it not possible that a supreme being would create creatures that would
>evolve? When you see shows on TV that have fossilized skulls from
>different eras dating back thousands of years, is it not feasible that
>God created all creatures from a primordial soup and evolved them into
>the creatures they are today?
>
>2. Since the bible is written by man, could not the
>bible be the start of where man started recording everything? Started
>at the time where they were sophisticated enough to
>journal their thoughts and record history? How would this theory hurt
>the Christian religion?
>
>3. Is it assumed that the Bible (written by man), could not have made any
>errors or assumptions? (Men make many errors and assumptions) Is it
>possible for the Christian God to be real, yet man has made errors in
>the Book that explains Him?
----------------------------------------------------

He responded:


Great questions. Really. Very good.

1. If you remember the first email I sent, I said that I used to believe
exactly what you just said -- that God created creatures that evolved. And
if it turned out that was true, that would be just fine with me. So, yeah,
in a way, it is possible. The only problem is there's mountains of evidence
(that would take more than an email or two to talk about) that says that it
didn't happen that way. Remember that we have millions of fossils of all
major phyla (groups of species) and ... still no "missing links" (some close
calls turned out not to be transitional). And how you get from "primordal
soup" to even one functioning protein molecule is pretty much impossible.

2. First, if you're talking about what the earth was like before humans and
all that -- yeah, scientists are still all over the place about that one.
We just don't know. As to the Bible. Adam and Eve didn't write anything
down. Writing wasn't invented until much later. Moses wrote down the Torah
(the first five books of the Bible); the first book is Genesis, which traces
the history of the world and man up until that point. Moses was around 1500
B.C. -- which, in the scheme of things, wasn't that long ago. He was
explaining to the Jews who they were and where they came from (remember they
were Egyptian slaves at the time).

3. I used to think that the Bible was just a bunch of stories -- some
historical, some not. Turns out I was wrong. The Bible is actual history,
written by over 40 people spanning over 1400 years. And it is God-inspired
-- meaning men wrote the words but God is the true author. This is another
long, long conversation. We could get into equidistant-letter-sequencing
codes and all types of cool Biblical study, but the one thing that validates
the supernatural authorship more than anything else is prophecy. The Bible
is the only book we know of that consistently predicts the future with 100%
accuracy. About 30% of the book is prophecy. And some of the details that
have been predicted are downright scary. I could susbstantiate this is you
want, but it's a really fun topic to study.

Anyway, people have been trying for centuries to point out inconsistencies,
false names or dates or places, and errors in the Bible ... and one by one,
each argument has failed -- largely thanks to archeology. What IS sometimes
erroneous, however, is our human understanding of God's word. Sometimes our
interpretations have been -- or are -- wrong. That is definitely true.
That's why there are so many different versions of Christianity --
interpretation of the details. But just because we misinterpret a text
doesn't mean the text is wrong.

A Jerry Springer "final thought": if God can design supernovae, geological
cycles, DNA, and the human brain with over a billion different synapse
connections ... He can write a freaking book and make it accurate.

The Koran, on the other hand, is full of errors ... but that's a whole other
conversation.
--------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?


MDoranD

[Hopey]

Just so you're clear about the kind of person you're dealing with:

1)Your friend believes the bible is a literal history.
2)He believes that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
3)He believes that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the old Testament.

Then he makes these statements:

"We could get into equidistant-letter-sequencing
codes" -- ie. Your friend is a nut who believes there are "secret" messages hidden in the Bible's text.

"The Bible is the only book we know of that consistently predicts the future with 100% accuracy." -- I have no idea what he's talking about here. If by "future" he means "events described in the bible that were predicted to occur *earlier* on in the bible", then I guess it meets his criteria.

"Anyway, people have been trying for centuries to point out inconsistencies, false names or dates or places, and errors in the Bible ... and one by one, each argument has failed -- largely thanks to archeology. What IS sometimes
erroneous, however, is our human understanding of God's word. Sometimes our interpretations have been -- or are -- wrong. That is definitely true. That's why there are so many different versions of Christianity -- interpretation of the details. But just because we misinterpret a text
doesn't mean the text is wrong." -- In other words, sometimes archaelogy proves that events in the bible actually occurred, and he believes that this proves that the Bible is an accurate description of history. However, in the next breath he says that when archeology proves that events described in the bible did not occur, it is only because the "word of God" was misinterpreted. How very convenient. This makes it impossible to debate with someone like this. The bible is right, unless you prove it's wrong, and even then it's right.

"if God can design supernovae, geological cycles, DNA, and the human brain with over a billion different synapse
connections ... He can write a freaking book and make it accurate." -- Except when the book isn't accurate, but that's the fault of humans, not god. But since God can do all of the other things that your friend attributes to him, couldn't he ensure that the humans writing the bible wrote it accurately? Or is this beyond the power of god?

"The Koran, on the other hand, is full of errors ... but that's a whole other conversation." -- Your friend and Pat Robertson have a lot in common.

I repeat my assertion that you need to find new friends.

[MidGe]

Truly I would keep humouring your friend. There may be some occasions for a laugh at his depends.

I am afraid that whereas the first part gave some indication, the second part, this latter e-mail, confirms that the dude is a complete moran.


[ QUOTE ]
The only problem is there's mountains of evidence (that would take more than an email or two to talk about) that says that it didn't happen that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope he doesn't attempt to send more e-mail to "justify"! /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Remember that we have millions of fossils of all major phyla (groups of species) and ... still no "missing links"

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah? That's because many missing became/become unmissing. LOL


[ QUOTE ]
Adam and Eve didn't write anything down. Writing wasn't invented until much later.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who?


[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is actual history, written by over 40 people spanning over 1400 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
History huh??? Maybe your friend should have some conversation with an historian, to better understand what history is supposed to be.


[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is the only book we know of that consistently predicts the future with 100% accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
???


[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, people have been trying for centuries to point out inconsistencies, false names or dates or places, and errors in the Bible ... and one by one, each argument has failed -- largely thanks to archeology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do a quick search on the net... you will find that many have not failed.



Enough said, statements that are totally unsubstantiated, preaching falsehoods at its best.

Altough your friend may say that your questions are good, really good, the same cannot be said of his answers.

[chrisnice]

All of what your friend wrote in #3 is lunacy. Next time ask your friend if Gods book is accurate why does it flat out contradict itself so many times.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
All of what your friend wrote in #3 is lunacy. Next time ask your friend if Gods book is accurate why does it flat out contradict itself so many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

His friend already supplied the answer

[ QUOTE ]
"What IS sometimes erroneous, however, is our human understanding of God's word. Sometimes our interpretations have been -- or are -- wrong. That is definitely true. That's why there are so many different versions of Christianity -- interpretation of the details. But just because we misinterpret a text doesn't mean the text is wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that a few of the Christians in this forum have made the same circular argument: "The bible is always right, unless it's wrong, and then it's right because it's our interpretation of it that is wrong."

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However, in the next breath he says that when archeology proves that events described in the bible did not occur, it is only because the "word of God" was misinterpreted.


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't say that. Name one case where archeology has proved an error in the Bible.

[MidGe]

Heya NotReady,

Archeology: Bible is wrong! (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2old96.html)

[MidGe]

And another:


What the christian fundamentatlist doesn't want you to know. (http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Archeology: Bible is wrong!


[/ QUOTE ]

Archeology: Bible is right!!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What the christian fundamentatlist doesn't want you to know


[/ QUOTE ]

What the atheist fundamentalist doesn't want you to know.

[HLMencken]

There is nothing really interesting about this email--he believs in God, believes the Bible is actual history, one of millions who choose to abandon reason in favor of comfortable mythology, 'nuff said.

[Sharkey]

A few of my friends believe they are descendant from apes. One relative thinks he’s a chicken. We don’t send him to a psychiatrist, because we need the eggs.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
A few of my friends believe they are descendant from apes. One relative thinks he’s a chicken. We don’t send him to a psychiatrist, because we need the eggs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A patient told me this joke the other day....minus the apes part. Soemthin about cousin being in a mental hospital and brother and stuff...anyways that was the gist of it.

SO do you believe we are descended from a supreme being?

-JP

[Prodigy54321]

NotReady, these responses let me down /images/graemlins/frown.gif

how bout defending your earlier challenge..

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't say that. Name one case where archeology has proved an error in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

....so are none of these claims in Midges' links correct?

I'm assuming that in your challenge, archeology being the source of the proof is not exclusive....If it is...is there a reason for it?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, these responses let me down


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to get into a link war. I would be glad to respond to a real post.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Archeology: Bible is wrong!


[/ QUOTE ]

Archeology: Bible is right!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont need archeology. Where was Jesus born according to the Bible?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You dont need archeology. Where was Jesus born according to the Bible?


[/ QUOTE ]

In a manger?

[chrisnice]

Nazarath or Bethlehem? The Bible tells me both.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Nazarath or Bethlehem? The Bible tells me both.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cite verses.

[Lestat]

I don't think NotReady responds to links. I kinda agree with that. There are links out there that will support the reality of mermaids. Links shouldn't be used in debate.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think NotReady responds to links


[/ QUOTE ]

I think links are fine when used in support of an argument or for informational purposes. But especially concerning alleged Bible errors, I want to see the argument, otherwise I would spend all my time reading atheist web sites. I've looked at quite a few and their answers on the net.

[Alex-db]

I got in a similar conversation with a Nostrodamus fan. After much discussion, I concluded that he was ssying the following.

Nostrodamus predicted the future accurately.

There were two reasons why he sometimes appeared to be wrong:
1) Incorrect interpretations/translations.
2) He was so intelligent he predicted the damage that his predictions could do if society found out what was going to happen. So to protect society, he still made his predictions, but he altered all the names, dates, events and locations.

So in summary, Nostrodamus' predictions are all spot on if you allow translational leeway, and realise that names, dates, events and locations are not supposed to be literally correct.

I think even NotReady will see the parallel to the OP email, and will surely agree the Nostrodamus thing is ridiculous?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think even NotReady will see the parallel to the OP email


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose God exists and communictes to us by written word. Would you agree that no matter what He says it would be subject to twisting by those that hate Him?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think even NotReady will see the parallel to the OP email


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose God exists and communictes to us by written word. Would you agree that no matter what He says it would be subject to twisting by those that hate Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the authors of the bible hated God?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think even NotReady will see the parallel to the OP email


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose God exists and communictes to us by written word. Would you agree that no matter what He says it would be subject to twisting by those that hate Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would absolutely agree with this, but wouldn't you also think that God would have chosen a people or a method of translation where His word would not be subject to so much misinterpretation?

In fact, why would the written word even be the chosen method of communication? Why wouldn't God just perform a no doubt about it miracle every few generations or so to insure His word is received and understood by all? Is it His intention that otherwise good people who's only fault happens to be they are too logical to believe in unseen supernatural entities, do not understand His will?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think even NotReady will see the parallel to the OP email


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose God exists and communictes to us by written word. Would you agree that no matter what He says it would be subject to twisting by those that hate Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong to claim that those who don't believe in God, hate him.

Ironically, it is those with a BELIEF in God --just not YOUR God--, who you need to worry about. They are the ones who hate your God and therfore you and what you stand for.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong to claim that those who don't believe in God, hate him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I think this is the misconception that most theists have -- that those who do not share in their faith hate God. I cannot hate something that I do not believe exists. My feelings towards your God are completely neutral.

I may hate the attitudes of some of God's followers, but that's as far as it goes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but wouldn't you also think that God would have chosen a people or a method of translation where His word would not be subject to so much misinterpretation?


[/ QUOTE ]

He did this originally. Adam and Eve spoke with God and had His Word directly from Him. They rejected Him and His Word. The amazing thing isn't that we have difficulty hearing God. The amazing thing is that He speaks to us at all.

[ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't God just perform a no doubt about it miracle every few generations


[/ QUOTE ]

Even when He did perform miracles most people either rejected Him outright or left Him shortly afterwards. After performing all the miracles in Egypt and bringing the people out of bondage Israel turned to idolatry almost immediately. The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him. Jesus promised that after He left He would lead us into the truth.

Most non-Christians look on the issue as believing that God exists, making an intellectual judgement similar to other decisions, like whether a scientific theory is true. Christianity involves that but is far more. The people who reject God and turn to idolatry in the Bible surely believed that God existed, it was never an issue for them, and the Bible doesn't present God as trying to convince people that He exists. The issue is primarily one of obedience. From the beginning man disobeyed God and throughout the Bible the central problem of man is disobedience. Intellectual belief is certainly a factor but the overall concern is the attitude of the heart. Several people on this forum have stated unqualifiedly that if it were shown to them with certainty that the God of the Bible exists they would choose hell over obedience to Him.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
He did this originally. Adam and Eve spoke with God

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So you actually believe that Adam and Eve were real people?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are wrong to claim that those who don't believe in God, hate him.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to determine what is in any individual's heart. The Bible says that unbelievers hate God. That doesn't mean that they walk around in a state of rage, seeking to kill Christians and burn Bibles. Hatred is not always presented as an emotional feeling in the Bible, but also is used to describe an attitude. The unbeliever's attitude in this life that hasn't yet manifested itself as active, all out hatred, is still antagonistic toward God and His word, and will grow into that kind of rage eventually, if not in this life, then through eternity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you actually believe that Adam and Eve were real people?


[/ QUOTE ]

I personally believe they were real people. I also believe the message of Genesis that counts is that humanity rebelled against God and God promised a remedy. If Adam and Eve are symbolic names for mankind I can accept that, I just don't see any reason to believe it. If I wake up in heaven and find that God was speaking allegorically about certain things I won't ask Him if I can leave.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The Bible says that unbelievers hate God. </font>

Does the bible really say this? Can you cite a chapter and verse?

Several times on this forum I've had to defend myself against statements that I hate God. The simple fact is, I just don't buy into beliefs in gods, the supernatural, religions, astrology, etc. If I ever had evidence to believe in God (or any of these things), my axioms would quickly change. It's definitely not hate of any sort on my part.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong to claim that those who don't believe in God, hate him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I think this is the misconception that most theists have -- that those who do not share in their faith hate God. I cannot hate something that I do not believe exists. My feelings towards your God are completely neutral.

I may hate the attitudes of some of God's followers, but that's as far as it goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And I think this explains the extreme defensive postures of people like siegfriedandroy and maybe godBoy. They can't comprehend how anyone could willingly choose not to believe in their god. They take this to mean we therefore must be against God.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And I think this explains the extreme defensive postures of people like siegfriedandroy and maybe godBoy. They can't comprehend how anyone could willingly choose not to believe in their god. They take this to mean we therefore must be against God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's easier for them to dismiss our arguments if they assume that we have some ulterior motive for disputing the existence of their god. I have to wonder if they believe that we all secretly know that god exists, but are turning our backs on him and trying to mislead others along the way. In my mind, this is what NotReady's post is really saying about us.

For the record, if I were given proof that god existed, I would not deny his existence. However, I've seen much much much more proof that he doesn't exist, and I'm not about to try to convince myself that he exists in order to obtain some false sense of meaning to my existence.

For the record, I grew up in a strict Roman Catholic family, went to Roman Catholic schools, and attended church every Sunday until my 18th year. I am well aware of the "word of the lord" and have decided that it is merely ancient mythology that has managed to survive into the 20th century. And while I wish I could dismiss logic and have "faith" that despite all evidence to the contrary, there is a god, I am unable to convice myself to do so.

However, to call this "hate" is to way overstate the case. Saying that "all atheists hate god" sounds more like propoganda being used in order to villify and dehumanize the church's enemies.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen much much much more proof that he doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does the bible really say this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Romans 1:30
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,


Colossians 1:
21And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--

Ephesians 2:
15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Matthew 6:
24"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

I grant that you do not feel an active emotion of hatred toward God. That would be impossible since you don't believe He exists. The Bible uses the word hatred in a way that isn't connected to the emotion we feel. It means a preference or priority. If you put something ahead of God, in Biblical terms you hate God. I believe that eventually the emotion of hatred will follow. And the Bible also makes it clear that unbelievers are the enemies of God - again, this may not manifest itself in a material way, it's a statement of fact about the unbelievers spiritual condition - but eventually that condition will become manifest in a more overt way.

In this lifetime no one has reached his final development. We are all in transition. Christians sin, sometimes seriously. Unbelievers sometimes put Christians to shame by their life and works. But the Bible makes it clear that all are either for or against God. There's no in between as to status. There's no spiritual difference between someone who tortures and persecutes Christians with an active hatred toward a God he acknowledges exists and someone who simply ignores the question of God completely. There is a psychological difference and the persecutor may be beyond hope (though the greatest apostle, Paul, was an ardent persecutor before his conversion), but they are both enemies of God and under His wrath.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen much much much more proof that he doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how I answer, it won't be good enough for you and you'll immediately dismiss it out of hand. I'm through playing your little trollish games.

If someone else were to ask me the same question, I might consider answering it. Answering the question for you is just wasting my time.

[Hopey]

NotReady, if you don't mind me asking, what denomination are you a part of? You sound like a Baptist with your literal interpretation of the bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have to wonder if they believe that we all secretly know that god exists, but are turning our backs on him and trying to mislead others along the way. In my mind, this is what NotReady's post is really saying about us.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which this in Biblical. Romans 1 states that everyone knows God and seeks to suppress that knowledge. But I don't think it's that simple within the human mind. We are a bundle of mixed motives, uncertainties, doubts and emotions. We are pulled in different directions and encounter intellectual difficulties.

But I believe all people deep down know God. And until they are Christians they seek to suppress that knowledge. I persoally believe that all people want God to exist and don't want Him to exist at the same time.

The human heart is massively complex and our understanding and motives change and flow constantly.

But I don't rely on this fact as an argument in debate. I don't say your arguments are false because you have ulterior motives. I say you refuse to believe because of these motives, but I'm willing to debate the evidence without reference to your motives. At least that is my intent. I can't say I never slip in this regard. When and if I do, point it out.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, if you don't mind me asking, what denomination are you a part of? You sound like a Baptist with your literal interpretation of the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]


My primary theology is Reformed (Calvinist) with much qualification. There is no theologian or denomination with which I agree completely, but no truly Christian church (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian,etc) that I couldn't attend with a clear conscience.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen much much much more proof that he doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how I answer, it won't be good enough for you and you'll immediately dismiss it out of hand. I'm through playing your little trollish games.

If someone else were to ask me the same question, I might consider answering it. Answering the question for you is just wasting my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such proof.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen much much much more proof that he doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how I answer, it won't be good enough for you and you'll immediately dismiss it out of hand. I'm through playing your little trollish games.

If someone else were to ask me the same question, I might consider answering it. Answering the question for you is just wasting my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I didn't answer your question. At best you're a child with his fingers in his ears screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when confronted with someone who has a different viewpoint than yours.

If I believe that I see evidence that there is no God, and cannot find enough evidence that there is a God, isn't this a sufficient reason for me not to believe? Who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen much much much more proof that he doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how I answer, it won't be good enough for you and you'll immediately dismiss it out of hand. I'm through playing your little trollish games.

If someone else were to ask me the same question, I might consider answering it. Answering the question for you is just wasting my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I didn't answer your question. At best you're a child with his fingers in his ears screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when confronted with someone who has a different viewpoint than yours.

If I believe that I see evidence that there is no God, and cannot find enough evidence that there is a God, isn't this a sufficient reason for me not to believe? Who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you say that you’ve “seen much much much more proof”?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Then why did you say that you’ve “seen much much much more proof”?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I have. I just know that I'll be wasting my time sharing my reasons for not believing in your god because you will immediately dismiss them.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then why did you say that you’ve “seen much much much more proof”?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I have. I just know that I'll be wasting my time sharing my reasons for not believing in your god because you will immediately dismiss them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that god doesn't exist. That's not the same as there being no reason to believe in god, or there being evidence that many religous beliefs are silly, or lots of evidence that some people arguing for their beliefs do so dishonestly.

chez

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then why did you say that you’ve “seen much much much more proof”?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I have. I just know that I'll be wasting my time sharing my reasons for not believing in your god because you will immediately dismiss them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that god doesn't exist. That's not the same as there being no reason to believe in god, or there being evidence that many religous beliefs are silly, or lots of evidence that some people arguing for their beliefs do so dishonestly.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that I know for a fact that god does not exist. This would obviously be a very arrogant thing to do. What I'm saying is that I believe that there is more evidence that god does not exist than there is evidence that he does exist.

And by "god" I mean the Christian "god" with his fixed set or rules and conditions about how we are to conduct ourselves if we do not want to spend eternity in hell.

I am open to the idea that there may be a supreme being of some sort, I would just like to see evidence of his existence before I believe in him.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then why did you say that you’ve “seen much much much more proof”?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I have. I just know that I'll be wasting my time sharing my reasons for not believing in your god because you will immediately dismiss them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that god doesn't exist. That's not the same as there being no reason to believe in god, or there being evidence that many religous beliefs are silly, or lots of evidence that some people arguing for their beliefs do so dishonestly.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that I know for a fact that god does not exist. This would obviously be a very arrogant thing to do. What I'm saying is that I believe that there is more evidence that god does not exist than there is evidence that he does exist.

And by "god" I mean the Christian "god" with his fixed set or rules and conditions about how we are to conduct ourselves if we do not want to spend eternity in hell.

I am open to the idea that there may be a supreme being of some sort, I would just like to see evidence of his existence before I believe in him.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm happy to agree with all of that.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that god doesn't exist. T </font>

You don't believe absence of evidence can be evidence? I would argue that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that god doesn't exist. T </font>

You don't believe absence of evidence can be evidence? I would argue that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its just evidence that if god exists he has chosen to leave no evidence.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Its just evidence that if god exists he has chosen to leave no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the entire universe, but how rude of me to interject.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its just evidence that if god exists he has chosen to leave no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the entire universe, but how rude of me to interject.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interjection are fine but logical ones would be more useful.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its just evidence that if god exists he has chosen to leave no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the entire universe, but how rude of me to interject.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unfortunate that some very good contributers have stopped debating with you due to asinine comments such as this.

The universe is NOT evidence of a god. My coffee cup is NOT evidence of a god. YOU assign a god as its cause, because you cannot fathom any other way for the universe existing.

This is a deficiency of yours, not evidence of any kind. The universe might exist because of the specific god you imagine, but there are a myriad of other possible causes as well. In fact, any middle-schooler should know enough math to tell you the chance of your specific god having created the universe is an incredible long shot.

This is why certain theists (like Bunny, RJT, MikeTurner, et-al), are able to garner respect from the most ardent atheists. They accept God on faith. People like you forcefully interject God, because you can't even understand the basics of what you're talking about.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The universe is NOT evidence of a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say it is, is a non sequitur, sharkey! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The universe might exist because of the specific god you imagine, but there are a myriad of other possible causes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The universe might exist because of the specific god you imagine, but there are a myriad of other possible causes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as a special variety of unicorns capable of being the cause of a universe. At least there is no less evidence for this theory than for your own. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The universe is NOT evidence of a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say it is, is a non sequitur, sharkey! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Have some cheese.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The universe is NOT evidence of a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say it is, is a non sequitur, sharkey! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Have some cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how irrelevant your posts become when you have no answers anymore.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The universe is NOT evidence of a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say it is, is a non sequitur, sharkey! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Have some cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how irrelevant your posts become when you have no answers anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming from someone who proposes unicorns as a possible first cause.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Coming from someone who proposes unicorns as a possible first cause.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, not less ludicrous, and with no less evidence than your proposition. Amazing how flimsy you position is, heh, when put in perspective! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The universe might exist because of the specific god you imagine, but there are a myriad of other possible causes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big bang

The Hindu God

The Islamic God

Any god that is not the Christian god (this alone should number in the hundreds if not thousands and makes your god a long shot)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

A 5th dimensional kid playing with his chemistry set

Two other dimensions colliding

Some really big alien sneezed



I'll await your proof that the universe was NOT caused by any of the above.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already demonstrated this false with my struggle with Christianity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I've already demonstrated this false with my struggle with Christianity


[/ QUOTE ]

Your experience is no more a demonstration than a Christian's experience is a demonstration that it's true.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already demonstrated this false with my struggle with Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same applies to unicorns. I have sought them and struggled to find them to no avail. This clearly demonstrate that god and unicorns are of the same ilk, sharkey. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that a magical unicorn that sh*ts out invisible cheesburgers doesn't exist. T </font>

You don't believe absence of evidence can be evidence? I would argue that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its just evidence that if a magical unicorn that sh*ts out invisible cheeseburgers exists he has chosen to leave no evidence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed it for ya.

Edit: damn, I wrote this before I read all the talk of unicorns and cheese.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coming from someone who proposes unicorns as a possible first cause.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, not less ludicrous, and with no less evidence than your proposition. Amazing how flimsy you position is, heh, when put in perspective! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you avoid taking on the extra burden of ludicrous propositions when you haven’t begun to prove your major theses.

The soundness of my position is for you to challenge, if your up to it, with whatever logic you may have. Trying to make fun of me with your own playtime analogies only makes more conspicuous the fundamental weakness of your argument.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Coming from someone who proposes unicorns as a possible first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did say that they were *special* unicorns, and not just regular unicorns.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: damn, I wrote this before I read all the talk of unicorns and cheese.


[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind timotheeee,

Some people believe in all-loving unicorns, some believe in omnipotent ones and some believe that there is a unicorn that "create" (sic) cheeseburgers.

Then, of course there are the a-unicornists who decide not to suspend any disbeliefs on an irrational basis.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coming from someone who proposes unicorns as a possible first cause.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, not less ludicrous, and with no less evidence than your proposition. Amazing how flimsy you position is, heh, when put in perspective! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you avoid taking on the extra burden of ludicrous propositions when you haven’t begun to prove your major theses.

The soundness of my position is for you to challenge, if your up to it, with whatever logic you may have. Trying to make fun of me with your own playtime analogies only makes more conspicuous the fundamental weakness of your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one proposing a fundamental thesis, sharkey, namely the existence of a god, it is your burden to give it a semblance of proof. Any other argument/thesis based on this has as much relevance as a discussion on unicorns, however annoying it may be for you to realise.


BTW, I apologise to those that are theists and know/accept that it is not a rational issue but a matter of faith. I do not disagree (I can't, if you say you so believe) or try denigrate you in any way.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've already demonstrated this false with my struggle with Christianity


[/ QUOTE ]

Your experience is no more a demonstration than a Christian's experience is a demonstration that it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I look for god, I will find him.
I looked for god.
I didn't find him.

I'm going to trust logic over a warm, fuzzy feeling attributed to god on this one. All it takes is one counter-example to show an argument to be invalid, so even if everyone on earth searched for god and found him, me searching for and not finding god proves the statement invalid.

This all assumes, of course, that "finding god" has some universally agreed-upon meaning that we can look at to determine whether or not someone has actually found him, whether or not someone just has different feelings they chalk up to god but is not actually caused by him, whether or not someone is regurgitating what they've been told all their lives, or even whether or not some people are just lying about "finding god." After we've done that, then we'll deal with all of the counter-examples that prove it invalid.

[Sharkey]

Okay, some confusion seems to have crept into this discussion. To return things to a firm footing, let’s reestablish some fundamentals:

1. I have not claimed my thesis is provable. If you disagree, show me where.

2. Do you claim your thesis is provable?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, some confusion seems to have crept into this discussion. To return things to a firm footing, let’s reestablish some fundamentals:

1. I have not claimed my thesis is provable. If you disagree, show me where.

2. Do you claim your thesis is provable?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Fine

2. What thesis of mine, I would have thought my position was characterised by an absence of thesis. So I have nothing to prove.

Can I assume we are in agreement now?

[Sharkey]

No thesis? Two recent ones:

1. The “imperfection” of the universe.

2. Lestat: “The universe might exist because of the specific god you imagine, but there are a myriad of other possible causes as well.”

Me: “Such as?”

You: “Such as a special variety of unicorns capable of being the cause of a universe. At least there is no less evidence for this theory than for your own.”

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
No thesis? Two recent ones:

1. The “imperfection” of the universe.

2. Lestat: “The universe might exist because of the specific god you imagine, but there are a myriad of other possible causes as well.”

Me: “Such as?”

You: “Such as a special variety of unicorns capable of being the cause of a universe. At least there is no less evidence for this theory than for your own.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Imperfection if designed... If not designed, then it is just as it is... for NO reason.

The unicorn was to make the inadmissibility of your position clearer. If you admit you cannot prove, I readily admit I have no more, nor less proof, about unicorns.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Imperfection if designed...

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you asserted a conditional proposition. You can prove it, right?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I hate to agree with Sharkey even after the chicken joke but there's no proof that a magical unicorn that sh*ts out invisible cheesburgers doesn't exist. T </font>

You don't believe absence of evidence can be evidence? I would argue that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its just evidence that if a magical unicorn that sh*ts out invisible cheeseburgers exists he has chosen to leave no evidence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed it for ya.

Edit: damn, I wrote this before I read all the talk of unicorns and cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's right, it applies to anything that has sufficient power to choose to show no evidence. So as long as you mean a magical unicorn with the capability of leaving no evidence if it so chooses, then lack of evidence cannot decide anything about its lack of existence.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All it takes is one counter-example to show an argument to be invalid, so even if everyone on earth searched for god and found him, me searching for and not finding god proves the statement invalid.


[/ QUOTE ]

And they call me arrogant.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imperfection if designed...

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you asserted a conditional proposition. You can prove it, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as we agree on the definition of design and a way we can prove that, I will.

Added via edit for clarification: As soon as you define evidence of design in a falsifiable way, I will prove that either there is no evidence of design, or the falsifying is based on a non sequitur.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, some confusion seems to have crept into this discussion. To return things to a firm footing, let’s reestablish some fundamentals:

1. I have not claimed my thesis is provable. If you disagree, show me where.

2. Do you claim your thesis is provable?

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the whole point Sharkey. Neither existence nor non-existence is provable. We all know that and you must concede that proving something does NOT exist (try proving I don't have a hat on right now), is the much more difficult and hence, impracticle thing to do.

You don't live your life by constantly re-affirming the non-existent to satisfy yourself. You don't call your city's animal control dept. to come out and make sure there's not a rattle snake outside your door. Instead, the rational thing to do is to proceed as if there wasn't one there.

You would only call animal control if you had evidence of a rattlesnake. If you saw a dead mouse on your doorstep, it might mean a rattlesnake. But it could also mean many other things. The same goes for the universe. It might be that god put it here, but it could also be a number of other reasons it exists.

So what you do is assign a probablity even if it's subconscious. There's a dead mouse, but you live in Chicago where a viper has never been seen in the wild. So you assign a very low probability of a rattlesnake and proceed without any further thought. However, if you saw a dead mouse, molten skin, and you lived in Nevada.... The probability becomes higher.

And this is a similar context in which atheists put religion. We have never seen a god. We don't know anyone who has seen a god. We have never seen a miracle. We don't know anyone who ever has seen a miracle. We know it is physically impossible for humans to live to be 900 years old. We have never seen or heard of a human being living to be 900 years old. Without exception, this is the case for every single miracle to be found in the bible. No one's ever seen it and it has been proven to be physically impossible.

So you can look at the moon and say God must've put it there. But that's just because you can't understand or won't accept any other answer which cannot be proved to you. But one thing's for certain... The moon (or the universe), is NOT proof of a god.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But one thing's for certain... The moon (or the universe), is NOT proof of a god.


[/ QUOTE ]

As a hypothetical, would you agree that if God created the moon it would be evidence of His existence?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imperfection if designed...

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you asserted a conditional proposition. You can prove it, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as we agree on the definition of design and a way we can prove that, I will.

Added via edit for clarification: As soon as you define evidence of design in a falsifiable way, I will prove that either there is no evidence of design, or the falsifying is based on a non sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

What definition of design applied when you made the statement? We can try that one for starters.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What definition of design applied when you made the statement? We can try that one for starters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any that is falsifiable and not based on a "non sequitur", you are the one positing a desgn/er, not me. You must have an idea of what you mean, no?

[Sharkey]

Lestat:

Though it seems we’re on opposing sides of every discussion, I appreciate your effort and will respond to the (sadly erroneous) details of your post later.

[Lestat]

I smell a trap, but yes... If God created the moon, then I'll concede He must exist. I look forward to your point.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...If God created the moon...

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know???

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat:

Though it seems we’re on opposing sides of every discussion, I appreciate your effort and will respond to the (sadly erroneous) details of your post later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll look forward to it. But please stick to my main point which is:

It would be impractical to the point of phobic, not to leave your house, because it can't be proved that an eagle high above, just dropped a tortoise, which will land on your head and kill you.

You cannot prove the eagle doesn't exist. I cannot prove God doesn't exist. Should I live my life as though God exists just because I can't prove He doesn't? Should you live your life as though you'll be killed any minute, because you can't prove you won't die at the talons of an eagle?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...If God created the moon...

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know???

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this what it's all about? I'm sure the point has something to do with...

The moon exists, because God created it and if God created it, then He must exist. Unfortunately, I do not have a pair of scissors strong enough to cut through that loop.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The moon exists, because God created it.

[/ QUOTE ] is a non sequitur. [I love this since sharkey used it /images/graemlins/smile.gif ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I smell a trap, but yes... If God created the moon, then I'll concede He must exist. I look forward to your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question was whether, given His existence and that He created everything, the moon would be evidence of His existence.

You stated that it is certain the universe isn't proof of His existence. I don't know if you mean to distinguish proof and evidence, but clearly it can't be certain that the universe isn't evidence of God unless you can prove by some other means that He doesn't exist.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already demonstrated this false with my struggle with Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly sure the standard unexploitable response is...you didn't try hard enough /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat:

Though it seems we’re on opposing sides of every discussion, I appreciate your effort and will respond to the (sadly erroneous) details of your post later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm looking forward to your response...particularly why you seem to think it is our job to prove God does NOT exist.

[Lestat]

Ok, I see your point. VERY good catch...

We can't be certain that the universe doesn't prove God's existence. But can we be certain that the universe is NOT proof of God's existence?

[Sharkey]

First of all, in the final analysis, nothing is provable. Not even the screen you appear to be reading from or the floor that appears to be underneath you.

It seems from the examples given that you’re applying the famous law of economy which says to choose the simplest adequate theory available. Your approach misses the mark in that it doesn’t cover all the facts.

What you have neglected to account for is that the “presence” of a snake or eagle is never in evidence directly, but only by way of perception. There is an inescapable duality at work: the “objective” world and the observer. Any explanation is at fault with regard to the law of economy that attributes a property to the object that has never been observed, e.g. any quality unto itself without consciousness. No doubt there must be “something” out there independent of anyone’s observation of it, but, by definition, its properties are unknown.

What is known? The conscious observer, the self. That is the first thing with which any comprehensive theory of the origin must come to terms.

All the mechanical reasoning of everyday experience never accounts for the existence of “a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind”. Why is it there? It’s a totally incongruous ingredient that isn’t required or explained by any of the know properties of the material world.

[Lestat]

Very good post Sharkey, but there are a couple of things I don't understand...



<font color="blue"> the “presence” of a snake or eagle is never in evidence directly, but only by way of perception.
</font>

While this might be true of an entity like God, why do you feel this is true of ovservable earthly things which are embedded in our reality? The snake in my example, was a perception just like God, to make my point. But it is entirely possible for the snake to be a non-perception, unlike God.



<font color="blue">Any explanation is at fault with regard to the law of economy that attributes a property to the object that has never been observed, e.g. any quality unto itself without consciousness. </font>

Isn't this expressing my point and not yours? You are attributing a property to an unobservable entity like God. I only did so in making my point about a snake you had no reason to believe was there. However again, it is entirely possible for a snake to exist. We do not know this about God unless we are willing to assign a valid property to something that has never been observed.

<font color="blue"> All the mechanical reasoning of everyday experience never accounts for the existence of “a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind”. Why is it there? It’s a totally incongruous ingredient that isn’t required or explained by any of the know properties of the material world. </font>

I'm obviously not understanding you here, because it seems to me you are making points from the atheistic side.

Again, I appreciate your post. It was civil and attempted logic. Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time following your logic.

[Sharkey]

Quote: “The snake in my example, was a perception, just like God to make my point. But it is entirely possible for the snake to be a non-perception, unlike God.”

The snake has no known properties outside of perception.

Quote: “You are attributing a property to an unobservable entity like God. I only did so in making my point about a snake you had no reason to believe was there. However again, it is entirely possible for a snake to exist.”

It’s entirely possible for God to exist, especially since the Creator-creation relationship has the same properties as the only phenomenon we can ever knowledgeably describe: the subject-object relationship.

Quote: “I'm obviously not understanding you here, because it seems to me you are making points from the atheistic side.”

To infer the existence of God from the experience of self is no more a leap of faith than assuming any property of the “objective” world based on subjective experience.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We can't be certain that the universe doesn't prove God's existence. But can we be certain that the universe is NOT proof of God's existence?


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainty is a difficult issue. I distinguish between objective and subjective certainty. Some people may be certain that unicorns exist. Subjective.

The question of objective certainty is more problematic. Suppose there was an indisputable standard about what would constitute certain proof. Even so, any individual might still not have subjective certainty that the standard was valid or that a particular case met the standard.

The difficulty is partly because we are finite, and partly because we are sinners. I believe that God holds us responsible for His word, whether we agree with His standard and whether we have subjective certainty. The Bible says that God reveals Himself to all people and that this leaves everyone without excuse. But because we have responsibility, we can reject this and continue in unbelief.

So as a Christian I believe that God's revelation is clear enough to make us responsible. But if you reject God's standard and substitute your own, I can't prove to you by that standard that God exists.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So as a Christian I believe that God's revelation is clear enough to make us responsible. But if you reject God's standard and substitute your own, I can't prove to you by that standard that God exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's misleading. We reject your standard and we do so because we have no reason to believe it is correct and very good reason to belive it is wrong.

Your standard tells you nothing about god's existence because you assume god exists to get your standard.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's misleading.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see where I'm misleading anyone. I've spoken along these lines many times and given very detailed explanations of why I take certain positions.

[ QUOTE ]

We reject your standard and we do so because we have no reason to believe it is correct and very good reason to belive it is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which I completely disagree with, of course.


[ QUOTE ]

Your standard tells you nothing about god's existence because you assume god exists to get your standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody assumes their standard. I don't pluck mine out of thin air. It's based on the Bible, all the evidence that confirms the Bible and my own experience. I can just as easily say you get your standard by assuming God doesn't exist.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody assumes their standard. I don't pluck mine out of thin air. It's based on the Bible, all the evidence that confirms the Bible and my own experience. I can just as easily say you get your standard by assuming God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
So assume the bible is true and it follows the bible is true. Thats not any standard.

I dont assume that god doesn't exist. Reasoning to the best of my ability is my standard.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So assume the bible is true and it follows the bible is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assume unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth and it follows that human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So assume the bible is true and it follows the bible is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assume unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth and it follows that human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
but of course I dont make the unreasonable assumption that unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truths.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but of course I dont make the unreasonable assumption that unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truths.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to make a decision about right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Whatever standard you use is your highest standard. This is your most fundamental presupposition. You can't prove it, you have to assume it. Finite beings can operate in no other way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but of course I dont make the unreasonable assumption that unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truths.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to make a decision about right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Whatever standard you use is your highest standard. This is your most fundamental presupposition. You can't prove it, you have to assume it. Finite beings can operate in no other way.

[/ QUOTE ]
No thats what you do and its just guessing. Making some decision that something is true when its beyond our reason to understand that its true may make you feel like you've achieved something but its just faith.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Assume unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth and it follows that human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been demonstrated over and over again throughout the ages, human reason is not sufficient to discover absolute truth... indeed sometimes, if not often, it goes definitely wrong when dealing with the "absolute". I would not trust it in that domain. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So assume the bible is true and it follows the bible is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assume unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth and it follows that human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that only a minority of humankind has found this "truth" that you keep referring to. The majority of humankind believe that "truth" lies with other religions (or no religion at all). If your standard for finding "absolute truth" is human reason, how can you argue that the human reason of the founders of other religions are erroneous? What makes the human reason of the founders of your religion so much superior to those of other religions?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So assume the bible is true and it follows the bible is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assume unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth and it follows that human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that only a minority of humankind has found this "truth" that you keep referring to. The majority of humankind believe that "truth" lies with other religions (or no religion at all). If your standard for finding "absolute truth" is human reason, how can you argue that the human reason of the founders of other religions are erroneous? What makes the human reason of the founders of your religion so much superior to those of other religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he has the unerring word of god, the Bible, to rely on for his belief. Other religions only have the words of mere mortals for theirs.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So assume the bible is true and it follows the bible is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assume unaided human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth and it follows that human reason is sufficient to discover absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that only a minority of humankind has found this "truth" that you keep referring to. The majority of humankind believe that "truth" lies with other religions (or no religion at all). If your standard for finding "absolute truth" is human reason, how can you argue that the human reason of the founders of other religions are erroneous? What makes the human reason of the founders of your religion so much superior to those of other religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he has the unerring word of god, the Bible, to rely on for his belief. Other religions only have the words of mere mortals for theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a billion muslims would disagree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Copernicus]

but it isnt notready's fault that they have been misled. And after all he does have his "own experience" (which he often alludes to but never specifies that Ive seen) to go with.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All it takes is one counter-example to show an argument to be invalid, so even if everyone on earth searched for god and found him, me searching for and not finding god proves the statement invalid.


[/ QUOTE ]

And they call me arrogant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for snipping one part of my post and leaving out the rest. Further thanks for not responding to my point. Here, for all of those interested in intellectual honesty, I'll repost the above "arrogant" post and you can see for yourself why NotReady would choose to leave the meat out and not respond to it.

[ QUOTE ]
If I look for god, I will find him.
I looked for god.
I didn't find him.

I'm going to trust logic over a warm, fuzzy feeling attributed to god on this one. All it takes is one counter-example to show an argument to be invalid, so even if everyone on earth searched for god and found him, me searching for and not finding god proves the statement invalid.

This all assumes, of course, that "finding god" has some universally agreed-upon meaning that we can look at to determine whether or not someone has actually found him, whether or not someone just has different feelings they chalk up to god but is not actually caused by him, whether or not someone is regurgitating what they've been told all their lives, or even whether or not some people are just lying about "finding god." After we've done that, then we'll deal with all of the counter-examples that prove it invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 'arrogance' to say that one counter-example proves an argument invalid; it's Logic 101. I have no idea why you imputed arrogance to me rather than the field of logic, where I'm drawing from. I have no explanation for you attacking this arrogant straw-timotheeeee other than intellectual dishonesty. I guess I'll ask some specific questions just to see where you stand.

1. Do you agree or disagree that one counter-example proves an argument invalid?

2. If you disagree with the above (and thus with logic), why?

3a. If you agree that one counter-example proves the invalidity of an argument, then would you further agree that one person sincerely searching for god and not finding him proves "if you search for god you will find him" invalid?

3b. If you disagree with the above, why?

I don't appreciate you insulting me and ignoring my points.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is that only a minority of humankind has found this "truth" that you keep referring to


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't referring to a truth, like religious truth, that people seek. I was referring to whatever someone considers as their ultimate judge of truth - which often by implication is human reason.

[ QUOTE ]

If your standard for finding "absolute truth" is human reason, how can you argue that the human reason of the founders of other religions are erroneous?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall ever saying this. For the record, my ultimate standard of truth is God's Word.

[ QUOTE ]

What makes the human reason of the founders of your religion so much superior to those of other religions?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, nor have I ever said so.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for snipping one part of my post and leaving out the rest. Further thanks for not responding to my point


[/ QUOTE ]

If I said I'm right and 6 billion people are wrong I would expect to be called arrogant even if I didn't think I actually was. If you don't think you were being arrogant then I retract and apologize.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Do you agree or disagree that one counter-example proves an argument invalid?


[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be clear about terms here. I don't agree with 1. Example:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

If it should turn out that Socrates is immortal, the logic of the argument would not be wrong. A premise would be false. Particular examples do not invalidate logic, but they may falsify premises.

[ QUOTE ]

2. If you disagree with the above (and thus with logic), why?


[/ QUOTE ]

As shown above, it isn't a problem of logic.

What you are contending is that the Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him, that you sought God, that you didn't find Him, and therefore either the Bible isn't the Word of God or God is a liar. Though the form of the argument may be correct, the premesis don't fully convey the content of Scripture. For instance, the Bible says:

"There is none who seeks for God, no, not one."

There is therefore a counter premise that contradicts your testimony that you have sought God. There is much more in the Bible that must be considered concerning what it means to seek God and how and when you might find Him (you aren't dead yet so the search isn't necessarily over nor can you say God won't find you in the future).

Lastly, if you actually have sought God in a Scriptural way with heart sincerity then you have nothing to worry about. God doesn't break His promises.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, if you actually have sought God in a Scriptural way with heart sincerity then you have nothing to worry about. God doesn't break His promises.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god is benevelent then clearly you have nothing to worry about if you find scripture irrelevent. If god isn't benevelent then we all have something to worry about.

chez

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn't referring to a truth, like religious truth, that people seek. I was referring to whatever someone considers as their ultimate judge of truth - which often by implication is human reason.

I don't recall ever saying this. For the record, my ultimate standard of truth is God's Word.


[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you evaluate your beliefs then, if not by human reason? Is there any other method to determine truth from falsehood? Are your beliefs about God exempt from reason? If so, then how could you trust that you were taught/believe the right thing and not merely a belief structure you found first which then excludes all other beliefs? Without reason, how can you evaluate what the bible says and form a system of beliefs from it? How would you place the meaning of one verse above another, such as salvation by faith alone, or works, or by observing the commandments and giving all your money to the poor?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you evaluate your beliefs then, if not by human reason?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't exclude human reason as a valid instrument of knowledge, I just don't consider it to be the ultimate judge of truth. If God's Word was suborninate to the reason of a finite creature His Word would not be ultimate and He wouldn't be God. An interesting secondary problem would be the question of which particular statement of human reason would be supreme. Who defines reason?

[ QUOTE ]

Is there any other method to determine truth from falsehood?


[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly use reason as my first method. For that matter, the Bible itself often appeals to logic and common sense. Count the "therefores" in Scripture. The issue is what has final authority. And something must, it's not an option.

[ QUOTE ]

Are your beliefs about God exempt from reason?


[/ QUOTE ]

I distinguish between the ability of humans to use reason and the absolute, infallible reason of the Creator. God does not violate absolute reason, but He doesn't always reconcile what He says with what we can understand through our own ability. I've often used the example of parent and child. The parent may tell the child something that appears unreasonable to the child but isn't really so because the child has limited knowledge and reasoning ability.

[ QUOTE ]

Without reason, how can you evaluate what the bible says and form a system of beliefs from it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you have to abandon reason per se to be a Christian. You must abandon your belief in your own ultmate authority to judge God. It's perfectly reasonable to accept what God says on His authority.

[ QUOTE ]

How would you place the meaning of one verse above another, such as salvation by faith alone, or works, or by observing the commandments and giving all your money to the poor?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's correct, as I indicated above, to use our minds to understand Scripture. But there are many places where our own abilities fail. Understanding the Bible is a lifetime endeavor. I know better now than I did 30 years ago. The church as a whole understands some things better than it did 2000 years ago. Some good reasons to remember that we are but dust.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

Lastly, if you actually have sought God in a Scriptural way with heart sincerity then you have nothing to worry about. God doesn't break His promises.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible to seek God in any way, much less a scriptural way? According to your view of romans, no one seeks God not one, ever!

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Jdanz]

i actually agree with you, but go by a different set of assumptions.

faith in science and faith in religion in my view are pretty similar.

I think the statement 1 = 1 is the assumption of science. It's basically that something is knowable and finite. This is a really big assumption.

I'm ok with making it because it "feels" right, but in the end a person isn't a unitary entity of any significance on the molecular level, regularly interacting with surronding atoms in a manner that challenges the idea of a finite being. Same goes for anything else.

All that being said my assumption seems reasonable, as the physical world around me generally conforms to my predictive expectations based on "science", yet there is still a large unproved and unprovable assumption that a thing is itself and no other.

Given all that, i don't think you can even thing without making some assumptions. I sort of think the world is the way that i think it is, for really unreasonable reasons, but i don't doubt that another way of viewing it might be equally valid (i don't know about the logic, but probably all views would be equally valid). Sort of pick your assumptions and then fly with them.

If you agree with the above, why/why not do you believe your assumptions to be "more" true than others. I'd like to hear how or if you differentiate your set of assumptions.

edit: should have quoted
[ QUOTE ]
You have to make a decision about right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Whatever standard you use is your highest standard. This is your most fundamental presupposition. You can't prove it, you have to assume it. Finite beings can operate in no other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You must abandon your belief in your own ultmate authority to judge God. It's perfectly reasonable to accept what God says on His authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya notready. This is quite true, but you use your own authority to decide which one is god's word.

Your choice seems wrong to me. I think that is the point at which you were misled, when you under your own authority, arrogantly, abandonned your authority to one of the many claiming to be god's.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for snipping one part of my post and leaving out the rest. Further thanks for not responding to my point


[/ QUOTE ]

If I said I'm right and 6 billion people are wrong I would expect to be called arrogant even if I didn't think I actually was. If you don't think you were being arrogant then I retract and apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, apology accepted. Oh, and I never said anything resembling 'I'm right and 6 billion people are wrong.' I'll post it for a third time so people can judge for themselves whether or not I was being arrogant or you were being a prick.

[ QUOTE ]
All it takes is one counter-example to show an argument to be invalid, so even if everyone on earth searched for god and found him, me searching for and not finding god proves the statement invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's pretty obvious that I was making a statement about the validity of arguments, and that I wasn't swelling with god-loathing hubris. I'll let the others decide. The poll is at the end of the post, as I don't know how to put it between text. Sorry if it loses it's 'spur of the moment' spirit and wit.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Do you agree or disagree that one counter-example proves an argument invalid?


[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be clear about terms here. I don't agree with 1. Example:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

If it should turn out that Socrates is immortal, the logic of the argument would not be wrong. A premise would be false. Particular examples do not invalidate logic, but they may falsify premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know that. I supposed I shouldn't have used the term 'invalid,' in describing the truth or falsity of the premises. 'Unsound' is what I should have used to describe the argument. Anyways, it should be clear that I'm attacking the premises rather than the argument form; but I apologize if it was my misusage of technical logic phrases that had you calling me arrogant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. If you disagree with the above (and thus with logic), why?


[/ QUOTE ]

As shown above, it isn't a problem of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, false premises are absolutely a problem of logic, but let's see what else you have to say.

[ QUOTE ]
What you are contending is that the Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him, that you sought God, that you didn't find Him, and therefore either the Bible isn't the Word of God or God is a liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not contending that. I never took the scope of my complaints outside of the simple 'if you look for god, you will find him' if-then statement. If you wish to mangle my simple, straightforward declarations and accredit a wildy exaggerated and distended scope to them because whatever reasons (I'll guess it's knee-jerk religious paranoia, but I won't be so arrogant as to say that's the case), please do it in your own head and not in a public forum. To everyone else: please note that NotReady has already disfigured and manipulated the quite unambiguous phrase 'I don't believe Jesus is the son of god' to mean 'I hate God.' Let's hope the intellectual dishonesty ends here.

[ QUOTE ]
Though the form of the argument may be correct, the premesis don't fully convey the content of Scripture. For instance, the Bible says:

'There is none who seeks for God, no, not one.'

There is therefore a counter premise that contradicts your testimony that you have sought God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll accept that the above passage contradicts my testimony if you accept that it contradicts

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, obviously, the bible never contradicts itself, so I'm not going to accept it as contradicting my premise that I searched for god. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the bible just contradicted itself, and thanks for pointing it out for everyone to see. I anxiously await your clarification. It should be pretty clear that your above 'contradiction' of my premise would only constitute as contradictory if it also contradicts the bible when it says 'if you look for god, you will find him.' This should be good.

[ QUOTE ]
There is much more in the Bible that must be considered concerning what it means to seek God and how and when you might find Him (you aren't dead yet so the search isn't necessarily over nor can you say God won't find you in the future).

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So 'searching' is so open that it can mean anything, and 'finding' is equally as elastic. I've already done my searching, so I guess I'll wait around pillaging and drowning puppies until god decides it's time for me to 'find' him, years after I painfully completed my search. Seriously, though, the phrase 'if you look for god, you will find him' seems pretty straightforward, and this hemming and hawing about what it actually means to 'seek' and 'find' appears pathetic.


[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, if you actually have sought God in a Scriptural way with heart sincerity then you have nothing to worry about. God doesn't break His promises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I did sincerely search, otherwise I wouldn't be here arguing. I've spent countless hours doing what the bible told me to, and even more hours agonizing over finding god. I'm pretty sure there would be some kind of footnote explaining that you might have to search for a long time and come up with diddly, but that you shouldn't stop; or that you might have to search, completely give up, and then later you will be forgiven for giving up and given the kingdom of heaven regardless, if the bible had some extraordinarily liberal definition of 'seek' and 'find.' Otherwise, we'll all have to comb the bible for other equally opaque phrases that wildly distort the straightforward meaning. This just in: 'Jesus died on the cross' might mean 'Jesus was really, really bored on the cross.'

With the finite time we spend on earth to find out how to live our lives, with competing religions, with all the human emotions and motivations that encroach on a person's well-being and faith in things, it's impractical, illogical, and downright sadistic to expect someone to just 'keep searching' if they don't get to have the great revelation promised in a book written over 1,500 years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------

[ QUOTE ]
All it takes is one counter-example to show an argument to be invalid [I should've used 'unsound' here], so even if everyone on earth searched for god and found him, me searching for and not finding god proves the statement invalid [unsound]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Koran ... is full of errors

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a logically untenable claim. Do you see why ?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How is it possible to seek God in any way, much less a scriptural way? According to your view of romans, no one seeks God not one, ever!


[/ QUOTE ]


The short answer is "With man this is impossible, with God all things are possible".

The statement in Romans must be read in the context of all that Scripture says about the condition of man. No one seeks God sincerely from his own initiative. But Romans also says that God reveals Himself to all so that all are without excuse.

There are many places in the Bible where God commands that which He knows is impossible for man and still holds him responsible for his failure. The primary reason is to illustrate to man that he can't comply with God's requirements, though he often thinks he can. God is basically saying "You think you are a good person. OK, show me by doing X" knowing that he can't do X.

Later in Romans (Chapter 7), Paul gives an illustration from his own life. He explains that he didn't think of himself as a covetous person. Then he read the Commandment saying "You shall not covet". It was then that Paul realized he was full of coveting of all kinds. As he said, the law was given to expose his true nature, to show him that he wasn't righteous and that he needed God.

We are commanded to seek God even though God knows we will not do so on our own. He also draws us to Himself, and it is in response to that that we truly seek God. He initiates, we respond.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
With man this is impossible, with God all things are possible

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
God is basically saying "You think you are a good person. OK, show me by doing X" knowing that he can't do X

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We are commanded to seek God even though God knows we will not do so on our own. He also draws us to Himself, and it is in response to that that we truly seek God. He initiates, we respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, those are only NotReady's opinions. He agrees that he cannot prove any of this and thus may be wrong.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

faith in science and faith in religion in my view are pretty similar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you would say this. I once tried to make this point on this forum and got thoroughly cussed out for it.

[ QUOTE ]

If you agree with the above, why/why not do you believe your assumptions to be "more" true than others. I'd like to hear how or if you differentiate your set of assumptions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said in another post I don't pick my assumptions out of thin air. No one does, really, we form them over a lifetime. Initially we receive them from parents, teachers and friends. Later inputs come from reading and thinking through on our own. We compare what we believe with our experience and perhaps adjust our beliefs accordingly.

Christians get their primary assumptions from the Bible. We believe the Bible because God has enabled us to do so and we respond to that in faith. We then compare what God says with reality. I find that God's explanation of the world is the only one that makes sense. One of the best theologians I know of said "All non-Christian world views reduce human predication to absurdity". From a strictly rational point of view I see no position that can account for reason itself, or morality and science, except the Christian theistic position. I didn't become a Christian through this thought process, but I think it is a correct analysis. I believe I can rationally defend the position but perhaps I continue in belief only because God continually enables me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I was being arrogant or you were being a prick


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been voted a prick. Maybe I should just give up.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was being arrogant or you were being a prick


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been voted a prick. Maybe I should just give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least it's good that you realize when it's time to throw in the towel. But I'd still like to hear how

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, the Bible says:

'There is none who seeks for God, no, not one.'

There is therefore a counter premise that contradicts your testimony that you have sought God.


[/ QUOTE ]

contradicts my testimony that I have sought god, but does not contradict the bible when it says

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really would like to hear, and I know I'm not alone, the explanation as to how it gets to contradict me and not the bible. I honestly don't see any non-mealy-mouthed, obfuscating explanation here. 'If you look for god, you will find him' seems to be a pretty unambiguous statement (unless you endlessly asterisk it for redefinition of terms and to account for cases where people sought god and didn't find him), and a central tenet to Christianity (i.e. if it turned out to be false Christianity would be a quite different religion). All of a sudden you whip out a quote that is a prima facie contradiction of this tenet. 'There is no one who seeks for god, no, not one' is even more unequivocal than the other statement. Hell, god goes out of his way to repeat for emphasis that not a goddamn person searches for him. No. Not one.

Please, give us a reasonable explanation for the obvious contradiction. I'm an intelligent guy and I don't see any way out of this. And because I'm paranoid that I may be missing something, and because I don't foresee a reasonable explanation from you any time soon, I'll put in another poll to quell my worries.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was being arrogant or you were being a prick


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been voted a prick. Maybe I should just give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least it's good that you realize when it's time to throw in the towel. But I'd still like to hear how

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, the Bible says:

'There is none who seeks for God, no, not one.'

There is therefore a counter premise that contradicts your testimony that you have sought God.


[/ QUOTE ]

contradicts my testimony that I have sought god, but does not contradict the bible when it says

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says that we have enough information so that we are without excuse, and that if you seek God you will find Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really would like to hear, and I know I'm not alone, the explanation as to how it gets to contradict me and not the bible. I honestly don't see any non-mealy-mouthed, obfuscating explanation here. 'If you look for god, you will find him' seems to be a pretty unambiguous statement (unless you endlessly asterisk it for redefinition of terms and to account for cases where people sought god and didn't find him), and a central tenet to Christianity (i.e. if it turned out to be false Christianity would be a quite different religion). All of a sudden you whip out a quote that is a prima facie contradiction of this tenet. 'There is no one who seeks for god, no, not one' is even more unequivocal than the other statement. Hell, god goes out of his way to repeat for emphasis that not a goddamn person searches for him. No. Not one.

Please, give us a reasonable explanation for the obvious contradiction. I'm an intelligent guy and I don't see any way out of this. And because I'm paranoid that I may be missing something, and because I don't foresee a reasonable explanation from you any time soon, I'll put in another poll to quell my worries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted no. Its not a contradiction, but its something more damaging that requires fancy footwork from the Bible literalists.

Its not a contradiction because
"IF you seek, you will find is not negated by "But no one seeks". (If A, then B) is not contradicted by (Not A, then <u>fill in the blank</u> ). They are mutually exclusive.

The problem is that YOU have sought god, so "No, not one" is disproven, AND you have not found god so "If A then B" is also false.

Now the theists will say to the second that "there is still time before judgement day, and because you have sought god he will reveal himself to you at the most appropriate time", and thats a pretty safe dodge.

The problem is with telling you that you have not sought god. To do that they need to either define what "seeking god" means so strictly that it should have been clear from the bible what it takes...and you didnt cut it, or they need to peer into your mind/hear/soul or whatever and say you havent met even a casual definition of "seeking god", which of course they cant do.

[timotheeeee]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. However, I still think that they are obviously contradictory when put in the biblical context. Whoever wrote those passages in the bible (as well as generations upon generations of Christians that repeat it while proselytizing) knew full well "if you seek then you will find" was meant, and to be understood, that people are actually supposed to seek and find, rather than being worthless fluff that could do nothing other than confuse everyone that isn't a logician that doesn't care about his bible being filled with arbitrary, meaningless filler that's at odds with other passages.


Both passages were written with a meaning, and the meanings obviously contradict one another. Unless Christians want to start making the heretical claim that we're not supposed to search for god, or that searching for god does nothing in the way of finding him (changing the face of Christianity into something way different), I will contend that this is an obvious contradiction.

So I'm still waiting for the reasonable explanation for the dichotomy that squares with Christian doctrine. Not that I don't think your explanation isn't reasonable; it just doesn't square central tenets.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. However, I still think that they are obviously contradictory when put in the biblical context. Whoever wrote those passages in the bible (as well as generations upon generations of Christians that repeat it while proselytizing) knew full well "if you seek then you will find" was meant, and to be understood, that people are actually supposed to seek and find, rather than being worthless fluff that could do nothing other than confuse everyone that isn't a logician that doesn't care about his bible being filled with arbitrary, meaningless filler that's at odds with other passages.


Both passages were written with a meaning, and the meanings obviously contradict one another. Unless Christians want to start making the heretical claim that we're not supposed to search for god, or that searching for god does nothing in the way of finding him (changing the face of Christianity into something way different), I will contend that this is an obvious contradiction.

So I'm still waiting for the reasonable explanation for the dichotomy that squares with Christian doctrine. Not that I don't think your explanation isn't reasonable; it just doesn't square central tenets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm slipping...I missed their most obvious line of "reasoning":

The Bible is unerring.
It says if you seek you shall find.
You haven't found, therefore you haven't sought.
Therefore the Bible is unerring.
QED


"wheel it go round in circles"

I, of course, agree that the Bible was written for (and imo to control) the masses, and therefore one shouldnt need an advanced degree in logic to understand what appears to be plain language.