A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

..and is very clear that he wants us to worship him and only him is unable to get more than about two out of every seven people on this planet to recognize that he even exists?

We have choices, just like those who chose to ignore evidence showing that the earth isn't the center of the Universe. My point? Simple. History is littered with people choosing whether or not to believe something.


You know why Robots performed every command they're programmed to perform without resistence? Because unlike humans, they don't have the capacity to choose.

For an all powerful god who is very jealous and wants us to worship him and only him, it seems odd that he can't even get a simple majority.

This is a contradictory statement. He cannot be "all powerful", but "can't" do something at the same time...like get a majority.

If he's all-powerful, he *can* get a majority, but won't violate our ability to choose.

Forced worship isn't sincere worship. I'm glad I can choose to believe in God or not.

 

[soulcougher73]

If he's all-powerful, he *can* get a majority, but won't violate our ability to choose.

Forced worship isn't sincere worship. I'm glad I can choose to believe in God or not.

But he's all to happy to punish those who don't choose for eternity. So glad he gave us free will with consequences. So nice of him.

 

[JD50]

But he's all to happy to punish those who don't choose for eternity. So glad he gave us free will with consequences. So nice of him.

He's also all knowing. So he already knew that we wouldn't worship him before we were even born. In which case, I never had a choice in the first place.

 

[soulcougher73]

He's also all knowing. So he already knew that we wouldn't worship him before we were even born. In which case, I never had a choice in the first place.

Son of a..

 

[moonbogg]

I don't disagree with you, I just don't have the time to go back and forth with Rob about that. There's really no need to disprove it when there's no evidence to support it in the first place.

I tried to explain to Rob how a "virgin birth" is impossible without modern medicine. His explanation was that god can do anything... I don't have time for that.

Dude, no one has that much time. You'd be here forever. If people invoke magic to prove their point, then what the hell can you do?

 

[Retro Rob]

But he's all to happy to punish those who don't choose for eternity. So glad he gave us free will with consequences. So nice of him.

translated as "grave", "pit", or "abode of the dead", is the underworld of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. It is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from God.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

In the Septuagint (the ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek), the Greek term "ᾅδης" (Hades) is used to translate the Hebrew term "שׁאול" (Sheol) in, for example, Isaiah 38:18.[1] This use refers the term hades to the abode of the dead in general, rather than the abode of the wicked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hades#Hades_in_the_Old_Testament

There is no "hell" (place of eternal tourment of the wicked), just a resting place of the dead...good and bad.

What you're dealing with is translation and liberty-taking by the old Church and KJV using "Hell" to scare people into joining their religion.

When you're dead, you're dead.

In the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the Kingdom (Mark 9:43-48).[29] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna#New_Testament

As far as Gehenna is concerned, if "soul and body" can be destroyed, it isn't a place a eternal tourment, as one would have to be alive. "Unquechable fire" simply indicated no hope of a resurrection for those who go there.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We have choices, just like those who chose to ignore evidence showing that the earth isn't the center of the Universe. My point? Simple. History is littered with people choosing whether or not to believe something.


You know why Robots performed every command they're programmed to perform without resistence? Because unlike humans, they don't have the capacity to choose.



This is a contradictory statement. He cannot be "all powerful", but "can't" do something at the same time...like get a majority.

If he's all-powerful, he *can* get a majority, but won't violate our ability to choose.

Forced worship isn't sincere worship. I'm glad I can choose to believe in God or not.

Rational belief is a cognitive act, not a volitional one. I didn't "choose" to believe the pythagorean theorem. I followed the proof of the theorem and recognized its validity and soundness.

The point being that convincing a person through the presentation of persuasive evidence is not "forcing a choice" or "forcing belief." Your excuses do not sufficiently explain the widespread disbelief in an alleged being that 1.) knows what evidence would be persuasive, 2.) has the unlimited power to produce that evidence, and 3.) wants people to believe it exists.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rational belief is a cognitive act, not a volitional one. I didn't "choose" to believe the pythagorean theorem. I followed the proof of the theorem and recognized its validity and soundness.

The more you parse statements and argue semantics, the more you lose credibility.

Your excuses do not sufficiently explain the widespread disbelief in an alleged being

Of course, because I am not attempting to explain this "widespread disbelief". Secondly, widespread disbelief no more disproves that God exists than widespread belief proves that God does exists.

knows what evidence would be persuasive,

That's you incredulity talking. The evidence has more than persuaded me.

has the unlimited power to produce that evidence.

He does have the power to produce that evidence, and has -- we're here, after all. The evidence is literally under your nose.

Materialism is your problem, and why you're so incredulous. If science can't explain something, you think there is no explanation, or you guys simply make something up as long as it can be explained naturally. One way thinking.

So sad.

 

[sandorski]

The more you parse statements and argue semantics, the more you lose credibility.



Of course, because I am not attempting to explain this "widespread disbelief". Secondly, widespread disbelief no more disproves that God exists than widespread belief proves that God does exists.



That's you incredulity talking. The evidence has more than persuaded me.



He does have the power to produce that evidence, and has -- we're here, after all. The evidence is literally under your nose.

Materialism is your problem, and why you're so incredulous. If science can't explain something, you think there is no explanation, or you guys simply make something up as long as it can be explained naturally. One way thinking.

So sad.

Goddidit has been Religions explanation for all sorts of things as far back as we have records. That list of things gets shorter everyday and the list of things showing that there is any god remains empty.

 

[Retro Rob]

Goddidit has been Religions explanation for all sorts of things as far back as we have records. That list of things gets shorter everyday and the list of things showing that there is any god remains empty.

Religious explanations, yes, but not Biblical. Where in the Bible does it say every time it thundered, it meant God's anger, or that the Sun being covered by the moon during an eclipse meant God was personally doing it every time?

There is no doubt patterns in our world follows natural processes -- all I am saying is that God simply put some of these things in place in such a fashion that they're self-sustaining, and work...just like how humans can build something like a car engine that can work without a man inside there turning the gears every time you want to drive.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The more you parse statements and argue semantics, the more you lose credibility.

This is not a rebuttal to my argument. What's the matter? Can't defend your own statments?

Of course, because I am not attempting to explain this "widespread disbelief".

Baloney. You offered an explanation to the indicated fact that it seems God is unable to obtain a belief in his existence for the majority of the planet's population. Your explanation was lacking for the reason I gave, and you have now given that reason your endorsement.

Secondly, widespread disbelief no more disproves that God exists than widespread belief proves that God does exists.

Who has suggested such?

That's you incredulity talking. The evidence has more than persuaded me.

Yes, but you haven't shown that your belief is rational.

He does have the power to produce that evidence, and has -- we're here, after all. The evidence is literally under your nose.

That isn't evidence, and it would seem that you do not understand what evidence is -- further support for the notion that your belief is not rational.

Here I will repeat my questions which you are trying so hard to pretend don't exist:

is there anything in the universe that is not evidence of God? What would evidence that God does not exist look like?

Materialism is your problem, and why you're so incredulous. If science can't explain something, you think there is no explanation, or you guys simply make something up as long as it can be explained naturally. One way thinking.

So sad.

None of the above is true, and none of it is a rebuttal to my argument. Now, that is quite sad, indeed.

 

[sandorski]

Religious explanations, yes, but not Biblical. Where in the Bible does it say every time it thundered, it meant God's anger, or that the Sun being covered by the moon during an eclipse meant God was personally doing it every time?

There is no doubt patterns in our world follows natural processes -- all I am saying is that God simply put some of these things in place in such a fashion that they're self-sustaining, and work...just like how humans can build something like a car engine that can work without a man inside there turning the gears every time you want to drive.

The Flood, plague amongst the Israelis, lose a Battle, Israel is conquered, various cities destroyed. All because of some Judgement and action by "god".

Yes, "Biblical" too.


If it is self-sustaining, then how does it become some kind of evidence for "god"?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is plenty of evidence. Shoe prints are evdience humans are/have been in the area, creation and the Universe points to a designer being there.

Simple logic and reality at work.

What "creation"?

More importantly, you should answer these questions: is there anything in the universe that is not evidence of God? What would evidence that God does not exist look like?

I'm just quoting my own post because it has been conveniently ignored, and I thought I should point it out so that everyone and Rob can notice.

 

[Retro Rob]

The Flood, plague amongst the Israelis, lose a Battle, Israel is conquered, various cities destroyed. All because of some Judgement and action by "god".

All those things have a supernatural source (Biblically speaking) explaining supernatural phenomenon. You said it.

If it is self-sustaining, then how does it become some kind of evidence for "god"?

The same way a self-correcting program is evidence of a programmer.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is not a rebuttal to my argument. What's the matter? Can't defend your own statments?

I cannot defend against parsing and semantics, or better still, I'm not willing. If you are willing to be more intellectually honest, then we can discuss.

Baloney. You offered an explanation to the indicated fact that it seems God is unable to obtain a belief in his existence for the majority of the planet's population. Your explanation was lacking for the reason I gave, and you have now given that reason your endorsement.

Horsefeathers.

Who has suggested such?

No one. I just wanted to end that before it started.

Yes, but you haven't shown that your belief is rational.

To me, its rational.

That isn't evidence, and it would seem that you do not understand what evidence is -- further support for the notion that your belief is not rational.

That is evidence. What can you provide as evidence that life didn't originate with God?

None of the above is true, and none of it is a rebuttal to my argument. Now, that is quite sad, indeed.

So you're willing to entertain non-scientific explanations?

 

[sandorski]

All those things have a supernatural source (Biblically speaking) explaining supernatural phenomenon. You said it.




The same way a self-correcting program is evidence of a programmer.

Thus supporting the Goddidit hypothesis, thank you.

Since there are non-god evidences to the forerunners of those systems, how does "god" fit in?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I cannot defend against parsing and semantics, or better still, I'm not willing. If you are willing to be more intellectually honest, then we can discuss.

I am not parsing or arguing semantics, so that dog won't hunt. I directly rebutted your claim that belief is a choice. You have failed to contest that rebuttal.

Horsefeathers.

Gainsaying isn't a rebuttal, either.

EDIT: I'm returning to point out that, as it is said, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. It is amusing in that way to see you co-opt my vocabulary, albeit disappointingly unoriginal.

To me, its rational.

Some men say that they are rational to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Your say-so isn't worth anything.

That is evidence.

No, it isn't. Evidence is that which could not be true if the hypothesis weren't true, yet is true. You haven't supplied evidence.

What can you provide as evidence that life didn't originate with God?

That isn't my burden. You are simply trying to shirk your own burden by shifting an unwarranted one to me because you do not have the support for your beliefs that you profess.

So you're willing to entertain non-scientific explanations?

What is a "non-scientific explanation"?

 

[Retro Rob]

I am not parsing or arguing semantics, so that dog won't hunt. I directly rebutted your claim that belief is a choice. You have failed to contest that rebuttal.

Yes you are, and you always do...particularly with your "rigorously define X" drivel before you're willing to discuss a point that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

Some men say that they are rational to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Your say-so isn't worth anything.

So rationality is subjective. Thanks for clarifying.

No, it isn't. Evidence is that which could not be true if the hypothesis weren't true, yet is true. You haven't supplied evidence.

You're the evidence, life is the evidence. I cannot make this more clear to you.

That isn't my burden. You are simply trying to shirk your own burden by shifting an unwarranted one to me because you do not have the support for your beliefs that you profess.

Yeah, "not my burden" is the atheists anthem. They never have evidence, yet are un-afraid to make statements of truth as regards the existence of God.

anyway...

Evidence leads to a conclusion, proof makes the conclusion true. Life, intelligence, the Universe, etc is evidence of an intelligent mind...plain and simple.

What is a "non-scientific explanation"?

The opposite of a scientific explanation.

 

[Retro Rob]

Thus supporting the Goddidit hypothesis, thank you.

Do you know what "supernatural" is?

Since there are non-god evidences to the forerunners of those systems, how does "god" fit in?

What can be a "non-god evidence"? Disproving a conclusion isn't disproving the existence of God.

The reverse "watch" analogy is appropriate. Just because a watch is blind, unguided, and works automatically, doesn't mean no one invented it.

lol

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Yes you are, and you always do...particularly with your "rigorously define X" drivel before you're willing to discuss a point that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

When Cerpin Taxt is at his wit's end he will disagree with the definition of words. Thus, his "rigorously define X" drivel is his attempt to create an illusion of intellectual integrity in debate, when there is none.

 

[Retro Rob]

When Cerpin Taxt is at his wit's end he will disagree with the definition of words. Thus, the "rigorously define X" drivel is a diversion that he can't lose.

:whiste:

Exactly.

In one thread, I said God exists outside of time...and before he was willing to discuss that point, he wanted me to "rigorously define time" before he would honestly engage me in a discussion about it.

I bet if his wife said its time for them to leave, he would NOT as her to "rigorously" define time before she can decide if it's really time to leave.

Yeah, pathetic.

 

[sandorski]

Do you know what "supernatural" is?



What can be a "non-god evidence"? Disproving a conclusion isn't disproving the existence of God.

The reverse "watch" analogy is appropriate. Just because a watch is blind, unguided, and works automatically, doesn't mean no one invented it.

lol

Evidence of the formation of Stars and Planets and how Life Evolved from very simple forms to the complex forms we have today. Neither requires a god, so where is the evidence for this god?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes you are, and you always do...particularly with your "rigorously define X" drivel before you're willing to discuss a point that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

Re-asserting a false claim does not increase its truth value. All you've succeeded in doing is supplying yet another data point to support to notion that you have no rebuttal to my argument.

So rationality is subjective. Thanks for clarifying.

I said nothing of the sort. It seems at this point all you can muster is the deliberate misrepresentation of my statements, and I'm quite confident in asserting that it is readily apparent to anyone and everyone reading along. Is that the example you really want to set? I will stipulate that it is consistent with the history of your contributions, but like a fool I remain forever optimistic that one day you'll manage to engage my arguments with candor and in good faith.

You're the evidence, life is the evidence. I cannot make this more clear to you.

No, it simply isn't, and I've explained precisely the reason why. If you disagree with my reasoning, you must engage that reasoning with a rebuttal. This broken record style of re-affirmation only weakens your position because it reveals that you do not have a reasonable rebuttal.

Yeah, "not my burden" is the atheists anthem.

It's still true, and none of your whining will change that.

They never have evidence, yet are un-afraid to make statements of truth as regards the existence of God.

So what? None of this relieves you of your burden to establish the rational basis for your own claims. You're scapegoating.

Evidence leads to a conclusion, proof makes the conclusion true. Life, intelligence, the Universe, etc is evidence of an intelligent mind...plain and simple.

But you haven't shown that it could not be true that those things exist if it were not true that an "intelligent mind" existed (by that, I assume you mean a god, as nobody disputes that intelligent minds exist in humans. Still it is odd that you seem shy about placing "God" where you've instead chosen to write "intelligent mind")

The opposite of a scientific explanation.

Here we've identified another area of your ignorance. Allow my to educate you: Tautologies do not express meaning -- they only restate what has already been stated. Thus, your answer is a non-answer, and yet another example of you being disingenuous.

Christian morality sure is something, isn't it, folks?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Exactly.

In one thread, I said God exists outside of time...and before he was willing to discuss that point, he wanted me to "rigorously define time" before he would honestly engage me in a discussion about it.

False. What is the Christian rule about bearing false witness?

I bet if his wife said its time for them to leave, he would NOT as her to "rigorously" define time before she can decide if it's really time to leave.

Yeah, pathetic.

I guess when you don't bother spending time thinking through your arguments you have extra time to whine about things that never happened.

Strange priorities...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When Cerpin Taxt is at his wit's end he will disagree with the definition of words. Thus, his "rigorously define X" drivel is his attempt to create an illusion of intellectual integrity in debate, when there is none.

For persons that outwardly seem so confident in the truth of their claims, you seem to have a disproportionately strong aversion to having your claims scrutinized.

It isn't my problem that Christians so frequently shoot off at the mouth with terms that they don't even understand. It's a consequence of the fact that they uncritically accept the things that they are told by persons in positions of authority, and then begin to parrot those things themselves without giving those ideas any analysis or scrutiny of their own.

When your beliefs and claims crumble under the light of critical examination, it is nobody's problem but yours.