Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did I mention a single thing about how many people read anything. I said I have strong evidence and you as far as I can remember have never even attempted to supply a hint a evidence for anything (at the very least none whatever for why your "theology" may be right).
30 seconds after I asked that It occurred to me. When I saw WLC the first thing I thought was WTC and then I was stuck with a institutional mindset instead of a personal one.William Lane Craig, more of a who than a what.
It is a fact that he is the most associated with those characteristics I mentioned whether the association is true or not. Your disagreement with my faith is expected and no worth mentioning. That is why I mention what is indicative of it being true (they always fall short of proof but are reasonable evidence). However my main point is not that God is good. It is that actual good and evil are meaningless (in fact non-existent) as a category of truth without him. They become convenient concoctions and cannot be objective truths.
My attitude or person acceptance of God's justice would be affected but I would still be without any standard capable of claiming that your Hell is wrong. Wrong according to what transcendent criteria. Is a fallible and finite mind's (a bag of whirring atoms) idea that it sucks or seems too much capable of judging God? The whole argument is kind of meaningless anyway. Once we start suggesting hypotheticals let's pretend God stuck a knife in a baby would .........?
The other day I was surprised to find out what free-will means in a theological context. It means the ability to chose what we desire. IOW it has nothing to do with actualization f anything or the ability to chose that which we would not want. It means if I want to believe X I am capable of doing so. Your not talking about either actualization or will. Your talking about consequence. If I tell my neighbor if he comes over my fence drunk again I will shoot him have I taken his ability to choose to do so away. You are not talking about will. God says X is right and Y is wrong and both have consequences. You may choose either but you cannot choose what results from it.
This is a fallacy. There is only a lack of evidence if you have justifiable reasons to know that given existence there should be more. History records the heart is far more involved with belief than evidence anyway. The US is full of evidence it is coming apart at the seems in every way. One side says that is the case the other calls it progress. The problem is not evidence it is the lens it is viewed through.
Don't start agreeing now, it will mess up everything. I have no idea how to cope with it.Yeah, its like banging your head against a wall, isnt it?
What we care about has nothing to do with moral fact. I care about driving fast and some care more about alcohol that life.
No murder is wrong because (usually the strongest group of people) said it was, (JUST LIKE YOU JUST DID) for social convenience. You can't define reality into being. You are confusing a rationality for supposing something be declared unacceptable (actually that is very generous, in actuality we can only permit or not) with the foundations for something actually being true. I know you know this to be a fact. You just can't seem to be able to stand letting it be one. How is existence a justification or right for existence? That is not what Jefferson used. This is also speciesm again. You deny other sentient beings the right to exist for the sake of your existence. There are about a hundred reasons why everything you said above is not only wrong but can't possibly be true.
It certainly would be. I would immediately reject and hate that God. Fortunately mine has not nor will change his mind and declare murdering babies is justifiable, which by the way your side of the aisle actually has. BTY what happened to that glorious standard that what exists has a right to exist? IT went out the window with convenience. Again I cannot invent a greater example of proof of a moral systems failure than this. You condemn God for what he never declared justifiable for humans to practice but what your side actually has done, which by the way violates the standards you pulled out of this air anyway. It is impossible to make more morally insane or inconsistent standard than what produced this. I will leave your rants about theology alone for now. They are 100% arguments from terminology.
That is like saying that ice prefers to be cold. It is ice's nature to be cold. It is God's nature murder is wrong. God being primary all the derivative features of the universe (except liberals) inherit this nature.
Among those most rational. Professional ethicists, theologians, and philosophers there exists almost no one on your side that would claim moral truths exist without God. In recent times your side increasing denies any truth exists of any kind. Those on my side al say the exact same thing as I have. So concerning those most trained in reason and logic the overwhelming bulk on both sides agree with me in totality. I have even supplied many of their more famous quotes. I do not believe you do not agree or understand. I believe you just will not accept it or admit it. It is just too simple, too prevalent, and too obvious.
This is another epistemological off ramp. My claims stand even if God never revealed anything to anyone.
This is typical, declare anarchy the ultimate in morality, declare obedience the ultimate in moral corruption, kill human life off by the millions in the womb and demand existence is a right, enslave us all to a government and call it glorious, march the most successful and benevolent nation of virtually every moral statistical cliff there is and call it progress. I guess the people at the flood were the pinnacle of accomplishment. Just as in those days the Bible said in the end times right will be called wrong once again. We can't be far off.
You may have responded. You have never answered because there exists no possibility of your having an answer.
Scrutinized means subjected to academic (historical, legal, philosophical) analysis, not read. It includes reading but is not equal to reading.
Not quite. My scriptures claims have been validated on huge orders of magnitudes more than yours. That by every criteria in human history makes them more reliable. I do not even recall anything given by you to evaluate.
That is complete crap and you known it. It is the exact same principle used in law, testimony of all types, history, debate, philosophy, and even science. It is accepted everywhere. You are making a mistake so common and typical I need to copy and paste this response. You are relying on a fallacy you do not understand. My claims are not proof claims. If they were a fallacy may be relevant. They are claims about relative sufficiency of evidence are indicative not proof. Get off the dang misunderstood fallacy crutches and walk on your own two feet for a bit. You might be eventually able to run on your own power.
Give me a verse and text?
That would be a source not the definition. Actual means objectively true.
Never the less we have the potential advantage if God exists whether you believe it or not.
Conscience and consciousness is barely definable and not explained by anything natural. No atom or random collection of them can tell anyone the way things should be. Evolutionary ethics are geared for survival not truth if they even exist. I cold easily justify killing every competitor for resources that is not a direct benefit to my tribe by evolutionary ethics and many have. I can justify racism, oppression, and slavery by evolution and many have. What I cannot explain is why so many of our morals are not self beneficial and contrary to evolutionary principle.
No atheists can't they can endow some people with arbitrary personal value that does not exist beyond your mind. I can give all human life actual sanctity, dignity, and equality that exists outside of everyone's mind. An atheist can invent anything and routinely does so, he cannot make any of it true.
My entire argument was ontological and has nothing to do with application. I have every advantage in that context so you naturally switched to epistemology as every single atheist always will. I went with it because I have every advantage there as well. Atheism is a net loss. I have everything available to you plus.
Why would that matter? Is a books title relevant to truth. The bias is rising to the top I see. The Bible is so historically accurate it is a major or primary resource of even secular archeologists and has made a career out of embarrassing historians. But no the historical record is far more than the Bible.
if you look at 90% of legal codes for thousands of years you will find at least 80% commonality in all their cores.
That is why I was talking about foundations not perceptions. I was saying only with a transcendent standard and standard giver are our almost universal beliefs in actual wrongs true. That might not exclude the Aztec's alone but it certainly excludes atheism. I think I am debating an atheist not an Aztec. You do not have an obsidian blade laying on an alter do you?
I notice that atheists talk more about Craig than any other philosopher. He is the only scholar I have heard atheists say can put the fear of God into them. Normally you do not constantly discuss twits or non-threats. The US military is geared towards Russia and the middle east not Sri-Lanka. Sometimes I wonder if atheists check under the bed for Craig before getting into it. The same would go for Zacharias, Plantinga, and Aquinas.
I do not think you feel comfortable outside of a semantic environment.
So you admit your claim to popularity and appeals to numbers is false for other reasons as well.
Then in this next paragraph claim what you said was not true above is true now.
This is what is known as conceding the battle but claiming to have won the war. It is not good that your theology is generally unrecognized as true. It is not evidence your right that most consider you wrong. In every debate I see against Craig his opponent at some point does this. They say "well it is obvious I am going to lose this debate but never fear I am still right".
However people do not want to die for a lie if they know it is a lie. The apostles (those in the entirety of history best able to know) risked and lost their lives defending the Gospels. No one wants to invent a Hell they claim they are bound for unless they change either. Wish fulfillment is about the worst possible excuse for dismissing the Bible. People hate accountability and avoid it like the plague. Christians assume the greatest accountability possible.
Text and verse please.
I did not mention magical claims.
Nope that is pretty much the standard accepted for evidential sufficiency used throughout history. Apparently you have never seen a formal debate, never been on a jury, and have never heard of democracy. Only you could claim the fact that more people study and confirming something is evidence it isn't true.
I cannot evaluate what does not exist or has at least never been supplied.
Simon Greenleaf and/or Lyndhurst has more that a thousand of you and I's experience combined, same with dozens of histories greatest legal minds that agree with me.
I remember you claiming you were and remember me claiming I was not and did not care.
Then your done I take it.
Since I make no proof claims why would this be relevant?
You think that it's morally insane to reason that killing someone for killing someone is hypocritical? You think such a view is evil? You think this example is the most conclusive example of moral failure? Wow. Why, exactly?
What the heck are you talking about? Are you perhaps confused about who said what -- and are countering your own claims? I've seen that happen from time to time online. It's always interesting.
Really, you seem completely lost. Have you considered perhaps only dialoguing with one person at a time here? That might help to keep things on track.
Again I just have no notion of what you are talking about. Who the heck is 'Craig'?
And Mormons lost their lives defending their new gospel. And Muslims. So I guess that proves that the Book of Mormon and the Quran are both true, in your view of things.
Of course not. First they change. Then they invent a hell to scare everyone else into changing. It happens in various theologies.
Oh, come on. The Son of God came down and walked among us, sacrificing himself so that we can live eternally in paradise... and that's not wish fulfillment?
Lots of people love to create accountablity for themselves and others. They love to feel guilty and to be punished. The most pious of them sometimes actually flagellate themselves. It's just a quirk of the human psyche. You should read about it.
Let me taste your paint, said the blind man to the artist.
So even though your scriptures contain various claims of magical doings, that's not a reason to reject them, since you have not personally mentioned those claims so far in this thread?
Sure. Probably I've never heard of democracy. That probably explains it.
I can't tell if you are intentionally making false claims about my position or whether you're simply unable to follow the dialogue. My best guess is some kind of reading-comprehension issue. If you'd like to test yourself, see if you can find a place where I claimed that more people studying a thing is evidence that the thing is false.
If you're claiming that I've never offered you my scripture for your examination, you either have a poor memory or else you have some reason to deny what you know to be true.
Bring one of your heroes here. We will reduce him to a tearful retreat within a few exchanges. Bring all your heroes here. Let's see if they are the Great Minds which you claim them to be.
Perhaps you should consider caring? If we're having difficulty writing sentences which make sense, a bit of grammatical review might be fruitful. Especially if we are trying to engage other minds with written language. Doesn't that seem reasonable -- to learn how to use the tool which which you try to build and defend your worldview?
I knew you wouldn't try to define it for me, of course. Most of us fling words around which we don't actually understand.
And it is your contention that the actuality derives from the source.
Who mentioned consciousness? For the purposes of this argument a standard dictionary definition of conscience will suffice: I'll settle for "a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour."
This is equivocation. I am talking about the faculty of possessing a conscience, not the specific behaviours that conscience directs one toward. Your assertion that this faculty cannot arise by natural means is no more than that - an assertion of your opinion.
And that works just as well, and is the way societies have been applying their moral codes for millennia. The code work even better, of course, if the culture convinces itself it is absolute and god-given.
I seem to remember you once getting very sanctimonious about not confusing the legal and the moral.
Again you equivocate. I was not advocating Aztec moral values, merely throwing up an instance of the huge variability of moral codes through time and ethnography. My hypothetical Aztec would have been as convinced as you that his moral code was absolutely right and god-commanded.
