Atheists & Spiritualists = Equal Fools

#301
#301
Tenacious D said:
Adam & Eve were nothing more than "programmed robots" until the introduction of Satan in the garden?

Curious.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I believe that the phrases "a living soul" and "in our image" suggest that man was created a volitional creature. God gave him a single test and told him one choice was good while the other would lead to corruption and death for all of creation. The simple fact that God gave him a choice with consequences suggests he could have made the choice at any time.

For some Christians, this is a deeper subject than you see on the surface. God commissioned Adam to care for Eve... yet she was alone. Had Adam already sinned? Certainly God held him directly accountable for Eve's actions.
 
#302
#302
Tenacious D said:
You would give a well-documented account over empirical proof? I'm not sure how best to respond to that, but perhaps someone might.
Click to expand...
I didn't state that as well as I could have. Not necessarily over other empirical proof but rather over theoretical proofs... like those used ALWAYS for natural history by materialists.

The accuract of the biblical text hasn't been broached, at least as I recall, as it's only secondary to the question at hand, namely: Can you (ostensibly, a spiritualist) effectively and empirically prove the existence of God?
Click to expand...
Perhaps not but it is relevant. The existence of God may not be proven by historical witness of supernatural events... but it does go a long way. If Jesus genuine rose from the dead then at a very minimum something other than materialism is going on.

I'd think that wondering if her/his words, deeds and covenants have been accurately portrayed in the course of the biblical text would be a far secondary concern to being certain of her/his existence in the first place, right? Simply, if this is some entirely fictitious character, who cares how accurately s/he has been reflected in some manuscript?
Click to expand...
The earliest fragment of the book of John has been dated to within 110 years of his crucifixion and records parts of John 18.

To question Jesus as a historical figure is more ridiculous than to question the existence of Caesare Augustus as a historical figure. Certainly Josephus said he was a real man. The disciples died for that belief. The early church fathers gave many martyrs for faith in this supposed "mythical invention". You seem more reasonable than someone who would attempt this particular cop out.

1. "Christians" who (seemingly) are accepting of it, but then go on to be such poor representations of Christ, and his message? Do you consider that to be an "acceptance" of the Spirit's urgings?
Click to expand...
John 14:21
" He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

2. Atheists who have never experienced nor encountered any such Spirit, whatsoever, but instead, have simply observed natural law and decided that this is the most plausible reason for the actions of the world around them? In other words, they have not becomed "hardened", but instead, simply accept the more tangible and convincing (natural) evidences around them? Is that still a rejection of the Spirit (if such exists)?
Click to expand...

You once again tipped your hand. I believe firmly that they have NOT believed the more tangible, convincing, and especially not logical evidences around them...

I know you didn't ask for scripture but I can't explain it as well as Paul.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
 
Last edited:
#303
#303
Tenacious D said:
That's not the question.

Are you an atheist or a spiritualist (i.e. Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.)?

Prove that your belief - whichever it is - is the correct one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is no way possible to prove that either is "the correct one".

I tend to look at the human body and come to the conclusion that there has got to be a mastermind behind it all.

Still can't prove it and wouldn't even try.
 
#305
#305
sjt18 said:
I didn't state that as well as I could have. Not necessarily over other empirical proof but rather over theoretical proofs... like those used ALWAYS for natural history by materialists.

Perhaps not but it is relevant. The existence of God may not be proven by historical witness of supernatural events... but it does go a long way. If Jesus genuine rose from the dead then at a very minimum something other than materialism is going on.

The earliest fragment of the book of John has been dated to within 110 years of his crucifixion and records parts of John 18.

To question Jesus as a historical figure is more ridiculous than to question the existence of Caesare Augustus as a historical figure. Certainly Josephus said he was a real man. The disciples died for that belief. The early church fathers gave many martyrs for faith in this supposed "mythical invention". You seem more reasonable than someone who would attempt this particular cop out.


John 14:21
" He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

You once again tipped your hand. I believe firmly that they have NOT believed the more tangible, convincing, and especially not logical evidences around them...

I know you didn't ask for scripture but I can't explain it as well as Paul.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Click to expand...

There are innumerous things of secondary importance to the this, the most
critical question of God's existence.

We've got logical facts aplenty - on either side - but what empirical ones do you have to support God's existence?

I don't know what hand I've tipped, whatsoever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#306
#306
GahLee said:
There is no way possible to prove that either is "the correct one".

I tend to look at the human body and come to the conclusion that there has got to be a mastermind behind it all.

Still can't prove it and wouldn't even try.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that?

Sounds like an entirely reasonable answer / position to me.

Just as an atheist may look at the same human form or its function and see a wonderfully evolved being, absent the hand or need of a Creator.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#308
#308
sjt18 said:
The reason that is important is that 1000's of Christians were martyred in the 1st century rather than recant the resurrection or supernatural acts of Christ. Eleven of the 12 Disciples plus Paul were martyred while refusing to recant their testimonies of Christ's miracles.
Click to expand...

What is the evidence of this?

I'm honestly curious.
 
#309
#309
bigorange16 said:
What is the evidence of this?

I'm honestly curious.
Click to expand...

The Bible.

The Bible is the word of God.

Because the Bible tells us so.

The Bible is infallible.

Because the Bible is the word of God.

Because the Bible tells us so.

The Bible is infallible.

Because the Bible is the word of God.

Written by man.
 
#310
#310
Tenacious D said:
We've got logical facts aplenty - on either side - but what empirical ones do you have to support God's existence?
Click to expand...
I have answered that question more than once.

I have told you that my position is no more nor less empirically proveable than materialism or pure spiritualism. All operate ultimately from a premise that cannot be proven... that must be taken on faith.

The best anyone can do is demonstrate their faith is reasonable and internally consistent. I believe mine is... and is much more so than other supernaturalist views (Islam in its various forms and other Christian belief sets). I believe it is more reasonable and internally consistent than atheism or pure spirtualism as well.

To be honest, you are asking the wrong question and need to go one step deeper with materialism to help you understand that. Forget deities and consider whether the materialistic presupposition itself is proveable or is a matter of faith.

I don't know what hand I've tipped, whatsoever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You have indicated that those who do not believe in God operate in the realm of facts, logic, science, or whatever while those who believe in God operate in the realm of emotion and feeling.
 
#312
#312
Tenacious D said:
There are innumerous things of secondary importance to the this, the most
critical question of God's existence.

We've got logical facts aplenty - on either side - but what empirical ones do you have to support God's existence?

I don't know what hand I've tipped, whatsoever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

there is a verse that says that you'll know God through his works.

Science clearly shows a consistency, this can't be done out of chaos or randomness but by a designer.
 
#313
#313
bigorange16 said:
What is the evidence of this?

I'm honestly curious.
Click to expand...

The quick answer is Paul's own story in the NT. For the first few decades after Christ, Christianity was considered a heretical sect by the Jews and just a faction of judaism to the Romans. The Romans after conquering Palestine allowed special consideration to the Jews after realizing they would die to the last person rather than worship someone other than their God. If you read the account of Jesus' trial, you'll see manifestations of this. Dealing with heretics was a difficult matter because it was a capital crime but the Romans did not allow others to execute. The accusers had to try sedition. When that failed, they traded him for a convicted criminal Barrabas.

After the resurrection, the Jews tried to put down this heretical sect by force. The Bible records an example of Paul supervising the stoning of one such Christian. He was commissioned to find Christians, turn them, or kill them. He apparently wasn't alone.

Martyrdom was a persistent theme for the first and second century Christians. The figure is generally accepted by scholars of various stripes. If you need an exact body count or roll call, I don't have that.
 
#314
#314
joevol320 said:
there is a verse that says that you'll know God through his works.

Science clearly shows a consistency, this can't be done out of chaos or randomness but by a designer.
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg

You're blinded by your beliefs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#315
#315
VOLatile said:
facepalm.jpg

You're blinded by your beliefs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle.

He is referencing two things if I'm not mistaken.

One is the fine tuning of the universe. If even one of the universal constants was off then the universe could not exist. So the argument is that if you would not expect a to find a perfectly tuned piano as a product of nature then you should not expect a universe so perfectly tuned either. That was considered a fairly strong argument... but then we learned something. The universal constants aren't. They change. So now you not only have a perfectly tuned piano... you have one in a constant state of re-tuning itself.

I think one of the counters to this is that the universe has been re-born an infinite number of times. Most of time it is chaos but once in awhile it is orderly. I don't have the faith to believe something like that but...

The other idea is concerning genetics. Genetics can be reverse engineered. Reverse engineering applies only to things that were engineered to start with. So either you believe the most astounding and complex machinery in existence was the product of natural forces, natural selection, and blind chance or you believe there was an intelligence behind it. Genetics involves very complex coding. We have absolutely NO examples of natural coding even in a simple form much less the degree of complexity involved in the DNA of even an Amoeba.


We both theorize on how things we did not witness could have come about. But in these two instances, it is more reasonable to believe intelligence was behind it than blind natural forces.
 
#316
#316
sjt18 said:
Pot meet kettle.

He is referencing two things if I'm not mistaken.

One is the fine tuning of the universe. If even one of the universal constants was off then the universe could not exist. So the argument is that if you would not expect a to find a perfectly tuned piano as a product of nature then you should not expect a universe so perfectly tuned either. That was considered a fairly strong argument... but then we learned something. The universal constants aren't. They change. So now you not only have a perfectly tuned piano... you have one in a constant state of re-tuning itself.

I think one of the counters to this is that the universe has been re-born an infinite number of times. Most of time it is chaos but once in awhile it is orderly. I don't have the faith to believe something like that but...

The other idea is concerning genetics. Genetics can be reverse engineered. Reverse engineering applies only to things that were engineered to start with. So either you believe the most astounding and complex machinery in existence was the product of natural forces, natural selection, and blind chance or you believe there was an intelligence behind it. Genetics involves very complex coding. We have absolutely NO examples of natural coding even in a simple form much less the degree of complexity involved in the DNA of even an Amoeba.


We both theorize on how things we did not witness could have come about. But in these two instances, it is more reasonable to believe intelligence was behind it than blind natural forces.
Click to expand...

You could have summarized this by saying "since we don't have a clue and it's beyond our current capacity of science - it must have come from a divine creator."

For what its worth, the bible also alluded to a flat earth (Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles). Using your logic and approach and had this argument about the shape of the earth been had in "biblical" times, they'd certainly have relied on your very "more reasonable to believe" argument. Using this example, the "what we think you should believe handbook" clearly has been proven wrong. In time, many more of the beliefs and arguments from theists will be proven wrong by science. It's only a matter of time.
 
#317
#317
Septic said:
You could have summarized this by saying "since we don't have a clue and it's beyond our current capacity of science - it must have come from a divine creator."

For what its worth, the bible also alluded to a flat earth (Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles). Using your logic and approach and had this argument about the shape of the earth been had in "biblical" times, they'd certainly have relied on your very "more reasonable to believe" argument. Using this example, the "what we think you should believe handbook" clearly has been proven wrong. In time, many more of the beliefs and arguments from theists will be proven wrong by science. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

What does the catholic Bible say? Don't have a copy.
 
#318
#318
Septic said:
You could have summarized this by saying "since we don't have a clue and it's beyond our current capacity of science - it must have come from a divine creator."

For what its worth, the bible also alluded to a flat earth (Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles). Using your logic and approach and had this argument about the shape of the earth been had in "biblical" times, they'd certainly have relied on your very "more reasonable to believe" argument. Using this example, the "what we think you should believe handbook" clearly has been proven wrong. In time, many more of the beliefs and arguments from theists will be proven wrong by science. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

You're disproving theism.

Can you empirically and effectively disprove the existence of God?

Disproving the other side seems too easy, almost tripe, at this point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#319
#319
Septic you need to get your facts straight here. Daniel 4:11 was a dream (vision) that King Nebuchadnezzar had. Note the word dream aka. (vision)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#320
#320
Isaiah 40 talks about he who sits above the circle of the earth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#321
#321
sjt18 said:
Genetics involves very complex coding. We have absolutely NO examples of natural coding even in a simple form much less the degree of complexity involved in the DNA of even an Amoeba.
Click to expand...

Except we have DNA.

You can't take one thing from nature and claim it's not natural because there's nothing like it in nature.

That's like saying the elephant is not an animal because we have zero examples of animals that are big and gray and have trunks.
 
#322
#322
Septic said:
You could have summarized this by saying "since we don't have a clue and it's beyond our current capacity of science - it must have come from a divine creator."
Click to expand...
Well, no. I just posted in another thread about the fact that bad mutations are accummulating in the human genone at an alarming rate. Couple that with the design characteristics of the genome, the mechanical workings of the gene, and the clear suggestion of intelligence in genetic coding and a very reasonable explanation smacks you right in the face. It isn't one that materialists are likely to allow into their very close-minded, dogmatic club called "secular science".

The observations suggest that something much more pristine was created by some means in the past and has always been decaying. Even the remaining order suggests design, not chance.

For what its worth, the bible also alluded to a flat earth (Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles). Using your logic and approach and had this argument about the shape of the earth been had in "biblical" times, they'd certainly have relied on your very "more reasonable to believe" argument.
Click to expand...
For one, you don't have to use the Bible to recognize the things I've posted.

Second, neither of those verses as far as I can tell say the world is flat.

However here's a nice discussion on how the Bible suggests in the OT that the world was round: Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Using this example, the "what we think you should believe handbook" clearly has been proven wrong.
Click to expand...
No. I am sorry you have chosen to believe false information rather than checking both sides.

In time, many more of the beliefs and arguments from theists will be proven wrong by science. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting claim since it is actually going in the opposite direction. For years folks like you claimed that archeology disproved the Bible... only to be embarrassed time after time as ruins were discovered. Pontius Pilate was one of the supposed biblical myths until his name was found engraved on an archway.

Now we have population geneticists affirming the biblical suggestion that things will "wax worse and worse"... that disease and the like will increase. Almost as if God is mocking evolutionists, they are finding this in the very thing that evolutionists hang their hat on for explaining the ascension of species to higher function and order- genetic mutation.
 
#323
#323
StepCross said:
Except we have DNA.

You can't take one thing from nature and claim it's not natural because there's nothing like it in nature.

That's like saying the elephant is not an animal because we have zero examples of animals that are big and gray and have trunks.
Click to expand...

We have NO observed examples of anything coding itself in nature. The code or programming of DNA is passe from parents to child.

Observing that DNA exists is not the same as proving that it arose and self-coded in its original form by natural processes that have never been observed and have alluded all attempts to simulate in a lab. You assume your conclusion then say it proves itself. It doesn't.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top