An Open Question

[Non sequitur]

I do not feel compelled to come up with any "excuses" for anything.

You've made all these assumptions, and I've shown you how they cannot hold, yet you never address them/that.

If we cannot prove nor disprove a statement (the first statement made in the Kalam), how can we use that statement as a foundation for an argument?

That's a simple question and is the cornerstone of your argument... but you have nothing to back it up with, other than assertions and assumptions. To say you aren't compelled to respond to it, is nothing more than a cop-out. You talk about logic, yet ironically do not follow it, and slink away with child-like retorts.

Surely you can adequately defend your position. So, please, indulge me and explain how that can be a solid foundation?

 

[Faulty]

The problem I have with this is that, everything material ages. Time goes on. Nothing lasts for ever, not even the strongest materials we know of, eg. Diamond will last forever; thus everything has an end, and most therefore a beggining, because to suggest that an ending exists, one must have also started in order to reach that end.
The only way anything could be eternal is if something immaterial were to exist, which is a common suggestion of Substance Dualism. The problem with this theory is that if God were real, and were eternal, it must be immaterial. The laws of logic and science dictate that for anything to interact it must share similar properties. When a billiard ball strikes another, it transfers kenetic energy, because both balls have a mass, velocity (0 if stationary, but still a velocity) and other physical properties. If God were real and therefore immaterial, he would not be able to create or influence anything within the material world. The bible teaches that God is omnipotent, so would be able to interact with the world. The only ways out of this is to suggest one of 3 things. 1. God is material, yet real, and therefore is not eternal, and cannot be omnipotent. 2. God is real, yet immaterial, and therefore not omnipotent as he cannot influence anything in the universe that is material. 3.God is not real, because the concept of omnipotence and omniscience defy anything logical.

These is the primary reason I lost my faith.

You aren't taking into consideration that one who would create such laws is not bound by them. He is greater than they are. They give to his will, not the other way around. You really haven't thought that through from all directions.

 

[Going Merry]

There is a scripture that goes

‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.

I personally don't feel the need to 'prove' the existence of God apart from his scriptures.
Only thing I see as a believer worthy of the time to demonstrate is Jesus who blotted out peoples sin to those who will listen. The rest as Jesus says "shake the dust off your feet" of them.

I mean the open question was "what makes you believe God exists" I believe because I have found fulfilled prophecy, historically accurate, without contradiction, etc. And on top of it spiritual experiences of his Spirit after being born again. I believed in God most of my life but I was not born again - I never believed in the truth - but I do now.

Of course if you want to look at this spiritual book in a worldly view you will never agree. Personally I see a lot of the arguments people bring up to be basically irrelevant and pointless because of that view.

 

[KCfromNC]

At this time, what you need the most is to learn, not to debate.
The best format for you to debate, if you want to, is: ask questions.

He did. He even put it in bold print in his original post.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, I will give you an example. If gravity was one part in 10 to the 15 stronger, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself shortly after the big bang. On the other hand, if it was just one part in 10 to the 15 weaker, the stars would never have formed, and there would have been no elements apart from hydrogen and helium in the universe. There are any number of other "just so" coincidences when you look at the fundamental constants in nature.

And? What's the range and probability distribution of each of these constants? Any proof that what we see is not the most likely? Or is it the least likely? Or do you not have any idea at all how likely it is? Seems like this would be an important part of the discussion, so I'm sure you've done the math and have the numbers handy.

 

[Elioenai26]

You've made all these assumptions, and I've shown you how they cannot hold, yet you never address them/that.



That's a simple question and is the cornerstone of your argument... but you have nothing to back it up with, other than assertions and assumptions. To say you aren't compelled to respond to it, is nothing more than a cop-out. You talk about logic, yet ironically do not follow it, and slink away with child-like retorts.

Surely you can adequately defend your position. So, please, indulge me and explain how that can be a solid foundation?

First off, the Kalam is just one of several philosophical arguments that are used to show that it is more probable that God exists than not. Secondly, the first premise of the Kalam is self-evident, it does not need to be proven. No serious atheist in debate will ever argue against this. To do so would be to suggest that something comes from nothing. David Hume was not even willing to make this assertion, despite being an outspoken antagonist towards Christianity.

 

[KCfromNC]

Multiverse theory is just that, a theory and still does not answer the question of where these supposedly multiple universes came from!

Just like god. Except the scientific theories actually explain stuff.

 

[KCfromNC]

First off, the Kalam is just one of several philosophical arguments that are used to show that it is more probable that God exists than not. Secondly, the first premise of the Kalam is self-evident, it does not need to be proven.

Nope, it's self-evident that the first premise of the Kalam argument is wrong, it does not need to be proven. Whee! Making stuff up and pretending it is real makes this debating stuff easy.

 

[Non sequitur]

First off, the Kalam is just one of several philosophical arguments that are used to show that it is more probable that God exists than not. Secondly, the first premise of the Kalam is self-evident, it does not need to be proven. No serious atheist in debate will ever argue against this. To do so would be to suggest that something comes from nothing. David Hume was not even willing to make this assertion, despite being an outspoken antagonist towards Christianity.

A invisible creator, that transcends all time and space, who cares about you, who you do it with, where and what you do (also everybody else on the entire planet) that sent his son/himself to be killed and through vicarious redemption save the human soul... is more probable than a natural explanation. Got it.

As far as your second point, it's self-evident that it assuming things from the beginning and any conclusions arrived at past that are invalid. Ok, get around your own logic.


I'm a serious atheist and I'm using it.

What's with the insults? So, are you not a serious Christian for using that argument?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

You aren't taking into consideration that one who would create such laws is not bound by them. He is greater than they are. They give to his will, not the other way around. You really haven't thought that through from all directions.

Yes I have. The simple premise of a law of nature is that EVERYTHING is bound to it, unless it is of immaterial nature. I have then addressed the problem of an immaterial God throughout the thread. Please read back for more.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I personally don't feel the need to 'prove' the existence of God apart from his scriptures.
Only thing I see as a believer worthy of the time to demonstrate is Jesus who blotted out peoples sin to those who will listen. The rest as Jesus says "shake the dust off your feet" of them.

I mean the open question was "what makes you believe God exists" I believe because I have found fulfilled prophecy, historically accurate, without contradiction, etc. .

I respect that you don't need to prove the existence of God, after all, what is religion without faith? But the problem with the points stated are that, the bible is actually rife with contradictions. Throughout the book there are directly conflicting statements.

 

[Elioenai26]

I respect that you don't need to prove the existence of God, after all, what is religion without faith? But the problem with the points stated are that, the bible is actually rife with contradictions. Throughout the book there are directly conflicting statements.

I challenge anyone here to come up with ONE contradiction in the Bible that cannot be examined and explained by proper hermeneutical methodology.

 

[Gadarene]

I challenge anyone here to come up with ONE contradiction in the Bible that cannot be examined and explained by proper hermeneutical methodology.

Before that occurs, what exactly is proper hermeneutical methodology?

It sounds like a very grandiose term for explaining away, frankly.

 

[Non sequitur]

I challenge anyone here to come up with ONE contradiction in the Bible that cannot be examined and explained by proper hermeneutical methodology.

If you can give me an example of what "proper hermeneutical methodology" cannot explain, first.

I'd like to know what its limits and ranges are or if it is a solve-all.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I challenge anyone here to come up with ONE contradiction in the Bible that cannot be examined and explained by proper hermeneutical methodology.

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12

 

[Elioenai26]

Before that occurs, what exactly is proper hermeneutical methodology?

It sounds like a very grandiose term for explaining away, frankly.

So you can give a list of supposed contradictions, but I can't respond to them? I can't explain them using the principles of literary interpretation. You speak as if it would be wrong for me to do so.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you can give me an example of what "proper hermeneutical methodology" cannot explain, first.

I'd like to know what its limits and ranges are or if it is a solve-all.

Wikipedia hermeneutics.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

No one is responding to my contradictions? Aww...

 

[Elioenai26]

No one is responding to my contradictions? Aww...

I am currently at work so forgive me for my delay in responding to your apparent lists of contradictions.

Before I begin, let me say this: if you compiled this list yourself then it demonstrates a lack of even the most basic principles of literary interpretation on your part.

If you copied this list from someone, then at least two things are true: the person who formulated this list is ignorant of the most basic principles of literary interpretation and you are responsible for propagating it.

I also recommend you start a new thread if you want people to take your list seriously.

You also need to reference the scripture as it is written and give the name of the translation you are using. Your or someone elses' paraphrase is not scripture. Thanks.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I am currently at work so forgive me for my delay in responding to your apparent lists of contradictions.

Before I begin, let me say this: if you compiled this list yourself then it demonstrates a lack of even the most basic principles of literary interpretation on your part.

If you copied this list from someone, then at least two things are true: the person who formulated this list is ignorant of the most basic principles of literary interpretation and you are responsible for propagating it.

I also recommend you start a new thread if you want people to take your list seriously.

You also need to reference the scripture as it is written and give the name of the translation you are using. Your or someone elses' paraphrase is not scripture. Thanks.

Fairly basic attempt to get out of it. I didn't check every one, but i checked enough to see that the references are pretty accurate. I used Online Parallel Bible: Weaving God's Word into the Web
for the references.

It provides the verse input in all known publications of the bible c: