Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

So, you concluded that theism is correct in spite of the arguments, but you think the arguments are good enough for atheists? And when pressed, you claim that the existence of Jesus is your most compelling. Unfortunately, there are zero contemporary accounts of Jesus biblical or extrabiblical. What we do know about Jesus, are from copies of copies from anonymous authors, written in a language Jesus never spoke, in third person narrative, and from countries Jesus never visited. Everything you know of Jesus is, essentially, hearsay.

I believed the gospels were reliable accounts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and came to realize my need of salvation and trusted in Christ to save me. The Jesus I read in the gospels became very attractive to me, though this had not always been the case, and I wanted to get to know Him. I trusted what He said and did what He commanded and got what He promised.

I didn't get into apologetics until after I was born again. Mere Christianity was the book that sparked my interest in it. The bible however, was my first source.

 

[anonymous person]

In your opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion that if one accepts the premises of a deductive argument which has as its conclusion the proposition "Therefore God exists", then that person would not be an atheist but a theist.

One cannot be an atheist and believe God exists at the same time, if an atheist is one who lacks belief in God.

Do you share the same opinion?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, it is my opinion that if one accepts the premises of a deductive argument which has as its conclusion the proposition "Therefore God exists", then that person would not be an atheist but a theist.

One cannot be an atheist and believe God exists at the same time, if an atheist is one who lacks belief in God.

Do you share the same opinion?

LOL

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't think you should accept arguments based on flawed logic or a lack of evidence.

Ok, so do you have any better arguments than the seven on that website then? None of those justify belief.

 

[anonymous person]

That´s what you started with a couple of pages ago. When the problems of this argument were shown, you changed your tune and brought up some of those seven arguments, and now we are back full circle.

Actually you are mistaken. I appealed to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead earlier, not His life and ministry or how He came to appeal to me.

 

[quatona]

Actually you are mistaken. I appealed to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead earlier, not His life and ministry or how He came to appeal to me.

Go back a few more pages.

 

[anonymous person]

Ok, so do you have any better arguments than the seven on that website then? None of those justify belief.

No sorry about that. There are really five main one's I use. The cosmological argument from contingency, the Kalam, the teleological, the moral argument, and then the argument that the resurrection hypothesis best accounts for the various historical facts regarding Jesus' death and burial and empty tomb.

 

[anonymous person]

Go back a few more pages.

No thanks.

 

[quatona]

No thanks.

 

[Ed1wolf]

But you said rationality must come from a rational source. Why are you special pleading in regards to god?

No special pleading. Since you cannot traverse an actual infinite, there must be an ultimate cause/origin for everything. God is the ultimate source/cause of rationality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I haven't seen any scientific papers that support your claims.

I provided two scientific websites, one explained how chemistry works and the other explained how the brain operates according to the laws of chemistry.

de: I did point out where you were committing non sequiturs, you simply failed to acknowledge it. As such my claim stands.

Provide one I committed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Then your point remains unsupported

No, I supported it, you just don't want to believe it.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I supported it, you just don't want to believe it.

Fraid not.

 

[anonymous person]

I have been studying Anselm's Ontological argument recently and find it to be simply sublime.

When we think about God, and our thoughts reflect an adequate grasp of who God is, we will recognize immediately that God exists, for it is not possible that God could not exist.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have been studying Anselm's Ontological argument recently and find it to be simply sublime.

When we think about God, and our thoughts reflect an adequate grasp of who God is, we will recognize immediately that God exists, for it is not possible that God could not exist.

Trying to define things into existence is merely an example of how language can be a trap that we're apparently not evolved enough to see past.

 

[anonymous person]

Trying to define things into existence is merely an example of how language can be a trap that we're apparently not evolved enough to see past.

Well, you're not think correctly about God. If you are thinking of God as someone we can define into existence, you're not thinking about God, according to Anselm.

Anselm would simply say that God exists necessarily and therefore cannot be created by us defining Him.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Spoken like a true theist!

If that's your take away, I've completely failed to communicate to you...

 

[bhsmte]

If that's your take away, I've completely failed to communicate to you...

That is what he needs to take away.

 

[anonymous person]

If that's your take away, I've completely failed to communicate to you...

No, I understood your post very well.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, you're not think correctly about God. If you are thinking of God as someone we can define into existence, you're not thinking about God, according to Anselm.

Anselm would simply say that God exists necessarily and therefore cannot be created by us defining Him.

And I simply say god/s do not exist. No definition needed.

That was easy.