Let me play devil's advocate...

[ragarth]

I believe that being able to understand the other side of a topic is valuable, and a good way to gain this understanding is to argue for ideas and beliefs you do not hold. Further, by arguing *for* a point diametrically opposed to your own you might end up reshaping your own world view in ways you cannot begin to understand. Therefore I'm opening this thread for me to play devil's advocate, I want to argue *against* my side of arguments, this includes Arguing against gay rights, Arguing for the existence of God, etc. Anyone who's read my posts in other threads knows approximately what I'm about, so this should be fun.

Because of the complexity this is going to entail for me, I ask that you choose a single subject for me to argue against, and understand if I take time posting, I may have to do an extensive amount of external research. I also reserve the right to ignore requests for debate if I have another one that's keeping me busy. That said, if you're on 'my side' of the issues (liberal, atheist, etc), argue for your beliefs and make me argue against them! If you're on 'the other side' of the issue from me (conservative, religious, etc), argue against your beliefs and I'll argue against mine. :-D

Choose any topic, I have no sacred cows here and anything is up for grabs. I am not well versed in the opposing arguments of some topics, so I will admit that I might suck arguing for or against certain things, however I promise to make the best effort I can to argue for any view I do not hold. I will not argue for the killing of groups of people, this includes gays, Muslims, Christians, etc, because I want to be able to sleep at night after making my posts.

 

[Tenka]

K, let's hear your argument for reasonable belief in some kind of creator god existing bearing in mind that the spontaneous generation of creator gods from nothingness is infinitely less probable than mono dimensional energy strings from the same.

 

[ragarth]

K, let's hear your argument for reasonable belief in some kind of creator god existing bearing in mind that the spontaneous generation of creator gods from nothingness is infinitely less probable than mono dimensional energy strings from the same.

We can both agree that it's impossible to prove the existence of God directly, since God is an omnipotent and omnisceant entity. However, the Bible does not document any form of omnipotence and omniscience in Satan or God's followers, so if one can prove the existence of angels or demons, one can prove the existence of God. I hereby assert that this is documented evidence of a demonic possession:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0308-gallagher

And because this is not a definitive source, I give you the healthgrades report for Dr Gallaghar to show he exists as an actual psychiatrist:

http://www.healthgrades.com/directo...-reports/Dr-Richard-Gallagher-MD-2EF9D389.cfm

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We can both agree that it's impossible to prove the existence of God directly, since God is an omnipotent and omnisceant entity. However, the Bible does not document any form of omnipotence and omniscience in Satan or God's followers, so if one can prove the existence of angels or demons, one can prove the existence of God. I hereby assert that this is documented evidence of a demonic possession:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0308-gallagher

And because this is not a definitive source, I give you the healthgrades report for Dr Gallaghar to show he exists as an actual psychiatrist:

http://www.healthgrades.com/directo...-reports/Dr-Richard-Gallagher-MD-2EF9D389.cfm

Are there any peer reviewed studies that show a statistical skew when it comes to alleged 'demon possession'?

More generally, how do you go from the existence of demons to the existence of a Creator entity? As far as I can tell, the former proves nothing about the Bible, not least because demons exist in various forms in quite a few religions and cultures.

 

[Autumnleaf]

There are no Atheists in foxholes.

Comment?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are no Atheists in foxholes.

Comment?

Pure conjecture. One could just as easily say that there are no theists in foxholes since, when put in a bad situation, they realise that there never was a deity looking over them.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Pure conjecture. One could just as easily say that there are no theists in foxholes since, when put in a bad situation, they realise that there never was a deity looking over them.

But consensus says you are wrong and foxholes under fire tends to create theists. Do you dispute that? If so do it and we'll get down and into it. I only ask you Google it and read before you bring others into the discussion. My position is well known and founded. Don't start this on the wrong foot.

I'm sure you can win if you do your homework...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I believe that being able to understand the other side of a topic is valuable, and a good way to gain this understanding is to argue for ideas and beliefs you do not hold. Further, by arguing *for* a point diametrically opposed to your own you might end up reshaping your own world view in ways you cannot begin to understand. Therefore I'm opening this thread for me to play devil's advocate, I want to argue *against* my side of arguments, this includes Arguing against gay rights, Arguing for the existence of God, etc. Anyone who's read my posts in other threads knows approximately what I'm about, so this should be fun.

Because of the complexity this is going to entail for me, I ask that you choose a single subject for me to argue against, and understand if I take time posting, I may have to do an extensive amount of external research. I also reserve the right to ignore requests for debate if I have another one that's keeping me busy. That said, if you're on 'my side' of the issues (liberal, atheist, etc), argue for your beliefs and make me argue against them! If you're on 'the other side' of the issue from me (conservative, religious, etc), argue against your beliefs and I'll argue against mine. :-D

Choose any topic, I have no sacred cows here and anything is up for grabs. I am not well versed in the opposing arguments of some topics, so I will admit that I might suck arguing for or against certain things, however I promise to make the best effort I can to argue for any view I do not hold. I will not argue for the killing of groups of people, this includes gays, Muslims, Christians, etc, because I want to be able to sleep at night after making my posts.

I have been waiting for a chance to show how engaging in same-gender sex does not disqualify a person from being a Christian.

In this thread Ray, we can engage the gay thing. In your other thread, let's leave it out.

You come up with some reasons why GLBT's can't be Christians and I'll smash that position with just one incident in the Gospels, and . . . it hasn't anything to do with proper marriage.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

BUMP:

Reason?

There is more than just one place in the Gospels.

I have been waiting for a chance to show how engaging in same-gender sex does not disqualify a person from being a Christian.

In this thread Ray, we can engage the gay thing. In your other thread, let's leave it out.

You come up with some reasons why GLBT's can't be Christians and I'll smash that position with just one incident in the Gospels, and . . . it hasn't anything to do with proper marriage.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But consensus says you are wrong

The consensus is irrelevant. If enough people believe in a flat Earth, does that make the Earth flat?

And which consensus are you talking about?

and foxholes under fire tends to create theists.

What evidence do you have for this?

Do you dispute that? If so do it and we'll get down and into it. I only ask you Google it and read before you bring others into the discussion. My position is well known and founded. Don't start this on the wrong foot.

I'm sure you can win if you do your homework...

You are the one making the claim. You will be the one to provide the evidence. Tsk, the audacity of some people...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

"You are clouding reality through your gay lens."
- Polycarp

That is Polycarp "_fan" by the way.

See how cloudy those lenses are.

The consensus is irrelevant. If enough people believe in a flat Earth, does that make the Earth flat?

If enough people believe in nothing creating eveything, does that mean there is no God?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is Polycarp "_fan" by the way.

See how cloudy those lenses are.

Whoops .

If enough people believe in nothing creating eveything, does that mean there is no God?

Nope.

 

[Tenka]

We can both agree that it's impossible to prove the existence of God directly, since God is an omnipotent and omnisceant entity.

I don't agree to this. It does not follow that being omnipotent and omniscient necessarily makes one impossible to detect.

However, the Bible does not document any form of omnipotence and omniscience in Satan or God's followers, so if one can prove the existence of angels or demons, one can prove the existence of God.

Your source terminates after 3 paragraphs with no evidence presented, I found a summary here.
The doctor's 'evidence' is as is always the case with these events, purely anecdotal.

There are no Atheists in foxholes.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[Verv]

Here is my go at it...

How could God have ever ordered such atrocities to occur in the Old Testament but later go on to send a Son that 'loves us' and to be some sort of 'final sacrifice?'

Why for so long do we have a cruel God... And suddenly, a loving God on Earth?

It does not make sense and it shows that Christianity is truly just a becrazed cult of Judaism because it totally spins off of every concept that we have of the old Jewish God.

 

[ragarth]

Are there any peer reviewed studies that show a statistical skew when it comes to alleged 'demon possession'?

More generally, how do you go from the existence of demons to the existence of a Creator entity? As far as I can tell, the former proves nothing about the Bible, not least because demons exist in various forms in quite a few religions and cultures.

It's understandable to want peer-reviewed articles, however there are two problems with this: 1) They cost money, I'm a poor college student and cannot afford to pay the cost for peer reviewed articles, not until I qualify for some discount and I do not, yet. For this reason it's just cruelty to require them from people without a lot of spare cash. You'll have to make doe with secondary articles from accredited sources. 2) Demon possession is a very rare occurrence, and while demons are not omnipotent, they are supernatural and so would not be a valid field of study for any accepted peer-reviewed journal. I know of no 'supernatural association of America' peer reviewed journal so there is a lack of qualified journals for this subject.

Going from the existence of any intelligent supernatural entity to a creator (ie, God for simplicity), requires one to first understand that it's highly unlikely for a material method of creation to produce such entities. It seems rather well accepted that Demons have no material form, can occupy the same space as other matter (possession), and possess supernatural abilities such as levitation and telekinesis. All of these seem to be beyond the scope of naturalistic methods of creation, and so indirectly point at the existence of a creator.

At this point I should clarify. My reason for not believing in a God is due to a combination of complexity of reason weighting (God has to have a reason and a complex orchestration of infinite power and knowledge to hide his existence, naturalism requires none of this) and Occam's Razor, so given this, one must tip the complexity scale back in favor of a creator for it to become more valid. Therefore one can have the existence of something that, when applied both to creationism vs naturalism, shows that creationism is the simpler view. The existence of Demons and other highly unlikely naturalistic entities are one example of what's needed to do this.

I don't agree to this. It does not follow that being omnipotent and omniscient necessarily makes one impossible to detect.

I disagree, by very definition an omnipotent entity can do anything, including perfectly hiding itself, and by definition and omniscient entity knows everything, so would know anything and everything it must hide from to keep itself secret. Therefore to prove this entity one must still rely on indirect reasoning, ie Occam's Razor and complexity reasoning as my preferred method.

Your source terminates after 3 paragraphs with no evidence presented, I found a summary here.
The doctor's 'evidence' is as is always the case with these events, purely anecdotal.

Sorry about that, I grabbed the top best candidate off a google search. There are additional candidates, but none that have a doctor of psychology's name attached to it that I know. I can't remember it's name, but there is one that a lot of movies are based on, it's very popular but a bit old (decades old, not centuries), anyone remember the girl in it? I don't have time atm to do the search.

 

[ragarth]

There are no Atheists in foxholes.

Comment?

I'm not really sure how to argue on this one, what side are you asking me to argue? Also, I'm sorry but it'll take me time to get to this one, the does God exist topic will be getting rather complex here soon so I need to ration my time.

I have been waiting for a chance to show how engaging in same-gender sex does not disqualify a person from being a Christian.

In this thread Ray, we can engage the gay thing. In your other thread, let's leave it out.

You come up with some reasons why GLBT's can't be Christians and I'll smash that position with just one incident in the Gospels, and . . . it hasn't anything to do with proper marriage.

Interesting topic choice! I think I'll make this my second topic. I will need to warn you, my biblical scholarship sucks, badly, so my argumentation on this one will be second rate at best. Is that okay?

 

[ragarth]

Here is my go at it...

How could God have ever ordered such atrocities to occur in the Old Testament but later go on to send a Son that 'loves us' and to be some sort of 'final sacrifice?'

Why for so long do we have a cruel God... And suddenly, a loving God on Earth?

It does not make sense and it shows that Christianity is truly just a becrazed cult of Judaism because it totally spins off of every concept that we have of the old Jewish God.

This one appears to be pretty simple, there are already several good theories on this. By it's very nature this is a 'soft' topic however so you cannot expect empirical evidence, it's pure conjecture because we're attempting to understand a reason for an intelligent entity's actions that are questionably documented, so be warned.

If one believes in purgatory, Christian reincarnation, or even a kinder, gentler hell, then it's possible that by setting up the dichotomy between the old and new testaments God is teaching us something. Alternatively, I've heard the idea bantered about that God changed his mind on how to deal with humanity in the transition between the old and new testaments. If we presume that God is an intelligent agent, then either one is possible. The only time you would not see potential changes in behavior is if one is dealing with a nonintelligent agent (or a really, really, really dull intelligent agent.).

 

[Veyrlian]

There are no Atheists in foxholes.

Comment?

I had no idea foxes were religious. Live and learn.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I have one for you Mr.OP:

Can you present us with arguments against the kalaam cosmological argument, as set out by Dr.William Lane Craig?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I'm not really sure how to argue on this one, what side are you asking me to argue? Also, I'm sorry but it'll take me time to get to this one, the does God exist topic will be getting rather complex here soon so I need to ration my time.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

I have been waiting for a chance to show how engaging in same-gender sex does not disqualify a person from being a Christian.

In this thread Ray, we can engage the gay thing. In your other thread, let's leave it out.

You come up with some reasons why GLBT's can't be Christians and I'll smash that position with just one incident in the Gospels, and . . . it hasn't anything to do with proper marriage.

ragarth: Interesting topic choice! I think I'll make this my second topic. I will need to warn you, my biblical scholarship sucks, badly, so my argumentation on this one will be second rate at best. Is that okay?

All the better. I have delivered severasl versions of the Bible to several of my agnostic pals, and had them go through the gay issue scripture after scripture. All, see that gay sex is not supported anywhere in the scriptures used to highlight its inappropriateness for the believer.

BUT, I do know the scriptures well, and can easily use many that could show the ability of any person that lives a Gay, Lesbian or transgendered life to be very comfortable in "the faith delivered only once to the saints."

When do you want to start?

You say something anti and I'll rebut with the positive.

Role playing. How fun.