Did God really write a book?

[Rise]

One of the things that I often think about when contemplating the worlds major religions is the idea that the message god wants to deliver to the entire world is often given to a single person, alone (Moses, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc.). It is up to that single person to deliver gods message to the world.

You misunderstand and therefore misrepresent the Bible in this matter.

The Bible never states nor even implies that God’s message of what he wants humanity to know is given to one man to pass down to us.

Truth about God was known before Moses. Noah. Abraham. Adam. Seth. Enoch. Etc. All people that predate Moses who knew God.

The Bible also says that the heavens and our inner conscious speak to us truth about God and what He requires of us so no man has excuse in the day of judgement to claim ignorance.

If you believe your religion has a doctrine or book that was actually written by or "breathed" by a God, I have a question for you:

Is there a single verse in that book that proves it had to be written by a God, because it could only have come from a God? If so, the evidence will force me to at least accept that a God does exist.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that the entire world would probably find convincing: A verse in the bible that includes anything factual about the natural world, that could not be known by a human at that time, and is too detailed to be a guess. It could have only come from an actual creator of the entire universe.

So are you saying if I gave you a fact about science that is shown to be true in the Bible but which was not confirmed until modern times, would that cause you to believe the Bible accurately reflects God’s message to mankind therefore cause you to choose to follow Jesus?

Or maybe it's something less obvious, but still completely convincing?

Meeting objective criteria to show something is true is not the same as you subjectively being convinced.

I could show you something is objectively logically true but you could choose to deny it saying you just aren’t convinced.

But your ability or willingness to be convinced of the truth of something has no bearing on determining whether or not that fact is actually, objectively, logically true.

I notice a common problem amongst atheists on this forum that they seem to think truth is determined by whether or not they are convinced by it - as though their own mind is god and is therefore the measuring stick by which objective truth is determined.

It seems to come out of a false presumption that they would believe something if it were true. So if they don’t believe it then they conclude it must not be true. That is fallacious reasoning of begging the question.

I think we can all agree that lots of people delude themselves every day into believing things that go against what the evidence and logic would suggest they should believe.

So what makes you think you are immune to doing that?

The only way you could avoid doing that is by judging according to objective sound logic and not judging according to something as subjective as whether or not you feel personally convinced to change your mind.

The Bible says the truth of God’s existence, and us as His creation, and his moral standard for us, are known to us inwardly and known to us by creation around is - but people suppress that truth because they want to believe a lie because they don’t want to obey God.

So you can’t assume you would accept the truth even if it were clearly presented to you in a way that could not be objectively logically refuted.
You can’t assume that you would accept truth because people often have motives for not accepting something to be true even when the logic and evidence forces them to objectively admit that is what is true.

 

[Justanatheist]

The Bible says the truth of God’s existence, and us as His creation, and his moral standard for us, are known to us inwardly and known to us by creation around is - but people suppress that truth because they want to believe a lie because they don’t want to obey God.

You do not understand the meaning of objective truth, an objective truth can be proven true or false by logic, god cannot be proven true or false by logic, all truth claims made by the bible are therefore subjective.

An example of an objective truth would be you cannot have a square circle.

 

[Rise]

You do not understand the meaning of objective truth, an objective truth can be proven true or false by logic,

You demonstrate it is yourself who don't understand the meaning of objective truth by contradicting yourself.

Your definition of truth doesn't work because it's based on a false premise.
That false premise is the idea that everything that is true can be proven to be true by logic.

Your argument is self refuting because you can't prove logic is true using logic. That would be the logical fallacy of begging the question/circular reasoning.

So if you can't prove logic is true, and you need to use logic to prove anything else is true, then you can't prove anything is true.

There are, in fact, many objective truths which cannot be proven to be true by logic.

Like:
-You exist.
-You live in a physical reality and not an illusion.
-Time exists and your sense of having had a past isn't just an illusion.
-You have free will.
-You are self aware.
-Objective truth exists.
-Objective morality exists.

These are called self evident truths, You know them to be true but you can't prove they are true using logic.
But just because you can't prove they are true using logic doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

Therefore, you can't claim objective truth is determined exclusively by the use of logic.

god cannot be proven true or false by logic, all truth claims made by the bible are therefore subjective.

Your premise is already proven false, therefore any conclusion you try to draw from your premise is invalidated.

Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Stephen Meyer outline logical arguments that show why we have no logical choice but to conclude that the only explanation for what we see in reality is a theistic creator.

You can find my arguments in support of that in this thread, where they stand unrefuted by you:
Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

So there's no reason to start a new debate over that particular issue in this thread when you haven't even been able to defeat those arguments in that other thread.

 

[Justanatheist]

You demonstrate it is yourself who don't understand the meaning of objective truth by contradicting yourself.

Your definition of truth doesn't work because it's based on a false premise.
That false premise is the idea that everything that is true can be proven to be true by logic.

If you wish to state that logic cannot be proven I am fine with that, there are then no objective truths.

Your argument is self refuting because you can't prove logic is true using logic. That would be the logical fallacy of begging the question/circular reasoning.

So if you can't prove logic is true, and you need to use logic to prove anything else is true, then you can't prove anything is true.

As above.

There are, in fact, many objective truths which cannot be proven to be true by logic.

Like:
-You exist.
-You live in a physical reality and not an illusion.
-Time exists and your sense of having had a past isn't just an illusion.
-You have free will.
-You are self aware.
-Objective truth exists.
-Objective morality exists.

No these are not objective truths if you wish to say logic cannot be proven by logic, every one is a subjective truth, by your rules.

These are called self evident truths, You know them to be true but you can't prove they are true using logic.
But just because you can't prove they are true using logic doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

No I will refrain from using the presupposition that logic is true when debating you and therefore none of these are self evident. If you do not believe logic is a truth then we will debate accordingly.

Therefore, you can't claim objective truth is determined exclusively by the use of logic.

Your premise is already proven false, therefore any conclusion you try to draw from your premise is invalidated.

Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Stephen Meyer outline logical arguments that show why we have no logical choice but to conclude that the only explanation for what we see in reality is a theistic creator.

No such arguments exist now or ever, just because an argument is logical does not make it true, you keep repeating this falsehood over and over again.

You can find my arguments in support of that in this thread, where they stand unrefuted by you:
Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

So there's no reason to start a new debate over that particular issue in this thread when you haven't even been able to defeat those arguments in that other thread.

False, do not make things up please. My last post to you has not been responded to, I do not like debating with people who make up falsehoods.

 

[Rise]

If you wish to state that logic cannot be proven I am fine with that, there are then no objective truths.

Your reasoning is fallacious because you are using a disproven premise to reach your conclusion.

You start from the premise that objective truth can only be determined by logic.
Therefore you reason that if logic can't be proven to be objectively true by logic that objective truth doesn't exist.

But your premise was already disproved. I pointed to many thing which are objective truths about our reality that don't depend on logic to establish that they are true.

No these are not objective truths if you wish to say logic cannot be proven by logic, every one is a subjective truth, by your rules.

As I pointed out, your logic is faulty based on wrong premises.

In order for your claim to be true, you'd need to establish that all the examples I gave of objective self evident truth can't be said to be objectively true but are just subjectively true.

Objective truth, by definition, means something continues to be true regardless of what a person thinks about it.

So let's take the first one on the list as an example:
You exist.
That is true no matter what anyone thinks about.

Now if you want to claim we can't know that is true, then you get into a philosophical blackhole where literally nothing can be said to be true about anything.

But you don't actually believe that and neither do I.

Since you do believe in it is objectively true to say you exist, and not just a subjective opinion you have, you prove my point that objective truth does exist independent of your ability to prove something is true using logic.

The critical point you don't seem to understand here is that if you want to start rejecting self evident truth as a valid form of objective truth then it is you who have the problem with being able to say things are true - not me.
Because I don't reject self evident truths as capable of being objectively truth - you do.

You are the one who is left rudderless once you can no longer prove logic is true using logic because you are the one who tries to claim self evident truth isn't objective and therefore you can't affirm the truth of logic because it requires using self evident truths to do that.

I don't have that problem because I never rejected the idea that logic could be affirmed to be true by appealing to the self evident truth that we simply know it's true without having to reason that it's true.

Now, in practice, we can tell you obviously do believe in self evident truths because you do believe logic is true. And you aren't willing to give up believing it is true. So you affirm that self evident truth is a valid way of arriving at objective truth.

No I will refrain from using the presupposition that logic is true when debating you and therefore none of these are self evident.
If you do not believe logic is a truth then we will debate accordingly.

You are committing the logical fallacy of a strawman by misrepresenting what I have argued. You are attacking a false representation of what I said because you can't refute what I actually said.

I never said logic isn't objectively true.
I said you can't prove logic is objectively true using logic.
There's a huge difference between those two concepts.

I can believe logic exists as a true concept about reality while also recognizing that I have no way of proving it is real by using logic to do so.

And, as I pointed out: You believe you can do that to. Because you're not willing to reject a belief in the objective truth of logic just because you can't prove it's true using logic.

This exposes that your standard for determining what is objectively true is false and unworkable.

That's why I used those examples of other self evident truths to illustrate the point - they are all things which you know to be true self evidently but which you cannot prove are true by appealing to logic alone.

No such arguments exist now or ever,

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that no logical arguments exist demonstrating God doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is so.

I proved your claim wrong by linking you to a post full of such arguments - arguments which you have given no valid arguments against yet in order to refute it. So they stand as valid logical arguments demonstrating God's existence.

just because an argument is logical does not make it true, you keep repeating this falsehood over and over again.

You are committing the logical fallacy of a strawman.

I never claimed that a conclusion is automatically true just because it uses valid logic.

False, do not make things up please. My last post to you has not been responded to, I do not like debating with people who make up falsehoods.

Your claim is based on a false premise.
I didn't say you didn't respond - I said you haven't refuted my arguments.
You responded to me in that thread but that doesn't mean your response constituted a refutation of my arguments. It doesn't even mean you gave a valid argument against anything I said.

I just responded to your post there and showed why you didn't prove Craig's arguments were refuted, and why you didn't even present a valid argument.

 

[Justanatheist]

So let's take the first one on the list as an example:
You exist.
That is true no matter what anyone thinks about.

Wrong it is a subjective truth, I think I exist I cannot prove it and neither can you.

 

[Justanatheist]

I just responded to your post there and showed why you didn't prove Craig's arguments were refuted, and why you didn't even present a valid argument.

No you started by yet again stating a falsehood I have pointed this out to you and am waiting for you to retract that falsehood and apologise.

 

[Rise]

Wrong it is a subjective truth, I think I exist I cannot prove it and neither can you.

You've got a problem then.

If you don't believe self evident truths can be objectively true without being proved by logic then that means you don't believe anything can be said to be true.

Because you can't believe logic is objectively true because you can't prove logic is true by using logic.

So without taking for granted logic is objectively true, on the basis that it's truth is self evident to you, you then have no basis for establishing anything to be true - because you now have no standard by which to judge things are objectively true. According to your own standard you think objective truth can't be determined to be objectively true without using logic first. But you have no way of proving logic is true by using logic. It would be circular reasoning which would violate the laws of logic.

Which means you can't believe objective truth exists by your own standard.

But you tried to assert objective truth did exist earlier, and cite logic as the basis for determining it.

Well, now you know your logic is invalid.

So that's why you have a problem now. Because how you try to assert objective truth exists actually ends up being self refuting and proving objective truth can't exist if your claim is true.

So now you need to decide which you are going to believe: Does objective truth exist or not?

 

[Rise]

No you started by yet again stating a falsehood I have pointed this out to you and am waiting for you to retract that falsehood and apologise.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot quote any specific thing in my post that is a false and give logical reason why it is supposedly false.

Merely asserting that I did not refute your arguments in the other thread doesn't make it true just because you assert it as so.

You are required to to give logical reasons why you think I didn't refute your arguments before you can claim it's untrue for me to say I did.

 

[Justanatheist]

You cannot quote any specific thing in my post that is a false and give logical reason why it is supposedly false.

Yes I can and I did, go look.

 

[Rise]

Yes I can and I did, go look.

I addressed it now and refuted any of your fallacious reasoning again.

Having said that, you should stop trying to argue about something across multiple threads. There's no reason to try to do that when we can continue debating the issue in that thread it resides in.

By trying to debate what is happening in another thread, while not conceding that your arguments have been refuted in this thread, you are committing the logical fallacy of a red herring by trying to change the topic to create a distraction away from the fact that you can't refute the specific arguments I have made in this thread.

You are engaging in a red herring fallacy because even if we were to assume it were true that I said something in error in another thread, that does nothing to refute the arguments I have made in this thread nor does it do anything to salvage the fact that your arguments in this thread have logically failed and you are now out of counter arguments.

 

[Justanatheist]

I addressed it now and refuted any of your fallacious reasoning again.

Having said that, you should stop trying to argue about something across multiple threads. There's no reason to try to do that when we can continue debating the issue in that thread it resides in.

By trying to debate what is happening in another thread, while not conceding that your arguments have been refuted in this thread, you are committing the logical fallacy of a red herring by trying to change the topic to create a distraction away from the fact that you can't refute the specific arguments I have made in this thread.

You are engaging in a red herring fallacy because even if we were to assume it were true that I said something in error in another thread, that does nothing to refute the arguments I have made in this thread nor does it do anything to salvage the fact that your arguments in this thread have logically failed and you are now out of counter arguments.

More falsehoods from you, you brought up the other thread not me, do you ever speak the truth?

So there's no reason to start a new debate over that particular issue in this thread when you haven't even been able to defeat those arguments in that other thread.

Just what do you think you are to complain about me debating across threads when you are the person who brought the other thread up?
Do you think that all these falsehoods reflect well on your religion?
Do you think all these falsehoods reflect well on the god you believe in?
Thankfully there are very many honest Christians on this forum.

 

[Rise]

More falsehoods from you, you brought up the other thread not me, do you ever speak the truth?

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
You are merely repeating your logical fallacy of a red herring after being called out for doing it.
Repeating it doesn't make it any less fallacious just because you repeat it.

You have completely given up trying to offer counter arguments left to defend your claims in this thread about the nature of objective truth or how it can be applied in reality.

Being unable to, you turn to a red herring fallacy of trying to continue an argument from a different thread in this thread that is unrelated to the argument you were originally trying to defend.

But whether or not your claims are true about the other thread is completely immaterial to proving your claims in this thread or refuting my arguments in this thread related to the nature of objective truth.

Which is why it's fallacy of distraction to try to hide from the fact that you have lost this particular debate and don't want to bow out gracefully or admit defeat.

 

[Justanatheist]

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
You are merely repeating your logical fallacy of a red herring after being called out for doing it.
Repeating it doesn't make it any less fallacious just because you repeat it.

You have completely given up trying to offer counter arguments left to defend your claims in this thread about the nature of objective truth or how it can be applied in reality.

Being unable to, you turn to a red herring fallacy of trying to continue an argument from a different thread in this thread that is unrelated to the argument you were originally trying to defend.

But whether or not your claims are true about the other thread is completely immaterial to proving your claims in this thread or refuting my arguments in this thread related to the nature of objective truth.

Which is why it's fallacy of distraction to try to hide from the fact that you have lost this particular debate and don't want to bow out gracefully or admit defeat.

No I will deal with your falsehoods first because until you respond honestly I see no point in debating you. Now it is not another of your constant attempts to deflect by citing fallacies, I gave you the evidence of where you started debating across threads, it is there in writing, you cannot deny it so you ignore it. Why did you bring up the other thread then complain that I am debating across threads?

 

[Rise]

No I will deal with your falsehoods first because until you respond honestly I see no point in debating you. Now it is not another of your constant attempts to deflect by citing fallacies, I gave you the evidence of where you started debating across threads, it is there in writing, you cannot deny it so you ignore it. Why did you bring up the other thread then complain that I am debating across threads?

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
Whether or not anything you are trying to argue there is true is ultimately irrelevant to proving your original claims about objective truth or refuting my claims about objective truth.

Unless, and until, you can demonstrate why it would be relevant to the issue that was actually being debated in this thread, you are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of red herring and/or irrelevant conclusion and thus your responses don't constitute valid counter arguments.

Your desire to commit a red herring fallacy doesn't make it stop being a fallacious invalid counter argument just because you have a preference for doing it.

It doesn't stop being a fallacious argument just because you express a personal preference for changing the topic.

You tacitly conceded you lost the debate the moment you gave up trying to offer a counter argument and tried to change the subject instead.

 

[Justanatheist]

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
Whether or not anything you are trying to argue there is true is ultimately irrelevant to proving your original claims about objective truth or refuting my claims about objective truth.

Unless, and until, you can demonstrate why it would be relevant to the issue that was actually being debated in this thread, you are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of red herring and/or irrelevant conclusion and thus your responses don't constitute valid counter arguments.

Your desire to commit a red herring fallacy doesn't make it stop being a fallacious invalid counter argument just because you have a preference for doing it.

It doesn't stop being a fallacious argument just because you express a personal preference for changing the topic.

You tacitly conceded you lost the debate the moment you gave up trying to offer a counter argument and tried to change the subject instead.

How much longer are you going to go on denying the falsehoods and keep trying to suggest it was me who started the red herring fallacy when I have showed in black and white that it was you not I who took the debate across threads. Deal with that.

 

[Rise]

How much longer are you going to go on denying the falsehoods and keep trying to suggest it was me who started the red herring fallacy when I have showed in black and white that it was you not I who took the debate across threads. Deal with that.

Logical fallacy, strawman.

I never tried to debate the other thread in this thread.
I specifically said you should go to the other thread if you wanted to see my arguments demonstrating God exists.
And the reason I did that was precisely because engaging in a debate about God's existence wasn't relevant to arguing in support of my conclusions about objective truth in this thread.

I mentioned that as an aside to my main argument merely to point out that one of the premises of your argument was false - the false premise that a logical argument can't be made in support of God's existence.

But ultimately it's not material to the subject of this debate, and therefore not something that needs to be debated in this thread, because your arguments about objective truth never depended on assuming a logical argument for God can't be made. Nor did any of my arguments about objective truth in this thread depend on proving a logical argument for God could be made.
It was a side comment. Nothing I argued about objective truth actually depended on that statement being true.

That's why you trying to make an issue out of that in this thread is a red herring, irrelevant conclusion, and avoiding the issue fallacies.
You were the one who started trying to argue about what was in that thread here as a way of distracting from the fact that you ran out of counter arguments on the objective truth issue.

 

[Justanatheist]

I mentioned that as an aside to my main argument merely to point out that one of the premises of your argument was false - the false premise that a logical argument can't be made in support of God's existence.

Oh so now the red herring was just an aside and therefore I should of ignored your false claims, at least you are now admitting that you brought it up but like your "technically correct" we have now have grudging "aside"!

 

[Justanatheist]

There are, in fact, many objective truths which cannot be proven to be true by logic.

Like:
-You exist.
-You live in a physical reality and not an illusion.
-Time exists and your sense of having had a past isn't just an illusion.
-You have free will.
-You are self aware.
-Objective truth exists.
-Objective morality exists.

These are called self evident truths, You know them to be true but you can't prove they are true using logic.
But just because you can't prove they are true using logic doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

Therefore, you can't claim objective truth is determined exclusively by the use of logic.

On the contrary I conceded that if you cannot prove objective truth by logic then there is no objective truth, that is not a problem for me, now you clamed these truths above are self evident, provide the evidence for each and everyone of them that you claim is an objective self evident truth.

 

[Moonjuice]

It would not be good to force you to accept that a God exists. It would be pointless.

If there was sufficient evidence to prove it without any doubt, then the evidence would force me to know there is a real God. I'm not saying god would force me, the evidence would.