Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[tumbleweed41]

Then why have billions used as a roadmap to experience God? A treasure map that actually leads you to the treasure promised is not fictional.

By this logic, the Qur'an is equally valid.

Can you accept that?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You mean none at all...

Yeah, ok.

And you operate under the assumption that time is linear and has a beginning.

Deal with the argument.

That's exactly what you're doing.

Prove it.

Based on what evidence? I have reasons to believe dragons are real; does that mean they are?

Really? What are your reasons for believing that dragons are real.

Plantinga's argument is just as easily refuted. I'll do it in another post so this one doesn't take up a ridiculous amount of space.

Please do.

You have reason to believe he existed (even that is pretty shoddy), not that he was resurrected.

Actually, I do have reasons to believe that he was resurrected.

Contrary to your belief, the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

The Gospels were written by either the disciples, or friends of the disciples. So they were either first-hand accounts, or second-hand accounts that were directly from the source.

and no such accounts exist for either the existence or resurrection of Jesus.

Then you would have to explain the empty tomb and the disciples claims of post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

 

[1robin]

By this logic, the Qur'an is equally valid.

Can you accept that?

If it was true it would be good evidence. However Muslims do not become Muslims by making contact with any God. 99% of them do not even claim to have done so in my experience and I have asked many of them. A person becomes a Muslim by simply adopting an intellectual proposition. That can be done without it needing to be true. Tens of millions (probably hundreds) of Muslims are such simply because they were labeled Muslims at birth. Christianity alone among the major faiths offers and even demands that every single Christian experience God personally. Others do make offers but not to the majority. It is always some other person who is enlightened, or holy. In years of debate I have only had one Muslims, no Hindus, and no other faith claim to have experienced God when I asked. In short all Christians have met God through Christ. Very few others even claim it. In that all the difference of eternity resides. Same with miracles and prophecy. When a faith gets beyond what humans can produce all but Judaism and Christianity break down.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Then why have billions used as a roadmap to experience God? A treasure map that actually leads you to the treasure promised is not fictional.

By this logic, the Qur'an is equally valid.

Can you accept that?

If it was true it would be good evidence. However Muslims do not become Muslims by making contact with any God. 99% of them do not even claim to have done so in my experience and I have asked many of them. A person becomes a Muslim by simply adopting an intellectual proposition. That can be done without it needing to be true. Tens of millions (probably hundreds) of Muslims are such simply because they were labeled Muslims at birth. Christianity alone among the major faiths offers and even demands that every single Christian experience God personally. Others do make offers but not to the majority. It is always some other person who is enlightened, or holy. In years of debate I have only had one Muslims, no Hindus, and no other faith claim to have experienced God when I asked. In short all Christians have met God through Christ. Very few others even claim it. In that all the difference of eternity resides. Same with miracles and prophecy. When a faith gets beyond what humans can produce all but Judaism and Christianity break down.

Apparently, your answer is, 'No, I cannot accept that.'.

The irony being you cannot see your own hypocrisy.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Apparently, your answer is, 'No, I cannot accept that.'.

The irony being you cannot see your own hypocrisy.

I find it interesting because Christianity is the only faith that requries some sort of intercession to get to God.

Essentially it appears according to Paul to boil down to "You can't do enough" While other religions seem to say "you can do it, you just have to keep trying"

Depending on how you fall on the idealism/cynicism scale one is promising than the other.

 

[1robin]

Apparently, your answer is, 'No, I cannot accept that.'.

The irony being you cannot see your own hypocrisy.

Where in the world did you get that from? I said it does not exist so no I can not accept it. What part of it is not true did you miss. I can't be a hypocrite and no irony exists until you not only prove it is actually true but further still that I knew that. Please keep the personal commentary out of this and deal with what I actually said. It is hard to justify a response if it will only be ignored and whatever agenda was intended from the start projected anyway. I spent quite a few addition sentences to make sure you had no capacity to claim what you did anyway. Why should I have bothered?

Does a Muslim get to be one (in almost all cases) as Christians claim by establishing a relationship with God through Christ, or by either being born into a Muslim family or simply saying they agree with the concepts that God is one and Muhammad is his prophet? Be honest and answer and drop the agenda please.

 

[1robin]

I find it interesting because Christianity is the only faith that requries some sort of intercession to get to God.

Essentially it appears according to Paul to boil down to "You can't do enough" While other religions seem to say "you can do it, you just have to keep trying"

Depending on how you fall on the idealism/cynicism scale one is promising than the other.

The gulf between a finite and sinful man and an infinite and perfect God is its self infinite. No man can cross the infinite between perfection and failure. I can't be perfect and God will not dwell with imperfection eternally. Man can not do it, only God can cross that infinite expanse. You may think false hopes of a sinful man becoming perfect through effort are desirable. I think lies and logical impossibilities are evil. All other religions are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Plantinga's modal ontological argument refuted ( A Counter Apologist Blog: Countering the Modal Ontological Argument ) :
1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists

So you pasted a very long and detailed "refutation" of Plantiga's version of the OA. Did you even read and understand it, or did you just paste it? I scanned through it, and it seemed as if the refutation focused on the alleged omnibenevolence of God. But nonetheless, it was a bad objection. So instead of just pasting what someone else said, how about you find a way to deal with it yourself. Here is the argument;

1. God, by definition, is a maximally great being. (By "great", it is meant that God has certain attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, ominpresence, and omnibenevolence).

2. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world.

3. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world, it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world (and every possible world).

4. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being must exist in this world (and every possible world).

5. Therefore, God exists in every possible world, including this world.

Now if you disagree with ANY of the premises, why. If the premises are true, the conclusion in premise 5 follows LOGICALLY, and is inescapable. It seems to me that you people don't like the argument not because it is unsound, but because you just don't like the conclusion. But your like or dislike is irrelevant to the truth value of the argument.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The gulf between a finite and sinful man and an infinite and perfect God is its self infinite. No man can cross the infinite between perfection and failure. I can't be perfect and God will not dwell with imperfection eternally. Man can not do it, only God can cross that infinite expanse. You may think false hopes of a sinful man becoming perfect through effort are good. I think lies are evil. All other religions are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man.

I don't know Jesus said to be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.

Even the Lords prayer is a reach out to man to God.

Yet it is essentially the same thing.

Christianity says that God had to put a bridge down.

Other religions say that God never took the bridge down.

It comes down to whether or not you are willing to cross that bridge.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's look at your original claim;

Then why have billions used as a roadmap to experience God? A treasure map that actually leads you to the treasure promised is not fictional.

Your argumentum ad populum claims that 'billions' have used the Gospels as a 'roadmap to experience God', thus making them true.

When confronted with the equally invalid argument that the same could be said of the Qur'an, you attempt to use circular reasoning to discredit the influence of the Qur'an on the personal experiencing of God by Muslims. Even going so far as to make an unsubstantiated claim of "99%" of Muslims making no claim of experiencing God.

Yes, logical fallacies abound, and yes, it is hypocrisy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Miss the point much? So are the Gospels...

You are ASSUMING that the Gospels are fiction. It is a FACT that Moby Dick is fiction.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The gulf between a finite and sinful man and an infinite and perfect God is its self infinite. No man can cross the infinite between perfection and failure. I can't be perfect and God will not dwell with imperfection eternally. Man can not do it, only God can cross that infinite expanse. You may think false hopes of a sinful man becoming perfect through effort are desirable. I think lies and logical impossibilities are evil. All other religions are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man.

Beautiful post. Brilliant.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't know Jesus said to be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.

He doesn't mean be literally perfect, he means strive for perfection. A basketball coach may tell his team "we have to play perfect basketball tonight", that isn't saying "be literally perfect". It means play some dang good basketball, limit mistakes, execute well, etc.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

He doesn't mean be literally perfect, he means strive for perfection. A basketball coach may tell his team "we have to play perfect basketball tonight", that isn't saying "be literally perfect". It means play some dang good basketball, limit mistakes, execute well, etc.

How do you know he doensn't mean it literally?

And what exactly is literal perfection?

He says be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. Perhaps there is a translation that says "try to be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect?"

 

[1robin]

Let's look at your original claim;



Your argumentum ad populum claims that 'billions' have used the Gospels as a 'roadmap to experience God', thus making them true.

Yep I said that. However it should be "making it true, not them true".

When confronted with the equally invalid argument that the same could be said of the Qur'an, you attempt to use circular reasoning to discredit the influence of the Qur'an on the personal experiencing of God by Muslims. Even going so far as to make an unsubstantiated claim of "99%" of Muslims making no claim of experiencing God.

You must first show that it is true before you can equate it or at least that the claim even exists. You must equate it before you can condemn or approve of one based on the merit of the other. You did not and can not. I even showed that the equivalent claim does not even exist in both faiths. It is absolutely primary and central in Christianity and not even a part of Islam.

Either get a grip on this or drop it. You are digging a hole so deep even personal commentary is of no help.

Let me type this real slow.

1. You said if X being existent in Christianity means the Bible is true then X being true of Islam means the Quran is true.

2. I said yes that would be good evidence it was true if and only if X actually is true. You seem to have completely forgotten this or ignored it.

3. You must show X is true of Islam. I gave evidence that in Islam X is not even claimed as true, much less actually is.

Conclusion: Failure of one argument, based on no basis for equating them.

No fallacy, no Hypocrisy, only some blindness apparently based on ignorance, preference, or a refusal to admit failure under even these most obvious conditions.

 

[1robin]

Beautiful post. Brilliant.

Thank you, I am glad to see you back. I have always thought you were a competent debater but thought you had disappeared a while back.

 

[1robin]

How do you know he doensn't mean it literally?

And what exactly is literal perfection?

He says be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. Perhaps there is a translation that says "try to be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect?"

It is a goal not a destination. The exact same book said no one is righteous, no not one and that if any man claims to be without sin (perfect as God is) he is a liar and the truth is not in him. That is how we know what he meant. Yes we should strive to be perfect, no we will never be. Unless you have a record of anyone who was beyond Christ who was not like us then the question or point academic. Have you ever heard anyone say to give 110%. Should the fact no one ever has be able to do this mean no one should try?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You must first show that it is true ....

OK

Let's start with this;

Then why have billions used as a roadmap to experience God? A treasure map that actually leads you to the treasure promised is not fictional.

Go ahead, prove your argumentum ad populum.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It is a goal not a destination. The exact same book said no one is righteous, no not one and that if any man claims to be without sin (perfect as God is) he is a liar and the truth is not in him. That is how we know what he meant. Yes we should strive to be perfect, no we will never be. Unless you have a record of anyone who was beyond Christ who was not like us then the question or point academic. Have you ever heard anyone say to give 110%. Should the fact no one ever has be able to do this mean no one should try?

Christ himself claimed to not be perfect let alone Good.

The Rich Young Ruler

17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.19“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”20And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”21Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”22But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

Yet we are told to be perfect.

47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You are to be I suppose can also be worded as you have to be?

It seems that it is both a goal and destination.

 

[1robin]

I don't know Jesus said to be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.

I gave verse that put this into context above.

Even the Lords prayer is a reach out to man to God.

That is a prayer about our petition to God not about our ability to cross the infinite gulf that separates us. It also is probably only meant for those who have had that chasm bridged. However it would be true either way.

Yet it is essentially the same thing.

Christianity says that God had to put a bridge down.

Other religions say that God never took the bridge down.

What separates us from God is his perfection and our imperfection. God would not be perfect if he approved of failure. Unless those other religions can either prove God is imperfect or we are then that is probably because they are not from a perfect God.

It comes down to whether or not you are willing to cross that bridge.

Even those very willing and even very moral like Nicodemus were told by Christ (the only perfect character in history and the only one resurrected so we should listen) that all his effort been for nothing. That he must be born again from ABOVE to even enter the kingdom of God. What human can make HIMSELF born from ABOVE? Only God can do this. The standard is not willingness it is perfection. Only God (not us) can make us legally perfect on the basis of faith in his son's actual perfection.

I can not prove this to you and no one could but it can you admit it is the more sophisticated, comprehensive, logical, and less human like (more God like) solution to the problem? Our claims about reaching heaven compared to any other faith's are like comparing Muhammad Alli's ability to box with a slow witted beaver's. Truth is exclusive. Only Christianity is as well.