Jesus as Savior

Debate Room
21

When I ponder this part of your post, your argument seems to be that we should disregard logic and just accept . . . and I have issues with this.

Blind faith has been in existence for thousands of years, yet logic has led to antibiotics, modern food production, a deeper understanding of the Universe, and so forth.

Religion had its chance for thousands of years, yet it was people who abandoned the blind faith of organized religion that gave us the benefits of drastically reduced infant mortality, a longer lifespan, less pain and misery, and so forth.

When has the childlike, blind faith of The Bible given us anything similar?

In closing, I acknowledge that this process has also given us nuclear weapons and overpopulation, but–again–I argue that the horrible products of modern science have been misused–in part–because of religion . . . so we come full circle back to blind faith causing a ton of human misery despite logic and reason.

2 Likes
22

Once again, Kevin, your points are understandable and well-taken. But, in reality, accepting God’s existence isn’t blind faith; in reality, it’s just the opposite: for it’s looking at everything that exists in nature, the universe, the earth, our human minds and bodies, etc., and realizing the evidence or “proof” of His existence is all around us.

I also agree that religions, which really are man’s attempts to find or understand God, definitely have their shortcomings and are imperfect. The reason is that they’re filled with imperfect people like us: for, at the end of the day, we all are self-centered and self-seeking, no matter how benevolent or altruistic we may be. That’s why the Bible says we’re all “sinners who fall short of what God intended for us to be.” In other words, too often we are our own worst enemies.

Thankfully, the Gospel “Good News” says it’s all about relationship with the Creator of the universe, Who made all of us one-of-a-kind. And, this uniqueness alone attests to intelligent design instead of just random coincidence or accident.

That’s why 65+ years ago I placed my trust in the One Who created me and said “I think you’re to die for.” And, it’s been quite the Journey; but, thankfully, I knew I wasn’t traveling alone and had a purpose in life.

23

Delusions of grandeur, irony overload.

  1. No one has to disprove your unevidenced claims for a first cause, you have to properly evidence them.
  2. It is an objective fact that all living things evolved slowly over time.

The first part is objectively untrue since evolution is an objective fact, and you have also presented a false dichotomy, you’re arguments are relentlessly irrational and you don’t even know it or why. Nor do you appear to have any inclination to learn, just lie and invoke the word logic as pure rhetoric.

Since those events have happened, and you can present no objective evidence for intelligent design, not only are they demonstrably possible, they also have the highest possible probability of 1.

It seems, unsurprisingly that you don’t understand logic, possibility or probability.

That’s because you haven’t even the most basic understanding of informal logic, and that book has an oxymoron based on a false equivalence as its title, the irony just keeps on coming.

The canonical gospels are no more than anonymous and unevidenced 2nd hand (at best) hearsay, the earliest of which dates decades after the events it purports to describe. That aside they present no objective evidence for any deity, none.

No, we must do no such thing, you may approach it’s claims uncritically if you wish, no one else is obliged to do so.

I’m guessing the irony of that gem is lost on you again. :rofl:

You have presented not one shred of objective evidence that anything has been created, or that any deity exists.

:rofl:

Circular reasoning, dear oh dear, so much for logic.

:rofl:

Objectively untrue, humans like all living things evolved.

1 Like
24

This is nothing but a variation on “just believe me bro”.

In no other aspect of life are we asked to just not think but to believe. To regress to an infantile mindset.

The “childlike” thing is a nice touch as it harkens to a simpler time of life when we assumed (sometimes wrongly) that our parents, teachers, and mentors knew what they were on about.

But even Paul spoke of “putting away childish things” and no longer thinking, speaking or acting like a child. So it’s not like what I’m suggesting is subversive or something.

What I’m suggesting, to be clear, is that anything anyone asks me to accept has to present actual evidence that satisfies my presumably god-given understanding.

In any event I spent a year of my life that I’ll never get back at a Bible Institute so I understand the theological nuances better than most. And did not find it helpful. In fact I elevated faith over reason for about 30 years and found that I was constantly making bad predictions about outcomes and was not just a little, but often 180 degrees wrong in my understanding of how the world actually works far too often.

Conversely I stopped doing that about 30+ years ago and have had way fewer surprises.

So I am not someone who hasn’t considered your truth claims or put them to the test.

2 Likes
25

That’s just an unevidenced assertion.

You conveniently “forget” to mention natural laws, which — given the right circumstances —provably can make order out of chaos. Stochastic processes and randomness are just one part of the whole.

That’s your claim. Now show us the proof.

3 Likes
26

I think the word logic in there is rhetoric, but by all means @JustCurious can present a mathematical proof to support this assertion, or a syllogism at least.

I am dubious he fully understands what his own statement actually means.

1 Like
27

My, my, I thought you all would have been glad to see me back. :wink: And, it seems that you are in your own kind of way: believing that your supposed lofty, enlightened understanding of things so easily shows the absurdity of my beliefs. But, in reality, it only shows that you’ve chosen to disbelieve and set yourselves up as judge-and-jury on what is true and what isn’t.

Well, thankfully, you’re not the final Judge on such matters: for the same One Who created you is also the same One Who will judge you, whether you believe that or not.

You keep saying “Show us the facts. Give us evidence;” yet, I could say the same to you all. Since none of us were there when everything came into existence, we must take other people’s opinions and observations as “gospel truth.” But, we know even the most learned of individuals down through history weren’t infallible and many of their theories were later redacted or totally rejected.

So, think and say what you will. My beliefs are just as valid as yours; I simple give credit to where credit’s due: which causes me to realize life’s not some meaningless, fatalistic farce that ends in the grave and oblivion.

28

You bring assertions about gods and creation. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Thus, you have the burden of proof.

3 Likes
29

More precisely I have not seen a good reason TO believe and have accepted the personal responsibility to believe things based on determining whether things people are asserting are actually true or not.

What you are suggesting is that truth comes by revelation and/or divine command. I suggest that it comes from observing real world causes and effects. You can disparage this as “lofty” smarty-pants-ism or whatever if it makes you feel better but believe me, if you actually value what is actually true, you do so with epistemlogical humility, in recognition of the ease with which reasoning can be faulty. For this reason you work within certain guard rails for this kind of inquiry that have been refined over the past few hundred years. We call this “science”.

Your problem isn’t that we are arrogant arses, but that you cannot evidence your claims and so must resort to ad hominem assaults on our character and motivation in the hope of undermining our arguments by association. Also you are willfully ignorant about science. This is understandably frustrating, but … please don’t project this on others.

1 Like
30

Deflection.

Duplicitous evasion.

Not, repetition of a claim is not evidence.

And not one shred of objective evidence has been offered.

Duplicity again, disbelieving a claim, is not the same as making a contrary claim, and this has already been explained. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is not a claim about the existence of deities, you are deliberately misrepresenting people’s disbelief.

Duplicitous projection, the only one presenting the 100% certainty of a closed mind is you, my atheism involves doubt, not certainty.

Atheism is not a belief, and you have failed to offer anything but bare claims and irrational arguments for your belief.

Wishful thinking, repeating the claim is not evidence for the claim.

1 Like
31

Faith (Oxford English dictionary)

Acceptance of revealed doctrines, spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or adherence to a specific organized religion.

Atheism (Oxford English dictionary)

  1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

If the author can’t get simple word definitions right, then he’s either lazy or a liar, either way why would anyone read his book, unless they’re equally lazy or dishonest of course?

We note without irony that having plugged this asinine tome twice, not one word has been quoted as evidencing a deity. Quelle surprise….

32

Since @JustCurious seems only able to offer a book title, here is the thrust of the book:

To make this case, the authors build a logical sequence of arguments:

  • Truth is Knowable: They establish that objective truth exists and is knowable, arguing against postmodern relativism.

  • God Exists: They use classical arguments—such as the cosmological argument (the universe had a beginning) and the teleological argument (the universe exhibits intelligent design)—to argue for a Creator.

  • Miracles are Possible: They argue that if a Creator exists, miracles are possible, which removes a primary philosophical objection to religious texts.

  • The New Testament is Reliable: They present historical and textual evidence to claim the New Testament documents are reliable historical records.

The first one is perfect, as it supports everyone’s main objection to @JustCurious constant claims in the absence of any objective evidence, so the first own goal.

The second one involves two arguments that have both been rinsed more times than a tramps underwear, they pull apart like warm bread to anyone who has even the most basic grasp of informal logic. And of course the book’s first point shows that an argument alone isn’t sufficient for belief by their own admission, it requires objective evidence.

The third one is hilarious, since miracles by definition are claimed to be divine intervention precisely because they lack any natural or scientific explanation, and thus can’t be objectively evidenced, and of course are textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam reasoning.

The funniest saved for last, if one can accept the lowest possible bar of anonymous second-hand (at best) hearsay, written decades after the events they purport to describe, making claims for magic, and from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition, then one could literally believe anything.

33

Good morning, Sheldon–or, depending on where you live, it could be Good Afternoon.

Regardless, it would seem that your life’s goal is to prove everyone’s beliefs wrong if they happen to not have the same beliefs or worldview as you. And, in reality, that saddens me: for there’s much more to life than meets the eye or can explained by facts and rational thoughts.

Yes, a botanist can explain the parts of a flower to you, but he can’t explain the miraculous mystery behind how all those parts came together in such a beautiful way. A chemist can tell you that water is the combining of two molecules of hydrogen with one molecule of oxygen; yet, he can’t explained what initially caused them to do that so life can be sustained here on earth.

Thus, in reality, your eyes are blinded to true Reality and real Meaning in life. In spite of all the evil that exists on earth, my heart is still filled with true Love, Joy and Peace which the world didn’t give me–and the world can’t take away.

So, I’m praying for you, Sheldon (or whatever your real name is), that you, too, one of these days will quit shaking your fist at Someone you say doesn’t exist–and others, like me, who can testify of His Existence which isn’t dependent upon hard facts or external evidence.

34

You place a great deal of store in the Intelligently Designed Universe argument, JC.

But such an argument doesn’t reveal the identity of the intelligently designing creator. What actually happens is that at the end of the argument the claim maker (you) comes to the end of their line of scientific evidence and then they jump tracks and use FAITH to identify the creator.

So the argument itself doesn’t reveal the identity of the creator - the faith of the claim-maker does.

Do you agree?

2 Likes
35

If you use faith to identify the intelligent designer, then you are not using logic.

Therefore your argument fails because you have contradicted yourself.

Logic alone does not prove the identity of the intelligently designing creator.

Your faith does that.

1 Like
36

And there is the crux of the argument. Testimony is offered as evidence. Ask any cop or lawyer just how widely testimony can vary between witnesses.

The human brain is a pattern detection machine. Quick answers evolved as a survival strategy. Rustle in the bushes…might be a lion…don’t investigate, turn and move away.

Science says, maybe it’s not a lion, let me investigate.

I’ve said this before…and likely will drag it out again… What makes this an intractable argument is the congruence of how each party defines evidence, coupled with their individual ability to admit what they do not know and their acceptance of this ignorance.

Is there a lion in the bushes? One would need to see the lion to be certain.

1 Like
37

You might be interested in these articles, cynical1.

https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/agenticity/
https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/patternicity/

Michael Shermer makes a good case for how evolution has predisposed humans to see patterns in nature where none exist and to attribute those patterns to invisible agencies who are in control of reality.

Thank you,

Walter

2 Likes
38

He does a very neat presentation. I have read much more long winded versions presenting the same information. Thanks.

1 Like
39

But sometimes the proverbial “elephant’s in the room” and there’s a refusal to acknowledge its presence.

40

You might check these out:

https://coldcasechristianity.com/videos/historians-that-vouched-for-jesus-video/

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/do-the-gospels-contradict/