Christian vs. Athiest debate on May 5 on ABC

[freakazoid]

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070...Less_Debate.htm (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070429/27149_Evangelist_Challenges_Atheists_to_Bible-Less_Debate.htm)

Some of you might find this interesting.




NEW YORK – A prominent Christian best-selling author is asserting that he can prove the existence of God without using the Bible, and has challenged two atheists to a debate.

Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside fellow Christian and actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) will butt heads with two ardent nonbelievers using only scientific fact in a debate sponsored by ABC. Comfort says that the evidence will “absolutely” confirm that there is a God, and he will not speak about his faith.

"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," explained Comfort in a statement, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate – once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.”

The debate is in reaction to the “Blasphemy Challenge” that started late in 2006. The two creators of the movement encouraged all people to tape themselves with a short message that will “damn themselves to hell.” Participants must recite the line "I deny the Holy Spirit,” and then upload their video onto YouTube.

Comfort and Cameron felt that these two would be some of the most difficult people to convince that God does indeed exist, so contacted them about having a discussion.

ABC has said that they will film the debate, which will take place on May 5 in New York City, and will stream it live on their website as well as use footage for their program Nightline. Martin Bashir, co-anchor of Nightline, will moderate the event.

Cameron will use the event to also speak out against evolution, which he thinks is not credible and a major contributor to the growth in atheism.

"Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” said the former television star in a statement. “Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.”

Comfort felt impelled to hold the debate, because he is worried about the state of Christianity around the world, especially in Europe. According to a Zukerman study, in Sweden as many as 85 percent of the population are non-believers; Japan has 65 percent; France with 54 percent; and 44 percent of British citizens do not believe in God.

The Christian writer also noted that there is a genuine attack against Christian beliefs, more than other religions.

"[T]here is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God,” concluded the author. “Why would so many be so bitter against Christianity in particular? Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi? We made our own video clip and posted it on www.Hollywoodblasphemy.com to expose why."

Comfort has spoken at several atheist events, one in which he was a platform speaker at the 2001 convention for the American Atheists, Inc.

[Councilman Doug]

Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside fellow Christian and actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) will butt heads with two ardent nonbelievers using only scientific fact in a debate sponsored by ABC.

These are the same two guys who made the Way of the Master (http://youtube.com/watch?v=A7uA-P8TsPM&mode=related&search=) videos :lol:

[freakazoid]

Are there any better quality vids of that?

[Question everything]

"Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” said the former television star in a statement. “Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.”

... :mellow:

[wtfm8lol]

Are there any better quality vids of that?

why would you want any? those three videos are an embarrassment.

[freakazoid]

lol, just to find out what he has to say.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:55 pm
lol, just to find out what he has to say.
i'll summarize:

"you dont question that a building has a builder, so you shouldn't question that creation has a creator"

"you wouldnt believe a car doesn't have a maker, so you'd be an idiot to think a person doesn't have a maker"

"atheists have a positive belief that there is no god, but when i'm clever and push them into admitting that they don't know everything, they admit they don't know for sure, so they're really agnostic"

"you're a bad person and you need to repent to jesus"(not sure if he extended this into pascal's wager..wasn't listening closely)

"there is a formula for figuring out how an atheists argument will change during conversation"

"blah blah blah, nothing i say is original or remotely convincing to anyone but an impressionable child"

[apathy maybe]

"I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists"
Bullshit.

David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David+Hume) (more information here (http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humereli.htm) and here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/)) proved that the existence of the Christian god is not logically possible. He also showed a lot of other stuff which means that religion generally is bullshit.

He rips apart the creationist story (I hesitate to use the word theory).

Originally posted by http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humereli.htm
our knowledge of God as creator is restricted to the effects that we see in his creation; since the world (the effect) is imperfect, we cannot conclude that God (the cause) is perfect. Second, justice in the universe is restricted to the imperfect justice that we see around us. Third, the singular and unparalleled nature of the universe prevents us from making analogical inferences about the creator.

[freakazoid]

I don't mean for this thread to turn into a debate but,


since the world (the effect) is imperfect, we cannot conclude that God (the cause) is perfect.

This is really wrong.

[apathy maybe]

Don't just fucking say that! Explain why!

Surely a perfect being could (and would) create a perfect world? If the world was perfect, we would have to conclude that the creator was also perfect. However, the world isn't perfect, therefore, using logic we cannot conclude that the creator is perfect. The only evidence we have is the world.

Yes the creator *might* be perfect, but there is no proof... (And all that assumes there is a creator in the first place...)

[freakazoid]

Don't just fucking say that! Explain why!

Do I have to... fine. :P I didn't bring any of my books, :( but I'll explain some. God did create a perfect world, we just messed it up some. God gave us free will, which means that we have the ability to choose evil. Saying that God is responsible for the evil is like saying that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing others with guns.

[wtfm8lol]

Saying that God is responsible for the evil is like saying that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing others with guns.

no it isn't. that's a pathetic attempt at an escape. god would have created every single factor leading the person to do evil including the means to do evil, whereas the gun manufacturer only creates the means to harm someone else with a gun.

[Publius]

Since I'm bored I'll just jump in here...



Do I have to... fine. :P I didn't bring any of my books, :(

If only you had your books handy.

:lol:



but I'll explain some. God did create a perfect world, we just messed it up some.

Why wouldn't a perfect world be impossible to mess up? Surely a world that can't be fucked up at all is better than one that can be fucked up, right?

I mean, from where does sin come? From God? Surely not. God is good. Not from God? Surely not, God is the cause of all. For God and not God? I very much doubt it.

So...what? Sin just IS? Why? Why can't just be NOT if it can be just IS? Is the existence of sin just a cosmic accident, a profound fuck-up that even our omnipotent Lord is unable to rectify?

"Well, I'd fix it if I could, but it's a doozy." Not bloody likely.

Please, explain this to me. I'm dying to figure it out.



God gave us free will,

He did? I'm still totally unconvinced that we have free will and that our actions are not entirely deterministic.

Could you demonstrate that free will, or will you merely assume it for arguments purpose? What happens, then, when I assert that we don't have free will?


which means that we have the ability to choose evil.

Why can't we have free will and not have the ability to choose sin? It's possible to make a choice and for one of those choices not to be a sinful, correct? Say, whether to eat vanilla or chocolate ice cream (In moderation!) is a choice made of free will in which sin doesn't enter into the equation. So this whole binary falls apart. You can have free will AND not have a sin. God could have given us the freedom to do anything except sin, just as he's done by assigning physical laws. We're free to do anything but fly unaided or breathe underwater. God, being God, could have made sin similarly impossible. But he didn't, did he? It makes you wonder what he was doing.



Saying that God is responsible for the evil is like saying that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing others with guns.

If God is not responsible for evil, who is? Satan? Uber-God? God's God? Not-God? Who made sin? Gun manufacturers? "Well, sin's just this THING." Come on.

I've already demonstrated that sin is not a necessary property of free will, so you can drop that line. What's next?

[freakazoid]

He did? I'm still totally unconvinced that we have free will and that our actions are not entirely deterministic.

Are you saying that everything that we do is all predetermined?



Why can't we have free will and not have the ability to choose sin?

Because then it is not free will.


It's possible to make a choice and for one of those choices not to be a sinful, correct? Say, whether to eat vanilla or chocolate ice cream (In moderation!) is a choice made of free will in which sin doesn't enter into the equation. So this whole binary falls apart.

lol, is this an actual argument? So because you are choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream that that means that people don't have the choice to sin? What about the choice to randomly kill someone and the choice not to?


God could have given us the freedom to do anything except sin, just as he's done by assigning physical laws. We're free to do anything but fly unaided or breathe underwater. God, being God, could have made sin similarly impossible.

Because then it wouldn't be free will.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)Surely a perfect being could (and would) create a perfect world?[/b]
He could, certainly, but I don't see any reason why he necessarily would. Besides, what the hell is "perfection" anyway? In common speech, we say that something is "perfect" when it conforms with some really high standard of quality. To say that something is "perfect" assumes that you have some standard of perfection to compare it with. There is no such standard for the universe (or God).


Originally posted by [email protected]

Saying that God is responsible for the evil is like saying that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing others with guns.
no it isn't. that's a pathetic attempt at an escape. god would have created every single factor leading the person to do evil including the means to do evil, whereas the gun manufacturer only creates the means to harm someone else with a gun.
Is our universe better than no universe at all? If you believe it is (which I do), then there is no problem admitting that God is responsible for the creation of evil within the universe. As long as the good outweighs the evil - as long as our universe is better than nothing - the decision to create this universe is better than a decision not to create this universe. Therefore God did a good thing by creating the universe.


Publius
Why can't we have free will and not have the ability to choose sin? It's possible to make a choice and for one of those choices not to be a sinful, correct? Say, whether to eat vanilla or chocolate ice cream (In moderation!) is a choice made of free will in which sin doesn't enter into the equation. So this whole binary falls apart. You can have free will AND not have a sin. God could have given us the freedom to do anything except sin, just as he's done by assigning physical laws. We're free to do anything but fly unaided or breathe underwater. God, being God, could have made sin similarly impossible. But he didn't, did he? It makes you wonder what he was doing.
Would you rather exist or not exist? If existence is better than non-existence, then God did you a favor by creating you, no matter how sinful you may be.

Also, if existence is better than non-existence, then God can only maximize The Good by creating every possible universe, including imperfect ones. I believe that God did in fact do precisely that. Something is always better than nothing; therefore God should create as much "something" as possible.

My answer to the question "Why did God create the universe the way it is?" is that God created all possible universes, and we just happen to live in this one.

[wtfm8lol]

If you believe it is (which I do), then there is no problem admitting that God is responsible for the creation of evil within the universe.

so you have no problem at all saying that you're ok with a being that willingly allowed the holocaust to happen because overall the good outweighs the evil? what about all of the babies in africa with aids..still ok with the being that made this happen?

[RebelDog]

If your working class and you die, and you go to heaven and you find its full of all your old bosses who were ruthless labour exploiters but good Christians, what the fuck good is that? I would have to fight them there too.

[freakazoid]

Edric_O - You have so much better responses than me, :D


If your working class and you die, and you go to heaven and you find its full of all your old bosses who were ruthless labour exploiters but good Christians,

Well if they did that then they wouldn't of have been very good Christians. Also if they were in heaven then more than likely they would learn that what they had done was wrong, they wouldn't be the same person as before.

[RebelDog]

Well if they did that then they wouldn't of have been very good Christians.

Thats very ambiguous, people like Pat Robertson and George Bush and a lot of capitalists consider themselves "good Christians."


Also if they were in heaven then more than likely they would learn that what they had done was wrong, they wouldn't be the same person as before.

Is being a capitalist wrong in heaven? Is god anti-capital? If he is why does he insist on thousands of kids dying every day of starvation while a global elite live like gods?

There is no god, just us living people in this material universe, and we are the ones who must extract the revenge.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:01 am

Don't just fucking say that! Explain why!

Do I have to... fine. :P I didn't bring any of my books, :( but I'll explain some. God did create a perfect world, we just messed it up some. God gave us free will, which means that we have the ability to choose evil. Saying that God is responsible for the evil is like saying that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing others with guns.
...Animals would still kill each other, there would still be earthquakes, Volcano eruptions and diseses...

[RevMARKSman]

Notice how in the article ABC doesn't even mention the names of the atheists...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&mode=related&search=

Yes, atheists, behold your worst nightmare--the fucking banana. :lol:

This really won't be much fun to watch as Kirk (why is he soiling the name of Cpt. Kirk I don't know) goes through his regular routine of "do you consider yourself a good person? Have you ever lied? What does that make you? Now hold this banana for a second..."

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:37 am
Notice how in the article ABC doesn't even mention the names of the atheists...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&mode=related&search=

Yes, atheists, behold your worst nightmare--the fucking banana. :lol:

This really won't be much fun to watch as Kirk (why is he soiling the name of Cpt. Kirk I don't know) goes through his regular routine of "do you consider yourself a good person? Have you ever lied? What does that make you? Now hold this banana for a second..."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:01 am

Don't just fucking say that! Explain why!

Do I have to... fine. :P I didn't bring any of my books, :( but I'll explain some. God did create a perfect world, we just messed it up some. God gave us free will, which means that we have the ability to choose evil. Saying that God is responsible for the evil is like saying that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing others with guns.
How does this free will work? What causes someone to choose evil over good, or vice versa? Is it just a random number generator programmed into every soul? Do they arrive at a rational decision based on the information they already know and the circumstances of the situation? Is it the result of pre-programmed personality traits?

When you dig down deep into this whole "free will" idea, it just doesn't make any sense. A decision is either random and uninfluenced by any kind of logical process, in which case it's not free will, or it's a rational decision based on creating the best outcome given the current knowledge of a situation, which is still not free will since that's the kind of thing a complex enough computer or mathematical algorithm could accomplish.

Throw in genetically determined personality traits, chemical drugs which alter people's decision-making, and brain injuries which cause the same kinds of behavioral changes in different patients, and it's clear this whole free will idea is a bunch of incoherent hogwash.

[Comrade J]

Do I have to... fine. :P I didn't bring any of my books :(
When do you ever have your books? You're always at the "wrong computer" or you "don't have your books" - it's a good job the rest of Revleft isn't like this, or we'd have a forum full of empty promises and no valid arguments.




Why can't we have free will and not have the ability to choose sin?

Because then it is not free will.

You've totally missed his point (there's a surprise). Publius was demonstrating that God already puts limitations on our choices (can't breathe under water etc.), so you do not have the free will to breathe under water or fly. Yet I've yet to hear anyone complain that God restricts their ability to fly - so why couldn't God simply prevent people from choosing sin, it's only one more restriction? Like Publius demonstrates, there are plenty of other decisions you can make that don't involve sin at all, such as what ice-cream to eat, yet this still constitutes free will.


lol, is this an actual argument?
:lol: Haha, from some of the things you've said, you have no fucking right to criticise anyone's argument. You have, in the past, argued that an invisible man in the sky flooded the earth, (why he needed to bother is beyond me) told a random bloke to build a boat that could fit millions of species in, and somehow managed to make the world in six 'days' - despite being outside of time...

[freakazoid]

Is being a capitalist wrong in heaven? Is god anti-capital? If he is why does he insist on thousands of kids dying every day of starvation while a global elite live like gods?

Matthew 19:

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


When do you ever have your books?

Well, for a while I kept them in a bag in the trunk of my car.


You're always at the "wrong computer" or you "don't have your books" -

Not always. Like right now I am on the right computer. It is that just for this argument, the book that I have explains it. I do not live here where this computer is at, so I do not always have a chance to get on this one.


it's a good job the rest of Revleft isn't like this, or we'd have a forum full of empty promises and no valid arguments.

That is because unlike most of you, I have not been debating this stuff for a really long time so I am not able to just pull everything out of my head like you guys can. Oh, and did I not still try to explain it?


Publius was demonstrating that God already puts limitations on our choices (can't breathe under water etc.), so you do not have the free will to breathe under water or fly.

But that doesn't mean that we don't have free will.


so why couldn't God simply prevent people from choosing sin,

Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.


Like Publius demonstrates, there are plenty of other decisions you can make that don't involve sin at all, such as what ice-cream to eat, yet this still constitutes free will.

Eating ice-cream is the same thing, it has nothing to do with free will as sin does.


laugh.gif Haha, from some of the things you've said, you have no fucking right to criticise anyone's argument.

Except for that this argument isn't an actual argument. He is saying that because choosing between what flavor of ice-cream doesn't involve choosing between right and wrong then somehow you can have free will and not have a choice between right and wrong with everything. He is taking this example and saying that it works with everything. Interesting how you didn't actually respond to my actual response to him.

[ichneumon]

what about people who are born with no sense of right and wrong? they do exist - sociopaths are like that. well, some people become like that due to circumstances in their life, but it does happen.

actually, let me rephrase: children are not born with morality. it's taught. when a two year old suffocates a newborn out of jealousy, is that sin? is it an exercise of free will? the two year old only knows the newborn is loud and annoying, he has no idea of life and death, much less heaven and hell.

if your concept of sin is based on the bible, then there are people who have never heard of it - can they sin?

[Comrade J]

laugh.gif Haha, from some of the things you've said, you have no fucking right to criticise anyone's argument.

Except for that this argument isn't an actual argument. He is saying that because choosing between what flavor of ice-cream doesn't involve choosing between right and wrong then somehow you can have free will and not have a choice between right and wrong with everything. He is taking this example and saying that it works with everything. Interesting how you didn't actually respond to my actual response to him.

My whole fucking post was in response to what you said to him, and like I said, you didn't understand what he was getting at. Your 'arguments' are always weak and misinformed, the amount of times I've seen people try to explain simple concepts and ideas to you and you've either ignored it, or quoted some bizarre pseudo-science which you barely understand, as you don't even have the ability to pick out the correct bits. And when you do respond, it's rare that you back up your assertions with anything at all that even vaguely resembles facts or logic. For instance -



so why couldn't God simply prevent people from choosing sin,

Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.

Rather than attempt to say why this is so, you simply present it as fact. Remember, the majority of us here are atheists (ie - rational minded) so the usual "X is true because I say it is true" argument prevalent in Christianity just doesn't cut it with us, and some sort of logical reasoning should be put in there. That's if it is indeed possible to have any sort of remotely intelligent conversation about an unproven concept of "sin" created by an unproven deity.

It's futile trying to debate with you, I could have a more enlightening conversation with my dog. What's worrying, is by saying that, I am only being marginally sarcastic.

[wtfm8lol]

btw ne1 no wut time this is gonna be on @?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:38 am




Are you saying that everything that we do is all predetermined?

Yes.



Because then it is not free will.


Of course it is.

Here's the definition:

free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Where does it say 'sin is a necessary component of free will'?

Nothing in this definition, or any other, signifies 'sin' as a necessary component of free will, that is to say, it's logically possible for a person to have freedom of choice and for there to either not be sin or for sin not be a choice.

Just as the inability to fly is not a restriction on your free will, the inability to sin could not be.

Physical and metaphysical restrictions cannot influence your 'free will' when free will is defined as "what is free from physical and metaphysical restrictions", as it must be.



lol, is this an actual argument? So because you are choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream that that means that people don't have the choice to sin? What about the choice to randomly kill someone and the choice not to?


No, I was simply demonstrating how your binary was incorrect.

Free will does not, and cannot have sin as a necessity. I've just demonstrated that with a trivail example that you failed to comprehend.



Because then it wouldn't be free will.

You've just assumed a tuatology...

"Since free will is defined as the ability to sin, not having the ability to sin would not give you free will."

Well, no shit.

But that isn't the definition of free will. I just provided it, see? And note how it says nothing about 'sin'?

[Publius]

He could, certainly, but I don't see any reason why he necessarily would. Besides, what the hell is "perfection" anyway? In common speech, we say that something is "perfect" when it conforms with some really high standard of quality. To say that something is "perfect" assumes that you have some standard of perfection to compare it with. There is no such standard for the universe (or God).

It's not my terminology, it's God's. Take it up with him.



Would you rather exist or not exist? If existence is better than non-existence, then God did you a favor by creating you, no matter how sinful you may be.

Existence is not better than non-existence. That doesn't even make sense. 'Nonexistence' cannot have ontological terms like 'is' attached to it meaningfully, because non-existence isn't an ontology itself but is a LACK OF an ontology.

Think about it: as soon as you say "nonexistence is", you've contradicted yourself. So in saying "nonexistence is worse than existence" you've made an argument that includes an implicit contradiction.




Also, if existence is better than non-existence,

Which it isn't.


then God can only maximize The Good by creating every possible universe, including imperfect ones.

Or God could merely create an infinitude of infinite Universes. Also, there can be no limit to the possibility of Universes to God, so that God created any Universes that are not perfect makes no sense. Think about it: how could the number of 'perfect universes' be limited? As you've already stated 'perfect' is a nebulous, malleable term...


I believe that God did in fact do precisely that. Something is always better than nothing; therefore God should create as much "something" as possible.

So sin is always better than non-sin, therefore God should create as much sin as possible?

Such sloppy argumentation...



My answer to the question "Why did God create the universe the way it is?" is that God created all possible universes, and we just happen to live in this one.

I guess I'm the Spinoza to your Leibniz then...

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:55 pm










But that doesn't mean that we don't have free will.

Well then what does it mean?



Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.

Ah, but who MADE them different? God of course. And God, being God, could have made them *not different* when it comes to free will, because, as we've established, he's God.

Look at it this way: With God all things are possible, therefore, with God, it's possible for there to exist free will without sin.

Read your Bible some time.



Eating ice-cream is the same thing, it has nothing to do with free will as sin does.

Are you saying you don't have the free will to choose which type of ice cream to eat? Are you saying you don't have the free will to choose a sin?

What, then, is the difference?

You need to explain that they are qualitatively different, not merely state, lest you be guilty of a tautology.



Except for that this argument isn't an actual argument.

Correct. It's called an analogy. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.


He is saying that because choosing between what flavor of ice-cream doesn't involve choosing between right and wrong then somehow you can have free will and not have a choice between right and wrong with everything. He is taking this example and saying that it works with everything. Interesting how you didn't actually respond to my actual response to him.

Your response was a tautology. It is, be definition, a true statement.

Your task is to explain how choices involving sin differ, fundamentally, from choices that don't without begging the question. This will be hard because you don't know what 'begging the question' means.

Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/b...e-question.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)

See, saying "Sin is wrong because it's a sin" is all you're saying. All you're saying is "Choices that involve sin are different from choices that don't because they involve sin." Now both of these statements are true. But they are tautologies, which means they are simply restatements of "A is A". Watch as I replace some things: "Choices that involve X are different from choices that don't involve X because those choices involve X." Read that aloud a few times. Notice how ridiculous it sounds? That's because you're using a statement to back itself up, which doesn't work very well. Fix that, and get back to me.

[RevMARKSman]

That is because unlike most of you, I have not been debating this stuff for a really long time so I am not able to just pull everything out of my head like you guys can.

Neither have I...

Seriously, get yourself together and stop acting as though you are the victimized little guy.


Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.

Not to repeat everybody, but How? and Prove it.


Matthew 19:

How do you reconcile that with this passage from Romans?

13:1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Plus you haven't explained the starving-children thing.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:55 pm

That is because unlike most of you, I have not been debating this stuff for a really long time so I am not able to just pull everything out of my head like you guys can.

Neither have I...

Seriously, get yourself together and stop acting as though you are the victimized little guy.


Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.

Not to repeat everybody, but How? and Prove it.


Matthew 19:

How do you reconcile that with this passage from Romans?

13:1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I hate to Post in favour of the Theists... but here goes...


You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you (Matthew 20:24-28).

We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12).

No king but the Lord shall rule over you (Judges 8:23).

Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? (Isaiah 58:6-7).

[freakazoid]

I have very little time so I will post more later.


And when you do respond, it's rare that you back up your assertions with anything at all that even vaguely resembles facts or logic. For instance -

I go further into it later in my post, did you read it?



Are you saying you don't have the free will to choose which type of ice cream to eat? Are you saying you don't have the free will to choose a sin?

No no no. What I meant was that it is a different kind of free will. Not that not being able to choose between ice-cream flavors doesn't mean that you don't have free will.


Read your Bible some time.

I have read the whole thing, how about you?



Just as the inability to fly is not a restriction on your free will, the inability to sin could not be.

Yes it would be becuse then we would just be mindless robots.

More to come.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:04 pm

He could, certainly, but I don't see any reason why he necessarily would. Besides, what the hell is "perfection" anyway? In common speech, we say that something is "perfect" when it conforms with some really high standard of quality. To say that something is "perfect" assumes that you have some standard of perfection to compare it with. There is no such standard for the universe (or God).
It's not my terminology, it's God's. Take it up with him.
Actually, no it isn't. The Biblical God very rarely claims to be perfect (for example, the word "perfect" occurs only 18 times in the entire Old Testament, only 2 of which have anything to do with God - Deuteronomy 32:4 and Isaiah 25:1 - and even those two are vague and do not directly call God perfect).

God is often said to have "perfect love", "perfect goodness" and other such things. This makes sense, because "perfect" is used as an adjective to express how much stronger God's love and goodness is when compared with human love and goodness. But to say that "God is perfect", with no further explanation, is meaningless.


Existence is not better than non-existence. That doesn't even make sense. 'Nonexistence' cannot have ontological terms like 'is' attached to it meaningfully, because non-existence isn't an ontology itself but is a LACK OF an ontology.

Think about it: as soon as you say "nonexistence is", you've contradicted yourself. So in saying "nonexistence is worse than existence" you've made an argument that includes an implicit contradiction.

Absurd semantical argument based on a quirk of the English language (the fact that I used the verb "to be" to assign a quality to non-existence). Would you rather I used a different verb? Very well. Here is my point, re-stated to avoid the use of the verb "to be":

As long as the good outweighs the evil - as long as our universe is better than nothing - the decision to create this universe is better than a decision not to create this universe. Therefore God did a good thing by creating the universe.

Would you rather exist or not exist? If existence has the quality known as "goodness" to a greater extent than non-existence, then God did you a favor by creating you, no matter how sinful you may be.

Also, if existence has the quality known as "goodness" to a greater extent than non-existence, then God can only maximize The Good by creating every possible universe, including imperfect ones. I believe that God did in fact do precisely that. Something is always better than nothing; therefore God should create as much "something" as possible.


So sin is always better than non-sin, therefore God should create as much sin as possible?

Such sloppy argumentation...
I did not say that "sin is always better than non-sin". I said sin is better than non-life. Or, to put it differently, a sinful creature is better than no creature at all.

[Rawthentic]

There is no "God", I find it so ridiculous sometimes that people can believe in such superstition.

And Edric, you are not a communist, because communists are atheists and historical materialists, and religion is by nature idealism.

You can maybe pursue liberation theology.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Question everything+May 02, 2007 07:21 pm--> (Question everything @ May 02, 2007 07:21 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 09:55 pm

That is because unlike most of you, I have not been debating this stuff for a really long time so I am not able to just pull everything out of my head like you guys can.

Neither have I...

Seriously, get yourself together and stop acting as though you are the victimized little guy.


Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.

Not to repeat everybody, but How? and Prove it.


Matthew 19:

How do you reconcile that with this passage from Romans?

13:1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I hate to Post in favour of the Theists... but here goes...


You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you (Matthew 20:24-28).

We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12).

No king but the Lord shall rule over you (Judges 8:23).

Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? (Isaiah 58:6-7). [/b]
That's great, but how do you reconcile these most obviously contradicting passages?


+ all my other points.



Yes it would be becuse then we would just be mindless robots.

Ah no, because like the puritans say, there are many choices to make and ways to be happy without sin/alcohol/drugs/flying/insert whatever else here.

[wtfm8lol]

hey edrick, taking into consideration that free will is complete shit as someone else already proved on this thread, how do you justify your wizard sending some people to a happy place and others to an unhappy place based entirely on something that's out of their power to change?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Also, if existence has the quality known as "goodness" to a greater extent than non-existence, then God can only maximize The Good by creating every possible universe, including imperfect ones. I believe that God did in fact do precisely that. Something is always better than nothing; therefore God should create as much "something" as possible.

Fucking hell, Edric, this is really awful.

So God just churns out universes en masse to get as much existence about as possible? :rolleyes: Why not make infinite perfect universes? That would make more sense than a shitload of universes that fall randomly on the evil/good scale.

And by implication, non-existence is bad, so why does God allow anything, ever, to expire or die?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And why not make a single, infinitely large universe that had no evil in it? This maximises existence and eradicates evil, you've got a perfect solution. There's no need to have any evil in the world at all.

-Alex

[KC]

Let's see some of these religious nutters respond to these:


ON GOD'S JUSTICE AND MERCY
1.) If God is "all just" then he always dispenses justice with the exact amount of severity deserved by the crime.
2.) If God is "all merciful" then he always dispenses justice with less severity than is deserved by the crime.

3.) You cannot dispense justice with less severity and exact severity at the same time. - Dan Barker

ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.

ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.

(Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is. Yahweh cannot possibly exist if he has both the attributes of love and jealousy.)

ON FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past, present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future will be part of God's unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God's unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn't exist.

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist

ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can’t change God’s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer doesn’t change things.

ON GOD`S LIMITATIONS
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
3.) God has no Free-will.

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.

EVIL IS GOOD?
1.) God is good all of the time.
2.) Everything that God creates is good. Amen?
3.) God created evil according to Isaiah 45:7. (look it up)
4.) Evil is good.

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.

[apathy maybe]

The Existence of God

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10...how_id=85566266 (http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10/over-three-hundred-proofs-of-gods.php?show_id=85566266)
ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM GAME THEORY
(1) Theist: [after lengthy explanation] Hence, pursuant to game theory, belief in an afterlife is the most sensible option.
(2) Atheist: Wait a minute. That's just Pascal's Wager dressed in different verbiage.
(3) Theist: Nuh uh!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WARM & FUZZY THINGS
(1) When I was an atheist, I didn't have any warm & fuzzy things in my life.
(2) I really like warm & fuzzy things.
(3) If the J-C God exists, lots of warm & fuzzy things are true because all these really smart theists say so.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
(5) Old Testament? Never heard of it.

[ichneumon]

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.

1)is gravity a physical thing? light? information?
2)brain =/= consciousness
3)show me a memory - put it in a test tube
4)trauma and neurosis can cause the same with no physical change
5)wft does that mean?


ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.


if 2) is true, what caused the universe to exist? what was the uncaused cause? what is the X that is prior to the universe? you seem to think that there was a creation, and that it just happened, then try to disprove god by saying that cause and effect are chronologically linked. in any case, you don't seem to understand what "atemporal" means. that whole bit is just nonsense

[Publius]

Actually, no it isn't. The Biblical God very rarely claims to be perfect (for example, the word "perfect" occurs only 18 times in the entire Old Testament, only 2 of which have anything to do with God - Deuteronomy 32:4 and Isaiah 25:1 - and even those two are vague and do not directly call God perfect).

God is often said to have "perfect love", "perfect goodness" and other such things. This makes sense, because "perfect" is used as an adjective to express how much stronger God's love and goodness is when compared with human love and goodness. But to say that "God is perfect", with no further explanation, is meaningless.

Well, I agree with that. But the problem isn't with my usage of the term, its with the term itself, and how it's applied to God, even by the Bible.

If you really wanted to I'm sure you could find numerous theologians who use variants of 'perfection' to define God.



Absurd semantical argument based on a quirk of the English language (the fact that I used the verb "to be" to assign a quality to non-existence). Would you rather I used a different verb?

You can use 'to be' as soon as you figure how something that isn't is.

If you want to call that semantics, rks of langfine, but it was Wittgenstein who said all problems of philosophy are really problems of language, or something that effect, which is of course true. Most philosophy is 'semantical' based on 'language.' But language is all we have, so must at least attempt to be exact.



Very well. Here is my point, re-stated to avoid the use of the verb "to be":

As long as the good outweighs the evil - as long as our universe is better than nothing

How can something be better than nothing? That idea very evidently doesn't make sense.



- the decision to create this universe is better than a decision not to create this universe.

Ah, slightly better.

Decisions can be better than each other. But I ask, was this a true decision? Did God have the free ability to not create this Universe, if he so chose?

If so, then God does not necessarily do what is good, and therefore, is not necessarily good. If so, God has no will and is simply a Universe Making Machine with no more will than a printer.


Therefore God did a good thing by creating the universe.

If existence is better than non-existence. Of course, according to another religion, existence is suffering, so reconcile that.

Would it be better for there to exist on you a a painful appendage, or for that appendage to be amputated? Try explaining to someone with gangrene that the existence of arm is better than its nonexistence. Or to someone in pain that the existence of their pain is better than the nonexistence of pain. Hell, we should all be in permanent pain since the existence of pain is better than the non existence of pain, right?

'Existence is good' is a terrible axiom...



Would you rather exist or not exist?

It depends entirely on the circumstances.

Would I rather live a painful existence than not exist? No. See: suicide. And if in fact I didn't exist, as I didn't before I was born, and won't after I die, the question wouldn't matter one bit. For example, do have any bad memories before your birth? No. It was perfectly sublime, that darkness, wasn't it?



If existence has the quality known as "goodness"

It doesn't. A Universe twice our size would not be twice as good, necessarily. In fact, it might be less Good. Existence is not, by itself, good. And by existence I presume you mean 'physical existence'. Do you? If so, does it follow that 'existence is good and what is good exists'? If that's the case, was the Holocaust, during World War II, 'better' than racial harmony in Germany, because it existed and the latter did not?



to a greater extent than non-existence, then God did you a favor by creating you, no matter how sinful you may be.

So it's better to exist in hell than not exist? Have you ever read Portrait of an Artist by Joyce?



Also, if existence has the quality known as "goodness" to a greater extent than non-existence,

Non-existence cannot have a quality.


then God can only maximize The Good by creating every possible universe,

Why is there a limit to the possible permutations of Universes? Wouldn't one infinite Universe do the job, since infinity is as much as there can be, by definition?



including imperfect ones. I believe that God did in fact do precisely that. Something is always better than nothing;

No, it's not. Are familiar with Leibniz, by the way?


therefore God should create as much "something" as possible.

So then why are there only 100 books in my room, and not 200? Would not 200 books be 'better' than 100? Obviously God did not create as much 'something' as is possible because it's possible for there to exist thousands more books in my room than currently are there, and yet, they don't exist. So obviously God did not create as much something as is possible, for it's possible for there to exist more things in this Universe than do.

The Universe, for example, is finite. It's actually expanding. So is it getting better? What about entropy?



I did not say that "sin is always better than non-sin".

Yes you did.

"Non-sin" is the lack of sin, and lack of something (nothing) cannot be better than something (something), according to you. And since sin is 'something', and non-sin is merely the antithesis of that something, and is not something of itself, sin is better than non-sin, by definition, which is of course in start contradiction to your maxim that 'existence is good'. It's not my fault your worldview is ridiculous and self-contradictory.



I said sin is better than non-life. Or, to put it differently, a sinful creature is better than no creature at all.

You said this:
Something is always better than nothing; therefore God should create as much "something" as possible.

Since sin is something, and lack-of-sin is not 'something' but is merely a negation (it has no ontology), sin must be better than not-sin.

[luxemburg89]

Would you rather exist or not exist?

Do we have a choice if God made us? Surely he made that decision for us. :angry: What a bastard he is.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+May 03, 2007 12:17 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ May 03, 2007 12:17 pm)
Originally posted by Question [email protected] 02, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 09:55 pm

That is because unlike most of you, I have not been debating this stuff for a really long time so I am not able to just pull everything out of my head like you guys can.

Neither have I...

Seriously, get yourself together and stop acting as though you are the victimized little guy.


Because not being about to choose sin is different than not being able to fly. It is a completely different kind of limitation.

Not to repeat everybody, but How? and Prove it.


Matthew 19:

How do you reconcile that with this passage from Romans?

13:1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I hate to Post in favour of the Theists... but here goes...


You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you (Matthew 20:24-28).

We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12).

No king but the Lord shall rule over you (Judges 8:23).

Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? (Isaiah 58:6-7).
That's great, but how do you reconcile these most obviously contradicting passages?


+ all my other points.



Yes it would be becuse then we would just be mindless robots.

Ah no, because like the puritans say, there are many choices to make and ways to be happy without sin/alcohol/drugs/flying/insert whatever else here. [/b]
Generally I agree with your stance and i only meant to rebuff the parts of the bible although my post more than anything just proves it contradicts itself...

Accually if you look at it close enough and that what you said along with a few other quotes it would seems the God named the Devil ruler of earth...

Here however is where it contradicts-


13:1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you (Matthew 20:24-28).

but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world .


2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

No king but the Lord shall rule over you (Judges 8:23).


etc. ... Although this just proves that the bible contradicts itself...

[RevMARKSman]

Although this just proves that the bible contradicts itself...

Exactly.

ZAMPANO: Good to see you visiting infidelguy.com once in a while.

A_M: :lol: "warm & fuzzy things"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yawn.

As soon as these creationists agree to a peer-reviewed, written debate, let me know.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:50 pm
Yawn.

As soon as these creationists agree to a peer-reviewed, written debate, let me know.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[freakazoid]

ABC is going to have it on there site on May 9th, and a shortened version is going to show on Nightline on the 9th also.

[ichneumon]

i read a transcript - it was nonsense. let's have dawkins, a jesuit, a fundie and a buddhist philosopher debate.

partial transcript (http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2253&start=45)

[freakazoid]

Link for transcript?