Is Dungeons and Dragons

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Miscellaneous @ Mar. 27 2004,1:41)]

Quote[/b] ]First off, I know what an ad hominen is. I'm a philosophy major. We go over this stuff.

Dude, those were textbook ad hominems. "You'd have to be a fool to believe..."

Quote[/b] ]
2nd, of course I quote the Bible to you, because my argument is based off of the Bible.

That's fine, but prove the Bible as a valid source first.

Quote[/b] ]For you to say that you don't believe in God, is to already presuppose that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, becuase the Bible says that you do deep down believe in God, yet you supress it in unrighteousness. Therefore you are using "circular logic," as you termed it with me.

No, for two reasons. One, you're presupposing, without proving, that the Bible is true. Second, that wouldn't be circular of me, that would be loony. Dude, are you sure you're a philosophy major?

Quote[/b] ]And you then say that my logic is bad. I'm saying that these types of things happen because we have claims to opposing ultimate authorities, therefore whatever is built upon them is going to be developed in contrasting ideas, and our logic will seem circular, or intertwined, as an epistemology should be.

The Bible is not the ultimate authority! Ugh!

Quote[/b] ]I raised objections to your worldview. You haven't attempted to answer them. You just assume that there is science in this world, and rationality, and logic, without knowing the basis for these things in your worldview. You say at the same time, "there is rationality," and then "there is no rationality."

What? I never said there was no rationality. It is possible for people to be irrational, but rationality still exists.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Why can't science exist in my worldview? Logic is a system, a tool. You really have not explained why such things cannot exist in my worldview. It's like saying that, because I don't believe in god, dogs can't exist, since you believe that God created dogs. That's obviously absurd, as is your entire argument.

Quote[/b] ]

Your problem is that you are living on blind faith. Atheism lives on blind faith.

You're full of it, dude, and I'm getting angry.

Quote[/b] ]
By the way, I just put a lot of work into my arguments against your worldview, and for you to just throw them off as unnessessary is ridiculous, and a pretty insulting thing to do.

YOU MADE NO ARGUMENTS! YOU SAID THE SAME STUFF AGAIN AND AGAIN!

That's it. I'm going to get banned if I actually keep responding to this post.

 

[timor]

I love you so much, Eon. Thank you for taking over before my frustration did.

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (Eon @ Mar. 27 2004,2:32)]Miscellaneous, can we agree on one thing? If God is the creator, then surely proof of both creator and creation should exist in the world and it's diverse parts OUTSIDE of the bible?

Well, it seems in this part of your post, you are suggesting that we go about proving God's existence in the same way that we prove other things. First, let me point out that things are proved in different ways. There are different methods for proving different things. If we are to take God as he says himself to be, and go about proving his existence, there must be a certain way to go about proving his existence, as God's existence is trancendental in nature. Since the Christian claims that God and His Word are ultimate authority, we must go about proving their existence in much the same way as you would prove the existence of something of ultimate authority. For example, we couldn't go do a scientific experiment to prove God's existence, because doing so would suggest that the scientific experiment would actually be of a more ultimate authority than God, thus arriving at an obvious contradiction. To prove God's existence therefore, the only way woudl be to argue worldviews, or an argument of presuppositional form, in an indirect stance. Thus, to prove the existence of God, we must stay inside the realm of his Word, because to go outside of this realm, would be to forsake your claim of Him and His Word as ultimate authority.

Quote[/b] ]
The bible is supposed to merely be a commentary on this creation, not the creation itself. The way you talk the bible is the world, and the world merely a product of the bible.

The Bible is not "merely a commentary." If the Bible is as the Christian says it is, it is the authoritative Word of God. Not that the Bible is the world, but that the Bible must be one's most authoritative axiom if he is to know any truth at all, as the Bible lays the grounds of God's general revelation to mankind.

Quote[/b] ]I ask for this agreement because it's standard practice with me to discard the bible as a hopelessly corrupted and compromised piece of work. That might seem a little harsh to you, but the bible has been in the care of some VERY unworthy people - and they have already proven that they regarded NOTHING as sacred if it stood in the way of the dominion of the church in this world, rather than the next.

Well, if one discards the Bible as hopelessly corrupted, one has already presupposed his own conclusion. I would agree that the Bible has been in the hands of some unworthy people, but if the Christian is right and the Bible is true, then the Bible is the Word of God and God has promised to keep his word sacred and perfect.

Quote[/b] ]If you don't know what I mean, or don't agree - then I'll start up a seperate thread based on this point. I'd enjoy seeing if the Christian faith can survive outside of the petri dish of its scripture, and whether you guys would find yourself capable of recreating your faith from scratch based on observable phenomena and legend.

I believe I've shown myself to not agree with you, because if I were to agree with you, I would at the same time be denying what I'm affirming -- you have already presupposed your conclusion in your replies as I have shown above. You want the Christian faith to survive outside of scripture, but I don't understand what you mean by this. If the Christian is to forsake his ultimate authority to test it, then the thing he is testing it with would be of higher authority, thus to test it in the first place, would be to already presuppose the falsity to it's ultimate authority!

You ask for us to recreate our faith based upon observable phenomena, thus asking for us to deny our ultimate authority, and take up observable phenomena as our ultimate authority, and thus put our faith in the back seat. This would be denying our faith before we start, obviously, so you are asking for the Christian to do the impossible!

You also speak of observable phenomena and legend as if it can stand on it's own. Thus, already again presupposing your conclusion that Christianity is false, for the Christian asserts that it cannot stand on it's own, but can only be known in it's relation to the God of Christianity. This seems like as much tunnel vision as you accuse the Christian of having!

Quote[/b] ]And then, I read that you were a Philosophy major - which means you're the kind of person to whom Schroedingers Cat is actually a question worth pondering! Hence your belief that an Atheist is a person who bases his faith around the question of God whilst denying it - which you believe is like believing in the hole in the centre of a donut without believing in the donut itself, right? If you deny the donut then the hole ceases to exist - CANNOT exist. Since his view has just been proven as impossible, you believe that this makes your own (the opposite viewpoint) not only possible but definite.

No, I think you mistake my claim. I believe that the Atheist believes in God, yet suppresses him in unrighteousness. I believe that the atheist is inconsistent with himself in suppressing this though, and it shows when he speaks of facts and of truth, and of knowledge. Cornelius Van Til used the analogy that the atheist is like a child sitting on his father's lap to slap him in his face. The only way the child can slap his father in the face is to sit on his lap.

Quote[/b] ]However this belief is caused by your own tunnel vision. When he says god, you read God and you interpret this as Yahweh. In reality there are many, many Gods that an atheist can choose not to believe - so many in fact that he can choose not to believe in a Platonic Ideal of God. This does not demand the existence of a specific God in any way, and therefore removes the necessity for the existence of Yahweh for the validity of the Atheistic worldview. And THIS point opens up one of those holes I was talking about.

You are supposing that all claims to different types of gods are the same, save their name. This is not the case. Therefore, I don't see these holes you are talking about.

I really enjoyed talking to you. Thanks for carrying on the discussion with me thus far.

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 27 2004,2:59)]Dude, those were textbook ad hominems. "You'd have to be a fool to believe..."

Ok, I obviously don't know the guy's intent behind his saying what he said, but I showed you how it wasn't necessarily an ad hominem.

Quote[/b] ]That's fine, but prove the Bible as a valid source first.

Again, how do you want me to do that?  You are missing my argument.  I'm afraid that I'm wording it horribly.  We are arguing worldviews here, because we are in disagreement of our method of proving things.  For instance, my answer to you would be: "because God said it, therefore it's valid, flawless, and true."  You are trying to play an unfair game with me.

Quote[/b] ]No, for two reasons. One, you're presupposing, without proving, that the Bible is true. Second, that wouldn't be circular of me, that would be loony. Dude, are you sure you're a philosophy major?

One, you are trying to play unfair, asking me to forsake my ultimate authority before we even start.  This is unfair.  Two, it would be circular in the same sense you accuse me of being circular.  For you to say that "I don't believe in God" when the Bible says you do, is to start off with the presumption that the Bible is false.  

Again, if you said that there were errors in the Bible and it was flawed, this would be to start off with the presumption that the Bible was not ultimate authority. For if the Bible was ultimate authority then it would be of higher authority than science, so you couldn't use something of lower authority to discard something of higher authority. So you saying that there are errors in the Bible is to already presuppose your conclusion.

This is obvious circularity. And yes, I'm certain that I'm a philosophy major.

Earlier when I said that I believe something because the Bible says it, you said that I was being circular because I started out with the presumption that the Bible was true.  See the resemblance?

Quote[/b] ]The Bible is not the ultimate authority! Ugh!

Yes, it is.  

Quote[/b] ]What? I never said there was no rationality. It is possible for people to be irrational, but rationality still exists.

The atheist worldview has no way around disagreeing with the concept of rationality.  Things happen by chance.  Thus, there is no uniformity or set way of things happening.  Thus the world is irrational.  

Quote[/b] ]
sci·ence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sns)
n.

  1.
        1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

But this presupposes that the world is rational!  Oh-oh!

Quote[/b] ]Why can't science exist in my worldview? Logic is a system, a tool. You really have not explained why such things cannot exist in my worldview. It's like saying that, because I don't believe in god, dogs can't exist, since you believe that God created dogs. That's obviously absurd, as is your entire argument.

In an atheist worldview, why can't science exist?  I think Hume answered that pretty easily and I don't think it's been every responded to in a way that was valid.  Science relies on rationality and universality.  The atheistic worldview relies on irrationality and particulars.

You haven't explained why those things can exist in your worldview.  You have merely had faith that they did exist without questioning their basis.

I would say that if you truly believed that God didn't exist, then you wouldn't even know what a dog was.  You wouldn't know anything, because my claim is that you only know things by knowing God.

You are just throwing my argument off as absurd.  I can do the same for yours.

Quote[/b] ]You're full of it, dude, and I'm getting angry.

I'm not trying to make you angry.  Honestly.  But I showed you how you are living on blind faith.  You just assume that there is reason and science when they rely on the very thing you are trying to deny.

Quote[/b] ]
YOU MADE NO ARGUMENTS! YOU SAID THE SAME STUFF AGAIN AND AGAIN!

I made tons of arguments.  I also repeated tons of arguments because you never responded to them.  I can list them back if you want.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That's fine, but prove the Bible as a valid source first.

Again, how do you want me to do that?  You are missing my argument.  I'm afraid that I'm wording it horribly.  We are arguing worldviews here, because we are in disagreement of our method of proving things.  For instance, my answer to you would be: "because God said it, therefore it's valid, flawless, and true."  You are trying to play an unfair game with me.

Your problem is that you're looking at it as two opposing worldviews. Stop that. We are not arguing worldviews, we are arguing assertions. You keep asserting that the Bible is the word of God. Back it up.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]No, for two reasons. One, you're presupposing, without proving, that the Bible is true. Second, that wouldn't be circular of me, that would be loony. Dude, are you sure you're a philosophy major?

One, you are trying to play unfair, asking me to forsake my ultimate authority before we even start.  This is unfair.  Two, it would be circular in the same sense you accuse me of being circular.  For you to say that "I don't believe in God" when the Bible says you do, is to start off with the presumption that the Bible is false.  

I'm sorry, but you're a moron. Because the Bible says that I believe in god, no matter what I say, and no matter what I actually believe, the Bible is right. That's it -- this is the very last post I am going to make in response to, at very least, this subject. You are not worth arguing with, or talking to for that matter. The thought of you as a philosophy major scares the bejeezus out of me.

Quote[/b] ]Again, if you said that there were errors in the Bible and it was flawed, this would be to start off with the presumption that the Bible was not ultimate authority.  For if the Bible was ultimate authority then it would be of higher authority than science, so you couldn't use something of lower authority to discard something of higher authority.  So you saying that there are errors in the Bible is to already presuppose your conclusion.

The only one doing presupposing is you! Please reread your posts -- they're absolutely ridiculous.

Quote[/b] ]This is obvious circularity.  And yes, I'm certain that I'm a philosophy major.

Look. You trying to do things such as prove the Bible with the Bible is circular. Me trying to (dis)prove one thing in the universe with something else in the universe is not circular.

Quote[/b] ]Earlier when I said that I believe something because the Bible says it, you said that I was being circular because I started out with the presumption that the Bible was true.  See the resemblance?

No. This is absolutely the most horrid logic I've ever seen.

Quote[/b] ]The atheist worldview has no way around disagreeing with the concept of rationality.  Things happen by chance.  Thus, there is no uniformity or set way of things happening.  Thus the world is irrational.

Explain why chance is irrational. Wait, don't because a) it's not going to be a sound argument anyway, and b) I'm not going to bother responding regardless.

Quote[/b] ]In an atheist worldview, why can't science exist?  I think Hume answered that pretty easily and I don't think it's been every responded to in a way that was valid.  Science relies on rationality and universality.  The atheistic worldview relies on irrationality and particulars.

No, Hume did not answer this. My god, all you do is make these asinine assertions.

Quote[/b] ]You haven't explained why those things can exist in your worldview.  You have merely had faith that they did exist without questioning their basis.

And how do you know this? For the last time, you do not know what goes on in my head. Stop making asinine assumptions and asinine assertions, because it's making an donkey out of you.

Quote

]I would say that if you truly believed that God didn't exist, then you wouldn't even know what a dog was.  You wouldn't know anything, because my claim is that you only know things by knowing God.

I swear, you must be tripping on something pretty dang strong.

Quote[/b] ]You are just throwing my argument off as absurd.  I can do the same for yours.

Your arguments are absurd! This is without a doubt the most ridiculous exchange I've ever been in.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not trying to make you angry.  Honestly.  But I showed you how you are living on blind faith.  You just assume that there is reason and science when they rely on the very thing you are trying to deny.

No, you haven't! All of your arguments consist of circular logic, naked assertions, retarded assumptions, and giant non sequiturs. This is a joke.

Quote[/b] ]
I made tons of arguments.  I also repeated tons of arguments because you never responded to them.  I can list them back if you want.

Don't bother, I'm finished. This is a waste of my time and yours.

*That goes for both Master~Plan and Miscellaneous*

 

[Eon]

Hmmm... So you believe that the bible is the unadulterated word of God - with no room for errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods? Because you believe it has no errors, you believe that it can be used as a final arbiter of truth.

Could you please explain, simply, why an atheist has to believe in Yahweh for me? Assume I'm intelligent but entirely uneducated, and that you have to explain the thing without making reference to something else. I ask this not necessarily because I'm not familiar with textual cases, but because I want to understand what YOU mean specifically, rather than proceeding from a set of assumptions that I imagine we are erroneously assuming to be common.

Eon

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 27 2004,9:14)]Your problem is that you're looking at it as two opposing worldviews. Stop that. We are not arguing worldviews, we are arguing assertions. You keep asserting that the Bible is the word of God. Back it up.

There is no other way to look at it, Timor. My assertions are the foundations for my worldview. Your assertions show your foundations to be opposing. This is a worldview argument. To say that it isn't, is to miss the whole argument.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]One, you are trying to play unfair, asking me to forsake my ultimate authority before we even start. This is unfair. Two, it would be circular in the same sense you accuse me of being circular. For you to say that "I don't believe in God" when the Bible says you do, is to start off with the presumption that the Bible is false.

I'm sorry, but you're a moron. Because the Bible says that I believe in god, no matter what I say, and no matter what I actually believe, the Bible is right. That's it -- this is the very last post I am going to make in response to, at very least, this subject. You are not worth arguing with, or talking to for that matter. The thought of you as a philosophy major scares the bejeezus out of me.

ad hominem. You are missing my whole argument. If the Bible is my ultimate authority, then this is how I must answer! How else can I answer? You don't seem to understand the epistemological structure here, because for you to just blow it off as ridiculous is quite ridiculous, itself.

And by the way, I'm guess my going to grad school will scare you more

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Again, if you said that there were errors in the Bible and it was flawed, this would be to start off with the presumption that the Bible was not ultimate authority. For if the Bible was ultimate authority then it would be of higher authority than science, so you couldn't use something of lower authority to discard something of higher authority. So you saying that there are errors in the Bible is to already presuppose your conclusion.

The only one doing presupposing is you! Please reread your posts -- they're absolutely ridiculous.

Ok. First off, we all presuppose things in every one of our discussions. So, to be sure, I'm not the only one doing the presupposing. I want to show you what you are presupposing though, as you seem to be missing point. Let me show you your presuppositions.

Your claim:

There are errors in the Bible.

How do you know this?

Science and reason say so.

The Bible's claim:

It is the Word of God and must be taken as ultimate authority. There is nothing higher of authority. It is the foundation for reason and science as well as all knowledge.

---

For you to say that science and reason claim the Bible to have errors is to hold the Bible into the microscope, so to speak, and test it to see if it is true, against (autonomous) reason and science.

For you to test the Bible against reason and science to discover if it is true, is to hold reason and science as a higher authority, because they are determining if the Bible can be true. They are the judge of the Bible.

Doing this however, is starting off with the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. Because the Bible claims to be ultimate authority. Testing it against something else, shows that you already presuppose it to be false. Thus, your presuppositions are already set up against it.

You are saying "The Bible is false, and thus the Bible is false." It's question begging, because if the Christian is right, you couldn't test it against science in the first place, as science isn't of higher authority, and science must be interpreted in light of scripture.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]This is obvious circularity. And yes, I'm certain that I'm a philosophy major.

Look. You trying to do things such as prove the Bible with the Bible is circular. Me trying to (dis)prove one thing in the universe with something else in the universe is not circular.

[/quote]

I believe I showed you your circularity above.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Earlier when I said that I believe something because the Bible says it, you said that I was being circular because I started out with the presumption that the Bible was true. See the resemblance?

No. This is absolutely the most horrid logic I've ever seen.

I believe I showed my logic to be not so horrid above

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The atheist worldview has no way around disagreeing with the concept of rationality. Things happen by chance. Thus, there is no uniformity or set way of things happening. Thus the world is irrational.

Explain why chance is irrational. Wait, don't because a) it's not going to be a sound argument anyway, and b) I'm not going to bother responding regardless.

Why is chance irrational? Explain to me how it can't be!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]In an atheist worldview, why can't science exist? I think Hume answered that pretty easily and I don't think it's been every responded to in a way that was valid. Science relies on rationality and universality. The atheistic worldview relies on irrationality and particulars.

No, Hume did not answer this. My god, all you do is make these asinine assertions.

Ok. I don't know if you are familiar with Hume. I can explain him a bit if you want. And I'm presenting tons of arguments. You haven't responded to any. Why is this? You are blowing me off rather than trying to argue your worldview as consistent and coherent with itself.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You haven't explained why those things can exist in your worldview. You have merely had faith that they did exist without questioning their basis.

And how do you know this? For the last time, you do not know what goes on in my head. Stop making asinine assumptions and asinine assertions, because it's making an ass out of you.

I'm saying it comes with the territory and you haven't once tried to disprove me. You haven't even attempted to argue against me. I'm not exactly sure how you not understanding my arguments is making an "ass" (ad hominem) out of me, either.

Quote

]

Quote[/b] ]I would say that if you truly believed that God didn't exist, then you wouldn't even know what a dog was. You wouldn't know anything, because my claim is that you only know things by knowing God.

I swear, you must be tripping on something pretty damn strong.

ad hominem.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You are just throwing my argument off as absurd. I can do the same for yours.

Your arguments are absurd! This is without a doubt the most ridiculous exchange I've ever been in.

:-\

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not trying to make you angry. Honestly. But I showed you how you are living on blind faith. You just assume that there is reason and science when they rely on the very thing you are trying to deny.

No, you haven't! All of your arguments consist of circular logic, naked assertions, retarded assumptions, and giant non sequiturs. This is a joke.

My arguments have been circular in a sense, but only because they are consistent epistemologically. Yours have been circular also, presupposing that the Bible is false before you start. As I said before, this is a worldview argument...

My naked assertions are no more than yours. I'm merely stating my worldview beliefs out, and so have you. You haven't tried to argue against my "assertions" at all, showing me wrong. You are saying "no you are wrong and I am right" basically without anything else.

You haven't pointed out any giant nonsequitors. I'll wait for this one I guess.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]
I made tons of arguments. I also repeated tons of arguments because you never responded to them. I can list them back if you want.

Don't bother, I'm finished. This is a waste of my time and yours.

It's not a waste of time if you don't understand my argument. I'll happily continue to try to explain it to you. Any time you attempt to attack Christianity in the future, I will call you out on your basis for knowledge, because you haven't made an attempt to show it so far.

 

[Miscellaneous]

Eon, I'm driving home now, I'll respond to you later today.

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] ]The Bible's claim:

It is the Word of God and must be taken as ultimate authority. There is nothing higher of authority.

Oh really would you mind showing us where the Bible says this about itself?

 

[Atown]

bah im on the run but i'll make a quick questions: you said ur Bible made tons of contradictions, though for me whenever i noticed something it turned out that i just had to look at other scripture with that handy liitle thingy goin down the center of each page watever its called my questions are: 1. which bible were u reading at the time? and 2. what were the main contradictions?

 

[Lewanuva2003]

Have you ever thought that some Scientists have surrendered the fact that there is a God?

 

[timor]

While I'm not going to get dragged back into this, I'd just like to point something out.

Quote[/b] ]ad hominem. You are missing my whole argument. If the Bible is my ultimate authority, then this is how I must answer! How else can I answer? You don't seem to understand the epistemological structure here, because for you to just blow it off as ridiculous is quite ridiculous, itself.

That's not an ad hominem. That was a simple insult. An ad hominem is an insult, usually more general, in an attempt to discredit the person and therefore discredit the argument. I was simply expressing my distaste for you.

OK, and this:

Quote[/b] ]Your claim:

There are errors in the Bible.

How do you know this?

Science and reason say so.

The Bible's claim:

It is the Word of God and must be taken as ultimate authority. There is nothing higher of authority. It is the foundation for reason and science as well as all knowledge

No! I don't think there are errors in the Bible because "science and reason" say so, I say it because I have seen them myself!

Quote[/b] ]For you to say that science and reason claim the Bible to have errors is to hold the Bible into the microscope, so to speak, and test it to see if it is true, against (autonomous) reason and science.

For you to test the Bible against reason and science to discover if it is true, is to hold reason and science as a higher authority, because they are determining if the Bible can be true. They are the judge of the Bible.

Doing this however, is starting off with the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. Because the Bible claims to be ultimate authority. Testing it against something else, shows that you already presuppose it to be false. Thus, your presuppositions are already set up against it.

No! I look at the Bible and compare it both to itself and also to the world around me! In both tests, it fails miserably!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]
I would say that if you truly believed that God didn't exist, then you wouldn't even know what a dog was. You wouldn't know anything, because my claim is that you only know things by knowing God.

I swear, you must be tripping on something pretty damn strong.

ad hominem.

No, once again, that's just an insult, not an ad hominem. Apparently your grad school philo professor didn't go over this stuff well enough.

BTW, gg getting me to respond again.

 

[timor]

Atown -- here's a short list.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/short.html
Some other Christian on here said he was going to address all of them, but I have yet to see him do it.

Here's a much larger list of contradictions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/index.html

I'd love for somebody to address every single one of them.

 

[Lewanuva2003]

Quote[/b] ]"It was impossible for God to lie."

Well, let me explain this, what reason does God have to lie? God is truth, there is no lie in that and lying is a sin and God does not commit sin because he is perfect, Oh, and another thing...since when does lying have only Pros and no Cons, that's like saying adultery is a good thing, which reminds me,

Quote[/b] ]"And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms...."

ah...there was a reason for that, Hosea was told to get an adulterous wife because Israel was full of wicked people and I don't think there might have been pure women who hadn't commited adultery back then.

Quote[/b] ]"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness."

If Jesus drank wine we can drink it, as long as we don't get drunk.

Quote[/b] ]"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

I like this one, it means seek and eventually you will find.

Quote[/b] ]"And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him."

How did God appear to Abram? Yes he did appear but in a certain form. Maybe a cloud.

Quote[/b] ]Christians are sinless.

I love this one. OF COURSE CHRISTIANS SIN!!!! Everyone does, Abraham did, Moses did, Paul definately did, everyone sins.

Quote[/b] ]No, he hates some people.

Heh, I'm one of them.
I'll review more later.

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (Eon @ Mar. 28 2004,4:02)]Hmmm... So you believe that the bible is the unadulterated word of God - with no room for errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods? Because you believe it has no errors, you believe that it can be used as a final arbiter of truth.

I believe that it must be used as the final arbiter of truth.

Quote[/b] ]Could you please explain, simply, why an atheist has to believe in Yahweh for me? Assume I'm intelligent but entirely uneducated, and that you have to explain the thing without making reference to something else. I ask this not necessarily because I'm not familiar with textual cases, but because I want to understand what YOU mean specifically, rather than proceeding from a set of assumptions that I imagine we are erroneously assuming to be common.

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do here, and what you mean by "without making reference to something else."

I believe that one has to believe in God, because of his metaphysical relationship to him, for one. We are created by God and sustained in him, as is all of creation. Further I believe that we must believe in God, because only by looking at objects in their relationship to God, can we know them. Our knowledge is finitely analogous to God's knowledge, so knowing anything requires us to first know him.

I made this really really brief because I'm not quite sure if this is what you wanted of me. If not, just clarify and I'll fix it

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Mar. 28 2004,6:59)]

Quote[/b] ]The Bible's claim:

It is the Word of God and must be taken as ultimate authority.  There is nothing higher of authority.

Oh really would you mind showing us where the Bible says this about itself?

Not at all.

2 Timothy 3:16 should be used here to be sure, since Paul's claim for scripture to be useful for teaching because it is God breathed. His reasoning -- because it is God breathed -- signifies the authority of God and his Word here.

Col. 2:3 tells us that in Christ is all wisdom and knowledge. John 1:1 identifies Christ with the Word.

Psalm 12:6 calls the Word of God flawless.

Psalm 119:130 speaks of God's word giving light.

Just to name a few.

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 28 2004,5:58)]

Quote[/b] ]That's not an ad hominem. That was a simple insult. An ad hominem is an insult, usually more general, in an attempt to discredit the person and therefore discredit the argument. I was simply expressing my distaste for you.

Thanks for defining ad hominem for me.

I explained to you "presuppositions," which you still do not understand, and you called me a "moron" and then said "You are not worth arguing with."

Hence, you discredited me in order to discredit the argument it seems....

Quote[/b] ]
No! I don't think there are errors in the Bible because "science and reason" say so, I say it because I have seen them myself!

While I think this is a very confused way of speaking, and I don't agree with you. I believe that you think there are errors based on your own autonomous reasoning (How else would you draw the conclusion of their being errors in the first place?). However, it's a moot point because it doesn't matter. You just made my point for me. You believe that your own self is of higher authority than the Bible. You believe autonomy is of higher authority than the Bible. Thus, you have presupposed your conclusion. If the Christian is right, you can't even do this!!

You are playing an unfair game.

Quote[/b] ]No! I look at the Bible and compare it both to itself and also to the world around me! In both tests, it fails miserably!

You are again missing the argument. If you test the Bible in the first place, you are assuming that it's of less authority. You compare the Bible to itself in order to disprove it with autonomous reason. Because for you to conclude that there are contradictions is to test it against autonomous reasoning. If the Bible is what it claims to be, you can't do this. You must interpret all in light of scripture. You couldn't test to see whether that scripture is true. It must be taken as truth. You say you compare it to the world around you in order to disprove it with empirical evidence. Hence both you are presupposing your conclusion before you start.

You are either playing an unfair game, or you don't understand the concept of ultimate authority in epistemological discussion.

Quote[/b] ]No, once again, that's just an insult, not an ad hominem. Apparently your grad school philo professor didn't go over this stuff well enough.

Again, you defined ad hominem nicely for me above. I made a claim, and you simply blew it off by telling me that I must be "tripping on something."

Clearly an ad hominem. You even defined it in your own post!

 

[Atown]

timor i will make a paper on all that stuff for u, might take me a while but ya i'll do it.

 

[Eon]

Hmmm... This is a tricky one - you claim that the bible is the basic standard of truth, and gauge everything by its distance or closeness to the biblical position. I'm asking you to back up your belief that the bible should occupy this exalted position and you're looking puzzled and asking how you possibly can.

I turn to you and say, in return, that by taking test cases where the claims of the bible can be measured objectively and judged thereby. You answer, in return, that if man is flawed and Yahweh perfect, that means that any discrepencies between objective observation and the bible imply flaws in objective observation.

To the which my answer is a shrug and the belief that if a truth is unsupported and, indeed, unsupportable then it is of less value than the basest lie, because lies can at least be proven to be such.

Your position is "better the lie that exalts us than ten thousand truths" and my claim is that whilst that may have worked for Slartibartfast (HHGTG reference) it is no way to develop cold Fusion, end poverty or cure AIDS.

 

[Eon]

Quote[/b] (Miscellaneous @ Mar. 28 2004,9:49)]

Quote[/b] ]Could you please explain, simply, why an atheist has to believe in Yahweh for me? Assume I'm intelligent but entirely uneducated, and that you have to explain the thing without making reference to something else. I ask this not necessarily because I'm not familiar with textual cases, but because I want to understand what YOU mean specifically, rather than proceeding from a set of assumptions that I imagine we are erroneously assuming to be common.

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do here, and what you mean by "without making reference to something else."  

I believe that one has to believe in God, because of his metaphysical relationship to him, for one.  We are created by God and sustained in him, as is all of creation.  Further I believe that we must believe in God, because only by looking at objects in their relationship to God, can we know them.  Our knowledge is finitely analogous to God's knowledge, so knowing anything requires us to first know him.

I made this really really brief because I'm not quite sure if this is what you wanted of me.  If not, just clarify and I'll fix it

Sorry to have quoted so much text, but I wanted you to be sure what I was responding to - because although your reply is illuminating it isn't what I asked for.

What you have provided here is how one Christian Philosopher might prove to another Christian Philosopher why empirical testing is fruitless compared to scriptural study. What I asked for is what you would say to someone who doesn't share your beliefs. And argument that only works on the already convinced is not a useful tool, after all!

So you talk about a metaphysical relationship to Yahweh - I don't feel it. You talk about my creator - I don't think it's who YOU think it is. I'm asking you why I should change my mind!