|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2005 : 14:47:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
You are starting out with the bias that there is nothing supernatural, and idea which is impossible to prove. If you were going to logically examine the question of if the supernatural existed, would it be logical to start out with the premise, before any evidence, that it didn't?
Let's start with the premise that creatures from outer space put hallucinogenic chemicals in food and water supplies that caused delusions, creating images and thoughts in the minds of some of our ancient ancestors. Let's say the people who wrote your bible just believed they were writing of real events. This explanation doesn't even assume anything supernatural. It allows for applying known scientific principles by real flesh and blood beings. Those beings obviously kept their presence unknown, but we can't prove they didn't exist, therefore they certainly could have. Remember, the validity of this particular truth is 100% supported by your own logic, and doesn't depend in any way on supernatural beings or events.
If something can be accepted as true, simply by nature of the fact that it can't be proved false, then the miracles of your bible might be true. However, the space alien explanation might be true, too, yet is more reasonable than guessing about gods and miracles. If you can't accept the space alien idea, and for that matter every other possible explanation that might come from anyone's imagination, as being just as true as your belief in miracles, you're discarding plain, simple intelligence in favor of your own personal delusion. It's exactly as impossible to prove that your miracles didn't happen through alien intervention.
Your definition of "logic" also allows for multitudes of truths to exist simultaneously, since we can accept that there are two truths, or a nearly infinite quantity. After all, there are uncountable possibilities that can't be proved false, every one of them carrying the same weight of evidence as events in your bible being miracles of supernatural origin. Interestingly, many of the alternative truths don't even have to take supernatural beings into account.
Following your line of logic to one reasonable end, it's completely possible that there are actually no contradictions in your bible. Every statement or description of an event which seems to be at odds with a similar statement or event can be easily explained. Each is just another genuine version drawn from an unlimited supply of available truths. None of them are in dispute because none can be proven untrue.
You seem to believe that people who don't share your delusion have a bias. But if we can call it a bias, that bias is not a simple rejection of your truth. That bias involves accepting that any number of possibilities might explain the supposed miracles, but give more credence to the millions of which, although perhaps not provable, don't require factoring in the meddling of supernatural beings. Since there are so many ways to explain those events by purely natural means, however fantastic, unlikely, or unprovable, clear thinking people don't start with the premise that supernatural events must be true. Intelligent, fully rational people also take into account that your bible may just be almost entirely fictional, contrary to your obvious bias that it must, with no support of evidence, be true.
So, what'll it be? Is the space alien hypothesis just as likely as your guess about miracles being real? Or are you biased in your belief that there were supernatural beings causing those "miracles"? Or are you maybe just as deluded as those ancients who drank the tainted water? Could be. After all, we don't have any proof that it isn't true.
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 14:35:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
If someone says that they've healed the sick and talked with the Almighty, they're either telling the truth, lying, or crazy.
This is very narrow minded. We aren't limited to only these three possibilities.quote:
Try freewill, with no spaces. The relevance is whether or not the Bible gives the appearance of us having free will. If it appears that we do, but we actually don't, then all of those verses which seem to say that we do would either have to be figurative or wrong. And the more verses that one has to take figuratively for a doctrine to be true, there is less likelihood that it is true.
Here's your argument against 'time' being a thing with my changes in bold:quote:
Sure, free will exists, but does it exist as a thing or as a concept? Lines and points exist, but they're concepts. There is no object in the universe which has no dimensions.
You can't have it both ways.quote:
The verses which speak of freewill offerings, etc, do support my position.
If that were true then the verses that speak of 'time' speak against your position that time is only a concept.quote:
The fact that we're having this conversation supports my position. It may not prove it, but it does support it.
How so?quote:
Now, I don't know of any point in the Bible where it discusses point-blank whether or not man has free will. I've never seen Paul say 'who hath bewitched you into believeing that you have no free will' or vice versa. I think this is because free will is so prevalent that no one ever questioned whether or not they had it. Hence, I think that it is incumbent upon Calvinists to prove that we don't have free will, since it seems readily apparent that we do.
For consistency let's now apply this same argument to the question of whether or not time exists (my changes in bold):quote:
Now, I don't know of any point in the Bible where it discusses point-blank whether or not time exists. I've never seen Paul say 'who hath bewitched you into believeing that time exists' or vice versa. I think this is because time is so prevalent that no one ever questioned whether or not it existed. Hence, I think that it is incumbent upon you, hippy4christ, to prove that time doesn't exist, since it seems readily apparent that it does.
You are ignoring even your own arguments when they don't support your beliefs.
quote:
I didn't take either verse figuratively. I believe that we were predestinated, but I don't ascribe the same definition to that word that the Calvinists use. They would say that predestination means that He has decided what will happen, and that we have no say in it. I have not found this definition to be Scriptural. I actually hold to a more literal definition of the word. Pre: before, in this case, before the foundation of the world. Destined: assigned a destination. If decide to go to the bus station before I leave my home, I have predestinated that I will go to the bus station. Or, closer to the matter at hand, if I ever have kids, I have at this moment predestinated them to wash dishes when they're able to. It is the Calvinist definition which adds to the literal meaning of the words. So yes, Paul and the people he was talking to were predestined to go to heaven. So is anyone else who will belive.
Do you really not see that, in this case, it is you and not the Calvinists who is changing the meaning of the word 'predestination' to suit your preference?quote:
quote:
Perhaps you could expand on this. Under what circumstances would rejecting Yahweh be evil?
For instance, a few days ago I had a talk with a guy who called himself a 'cold Christian'. He believes that it's true, but for some reason which he did not reveal to me, he had decided not to follow Jesus. I would say that this is a case in which rejecting Yahweh would be evil.
Would his motive for rejecting God matter? If he rejects God because he believes that God is evil would God be merciful in that case? I'm curious because if someone is convinced that Christianity is true then they would need a pretty strong motive to reject God.quote:
If you actually and honestly believe that he doesn't exist, that might not even qualify as rejecting Him, and I would think that He would be more likely to grant mercy.
Suppose that someone believes that a god exists but not the Christian God, how would that person be dealt with?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
