"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[wynn]

Not that it woud make any diference to the argument...

Why would it not make any difference to the argument?

but what does the Christan Bible posit other than "one life to live".???

That is one popular interpretation of the Bible, yes. So?

 

[Dywyddyr]

As theists are under no obligation to prove their belief in God

They are if they're attempting to impose a standard of behaviour/ code of law/ set of morals that we are expected to abide by.
Or even, maybe especially, if certain theists use god as a get-out clause for failure to follow a chain of logic...

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is an interesting approach, to say the least!

But how do you avoid the other extreme, namely that which is practically solipsism (ie. the conviction that one's own views about everything (including scriptural statements) are correct above all others)?

Apologies if I have misunderstood your question.
You can't avoid it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

They are if they're attempting to impose a standard of behaviour/ code of law/ set of morals that we are expected to abide by.

That applies to any mindset.

Or even, maybe especially, if certain theists use god as a get-out clause for failure to follow a chain of logic...

Not if certain people use that reason ficticiously in an attempt to prop-up what
they believed was a chain of logic, only to find out they were using preset statements, which to their embarassment lead nowhere.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That applies to any mindset.

Wrong again.
Who, apart from theists, uses god as the excuse?

Not if certain people use that reason ficticiously in an attempt to prop-up what they believed was a chain of logic, only to find out they were using preset statements, which to their embarassment lead nowhere.

Equally wrong: the only "attack" against the logic that you had was "goddidit", otherwise you wouldn't have repeatedly appealed to god (or scripture).

Now, if you CAN stick to the chain of logic and show that it was merely "believed to be logic" or that it was using "preset statements leading to embarrassment" go ahead. But on your showing so far what you will display instead is zero grasp of the logic itself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Wrong again.
Who, apart from theists, uses god as the excuse?

You said;

They are if they're attempting to impose a standard of behaviour/ code of law/ set of morals that we are expected to abide by.

That didn't include "god".
And theists aren't the only ones capable of using God as any type
of excuse. That is your misconception.

Equally wrong: the only "attack" against the logic that you had was "goddidit", otherwise you wouldn't have repeatedly appealed to god (or scripture).

If "goddit" was the only attack against the logic I had, why would I repeatedly appeal to God? :bugeye:

Now, if you CAN stick to the chain of logic and show that it was merely "believed to be logic" or that it was using "preset statements leading to embarrassment" go ahead.

Your so-called logic rests on the personalised statement "for knowledge to be knowledge, it has to be true" Can you explain how this is true?

A straight answer to the question would be nice for a change.

jan.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Your so-called logic rests on the personalised statement "for knowledge to be knowledge, it has to be true" Can you explain how this is true?

A straight answer to the question would be nice for a change.

This doesn't deserve an answer. And it has been explained to you many times already.

It is extremely simple - it isn't knowledge if the claim isn't true. This is the basic concept of what is meant by knowledge.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Learn to read!
Jan : As theists are under no obligation to prove their belief in God
Me :They are if they're attempting to impose a standard of behaviour/ code of law/ set of morals that we are expected to abide by.

That didn't include "god".

That specifically included god.

If "goddit" was the only attack against the logic I had, why would I repeatedly appeal to God? :bugeye:

I see you also fail here: you constantly appeal to god because that is the only "attack" against the logic; you cannot address the logic itself.

Your so-called logic rests on the personalised statement "for knowledge to be knowledge, it has to be true" Can you explain how this is true?

And again you display your absolute failure to follow anything. It is not a "personalised" definition as shown by the link I gave you which you obviously failed to read

A straight answer to the question would be nice for a change.

Could you get any more duplicitous?

One more time:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cris,

This doesn't deserve an answer.

I disagree.
It is rude and disrespectful to avoid a question which is
the cornerstone of the discussion.

And it has been explained to you many times already.

Negative.
The only explanation, aside from an insubstantial attempt from
a link explaining Plato's theory of knowledge, has been met with the said quote.
Hardly an explanation.

Here is a definition of "knowledge" from encarta;
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/fe...ionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=knowledge

The first definition states;
1. information in mind: general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths, or principles

Explain how ideas can only be true.
Explain how you can have "information" + "ideas" + "truths" + "principles" adding up to one definition of "knowledge" having to be true in order to be knowledge.

It is extremely simple - it isn't knowledge if the claim isn't true. This is the basic concept of what is meant by knowledge.

So either the dictionary definition of knowledge is wrong, or knowledge cannot be defined by dictionaries with any merit.

You decide.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I disagree.
It is rude and disrespectful to avoid a question which is the cornerstone of the discussion.

Then you're wrong to disagree. The question has not been avoided: more lies from you.

Negative.
The only explanation, aside from an insubstantial attempt from a link explaining Plato's theory of knowledge, has been met with the said quote.
Hardly an explanation.

Wrong again.
Insubstantial link?
Get real. Learn something.
As Cris stated

it isn't knowledge if the claim isn't true. This is the basic concept of what is meant by knowledge.

And if you're stating (as you did) that it's Plato's theory of knowledge then you still haven't read it.
Not only are you deceitful but you're effectively trolling.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then you're wrong to disagree. The question has not been avoided: more lies from you.


Wrong again.
Insubstantial link?
Get real. Learn something.
As Cris stated


And if you're stating (as you did) that it's Plato's theory of knowledge then you still haven't read it.
Not only are you deceitful but you're effectively trolling.

I think it is best if we agree to disagree, and bring this
discussion to an end.
Would you agree?

jan.

 

[sifreak21]

jan all dwy is asking you to do is answer the question wtih creditable sources.. i dont think you can do that

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think it is best if we agree to disagree, and bring this discussion to an end.
Would you agree?

You mean that, having failed completely to make any inroads against the argument, despite your duplicity and attempted diversions (not to mention the veiled accusations of lying), you've come to realise you don't have a leg to stand on.
As I more or less pointed out several pages ago.

And "agree to disagree" is also a cop-out: this isn't a case of neither of us being able to prove our point, it's you being unable to refute the argument and attempting to make it appear as though we've reached no conclusion. Again, dishonest.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

What would it take to convince you that omniscience and free will could co-exist?

Was it our free will or God's will that killed Christ?:shrug:

Omniscience is not really a problem to believers.

That's an understatement.

It is more of a self-inflicted thorn in the side of active un-beleivers.

How is this self inflicted? Rational thinking people are expected to believe such tripe and we let it bother us because it is irrational, is that it?

 

[wynn]

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
As theists are under no obligation to prove their belief in God

They are if they're attempting to impose a standard of behaviour/ code of law/ set of morals that we are expected to abide by.
Or even, maybe especially, if certain theists use god as a get-out clause for failure to follow a chain of logic...

Obligation can exist only between a superior and an inferior instance.
Only a superior instance can impose an obligation on an inferior one, along with specifying the terms of the obligation and sanctions if the obligation is not fulfilled.
Moreover, the superior instance need not explain its motives or otherwise justify itself to the inferior instance; this is inherent in it being the superior instance.

Such as the state imposing taxes on its citizens, and fining or imprisoning them if they fail to fulfill their obligation to pay taxes.

But such a relationship of obligation does not exist between theists and atheists as far as theistic arguments go.

 

[wynn]

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
Omniscience is not really a problem to believers. ”

Correct, because they employ double think and ignore (or gloss over) the corollaries.

One cannot come to any corollaries unless one already has some beliefs/convictions/positions.

You are operating with particular beliefs/convictions/positions.

One such position of yours is that you hold that "those who do not choose the right religion/God, will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption" is what all theists, including Jan Ardena, hold.

This, however, is not the case. I have drawn attention to this earlier in this thread.

Take away that "those who do not choose the right religion/God, will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption" - and omniscience becomes a much different problem, if it is still a problem at all.

 

[Dywyddyr]

One cannot come to any corollaries unless one already has some beliefs/convictions/positions.

And the thread was entirely about the corollary of omniscience...

One such position of yours is that you hold that "those who do not choose the right religion/God, will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption" is what all theists, including Jan Ardena, hold.

Strawman: re read the thread.

Take away that "those who do not choose the right religion/God, will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption" - and omniscience becomes a much different problem, if it is still a problem at all.

Wrong again: if omniscience exists the any judgement by god is specious.

 

[wynn]

Omniscience is not really a problem to believers.
It is more of a self-inflicted thorn in the side of active un-beleivers.

I wouldn't exactly call them unbelievers.

They very firmly believe that "those who do not choose the right religion/God, will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption".
This notion underlies much of their distaste for theism, and blocks rational discussion of theistic topics.


What I find so interesting (also from my own experience) is the persistence of this notion, the intense clinging to it.

Perhaps this is because of the sheer horror of considering God to be someone who will torture one for all eternity in hell if one doesn't figure out which Christian preacher preaches the right Gospel the right way. The way popular Christianity is preached, especially by Protestants - I am finding that absurd, and so do many others.

Still, there must be some internal reason why such doom and gloom preaching is taken seriously. The must be some reason why an otherwise quite rational person suddenly turns into an idiot, forgoing all reason and decency, when the topic of theism comes up.

Perhaps this is the case of the "failed Protestant" - someone who is convinced he is able to properly explain God and understand scriptures all on his own, but is simultaneously struck with the realization that he actually cannot.
(There is, after all, a striking similarity between militant atheists and mainstream/militant Protestants.)

Thinking that one is (or should be) able to properly explain God and understand scriptures all on one's own - I think this qualifies for active unbelief, as it implies that God does not take part in the formation of one's relationship to God, and thus reduces God to a mere "formal entity" who happened to create the world and oneself, but is not in control of it all. From such a perspective, God's omniscience is problematic, yes.

 

[wynn]

Wrong again: if omniscience exists the any judgement by god is specious.

In that case, you are an example of such a "failed Protestant" as I mention above.

 

[Dywyddyr]

They very firmly believe that "those who do not choose the right religion/God, will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption".
This notion underlies much of their distaste for theism, and blocks rational discussion of theistic topics.

You're missing the point: regardless of what awaits us (or doesn't) there is, never was and never will be a choice.
There is, never was, and never will be a chance for redemption (except for those pre-programmed for it).

Perhaps this is the case of the "failed Protestant" - someone who is convinced he is able to properly explain God and understand scriptures all on his own, but is simultaneously struck with the realization that he actually cannot.

It has nothing to do with scripture.

In that case, you are an example of such a "failed Protestant" as I mention above.

If omniscience exists then that is what I was made to be I am not me I am a mechanism following a programme.