Religion

[paulsimpson]

The content here is mere exegesis based on alleged revelation, which is ironic given your appeal to a priori reasoning in your previous posts.

In other words, there’s nothing to engage with. It’s all mere assertion from what I can tell. Sorry to state this, as for all I know you may be a very decent person but that’s where I am leaving things and I will not be debating with you any further.

Craig on Stephen Law

The “Evil god” Objection | Reasonable Faith

Dr. Craig this is a simple question in regards to your debate with Stephen Law. Suppose someone hypothetically argued for an Evil God that exists. Could one use the

www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

There is intrinsically no good/bad nor is there any right/wrong, they're just human constructs; and that, in a nutshell is why all religions were created.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Craig on Stephen Law

The “Evil god” Objection | Reasonable Faith

Dr. Craig this is a simple question in regards to your debate with Stephen Law. Suppose someone hypothetically argued for an Evil God that exists. Could one use the

www.reasonablefaith.org

Craig was a Christian long before he concocted any of these arguments, which basically tells you everything you need to know. Someone who has dedicated their life to coming up with arguments for why something they already believe is true. Sam Harris has made a pretty convincing argument for moral absolutism that doesn't involve a god, and while it relies on making one assumption, that's two less assumptions that the same argument that relies on God existing, being good, and being able to reliably communicate those morals to us. However, most people on this thread haven't made moral absolutism arguments at all, they've made moral relativist arguments. And the main arguments against moral relativism seems to be that it's unpalatable that there's no objective measure of what's good and bad. But something being unpalatable doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[JASR]

As night follows day, out come the ‘replying to sceptics 101’ links on ‘winning’ minutiae arguments.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

As night follows day, out come the ‘replying to sceptics 101’ links on ‘winning’ minutiae arguments.

Indeed. The first thing I tell my students is that if you can't put the arguments in your own words, then you haven't showed you've read or understand them.

 

[Elbow beards]

You weren't there . No one,
except God. His revelation says the earth got a moon on day 4. Secular atheistic versions lack knowledge. Jewish Christian scriptures are revealed truth.

Why haven't you answered any of my questions yet?

 

[JASR]

Indeed. The first thing I tell my students is that if you can't put the arguments in your own words, then you haven't showed you've read or understand them.

its clear we’ve had the ‘not answering simple questions’ stage , as well.
just endless parts of a human written book quoted, as ‘gospel’ and the only ‘truth’, but zilch on those simple questions.
It’s as though answering the simple truths would unravel the big lie.

 

[arfurclue]

There is intrinsically no good/bad nor is there any right/wrong, they're just human constructs; and that, in a nutshell is why all religions were created.

Just to clarify - you are saying that religions are human constructs of, eg, good/bad or they are more that which point to life beyond these constructs?

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Just to clarify - you are saying that religions are human constructs of, eg, good/bad or they are more that which point to life beyond these constructs?

Of course.

I meant that all religions are a human constructs, essentially they're just manuals designed by those in power to instil mass conformity to manmade ideal/theories of what we, as intelligent animals, should (?) see as being good/bad or right/wrong, with the added fear-bonus that if you don't comply you'll go to "eternal hell".

Conformity by fear. Outdated concepts and transparently false IMO.

 

[arfurclue]

Of course.

I meant that all religions are a human constructs, essentially they're just manuals designed by those in power to instil mass conformity to manmade ideal/theories of what we, as intelligent animals, should (?) see as being good/bad or right/wrong, with the added fear-bonus that if you don't comply you'll go to "eternal hell".

Conformity by fear. Outdated concepts and transparently false IMO.

Ok. Not to get into argument but ‘the mind of man’ and ‘mind of tao’ that was in a post I put up earlier could be said to be about a letting go of the good/bad mindset and just opening to a natural state of being? I don’t mean to detract from the rest of what you said, as there are what would appear to be valid and fair points. Just that are those that point to something different. Anyhow, thanks for the clarification.

 

[paulsimpson]

Utter gibberish

Revelation in Scripture and laws of Logic go hand in hand .
Without laws of logic we couldn't know what gibberish or nonsense means. Laws of logic( law of identity, law of non contradiction etc) are the foundation for thought, the written word meaning and truth. The atheist has no basis for any meaning or truth because he stands on God's eternal , uncreated laws of logic to deny Him which demonstrates contradiction and incoherence.
The Logos which is Jesus (Jeshua in Hebrew) is special revelation reflects His laws of logic and so His Word is true.

Could have saved all those words and just typed Good - God = 0.

You probably don't realise this but what you are talking about is a very narrow reading of Darwinian evolution, the biggest, strongest, fittest individual could find themselves cast aside if the "weak" form an alliance

The weak are nothing but mindless matter on atheism. There is no deciding to form an alliance as there is no free will. Evolution and naturalism reduces to determinism.
And why would our cognitive faculties be even reliable given that they evolved from lower primates?
Alvin Plantinga has the formidable argument :
P1) The probability (P) that our cognitive capacities are reliable (R) given that naturalism (N) and evolution (E) are true is low; [P(R/N&E) = low].

P2) If one accepts Naturalism &Evolution and believes that the Probability of cognitive faculties are Reliable is low [P(R/N&E) = low], then one has a defeater for thinking our cognitive capacities are Reliable

P3) If one has a defeater for thinking our cognitive capacities are Reliable one has a defeater for any belief he has, including Naturalism&Evolution

P4) If one who accepts N&E thereby has a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-referentially incoherent

C) Therefore, N&E is self-referentially incoherent and cannot rationally be accepted

 

[SWP's back]

Revelation in Scripture and laws of Logic go hand in hand .
Without laws of logic we couldn't know what gibberish or nonsense means. Laws of logic( law of identity, law of non contradiction etc) are the foundation for thought, the written word meaning and truth. The atheist has no basis for any meaning or truth because he stands on God's eternal , uncreated laws of logic to deny Him which demonstrates contradiction and incoherence.
The Logos which is Jesus (Jeshua in Hebrew) is special revelation reflects His laws of logic and so His Word is true.
The weak are nothing but mindless matter on atheism. There is no deciding to form an alliance as there is no free will. Evolution and naturalism reduces to determinism.
And why would our cognitive faculties be even reliable given that they evolved from lower primates?
Alvin Plantinga has the formidable argument :
P1) The probability (P) that our cognitive capacities are reliable (R) given that naturalism (N) and evolution (E) are true is low; [P(R/N&E) = low].

P2) If one accepts Naturalism &Evolution and believes that the Probability of cognitive faculties are Reliable is low [P(R/N&E) = low], then one has a defeater for thinking our cognitive capacities are Reliable

P3) If one has a defeater for thinking our cognitive capacities are Reliable one has a defeater for any belief he has, including Naturalism&Evolution

P4) If one who accepts N&E thereby has a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-referentially incoherent

C) Therefore, N&E is self-referentially incoherent and cannot rationally be accepted

There’s a derby on you nutcase.

 

[journolud]

There’s a derby on you nutcase.

Where we really have been watching God’s creation

 

[SWP's back]

Where we really have been watching God’s creation

Just imagine existing in 2021 and not even understanding evolution. Absolutely fuck all excuse and shows that care in the community is a complete failure. Poor fucker.

 

[Elbow beards]

Revelation in Scripture and laws of Logic go hand in hand .
Without laws of logic we couldn't know what gibberish or nonsense means. Laws of logic( law of identity, law of non contradiction etc) are the foundation for thought, the written word meaning and truth. The atheist has no basis for any meaning or truth because he stands on God's eternal , uncreated laws of logic to deny Him which demonstrates contradiction and incoherence.
The Logos which is Jesus (Jeshua in Hebrew) is special revelation reflects His laws of logic and so His Word is true.
The weak are nothing but mindless matter on atheism. There is no deciding to form an alliance as there is no free will. Evolution and naturalism reduces to determinism.
And why would our cognitive faculties be even reliable given that they evolved from lower primates?
Alvin Plantinga has the formidable argument :
P1) The probability (P) that our cognitive capacities are reliable (R) given that naturalism (N) and evolution (E) are true is low; [P(R/N&E) = low].

P2) If one accepts Naturalism &Evolution and believes that the Probability of cognitive faculties are Reliable is low [P(R/N&E) = low], then one has a defeater for thinking our cognitive capacities are Reliable

P3) If one has a defeater for thinking our cognitive capacities are Reliable one has a defeater for any belief he has, including Naturalism&Evolution

P4) If one who accepts N&E thereby has a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-referentially incoherent

C) Therefore, N&E is self-referentially incoherent and cannot rationally be accepted

More gibberish shit and you've still not answered any of my questions.

 

[SWP's back]

More gibberish shit and you've still not answered any of my questions.

It’s amazing how he can write so many words with managing to accidentally hit on even one or two coherent sentences.

 

[Elbow beards]

It’s amazing how he can write so many words with managing to accidentally hit on even one or two coherent sentences.

He most probably doesn't understand what he wrote himself, or should I say cut and pasted from some god bothering website.

 

[JASR]

It’s amazing how he can write so many words with managing to accidentally hit on even one or two coherent sentences.

Google is really easy.
&
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V works wonders.

Edit: But because we've asked specific questions relating directly to him, it's not available on t'internet, so we will be forever awaiting a reply.

 

[JASR]

I wonder if 'paulsimpson' is this Paul Simpson:

Paul Simpson – Carryduff Baptist Church

www.carryduffbaptist.org

I'd request for Ric to change your username mate, if it is. Never a good idea to register on any social media (ie a forum) with your real name.

 

[Marklr]

And who created that god? .. and so on and so forth ....it still posits an infinite regress into the past which is impossible because it would have no beginning. How do you count down the negative numbers of infinite past moments to get to the present moment? Once one sees that, a huge realisation can occur.
So 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 the universe began to exist
Therefore 3 - the universe has a cause ( outside of itself - it cannot be the cause of itself)
Also known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument originally developed by Al Ghazali , Muslim scholar.
Shades of it in Aristotle and Aquinas . Current proponent W L Craig used in debates.