^^You need to listen to the person who was arguing for the positive in this debate who disagrees with you regarding the definition of evidence and whom admitted the difficulty of the Problem of Suffering. If the only definition of evidence is scientific empirical fact, then theism just lost. And each of my "arguments" are supported by fact or themselves fact. The argument is that the facts support the notion that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen.

Quote :

"No, I am saying that your definition of benevolent is not binding on a deity."

But it is binding on the deity upon which the resurrection of Jesus is entirely contigent.

Quote :

"So is this a summary of the debate? How was it?"

That was Craig's evidence that he presented. Essentially Kalam + Jesus. Craig was eloquent but inherently assuming that the Universe must have purpose and therefore must have had something that created it. Krauss addressed each point of evidence, but seemed rushed and slightly incoherent.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2011 9:18:39 PM

Quote :

"^ unless you can provide some kind of relevance of said unicorns to our existence, then no, not really"

I think we can all agree that life would be better if we had unicorns.

3/30/2011 9:20:20 PM

Quote :

"But it is binding on the deity upon which the resurrection of Jesus is entirely contigent."

not at all. again, YOUR DEFINITION of benevolence is not binding. In other words, just because said deity isn't a super-sweet guy as far as you are concerned doesn't mean he doesn't exist. it's a classic "no true scottsman" fallacy

Quote :

"And each of my "arguments" are supported by fact."

They most certainly may be, but that doesn't mean your arguments are fact. There are other possible and reasonable explanations that also comply with said facts. That is why the arguments are not "evidence."

Quote :

"If the only definition of evidence is scientific empirical fact, then theism just lost."

The scientific case for theism, sure. But I never claimed theism to be scientifically valid. In fact, I claimed quite the opposite.

Quote :

"I think we can all agree that life would be better if we had unicorns."

Well, yeah, but that is hardly a relevance that makes the exploration of unicorns worth it.

3/30/2011 9:25:08 PM

Quote :

"not at all. again, YOUR DEFINITION of benevolence is not binding. In other words, just because said deity isn't a super-sweet guy as far as you are concerned doesn't mean he doesn't exist."

It means he doesn't exist as supported by the Biblical tradition. Again, are you suggesting that the Bible does not suggest that the God that was Jesus was not both all-powerful and benevolent?

Quote :

"They most certainly may be, but that doesn't mean your arguments are fact. There are other possible and reasonable explanations that also comply with said facts. That is why the arguments are not "evidence.""

I and Dr. Craig disagree with you. Are any of the 5 evidences presented by Dr. Craig tonight facts in any more of the sense of the word of the evidence I presented earlier in this thread? I mean, if not, then he just wasted 2 hours of his life not presenting evidence for the existence of God.

Quote :

"The scientific case for theism, sure. But I never claimed theism to be scientifically valid. In fact, I claimed quite the opposite."

You're essentially saying there is no evidence supporting theism. On which we agree. Now I take it a step further and say that you are not justified in believing theism without evidence (and I don't have such a rigid definition of the word "evidence" as you).

Quote :

"Well, yeah, but that is hardly a relevance that makes the exploration of unicorns worth it."

Hell, unicorns are actually mentioned in the Bible. (only super-crazies think it meant a one-horned horse though)
----------------------------------------------------------------
And in all honesty the fact/evidence shenanigans is just semantics anyway. "Facts" are merely themselves arguments which are accepted as true.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 9:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2011 9:34:59 PM

Quote :

"Well, yeah, but that is hardly a relevance that makes the exploration of unicorns worth it."

Speak for yourself. You'll be sorry when I'm flying to unicorn heaven on the wings of a majestic, white steed.

3/30/2011 9:36:50 PM

Quote :

"It means he doesn't exist as supported by the Biblical tradition."

no, it doesn't. You have ascribed a certain meaning to benevolence. This meaning is NOT supported by Biblical tradition. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God prevents any any all human suffering. NOWHERE. Nowhere in the Bible does it give an explicit definition of benevolence. Again, YOUR DEFINITION of benevolence is not supported, but that definition is NOT binding on the Judeo-Christian god.

Quote :

"I and Dr. Craig disagree with you. Are any of the 5 evidences presented by Dr. Craig tonight facts in any more of the sense of the word of the evidence I presented earlier in this thread? I mean, if not, then he just wasted 2 hours of his life not presenting evidence for the existence of God."

Actually no, none of those are evidence. That's why I fully expected it to be a waste of time, as you have apparently confirmed.

Quote :

"You're essentially saying there is no evidence supporting theism."

Maybe. But I would also say there is no scientific evidence against theism. What I would say is that trying to evaluate theism based on scientific principles is a waste of time, just as it would be a waste of time to evaluate Islam based on Christian principles. There's just no point.

Quote :

"And in all honesty the fact/evidence shenanigans is just semantics anyway. "Facts" are merely themselves arguments which are accepted as true."

Not exactly. Facts are things that we accept to be true, but they are not arguments. The notion of an argument is that it is meant to persuade one way or the other. That 2+2=4 is a fact, though. There is no argument there. In Base-10 mathematics, 2+2=4. But, 2+2=4 is not evidence, in its own right. It may be evidence for why you didn't give me the proper change for a 5 when I owed 2 bux. But, on its own, its not evidence

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 9:39:20 PM

I learned tonight that Christians don't think that God is benevolent in the common sense of the term. Apparently the concept of sin is not necessary and that the evil shit that happens in the Universe is actually God's fault. Thanks aaronburro.

Quote :

"Maybe. But I would also say there is no scientific evidence against theism. What I would say is that trying to evaluate theism based on scientific principles is a waste of time, just as it would be a waste of time to evaluate Islam based on Christian principles. There's just no point."

I disagree. The existence of a god that has a discernible effect on the Universe is entirely within the realm of science. It is a scientific question for all definitions of god that are distinguishable from nothing.

Quote :

"That 2+2=4 is a fact, though. There is no argument there. In Base-10 mathematics, 2+2=4."

Except for very large values of 2, amirite? Levity aside, what you're suggesting now is that the only "facts" are logical constants which are self-evident. Outside of that, any "fact" would itself require proof to be convinced of the fact and therefore not be a "fact" by your definition of the word. See what I mean by semantics?

3/30/2011 9:54:47 PM

Quote :

"I learned tonight that Christians don't think that God is benevolent in the common sense of the term. Apparently the concept of sin is not necessary and that the evil shit that happens in the Universe is actually God's fault. Thanks aaronburro."

No, you learned that you tried to ascribe a particular, absurd definition of benevolence on a supposed deity, and that that is an incorrect thing to do, unless that specific definition was claimed by followers of said deity.

Quote :

"The existence of a god that has a discernible effect on the Universe is entirely within the realm of science."

But only if said god acts in a manner that is recognizably different than how the rest of the universe works.

Quote :

"Levity aside, what you're suggesting now is that the only "facts" are logical constants which are self-evident."

No, I simply gave you an example of one fact. There are plenty of other facts that might not be self-evident or logical constants. Yes, facts have an assumption of truth, but that doesn't make them arguments, which is what my disagreement was. For instance, bank records could be considered to be "facts." Absent any reason to question the veracity of said bank records, we call them "facts." And when said facts are linked with some claim, they become "evidence." We then create an argument for what the evidence regarding the bank-records mean. However, before you make that next leap, not all arguments are based on evidence. I'm sure you can agree with that.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 10:00:30 PM

Quote :

"No, you learned that you tried to ascribe a particular, absurd definition of benevolence on a supposed deity, and that that is an incorrect thing to do, unless that specific definition was claimed by followers of said deity."

I believe that you are misrepresenting Christianity as practiced by the majority of Christians. Dr. Craig admitted during the Q&A that the Christian God was eternal in a "qualitative sense" in that he is "omnipotent, all powerful, utterly benevolent" and that the Problem of Evil/Suffering was strong evidence against the notion of such a god. This is consistent with mainstream Christian understanding and I trust his opinion as an expert in the field of Christian theology.

Quote :

"But only if said god acts in a manner that is recognizably different than how the rest of the universe works."

Which is why I immediately followed that statement with "It is a scientific question for all definitions of god that are distinguishable from nothing.

I agree that not all arguments are based on evidence by your rigid terminology of the word. I still disagree with your definition of fact. In the example of bank records, the assumption of their accuracy (truth) means something very different if you're a client checking your balance than if the bank is being audited by the SEC.

The assumption of truth does in fact make it an argument unless the truth is self-evident.

3/30/2011 10:21:21 PM

Quote :

"Dr. Craig admitted during the Q&A that the Christian God was eternal in a "qualitative sense" in that he is "omnipotent, all powerful, utterly benevolent" and that the Problem of Evil/Suffering was strong evidence against the notion of such a god. This is consistent with mainstream Christian understanding and I trust his opinion as an expert in the field of Christian theology."

Only one problem. Again, nowhere in the Bible is this mentioned. The problem of evil is troubling, for sure, but it is only relevant if there was ever an authoritative Biblical/Christian claim that evil should not exist. On the contrary, the Bible explicitly says evil exists, which seems to counter any claim that it should not under the Biblical definition of benevolence (a definition, which, of course, does not exist). Again, you are taking your definition and expectation of benevolence and then demanding that such a deity follow it in order for said deity to exist, which is pure nonsense.

Quote :

"In the example of bank records, the assumption of their accuracy (truth) means something very different if you're a client checking your balance than if the bank is being audited by the SEC."

Absolutely. Which is why a frame of reference is necessary. Thus why I earlier put a reference for "fact." In an audit, the veracity of the records is being explicitly questioned. Thus, their truthfulness is not a fact. Yet, the records, themselves, are still a fact, of sorts. They most certainly exist, and in that respect, are a "fact", but that their contents are true is not a "fact" yet. Of course, the customer does not usually have a reason to question the records, so, to him, the records are a different kind of fact than they are to the SEC auditors.

Quote :

"The assumption of truth does in fact make it an argument unless the truth is self-evident."

And when the truth (fact) is self-evident, it becomes compelling evidence for the claim, which makes an argument not necessary. But, I'm not sure that a fact, given an assumption of truth, is an argument. Again, an argument involves a claim, facts don't.

3/30/2011 10:39:47 PM

I think we're at an impasse regarding the definition and usage of the words fact/evidence/truth/argument so let's just leave it there for now.

Quote :

"Only one problem. Again, nowhere in the Bible is this mentioned. The problem of evil is troubling, for sure, but it is only relevant if there was ever an authoritative Biblical/Christian claim that evil should not exist. On the contrary, the Bible explicitly says evil exists, which seems to counter any claim that it should not under the Biblical definition of benevolence (a definition, which, of course, does not exist). Again, you are taking your definition and expectation of benevolence and then demanding that such a deity follow it in order for said deity to exist, which is pure nonsense."

You're still misrepresenting Christianity. The concept of sin "explains" evil in the world in mainstream (as supported by Dr. William Lane Craig). And plenty of passages (John 3:16 comes to mind) describe God's love and support for the world. Most Christians believe God to be benevolent in the sense of the word that I'm using it.

I am not demanding such a deity follow anything. I am stating that the accuracy of Jesus' resurrection is predicated on an existence of a deity which is qualified as being both benevolent and omnipotent as defined by Christian theology supported by the Bible.

Take it up with the Christians if you think this isn't what they believe, but it's probably one of the more consistent messages Christians tell the world. It's kind of the point of Jesus, after all.

3/30/2011 10:53:39 PM

Watching the debate now. Surprise! I actually pre-quoted what Craig would say (and put on his slide) on the first page.

There's only one other person I've seen with such a hard on for nonsensical three part deductive proofs and that's Jared Loughner.

Also, I can't help but think Krauss is looking like the Joker.

[Edited on March 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM. Reason : asdfasdf]

3/31/2011 8:29:26 AM

lol yeah.

I'm not sure how effective Krauss' "look how crazy quantum mechanics is" tactics were.

3/31/2011 8:54:48 AM

nope, you were right about him being slightly incoherent. he's not at all a professional debater as he clearly mentioned.

often during these talks, I will hear someone give half an anecdote or half of a quote or half of a joke and I'll know EXACTLY what they mean (because I've heard it before), but I keep thinking the audience is going to be clueless.

3/31/2011 9:32:56 AM

And I was a little annoyed by all the allusion that the crowd was the jury and that this was a court case. Though probably should be expected from a moderator who is a judge.

3/31/2011 10:20:13 AM

Quote :

"I've yet to hear a particularly good reason for why they should doubt their own eyes."

As anyone who took 100-level psychology could tell you, there are a great number of reasons people should at times doubt their own eyes, especially if what they've seen defies the basic laws of nature.

Evolution has been known to do weirder things than equip squirrels with tusks, but I would still be hesitant to accept what I saw if I were to witness such a thing, at least until I could find some further verification. Lacking such verification, my next assumption would be that I either hallucinated it or that I simply misinterpreted what I saw. A more likely explanation, for example, would be that a stray beam of light happened to hit the squirrel's cheek, and that my brain simply filled in the blank (as it is known to do) with some other familiar object, such as a tusk.

That being said, while I would not agree that God and tusked squirrels are equally likely to exist (for reasons mentioned above, I find the latter to be much more plausible), if your point is to say that God is basically on the same level as reports of mythical horned forest creatures, I would at least be pleased that we are converging on a kind of consensus.

[Edited on March 31, 2011 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ]

3/31/2011 10:40:33 AM

i watched it

i am now thoroughly convinced that not only is there a God, but He's obviously the Christian one

also i liked that the other guy wrote a book about Star Trek

3/31/2011 11:23:42 AM

Quote :

"Most Christians believe God to be benevolent in the sense of the word that I'm using it."

and any Christian who thinks the Bible says that God doesn't allow anything bad to happen to anyone simply isn't reading the Bible. As the Bible says such a thing nowhere. In fact, it even says something quite the opposite. One word: Job.

Quote :

"I am not demanding such a deity follow anything. I am stating that the accuracy of Jesus' resurrection is predicated on an existence of a deity which is qualified as being both benevolent and omnipotent as defined by Christian theology supported by the Bible."

No, you are building a strawman. As nowhere does the Bible say that benevolence == no evil anywhere and no human suffering. We have plenty of examples of people who love someone and still cause them "harm." Take, for instance, parents. Do they not punish their children at times? Do they not also let their children fuck up sometimes and get hurt? How does this coincide with a parent who "loves" his child? While I'm certainly not suggesting that all of human suffering is some kind of punishment, or that it is the fault of the sufferer. Rather, I am showing that "allowing" suffering is possible by a being that loves. This isn't a stretch. That God is loving is most certainly in the Bible. That He is a Superman who runs to the aid of all to prevent any pain and suffering most certainly is not.

4/3/2011 1:43:59 AM

Quote :

"I'm certainly not suggesting that all of human suffering is some kind of punishment, or that it is the fault of the sufferer"

so what do you make of the human suffering that isn't the fault of the sufferer?

The way I understood it (Catholic teaching). Jesus died because god was an all loving god who wanted to save us from the original sin that he gave us. So he killed himself and then was resurrected so that he could be with himself in heaven. And at some point in the future he is going to come back down and judge everyone (living and dead) and the world will end. I never fully understood how literally I was supposed to take this though.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2011 11:52:32 PM

Quote :

"As nowhere does the Bible say that benevolence == no evil anywhere and no human suffering."

It really doesn't matter what the Bible says in this case, it just matters what our definition of benevolence is. If God was all powerful and all loving, then he would not have created humans in such a way that they were destined to sin. He could have made it so there was no Hell, and so that all humans were inherently good and perfect. He didn't, though - he intentionally made flawed beings and put them into a flawed world, and he intentionally created a place where human souls will be punished eternally for their actions in life.

Basically, it's stupid to say that God is good or loving. If he is the creator, then he really fucked up, and is not worthy of being called God at all.

4/5/2011 12:14:39 PM

Quote :

"so what do you make of the human suffering that isn't the fault of the sufferer?"

I make that suffering sux, and that God never promised there would be no suffering.

Quote :

"If God was all powerful and all loving, then he would not have created humans in such a way that they were destined to sin."

Or he decided to give people free will, which some might say is a nice thing to have...

Quote :

"He could have made it so there was no Hell, and so that all humans were inherently good and perfect. He didn't, though - he intentionally made flawed beings and put them into a flawed world, and he intentionally created a place where human souls will be punished eternally for their actions in life."

This is most certainly a valid question, and it's a nice argument. But it doesn't preclude such a deity's existence. And, you finally get down to what I love to hear: "he's not worthy of being called God at all." You, the creation, demanding that God do what you want Him to do. Thank you for proving my point

4/5/2011 4:12:48 PM

Yes, I guess it's a little too much to ask that a benevolent God not be evil. As the Bible describes Him, He's a vicious, malevolent God, and undoubtedly more evil than even Satan, as Satan is simply another one of His creations.

4/5/2011 4:18:39 PM

yes, giving things life makes one evil. not doing what you think he should do, given your lack of understanding of everything, makes him evil

4/5/2011 4:19:53 PM

No, sentencing people to Hell, where they'll be tortured for all eternity, as punishment for not following the right man-made holy book (in an environment where there's absolutely no way to separate truth from fiction) is what makes him evil.

This mess where you defer to God's judgment as the final say is a great cop out, and it effectively diffuses any argument I could possibly make in regards to anything. It doesn't get us anywhere, though. Whatever you need to tell yourself, I suppose. Just remember: you can easily point out the flaws of every other religion on the planet. What makes yours so special?

4/5/2011 4:25:32 PM

Quote :

"No, sentencing people to Hell, where they'll be tortured for all eternity, as punishment for not following the right man-made holy book (in an environment where there's absolutely no way to separate truth from fiction) is what makes him evil."

Now we are getting into theological basis, and not actual evidence or fact. Either way, this sounds like a disagreement between what you would like and how it may actually be. Again, not a conflict of evidence here.

Quote :

"This mess where you defer to God's judgment as the final say is a great cop out"

No, I'm not really trying to do that. Rather, I'm trying to point out the folly of saying "God doesn't do what I think He should do, therefor that is evidence that he doesn't exist."

Quote :

"It really doesn't matter what the Bible says in this case, it just matters what our definition of benevolence is"

Actually, it most certainly does matter. The Bible, being allegedly divinely inspired, would be an authoritative source, and one that we would use as the basis of our claims. If a deity truly spoke to humanity through the Bible, it would stand to reason that a definition of benevolence given in it should apply to said deity, as surely said deity was giving the definition to help define himself. Our own thoughts and definitions, however are not authoritative, nor should they be considered binding as a result. You take the Bible's claim of Jesus' death and resurrection as being authoritative for the claim, and then require non-authoritative sources also fit the claim. How is that logical?

Quote :

"Just remember: you can easily point out the flaws of every other religion on the planet. What makes yours so special?"

Right now I'm not trying to say that Christianity is special. I'm just pointing out that there is no real compelling evidence against it, and you are rightfully pointing out that there is no compelling evidence for it.

4/5/2011 4:32:09 PM

Quote :

"Rather, I'm trying to point out the folly of saying "God doesn't do what I think He should do, therefor that is evidence that he doesn't exist.""

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that if God exists as the bible purports, then he sucks, and I could do a better job wielding such power.

That says nothing about the existence of a god. To say something exists, we've got to have some evidence. It must manifest somehow in the physical world. There are many things that could exist, but until those things can be observed, we're not in a position to make any claims about them. The bible makes unverifiable claims, and should be discarded as proof of the existence of God or an accurate description of God as it actually exists.

4/5/2011 4:39:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that if God exists as the bible purports, then he sucks, and I could do a better job wielding such power. "

That's fine. But that's not evidence against such a deity's existence.

Quote :

"The bible makes unverifiable claims, and should be discarded as proof of the existence of God or an accurate description of God as it actually exists."

True, but when the claim is "The God of the Bible exists," then it only stands to reason that one consider the Bible as a source when evaluating the claim.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : not]

4/5/2011 4:52:44 PM

Quote :

"when the claim is "The God of the Bible exists," then it only stands to reason that one consider the Bible as a source when evaluating the claim."

Sure it should be considered as it is the main text of Christianity. It is not however a basis for proof of God. If we are debating whether the "God of the Bible" exists then we can't assume the bible was inspired because that would require the God which we are debating.

Quote :

"I'm not trying to say that Christianity is special. I'm just pointing out that there is no real compelling evidence against it"

There are many holes that can be poked in Christianity, depending on which beliefs you hold.

(1) Incompatibility between an "All powerful" and an "All loving" God given the current world.
(2) Claim that the bible was divinely inspired in light of similarities to previous mythology.
(3) Conflict between literal interpretation of the bible and scientific observation of the world.
(4) Conflict between morality described in the bible with morality today (gays, women, etc)

The fact that Christianity has so many sects and people have to keep adjusting their beliefs to keep Christianity relevant should show that it was not divinely inspired. Or you should be able to observe how these sects are created and see how the original Christian sect could have been started.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM. Reason : typo]

4/5/2011 7:30:03 PM

Quote :

"It is not however a basis for proof of God."

of course. But when trying to nail down "what should be the basis of a claim of what God is," it doesn't get more authoritative than the Bible which claims to be his word.

Quote :

"There are many holes that can be poked in Christianity, depending on which beliefs you hold. "

no, not really.

Quote :

"(1) Incompatibility between an "All powerful" and an "All loving" God given the current world. argument, nothing more. i mean really, we've been discussing this very thing here. All of that shit boils down to definitions that people want to ascribe to "all loving", which is preposterous (2) Claim that the bible was divinely inspired in light of similarities to previous mythology. not really. again, just an argument (3) Conflict between literal interpretation of the bible and scientific observation of the world. the Bible never claimed to be a scientific text. (4) Conflict between morality described in the bible with morality today (gays, women, etc) really? you are saying that a religious text should always blend perfectly with whatever common morals exist? really? get the fuck out of here "

Quote :

"The fact that Christianity has so many sects and people have to keep adjusting their beliefs to keep Christianity relevant should show that it was not divinely inspired."

again, no.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 7:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2011 7:48:41 PM

Quote :

"no, not really."

Quote :

"again, no."

Your arguments are compelling


Clearly (1) doesn't apply to you because you don't believe in an "all loving" god. Thats what I meant when I said "depending on which beliefs you hold."

(2) is a pretty strong argument so you've ignored it

Quote :

"the Bible never claimed to be a scientific text."

Depends on if you take it literally or not. I guess you do not.

Quote :

"get the fuck out of here"

I'm saying the morality of the bible doesn't jive with morality today as taught by modern religion. Or at the very least, there are contradictions between the god of the old and new testament.

Quote :

"not really. again, just an argument"

of course it is an argument, we are having a debate

Quote :

"you should be able to observe how these sects are created and see how the original Christian sect could have been started."

you ignored this the first time, so I re-posted it

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ...]

4/5/2011 9:17:26 PM

Quote :

"Clearly (1) doesn't apply to you because you don't believe in an "all loving" god. Thats what I meant when I said "depending on which beliefs you hold." "

No, I'm not rehashing it, because it's already been fucking discussed in this very thread. How about you actually read what has been posted before coming in and starting at the very beginning of the discussion?

Quote :

"(2) is a pretty strong argument so you've ignored it"

It's not strong at all. Does the Bible say that Christianity is 100% unlike any religion that came before it? No? Well then, you've got no claim. No, this bullshit "evidence" is based upon an assumption that something that is like something else must be fake. Sorry, but that simply isn't good enough to be considered "evidence."

Quote :

"Depends on if you take it literally or not. I guess you do not. "

No, it doesn't. The Bible LITERALLY does not say it is a science textbook.

Quote :

"I'm saying the morality of the bible doesn't jive with morality today as taught by modern religion."

And the relevance would be... that's right. there isn't any relevance. Again, you are saying that something must be the way you want it (like modern religions) in order for it to have a chance at being valid. Don't be so arrogant.

Quote :

"Or at the very least, there are contradictions between the god of the old and new testament. "

No, not really. Try again. The whole point of the New Testament is that the death and resurrection of Jesus changed everything. Thus, it should only be expected that some of the things said should be different. And then, there's the whole matter of this "beef" contradicting your earlier desire for the morals of the Bible to reflect modern morals. Well, guess what, the NT reflects some of the theology of the time, which had changed from the time of some of the OT books. So, which is it? Should it reflect modern thought or not?

Quote :

"of course it is an argument, we are having a debate"

Right. It's an argument. It's not "evidence." It's not "poking holes in Christianity." Poking holes would be "the Bible says cows eat monkeys, but cows don't actually monkeys."

Quote :

"you ignored this the first time, so I re-posted it"

I ignored it because it made no sense. How is that a "hole?" What the fuck does it even mean? Besides, I addressed the previous sentence by pointing out its absurdity, which seemed to be somewhat related to that random effluence of a thought.

But, how bout this, to your absurd notion that different sects mean falsehood. We can't even get a roomful of people to agree to what to put on a fucking pizza. And you think we will get some kind of agreement on the meaning and interpretation of a religious text? REALLY? I'd say it's more of a reflection of humanity than Christianity. Besides, the different sects don't differ too much on the core message, namely that Jesus died on the cross and saved people from their sins in the process. Yeah, different sects my ass

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2011 10:50:37 PM

Quote :

"cows don't actually [eat] monkeys"

that's just an argument, I have a book here that says that cows eat monkeys - stop being arrogant

Quote :

"I ignored it because it made no sense. How is that a "hole?" What the fuck does it even mean?"

technically it wasn't in my numbered list of 'holes.' I just wanted you to consider how people come up with random stuff like seventh day adventism after being hit in the head with a rock and have people believe them. So I was providing a plausible explanation for Christianity that didn't involve divine inspiration. It's impossible to 'disprove' God, I'm just trying to show that it isn't the most likely scenario and that there is no reason to separate it from other kinds of superstition.

Quote :

"Does the Bible say that Christianity is 100% unlike any religion that came before it?"

It has lots of stories about Jesus doing miracles and stuff. And those stories are the same as myths about the old gods that did miracles. So maybe Jesus didn't actually do miracles... stuff like that

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 5:35 AM. Reason : .]

4/6/2011 5:19:33 AM

Quote :

"(3) Conflict between literal interpretation of the bible and scientific observation of the world. the Bible never claimed to be a scientific text."

The bible makes claims about reality. Those claims are demonstrably false. The bible also claims to be the word of God. Assuming that God exists and the bible is his word,that leaves one of two possibilities:
1) God is deceptive.
2) God just so happens to have the same level of understanding of his own creation as that of bronze age peasants.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know which of these you're trying to argue here.

Your response that the bible is not a "scientific text" is utter bullshit. Science is a tool used by humans to determine truth about reality. God could have easily handed these same truths or, even more easily, avoided handing us falsehoods without using science; I thought, after all, he was all-knowing. This doesn't have anything to do with the bible not being a scientific text. It has to do with it not being a book about reality.

4/6/2011 7:47:12 AM

Quote :

"The whole point of the New Testament is that the death and resurrection of Jesus changed everything. Thus, it should only be expected that some of the things said should be different."

Quote :

"NT reflects some of the theology of the time, which had changed from the time of some of the OT books"

I need to figure out where the goalposts are here. Is the bible the perfect inspired word of God or the work of normal people writing about the religion of their time?

4/6/2011 8:16:45 AM

Craig vs. Harris 4/7/11 7pm

http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/breaking-news-craig-v-harris-debate-live-streaming-link

Out of the "four horsemen" of the new atheists, only Hitchens has debated Craig to my knowledge. And he was kind of incoherent himself. Dawkins refuses to debate a professional debater. Dennett hasn't, but he's a terrible debater and not very aggressive anyway.

Looks like Harris is stepping up to the plate.

4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM

Quote :

"that's just an argument, I have a book here that says that cows eat monkeys - stop being arrogant"

hahaha. So you admit you don't have actual compelling evidence. You need to learn the difference between an argument and compelling evidence.

Quote :

"It has lots of stories about Jesus doing miracles and stuff. And those stories are the same as myths about the old gods that did miracles. So maybe Jesus didn't actually do miracles... stuff like that"

Again, an argument, but not compelling evidence. Thus, it's not a "poked hole".

Quote :

"In all seriousness, I'd like to know which of these you're trying to argue here."

Nice false dilemma. Good work!

Quote :

"God could have easily handed these same truths or, even more easily, avoided handing us falsehoods without using science"

He could have. But expecting Bronze-age people to comprehend DNA and billions of years is a bit absurd. They could barely comprehend 70 time 70, for crying out loud.

Quote :

"Your response that the bible is not a "scientific text" is utter bullshit."

Not at all. Expecting the Bible to do something it was never intended to do is what is utter bullshit. Then using that man of straw as evidence against it is the height of stupidity.

Quote :

"I need to figure out where the goalposts are here. Is the bible the perfect inspired word of God or the work of normal people writing about the religion of their time?"

You tell me. You are the one demanding that a religion's morals fit with the times. Sounds kind of silly, if you ask me.

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2011 6:03:48 PM

Quote :

"Nice false dilemma. Good work!"

And yet you fail to offer any alternatives. Because I knew you were going to dodge the question, I directly asked you to give your explanation and you still refused.

Quote :

"He could have. But expecting Bronze-age people to comprehend DNA and billions of years is a bit absurd. They could barely comprehend 70 time 70, for crying out loud."

You know how many modern humans learn about DNA and the age of the Earth? They read BOOKS. If only God could communicate through books.... oh, wait. Nevermind the fact that you again completely skipped over the fact that the bible says things about reality which are demonstrably false. So I'd like to know which is it. Is God a liar, a moron, or do you have another explanation?

By the way, if your explanation is that he lied to people because they couldn't understand the truth, then that IS a deception. It really doesn't matter whether or not they would have understood it.

Quote :

"Not at all. Expecting the Bible to do something it was never intended to do is what is utter bullshit. Then using that man of straw as evidence against it is the height of stupidity."

The bible wasn't intended to tell us truths about reality? Well, that's an interesting take. A cursory glance at the first two sentences seems to suggest otherwise.

oh another thing, watching your religious defense mechanisms in action is fascinating stuff

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 7:00 PM. Reason : asfd]

4/6/2011 6:51:12 PM

Quote :

"And yet you fail to offer any alternatives. Because I knew you were going to dodge the question, I directly asked you to give your explanation and you refused."

I'm arguing neither. Happy?

Quote :

"So I'd like to know which is it. Is God a liar, a moron, or do you have another explanation?"

I've already given you the explanation. Keep trying.

Quote :

"By the way, if your explanation is that he lied to people because they couldn't understand the truth IS a deception. It really doesn't matter whether or not they would have understood it."

Is it really a lie to speak to people in terms they understand? No, not really.

Quote :

"The bible wasn't intended to tell us truths about reality?"

It wasn't intended to tell us scientific truths about reality, no.

Quote :

"oh another thing, watching your religious defense mechanisms in action is fascinating stuff"

Actually, I'm not "defending" anything. I'm explaining why people's "evidence" isn't evidence at all. It is only evidence in that they've built up a perfect punching bag and then relish in their success at beating it up

4/6/2011 7:02:59 PM

Quote :

"Is it really a lie to speak to people in terms they understand?"

Yes. Maybe you think that's morally acceptable. I really don't care; it's still a lie.

Anyway, I don't see how our brains have changed in 2000 years that allows us to grasp new concepts. The bible demands that we comprehend eternity and you think God (who is all powerful) couldn't have figured out how to explain to humans billions of years (in book form or otherwise) even though he knew we would eventually read about the same ideas through books a few years later.

Quote :

"It wasn't intended to tell us scientific truths about reality, no."

I can interpret this in two ways.

1) You've ignored what I said about science being a tool humans use to discover truth. "Scientific" describes how some knowledge is acquired. I have no idea what the hell that has to do with knowledge God could potentially have. Or....
2) By scientific, you mean natural or physical truths (e.g. the age of the earth). And I can't even begin to have a conversation with you about the bible if you haven't cracked open Genesis...

Quote :

"Actually, I'm not "defending" anything."

You're defending a delusion in your own mind. Refusing to answer questions, ignoring arguments, diverting attention, equivocating, etc. You seem to be quite skilled at it.

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

4/6/2011 7:21:45 PM

i am only addressing the claim of "I have evidence against this". In almost every case, the "evidence" either involves a straw man of a religion or it is little more than a thought argument. I'm sorry that you want me to come in here and defend Christianity. That's not my goal, nor will I try to do so.

Quote :

"Yes. Maybe you think that's morally acceptable. I really don't care; it's still a lie."

That's fine. You want a being to come in and talk over someone's heads. I think it's absurd to do so. You think it's a great idea. You want to teach astrophysics to a third-grader. knock yourself out.

Quote :

"I can interpret this in two ways."

Oh look. another false dilemma! You are really good at those. You should take it as follows: the Bible is not a science textbook. Nor did it ever claim to be. Happy? Moreover, you seem hellbent on showing that X in the Bible might be wrong, therefor the entire Bible is wrong. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I know you want it to, because it makes your worldview happy, but that's not how it works. It only works in claim, and that is that Bible is 100% right about everything. I'm not making that claim.

4/6/2011 7:32:53 PM

I'd demand a tuition refund. Maybe the Creationist museum could get a building on campus.

4/6/2011 7:35:16 PM

Quote :

"Moreover, you seem hellbent on showing that X in the Bible might be wrong, therefor the entire Bible is wrong."

Nope, I'm specifically responding to your claim that the bible is not intended as a "scientific text." This is a nonsensical claim and I'm trying my best to understand it. It's kind of hard to understand it when I offer what I see as possible intended meanings and then you go LULZ FALSE DILEMMA.

4/6/2011 7:39:25 PM

Quote :

"You want to teach astrophysics to a third-grader. knock yourself out."

You don't have to teach the theory of astrophysics to explain its findings. The world would be explained the same way third-graders learn about it today. The sun is over there, we are on a big ball like this and we are spinning around the sun. Stars are like our sun except they are REALLY far away. None of this involves lying to them because they can't comprehend astrophysics.

Quote :

"false dilemma, false dilemma !!!"

http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/introducingphilosophy/16-a-guide-to-logical-fallacies-r33
"To expose the question as a false dilemma, all we need do is show that an alternative response exits."

please explain your alternatives

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2011 10:56:01 PM

Quote :

"It's kind of hard to understand it when I offer what I see as possible intended meanings and then you go LULZ FALSE DILEMMA."

It's one thing to offer possible meanings. It's another to say "it's either this or this." Which you have done on at least 2 occasions. That is the definition of a false dilemma. Need me to quote you on that?

Quote :

"I can interpret this in two ways."

Quote :

"that leaves one of two possibilities"

Quote :

"You don't have to teach the theory of astrophysics to explain its findings."

OK, now explain molecular biology to them, without a microscope. Teach them String Theory while you are at it.

4/7/2011 11:27:08 AM

Quote :

"Need me to quote you on that? Quote: "I can interpret this in two ways.""

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm trying to pin down what you mean and I'm offering the only possible solutions I can see.

Am I required to list all the possible ways you could be shitting the bed here before you'll respond?

You can step in with what you actually think at any time. The fact that you don't is a clue. Look, here's another opportunity for you to refuse to clarify what you mean by "scientific."

Quote :

"Teach them String Theory while you are at it."

God has the option of either lying to his subjects or teaching them little understood theoretical physics? Talk about a false dilemma.

Also, I like your comparison of bronze age humans to third graders. Brilliant.

4/7/2011 12:42:46 PM

Quote :

"OK, now explain molecular biology to them, without a microscope. Teach them String Theory while you are at it."

So do you accept that it would have been possible to explain the universe as it is instead of as some people thought it was back then?

You could explain germs to them without a microscope and have them take it on faith, then when they invent microscopes it would actually become a testable hypothesis. Or you could teach them how to make a microscope. Or you could compare germs to mold and show how it grows on bread.

String theory is pretty advanced and as far as I know untested, so we don't know if it's even correct. Again though, you wouldn't need to explain all the theory for why things behave as they do in order to tell people how the universe actually is without lying to them.

Quote :

" me: (2) Claim that the bible was divinely inspired in light of similarities to previous mythology. you: not really. again, just an argument me: of course it is an argument, we are having a debate you: Right. It's an argument. It's not "evidence." It's not "poking holes in Christianity." Poking holes would be "the Bible says cows eat monkeys, but cows don't actually monkeys." me: that's just an argument, I have a book here that says that cows eat monkeys - stop being arrogant you: hahaha. So you admit you don't have actual compelling evidence. You need to learn the difference between an argument and compelling evidence."

does not compute... please explain

i was attempting to show through sarcasm that your distinction between an 'argument' and 'evidence' is silly


[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 1:17:00 PM

What I don't understand is how Craig can claim that Jesus' resurrection is an indisputable, totally accepted, by all scholars and biblical studiers, fact.

Then, based on that assertion that all of the bible is God's work and fact.

4/7/2011 9:22:27 PM

this site has the audio from the Craig - Harris debate, haven't found any video yet
http://pqexchange.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/the-god-debate-ii-is-good-from-god-live-stream/

4/7/2011 11:08:12 PM

good to see craig pwnt hard

^direct link: Craig vs Harris (last night):
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/debate-craig-harris.mp3

Craig vs Ehrman (Ehrman is actually a historian, woops)
http://youtu.be/AjOSNj97_gk

We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.

[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 9:29 AM. Reason : hahahah]

4/8/2011 9:14:29 AM

Quote :

"Am I required to list all the possible ways you could be shitting the bed here before you'll respond?"

Nope. just don't pigeonhole it into 1 of 2 things.

Quote :

"God has the option of either lying to his subjects or teaching them little understood theoretical physics? Talk about a false dilemma."

Or, he can give them a little info about shit that he feels is not as important to get across and then move along to the shit he feels is important. I mean really. a couple paragraphs about creation... shit tons of the rest about other stuff. And you expect those couple paragraphs to be 100% perfectly accurate, when they weren't even of interest in the first place?

Quote :

"Also, I like your comparison of bronze age humans to third graders. Brilliant."

Ever heard of analogy?

Quote :

"does not compute... please explain"

compelling evidence requires no arguing. It stands on its own. Your sarcasm showed that you could not offer actual compelling evidence. That you claimed to have a book that says otherwise would be irrelevant, as actual observation shows that cows do not eat monkeys. Thus, the compelling evidence. Of which you have none.

Quote :

"What I don't understand is how Craig can claim that Jesus' resurrection is an indisputable, totally accepted, by all scholars and biblical studiers, fact."

Yeah, if were saying that, and I have no desire to see if he is, then he's full of shit

4/8/2011 8:50:19 PM