rareblackatheist
New Member
This has been on going for a few weeks now. Here is his most recent message to me. I can refute his assertions i just know that there maybe be somethings that i didn't think about and don't know. Any help would be appreciated. Also if this needs to be moved to another forum please do that, it's science, mixed with Christian all in one. My comments will be in quotations. I'm halfway through my reply back to him but i wanted to hear others opinions before i move forward.
Your previous comments are double quotedand my new ones are not quoted.
Concerning New Testament scholars and Jesus, read this.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus
"Regarding Matthew 27:52 , the resurrection of Jesus, and any other miracles it is probably safe to assume that even if I continued to explicate on their historical accuracy you would dismiss their veracity by default."
That logic is circular and your own thinking allows for the possibility of miracles. Miracles are only impossible by definition if atheism is true. Since you cannot demonstrated that atheism is true then I have no reason to deny the possibility of miracles. Also, you think that God's existence is possible which would make miracles possible from your perspective. His possible creation of the universe would be a miracle. So if you think miracles are tantamount to magic then you think magic is possible.
"In light of the scientific evidence that the universe had a genesis"
I never said it did. The fact it that it doesn't prove that Christianity is true by itself. This just proves there was a supernatural cause. That's why I provided other reasons since cumulatively they do verify Christianity.
Yea I like Lee Strobel as well, I'm glad you find it funny. It's too bad you found Tyson's argument convincing. He didn't even understand what the fine-tuning argument was and thus attacked a straw man. The argument from fine-tuning just tries to show that there is a supreme designer based on the amazing constants we find in the universe not what characteristics this designer posses. Thus natural tragedies do not undermine the argument. I thought it was comical when he described the universe as being mostly hostile towards humans thus no designer "had us in mind". Can I also conclude that no designer of power plants had plant workers in mind since much of it is hazardous to human health? Should I ignore the amazing and complex structure of all power plants? Should I also disallow the possibility that the designer placed in safeguards to protect the plant workers? Read this to see what the fine-tuning argument is actually about: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
"and biological processes (look at the brain, DNA, immune system")
Nope, it's an argument from knowledge. See above and below.
You didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was not making the claim that there are not enough naturalistic explanations like for example the evaporation of water. There are obviously physiological explanations for how the physical world operates. Rather I was saying that in light of the scientist evidence that nature itself had a beginning, it would be logically impossible to provide a naturalistic explanation for nature's nascence. That is what is meant by nature cannot account for nature. So its cause must be beyond nature (super natural). Also the "God of the gaps" is a straw man. Neither I nor the majority of Christians believe that God exist because of natural phenomena that can't be explained. Rather it is the knowledge of physical reality that helps demonstrate God's existence. For example it would be logically fallacious for someone to say that no one designed the watch they found in their backyard just because he/she has an impressive understanding for how the watch operates. The knowledge for how the watch works is not a defeater for the existence of a designer but rather a demonstration that there is one. This principle applies to physical reality as well which is almost infinitely more complex than a single watch.
Read this: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
(by nature I mean all of physical reality)
" the objectivity of moral values and duties, the person of Jesus, and the possibility that you can know God personally if you seek Him all point to a supernatural source."
This cop out does not work. If morality is objective and binding then it demonstrates that God exist; many atheistic philosophers agree with this. Is it true that morality is just person relative, just the result of evolutionary processes and society? Or is it true that love is morally superior to hate, that John Wayne Gacy was evil, that the Nazi's committed moral atrocities, or that the Spanish Inquisition was wrong? If these claims are true then it shows that God must exist since he is by definition the ultimate standard of good by which other things are deemed morally good or evil. Good and evil cannot exist if there is no supreme good that differentiates between the two. The person of Jesus is a historical person that presents a powerful case against atheism and for Christianity so it is not worthless to an atheist. Especially not for a weak atheist. You have to show why historical arguments for Christ are historically unwarranted. You can know God personally if you seek Him. This may be worthless to you if you refuse to do so but if you haven't truly sought after God then how do you know it's worthless?
"There is no "God lotto" if one open-mindedly and rationally seeks after the truth. "
If this is the case you're playing the same game or at least an analogous one. You picked an idea of God based on various factors and have faith that you are right. You said below that if God exists then he would not resemble any God or gods of the world religions. Can you objectively determine that this is the only possible God? No but you have faith that it is true. Similarly if you abandoned this and say there is no God that too is an article of faith that cannot be objectively determined according to your statement.
My position is that anyone who is open-minded about the truth and truly seeking it will find God eventually, maybe not right away but eventually. Objective truth can be known but sometime it just has to be discovered. There are ways to find the truth but you have to look. It seems to me that Christianity has the most solid claim to truth.
"My mention of the book of Romans was in no way circular since I was not using it to help make the argument that God exists. It seems clear that I was responding to your claim that the Bible encourages people to believe in God's existence solely based on faith which the book of Romans demonstrates is not the case. It was just to demonstrate that the Bible, contrary to what you purported, supports the idea that God's existence is axiomatic. This doesn't mean everyone will claim that God's existence is a known fact. It says that many people will "suppress the truth in their hearts" when it comes to God."
No I'm not. You still don't understand the argument here. You attributed comments to me that I did not say. I did not even say that God's existence is self evident rather I just told you that the Bible says so because your claim that it tells you to believe in His existence on faith alone was wrong. It tells you that it is obvious not that it is up to faith. You can disagree with the statement itself but not the fact the statement was made. I also didn't label anyone anything; I just told you what the Bible says addressing people who don't believe. Even so the YouTube testimony of the missionary did nothing to undermine the Biblical claim that people suppress the truth in their hearts. The video did not say that the tribe had no concept of God but rather they had no word that directly translated to "God". They understood what was meant by God when He was described as "high up father". Even if they claimed to not understand any description of God that would still not undermined the claim that people suppress the truth in their hearts concerning God. You cannot refute or support this claim by testimonials since people could be lying or unaware of their self deception. This claim has credence if Christianity is true since that would imply that God completely understands the hearts of people. Concerning the missionary, at best he was an ill-informed Christian with a very shallow and misguided understanding of Christianity. On Christianity the purpose of life is not about happiness but about knowing and loving God since He is totally supreme and first loved us. The fact that the people of this tribe appeared happy to him without living for God is irrelevant to truth of Christianity. A person who lives for the thrill of having sex with various partners and drinking alcohol can seem happy even though he/she does not live for God.
You just undermined yourself here. You are an 100 percent certain the Christian God does not exist but at the same time this is just your hope? Since you say it is just your hope you are obviously not 100 percent certain He does not exist. Also to say that "Anything that could ever resemble a god would not be anything like what's described in any of the world's religions," is just a statement of faith. A statement of faith that cannot be shown to be better than the faith of many those who believe any of the world's religions.
God doesn't want anyone whom doesn't love him to be punished either, that's why he came in the form of Jesus.
What was accomplished here? Was this suppose to help the case that Christianity is improbable? In the case of Christianity this view is not even entirely accurate. A more accurate outline using a similar structure would be:
1. Problem (Sin)
2. Consequence for Problem (Hell)
3. All-Encompassing Solution (Trust in Jesus)
The consequence of hell is a direct result of the problem of sin and trusting in Jesus is the means of salvation. If person A jumps off a cliff on his own volition and person B throws a rope within his reach to save him but person A purposefully (for whatever reason) chooses not to grab the rope what were the causes of his death? The primary cause was the fact he decided to jump off the cliff and the secondary cause was the fact he chose not to grab the rope that would save him. Similarly from a Christian perspective a person's place in hell is a primary consequence of their own choices to sin and a secondary consequence of not reaching for their only chance of salvation in Jesus Christ. If a person decides to trust in their only hope for salvation then the problem of sin would resolved and hell would be avoided. Just like if person A decided to grab the rope the problem of him deciding to jump off the cliff would be resolved and his death would be avoided.
This was just silly. Stupid and rude are exactly the words that don't describe a God who would bear the burden of humanity's sins against Him. Sacrificing one-self for the benefit of others is the ultimate selflessness especially if the beneficiaries committed offenses against the benefactor. Your failed analogy about paying for food you did not want to pay for doesn't even relate to this. If you were a irresponsible person who accumulated a mountain of debt wouldn't you be grateful to a benefactor who paid all of your creditors the amount you were suppose to pay and he only asked in return that you live responsibly? This is similar to the Christian God's relation to us. If Christianity is true then Jesus did pay a price since He was God in a human body that died on the cross as the atonement for our sins. It was only through the death and resurrection of this perfect and sinless sacrifice that the hope for eternal salvation is made real. In other words if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then everybody would be going to hell since that would mean he was just a man who paid the price for his own sins. Since He is greater (by virtue of the fact he is God) than sin He could pay our price for sin and rise from the dead thus giving everyone a chance to turn from their sin and trust in Him as the savior. Trust in Christ provides people salvation and a transformed nature that strives to be connected to God rather than to live for the self. It would still be the case that no one has to go to hell; the only thing people have to do is trust in Jesus. If everyone trusted in Jesus than hell would be irrelevant. Your statements about the rapture are only worth looking at if Christianity is false, which you have failed to demonstrate.
Answer: None of those acts are unforgiveable according to my beliefs. In each scenario the wrong doer can realize the error of his/her ways and obtain salvation in Jesus Christ. You are probably referring to the unpardonable sin here but that sin is not the sin of not believing in God's existence. The unpardonable sin can be committed by both those who accept or reject God's existence since it has nothing to do with one's ideas about His existence. This sin is the sin of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" by choosing to permanently reject Christ as the true savior despite a lifetime of the Holy Spirit revealing the truth; someone who believes God exist can easily do this. This sin describes someone who rejects Christ to the point of death. This attitude is similar to that of person A described in the scenario above.
Regarding Dr. Craig, he does not use his experience with "the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit" as an argument but rather just another reason for him maintain his trust in the veracity of Christianity. Refute his actual arguments then you can try to cast doubt on his claim. Since you didn't supply his actual quote concerning Jesus' resurrection after 3 days then I'm not going to say anything about it since you could have easily taken it out of context.
So far you still haven't given any good reasons for your atheism and you haven't successfully refuted my claims regarding Christianity. You fine-tuning objection represented by Tyson is easily refuted ,you haven't given any historical reasons why we should reject Jesus' resurrection or his divinity, and you did not even refute objective morality (in fact you seem to affirm it by asking about rape, murder, robbery, and non-belief). Concerning Jesus all you have done so far is argued in a circle saying miracles are impossible therefore Jesus could not have possibly rose from the dead in spite of the fact you think God's existence is possible. In this type of argument you can't assume the unfeasibility of miracles as a premise in your argument for why Jesus could not rise from the dead since that very assumption is under debate here. We have to reach our conclusion inductively by looking at the historical evidence and then reaching the best conclusion concerning his purported deity and miracles. This means you have to be able to refute the article about Jesus that is at the top of this document. The amazing nature of the physical world, the objectivity of morality, and Jesus' resurrection still form a powerful case for Christianity.
Your previous comments are double quotedand my new ones are not quoted.
Concerning New Testament scholars and Jesus, read this.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus
"Regarding Matthew 27:52 , the resurrection of Jesus, and any other miracles it is probably safe to assume that even if I continued to explicate on their historical accuracy you would dismiss their veracity by default."
That logic is circular and your own thinking allows for the possibility of miracles. Miracles are only impossible by definition if atheism is true. Since you cannot demonstrated that atheism is true then I have no reason to deny the possibility of miracles. Also, you think that God's existence is possible which would make miracles possible from your perspective. His possible creation of the universe would be a miracle. So if you think miracles are tantamount to magic then you think magic is possible.
"In light of the scientific evidence that the universe had a genesis"
I never said it did. The fact it that it doesn't prove that Christianity is true by itself. This just proves there was a supernatural cause. That's why I provided other reasons since cumulatively they do verify Christianity.
Yea I like Lee Strobel as well, I'm glad you find it funny. It's too bad you found Tyson's argument convincing. He didn't even understand what the fine-tuning argument was and thus attacked a straw man. The argument from fine-tuning just tries to show that there is a supreme designer based on the amazing constants we find in the universe not what characteristics this designer posses. Thus natural tragedies do not undermine the argument. I thought it was comical when he described the universe as being mostly hostile towards humans thus no designer "had us in mind". Can I also conclude that no designer of power plants had plant workers in mind since much of it is hazardous to human health? Should I ignore the amazing and complex structure of all power plants? Should I also disallow the possibility that the designer placed in safeguards to protect the plant workers? Read this to see what the fine-tuning argument is actually about: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
"and biological processes (look at the brain, DNA, immune system")
Nope, it's an argument from knowledge. See above and below.
You didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was not making the claim that there are not enough naturalistic explanations like for example the evaporation of water. There are obviously physiological explanations for how the physical world operates. Rather I was saying that in light of the scientist evidence that nature itself had a beginning, it would be logically impossible to provide a naturalistic explanation for nature's nascence. That is what is meant by nature cannot account for nature. So its cause must be beyond nature (super natural). Also the "God of the gaps" is a straw man. Neither I nor the majority of Christians believe that God exist because of natural phenomena that can't be explained. Rather it is the knowledge of physical reality that helps demonstrate God's existence. For example it would be logically fallacious for someone to say that no one designed the watch they found in their backyard just because he/she has an impressive understanding for how the watch operates. The knowledge for how the watch works is not a defeater for the existence of a designer but rather a demonstration that there is one. This principle applies to physical reality as well which is almost infinitely more complex than a single watch.
Read this: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
(by nature I mean all of physical reality)
" the objectivity of moral values and duties, the person of Jesus, and the possibility that you can know God personally if you seek Him all point to a supernatural source."
This cop out does not work. If morality is objective and binding then it demonstrates that God exist; many atheistic philosophers agree with this. Is it true that morality is just person relative, just the result of evolutionary processes and society? Or is it true that love is morally superior to hate, that John Wayne Gacy was evil, that the Nazi's committed moral atrocities, or that the Spanish Inquisition was wrong? If these claims are true then it shows that God must exist since he is by definition the ultimate standard of good by which other things are deemed morally good or evil. Good and evil cannot exist if there is no supreme good that differentiates between the two. The person of Jesus is a historical person that presents a powerful case against atheism and for Christianity so it is not worthless to an atheist. Especially not for a weak atheist. You have to show why historical arguments for Christ are historically unwarranted. You can know God personally if you seek Him. This may be worthless to you if you refuse to do so but if you haven't truly sought after God then how do you know it's worthless?
"There is no "God lotto" if one open-mindedly and rationally seeks after the truth. "
If this is the case you're playing the same game or at least an analogous one. You picked an idea of God based on various factors and have faith that you are right. You said below that if God exists then he would not resemble any God or gods of the world religions. Can you objectively determine that this is the only possible God? No but you have faith that it is true. Similarly if you abandoned this and say there is no God that too is an article of faith that cannot be objectively determined according to your statement.
My position is that anyone who is open-minded about the truth and truly seeking it will find God eventually, maybe not right away but eventually. Objective truth can be known but sometime it just has to be discovered. There are ways to find the truth but you have to look. It seems to me that Christianity has the most solid claim to truth.
"My mention of the book of Romans was in no way circular since I was not using it to help make the argument that God exists. It seems clear that I was responding to your claim that the Bible encourages people to believe in God's existence solely based on faith which the book of Romans demonstrates is not the case. It was just to demonstrate that the Bible, contrary to what you purported, supports the idea that God's existence is axiomatic. This doesn't mean everyone will claim that God's existence is a known fact. It says that many people will "suppress the truth in their hearts" when it comes to God."
No I'm not. You still don't understand the argument here. You attributed comments to me that I did not say. I did not even say that God's existence is self evident rather I just told you that the Bible says so because your claim that it tells you to believe in His existence on faith alone was wrong. It tells you that it is obvious not that it is up to faith. You can disagree with the statement itself but not the fact the statement was made. I also didn't label anyone anything; I just told you what the Bible says addressing people who don't believe. Even so the YouTube testimony of the missionary did nothing to undermine the Biblical claim that people suppress the truth in their hearts. The video did not say that the tribe had no concept of God but rather they had no word that directly translated to "God". They understood what was meant by God when He was described as "high up father". Even if they claimed to not understand any description of God that would still not undermined the claim that people suppress the truth in their hearts concerning God. You cannot refute or support this claim by testimonials since people could be lying or unaware of their self deception. This claim has credence if Christianity is true since that would imply that God completely understands the hearts of people. Concerning the missionary, at best he was an ill-informed Christian with a very shallow and misguided understanding of Christianity. On Christianity the purpose of life is not about happiness but about knowing and loving God since He is totally supreme and first loved us. The fact that the people of this tribe appeared happy to him without living for God is irrelevant to truth of Christianity. A person who lives for the thrill of having sex with various partners and drinking alcohol can seem happy even though he/she does not live for God.
You just undermined yourself here. You are an 100 percent certain the Christian God does not exist but at the same time this is just your hope? Since you say it is just your hope you are obviously not 100 percent certain He does not exist. Also to say that "Anything that could ever resemble a god would not be anything like what's described in any of the world's religions," is just a statement of faith. A statement of faith that cannot be shown to be better than the faith of many those who believe any of the world's religions.
God doesn't want anyone whom doesn't love him to be punished either, that's why he came in the form of Jesus.
What was accomplished here? Was this suppose to help the case that Christianity is improbable? In the case of Christianity this view is not even entirely accurate. A more accurate outline using a similar structure would be:
1. Problem (Sin)
2. Consequence for Problem (Hell)
3. All-Encompassing Solution (Trust in Jesus)
The consequence of hell is a direct result of the problem of sin and trusting in Jesus is the means of salvation. If person A jumps off a cliff on his own volition and person B throws a rope within his reach to save him but person A purposefully (for whatever reason) chooses not to grab the rope what were the causes of his death? The primary cause was the fact he decided to jump off the cliff and the secondary cause was the fact he chose not to grab the rope that would save him. Similarly from a Christian perspective a person's place in hell is a primary consequence of their own choices to sin and a secondary consequence of not reaching for their only chance of salvation in Jesus Christ. If a person decides to trust in their only hope for salvation then the problem of sin would resolved and hell would be avoided. Just like if person A decided to grab the rope the problem of him deciding to jump off the cliff would be resolved and his death would be avoided.
This was just silly. Stupid and rude are exactly the words that don't describe a God who would bear the burden of humanity's sins against Him. Sacrificing one-self for the benefit of others is the ultimate selflessness especially if the beneficiaries committed offenses against the benefactor. Your failed analogy about paying for food you did not want to pay for doesn't even relate to this. If you were a irresponsible person who accumulated a mountain of debt wouldn't you be grateful to a benefactor who paid all of your creditors the amount you were suppose to pay and he only asked in return that you live responsibly? This is similar to the Christian God's relation to us. If Christianity is true then Jesus did pay a price since He was God in a human body that died on the cross as the atonement for our sins. It was only through the death and resurrection of this perfect and sinless sacrifice that the hope for eternal salvation is made real. In other words if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then everybody would be going to hell since that would mean he was just a man who paid the price for his own sins. Since He is greater (by virtue of the fact he is God) than sin He could pay our price for sin and rise from the dead thus giving everyone a chance to turn from their sin and trust in Him as the savior. Trust in Christ provides people salvation and a transformed nature that strives to be connected to God rather than to live for the self. It would still be the case that no one has to go to hell; the only thing people have to do is trust in Jesus. If everyone trusted in Jesus than hell would be irrelevant. Your statements about the rapture are only worth looking at if Christianity is false, which you have failed to demonstrate.
Answer: None of those acts are unforgiveable according to my beliefs. In each scenario the wrong doer can realize the error of his/her ways and obtain salvation in Jesus Christ. You are probably referring to the unpardonable sin here but that sin is not the sin of not believing in God's existence. The unpardonable sin can be committed by both those who accept or reject God's existence since it has nothing to do with one's ideas about His existence. This sin is the sin of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" by choosing to permanently reject Christ as the true savior despite a lifetime of the Holy Spirit revealing the truth; someone who believes God exist can easily do this. This sin describes someone who rejects Christ to the point of death. This attitude is similar to that of person A described in the scenario above.
Regarding Dr. Craig, he does not use his experience with "the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit" as an argument but rather just another reason for him maintain his trust in the veracity of Christianity. Refute his actual arguments then you can try to cast doubt on his claim. Since you didn't supply his actual quote concerning Jesus' resurrection after 3 days then I'm not going to say anything about it since you could have easily taken it out of context.
So far you still haven't given any good reasons for your atheism and you haven't successfully refuted my claims regarding Christianity. You fine-tuning objection represented by Tyson is easily refuted ,you haven't given any historical reasons why we should reject Jesus' resurrection or his divinity, and you did not even refute objective morality (in fact you seem to affirm it by asking about rape, murder, robbery, and non-belief). Concerning Jesus all you have done so far is argued in a circle saying miracles are impossible therefore Jesus could not have possibly rose from the dead in spite of the fact you think God's existence is possible. In this type of argument you can't assume the unfeasibility of miracles as a premise in your argument for why Jesus could not rise from the dead since that very assumption is under debate here. We have to reach our conclusion inductively by looking at the historical evidence and then reaching the best conclusion concerning his purported deity and miracles. This means you have to be able to refute the article about Jesus that is at the top of this document. The amazing nature of the physical world, the objectivity of morality, and Jesus' resurrection still form a powerful case for Christianity.
