danielius

Double standards...

Nothing but assertion. Yet when I opine, I'm told I mustn't assert.

Double standards...

Yet a popular atheist argument goes: 'Look how many atheists/agnostics/'freethinkers'/skeptics etc. there are; surely there's no God.'

Double standards...

Danielius

Dr Rick

You may assert and opine, but then you must substantiate or have your assertion or opinion dismissed.

Here's substantiation that the Bible is riddled with contradictions.

When you venture an opinion, you may expect to be asked to provide evidence, as well.

No one here on this thread has argued that.

Arguing that an action should be acceptable because your opponent has performed it, even if he has, is also a fallacy; the tu quoque ("you too") fallacy.

Amaranth

Daniel,

Your desperate flailings to avoid the point are getting less and less interesting. I have to say, I was momentarily taken in when you made three or four posts on topic, but since then you've taken every side issue you can in order to avoid defending your rediculous beliefs.

Case in point: Your new whining about "double standards". Feel absolutely free to point out flaws in an opponents argument, but crap like this

is nothing more than a "tu quoque" argument - Yet another logical fallacy to add to the list.

So, as a reminder, this conversation is about "Is Christianity's a reasonable world-view?" Not if ET is rational. Not if other atheists do the same things we point out as your bad logic here. Certainly not about whether believing god probably exists is rational.

Let me help - You started off with:

To defend this conclusion that god existed, you argued:

You argument is a non sequitur: Faith, by definition, is not reasonable.

Oh...and you still need to define "god".

Amaranth

keyser_soze

danielius

Which begs the question: Do you consider scientists who profess a belief in ET life 'out there' as rational in their belief?

The Hoyle formula is pertinent. If (it is an if) it is even only somewhat correct, it provides solid evidence for a non-random origin of our universe.

To this, I further state that the idea of a first cause is more logical than that the universe was uncaused. Yet there is evidence to say that the universe is finite, and therefore had a beginning. There is no current evidence that something can arise from nothing - an idea entirely removed from logic.

The Christian concept of God's nature as trinity is relevant here. I said before that for something to be meaningfully defined, it has to reach outside of itself for that definition. A book is only meaningfully defined as a book if it isn't everything. The universe only possesses meaningful identity if it is possible to reach outside of it for context. The atheist world-view makes no provision for this. The Christian one uniquely does. The first cause defines the universe it created.

God, according to the Christian world-view, can reach outside of Himself for definition as His nature is uniquely made up of relationship. The Father can reach outside of Himself to the Son for context, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son. Thus, trinity is logical and reasonable.

Evidence for a non-random origin of our universe with the logical premise of a first cause and such a cause needing to possess relationship in its very nature to meaningfully define itself all point to the unique Christian conception of God and its world-view.

Danielius

danielius

Agreed.

We are not debating the Bible, and it is not one of the statements of the Nicene Creed currently utilised as our definition of Christianity for the purposes of this dialogue.

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the author of the linked chapter.

Danielius

emotional

So you're saying that God needs to be a trinity or else he would have no context/relationship (be bored out of His mind)? That's what I think you're suggesting.



Had you been born a Wiccan, you would assume the Goddess/God duality to be synonymous with what is reasonable. You haven't explained to either atheists or unitarian believers (or Wiccans) why the trinity should be reasonable. Again: why THREE? Why not two? Or four? Or a holy number like seven? Where does the trinity come from, except the Christian New Testament? Do you expect a person to reason with himself and, after time, say, "Ah! God must be a trinity!" rather than One God in Four Persons?

And I'll say that again: God has no Son. The Olympian deities of the Greeks, who were created in man's image, get married and have children. God begetting a Son is just a carry-over from polytheistic mythology. Even the Bible (and I'm talking about the Hebrew scriptures, not the Christian additions that parasitically leeched themselves to them) doesn't support either a trinity or God having a son.

I respect your faith in a trinity. However, I point out to you that it is just as arbitrary, meaning unreasonable, as faith in one God alone. Reason has nothing to do with it.

Abel Stable

Oh, nice dodge. Aren't we talking about Christianity? The religion defined by the Bible? Are you saying the Bible has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity??

Infidelettante

Now just a moment emotional, I resent the implication that those of us who accept a polarity of energies to be necessary to the creative process are being reasonable.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Actually, I was stating my opinion, as you had said I thought Christianity was internally consistent. I am not trying to prove that Christianity is internally inconsistent, merely state that that is my opinion to clarify how you wrongly portrayed my opinion. There would be no reason for me to provide evidence for my personal opinion in a topic devoted to something entirely different.

I have NEVER seen that argument used. Ever. And if someone used it, I would consider it fallacious as well. Perhaps you're confusing it with the argument from non-belief?

1. A loving god would not want me to go to Hell.
2. According to Christianity, I will go to hell if I do not believe in God.
3. I do not believe in God.
4. From 3, I am therefore going to go to Hell if Christianity is true.
5. God either does not want to stop me from going to Hell or he is incapable.
6. From 1, if God did not want to stop me, he cannot be loving.
7. The Christian God is described as loving.
8. Therefore, either the Christian God does not exist, or he is incapable of stopping me.
9. The Christian God is described as omnipotent.
10. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Or, you can see the AfNB in the infidels library, at
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uchar/anb.html

though I don't particularly like this writing of it.

This is not at all an argument from numbers. It is sound logic. To disagree with it, you must disagree with the premises (probably #1, maybe #2 if you're a liberal xian, though it could be rephrases to be a "God wants everyone to go to Heaven" argument instead of a "God doesn't want people to go to Hell" argument).

Sorry, no double standard. The only double standard here is the standard you use to determine whether something is reasonable with regards to Xianity and then with regards to everything else.

Perhaps in one of these posts in the future, you plan on getting on topic?

Let's talk about your 3 choices for the origin of the universe.

What about the infinite other choices? What about "The universe was caused by a caused cause, which was caused by another caused cause, which was caused by another caused cause, etc etc for X times where X can be infinite amounts of caused causes until you settle on one uncaused cause? Aside from infinite regression there's also small regression and really really big regression, you know, as well as everything in between.

So, what reason do you have to decide that the Universe is the penultimate cause? None.

Also, what reason do you have to assume that the uncaused cause is a deity? None again.

How is this reasonable?

I shouldn't even ask, because we're trying to discuss the reasonableness of Christianity, and all you are talking about with this argument is deism. Get on topic.

Do you EVER plan to get on topic, or are you just a very sophisticatede troll? If you are, I really must congratulate you. Job well done. I think this is the best work of trolling I've seen yet, ignoring Radorth. You really have had us all on a wild goose chase. Well, I for one am not going to fall into your trolling anymore. Further off topic replies to you will be replied to repeatedly with "get on topic" and that's it.

[b]REMEMBER. The topic at hand is "is Christianity a reasonable worldview?". Any post about anything other than Christianity is off topic.

-B