madmax2976

Lets keep a running list of David's unsupported assertions and arguments...

- "God is a fact beyond reality." No support given.

- "God is neither physical nor transitory." No support given.

- "The success of these naturalistic techniques relative to natural things does not guarantee any success of the same techniques when applied to supernaturalistic things. " No support given that the supernatural even exists.

- "What is the naturalistic explanation for the Universe's existence?" No support given for Davids implied claim that the universe has a supernatural explanation.

- "What is the naturalistic explanation for your own existence?" Obviously there is such an explanation - our parents had sex. No support given for any implied or supposed supernaturalistic explanation.

- "If atheism is dependent upon natural science to supply rational explanations for all that exists, I suppose that atheists are hoping that such naturalistic explanations are found. No support or argument given that atheists do any such thing. Another mere assertion.

- "Theism is more positive than atheism because theism declares that God exist, while atheism says nothing." No argument or support given that atheism says "nothing". No line of reasoning that even joins the statment with the conclusion making this statement a complete non-sequitur.

- "Theism is more rational than atheism because theism attempts to explain the Universe's existence as a creative act of God while atheism doesn't attempt to explain anything at all." No argumentation or support that theism actually explains a single thing. No support that "God" committed a creative act or that there is a "God". No argumentation for the claim that atheism, in and of itself, should explain anything. Its a position on a particular question, nothing more. This demonstrates further that David has no understanding of what atheism is.

- "The Soviet Union was officially atheistic and even repressed religion and religious expression in its dominion.." No support or argumentation that the Sovient Union "oppressed religion". No line of reasoning given to lay out what it means even if this was true. Christians also repressed other religions - and each other. Just ask the Jews, Mormons, Irish Protestants and Catholics and the Muslims.

- "In constrast with the universal tendency of humankind to search for an explanation, you are content to live in a Universe without explanation?" No support given for the implication that theism actually does explain the universe.

- "It seems to me that your atheism contains a lot of incomprehensible elements. As such, your approach to reality is no better than theism." No lay out of exactly what about atheism is "incomprehensible".

- "Yes, that is what is incomprehensible about your position. How do you know that the Universe is an end in itself? Who told you this? Why did you believe it?" Apparently no understanding of the word "incomprehensible". It would be something that could not be comprehended, but there is no support given here that any of these things could not be understood.

- "God describes Himself in the above manners because such are meaningful to humans. If God described Himself as He is, humans would utterly fail to comprehend God." No support given that "God" described himself in any way. No support given that we would utterly fail to comprehend it if it did.

- "God remains all powerful specifically because God could prevent you from throwing your computer out the back door. The only reason why you are able to do this act is because God allows you to do it." No support give that "God" exists, that its all powerful, that it could prevent anything, or that it allows anything

- "God can predict the trajectory of every sub-atomic particle in this vast Universe, and He could flip them all over if He wished." No support given for these assertions.

- " God could shuffle your proteins without your knowledge, and God could even play solitaire with your brain cells. God could cause you die, God can even raise you back to life again. " Not a single spec of support or argumentation for these claims.

- "That's Strong Theism, there, and it is a lot stronger than any Strong Atheism." Senseless rhetoric. No support at all.

- "Of course, a being that does not exist could not originate anything. God does exist, so God can explain everything." No support that "God" exists or could explain a solitary thing if it did.

- "God is not matter, God is not energy, God is not space; matter, energy and space are servants of God." Not a shred of support or argumentation for any of these claims.

- "I believe that God exists because materialism and naturalism do not account for everything that exist, and are in themselves philosophies which are empty and hopeless." No support or argumentation given that naturalism/materialism does not account for everything that exists. No argumentation or explanation as to why they are "empty and hopeless".

- "If atheism had some positive content, perhaps it could compete with Christianity. As matters stand now, atheism offers nothing and that is why I reject it." No support given for why he feels that atheism offers nothing or even why he would assume it would, in and of itself. Again, a clear display of ignorance regarding atheism is - the answer to a question.

- "God is undetectable. I don't know why atheists would have any trouble with this principle, unless they do in fact attempt to perceive God." No support given for the assertion that "God" would be undetectable, if in fact it existed.

- "Yahweh is evidently relevant to both of us, otherwise we would not be speaking about Him. However, Yahweh's existence is not dependent upon His significance to us." Illogical claptrap. Just because we might talk about unicorns, Santa Clause or Loch Ness monster, does not make those entities relevant. They are potentially relevant and the discussion is about whether they are actually relevant.

- "You have free will in this life. Your ultimate destination after this life is over is a decision that belongs to God entirely." No support given for this claim.

I took the time to reread some of David's posts. I failed to find a single assertion regarding atheism or his own theism for which he even attempted marginal support. He doesn't appear to be interested in supporting any claims he makes about atheism or his theism.

Theli

David...

Yet, you are at many occations on this board reluctant to go any deeper concerning your own belief. Deflecting any questions by saying you are not obligated to answer.

Enough for what?
Apperantly you knew enough to form a belief of your own.
But from your "roll of a dice" philosophy you tend to think that there is no reasoning behind any beliefsystem. All are built on dust and air.
This ofcourse makes no sense as we can utilize our beliefs and knowledge, wich would mean that there must be some truth-value to them.

To first say that you are willing to learn and then say that there is no knowledge (or reasoning) wich you can evaluate or choose belief after seems abit constradictory to me.


I found this argument made by you while discussing with RW, wich points out what I'm trying to say.

I found this argument to be a such dodge that I was reffering to.
If god is outside our known and understandable/comprehensible reality then how can you apply attributes to him, such as non-physical?
These claims made by you must be deemed false, since they are of a supposed comprehended nature, but still applied to an "incomprehensible" being.
A contradiction to say the least.
If god is outside of reality as we know it then no "real" attributes or qualities can be applied to him. Including "existence".
An unreal being cannot be said to exist by us.

An unsupported, inconsistent and ultimatly imagined theory is more rational then none at all?
Oh my!
So if you found a rock lying on the ground that you've never seen before would the most rational action be-

1. Running around with your pants down, screaming scared out of your mind, because you think some evil ghosts from pluto put the rock there, and will come back to kill you with mutated popcorn?

2. Pass the rock admitting that you don't know how it got there?

According to your own statement, 1 is the most rational choice since it provides with an explaination for the rock while 2 don't.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Another summary of David Mathews assertions:

1. Atheists will Go to heaven. Unless they advise God (maybe at heavens gate) that they want to Go to Hell.

2. No one will Go to Hell (ie. everyone will go to heaven or else the devil may boast). Because the devil MUST remain alone in hell (This is his explanation:
David: "Billions are not going to hell on judgment day because if that were the case, the devil would not be lonely in hell. Satan won't have any great kingdom in hell, he won't have any reason to boast")

3. God created in humans the ability to be evil, rebellious and blasphemous. But at the same time God is not responsible for humans beings being Comitted to committed all sorts of sins and atrocities.

4. David has comitted sins but he has not comitted any atrocities but he is not comitted to sinning and all other forms and atrocities. Its other humans that are comitted to all sorts of sins and atrocities.

5. Christianity encourages the "live and let live" care-free approach to social life. ie. If you see someone get raped, you do not need to know why or even interfere.

6. We can still be a society filled with love, mercy and toleration if we adopt a care-free, self-centered and antisocial attitude.

7. Killing others is an evil act. But its Ok if its God killing because the people will still die anyway.

8. We don't have to understand how David M. reached the conclusion that the biblical god Yahweh, spirits, souls, heaven and hell exist. Even if we want to.

9. David Matthews asks a lot of questions because he is interested in our viewpoints. However, he feels we are not obligated to explain to anyone why we hold any particular beliefs.

10. David Mathews defines God thus: God is that being whose existence is not dependent upon your knowledge, belief or acceptance.

11. David Mathews thinks that its Ok for thousands to die in earthquakes and floods because God did not cover the earth with pillows.reason: if God covered the earth with pillows, we would have no room to excercise freewill)

12. David Matthews opinions on God and Christianity are based on faith. Not reason or empirical proof. (e.g. David: My opinion regarding God and Christianity are based upon faith and not upon some empirical proof of God's existence.")

13. D.M. believes that if atheism had some positive content, perhaps it could compete with Christianity. He however does not know what "positive content" means - he thinks its atheists that made the claim that they do not offer any positive content.
He rejects atheism solely because it offers nothing.

14. Although Prayer works, D. M. does not believe it works when people are sick he says: ("My worldview is that the mothers of sick children ought to take them to doctors trained and
equipped to help them in their illness.")

15. D. M. believes the factual proof for Gods existence his (David Matthews) own existence. He says ("David: The factual knowledge is primarily my own existence, secondarily the existence of the Universe and finally the universal reliigous (sic) urgency of humanity.). By extension he says the existence of religious movements like Sai Babas' and suicide cults of people like David Koresh etc are factual proof of Gods' existence/

He however does not explain why the universe needs a creator while God does not.

16. He later says that God does not wake him up or even give birth to him but dictates his attitude and behaviour. These are his words: (What God does it dictate my attitude and behavior towards all the people that I meet in the course of a day.)

But of course he provides no evidence and when pressed for a coherent explanation, he retorts "YOU DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND". with resolute equanimity and finality.

If I have misrepresented any of your views David, please let me know. Just mention the number. As it is, I have 16 points.

I am sure this discussion will get more invigorating as David shares his iron-clad, well thought out, and unshakable insights on the philosophy and rationale for his religious beliefs.

To give you something to chew, here ia a page that explains
<a href="http://atheist.8k.com/twodozen.html" target="_blank">Two Dozen Good Arguments for Atheism</a> perharps then you can review your phrase "atheism offers nothing positive".

[edited to make sure "it" exists]

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

HelenM

Well, I just can't envisage an atheist before God and demanding hell. I guess that's why I'm having trouble with this scenario.

I know that many people here reject the existence of God outright. But generally inherent in that is "I wouldn't want to believe in your God even if such a God did exist" - they find some of Christian beliefs about God abhorrent.

And there's an assumption that such people, if/when face to face with God, would feel the same way.

However I am not convinced that those who abhor ideas of God would find God to be abhorrent when face to face with Him.

That's why I am reluctant to accept that someone who is angry about teachings about God here, would necessarily have the same reaction to God face to face.

I mean, if everything you have heard about someone makes you think that person is a total asshole, does that prove he IS an asshole? Or that you'd find him to be so if you ever met each other face to face? Of course not. It's possible but it may not be so.

There's a lot I don't know; I realize that. So these are just thoughts and comments; I don't assert I'm 'right' about anything I've said here...

love
Helen

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

David Mathews:
The reality that we know and understand is purely physical and altogether transitory, God is neither physical nor transitory.
Would you also say that God is immaterial, infinite, invisible, unchanging and physically undetectable?

David Mathews:
God is that being whose existence is not dependent upon your knowledge, belief or acceptance.
How do you know this?
Do you mean "our knowledge" or "my knowledge"?

If it is not based on knowledge, then is it actual existence or fantasy?
If something is not part of reality, CAN it be said to exist in Reality?
And if it is not part of reality, is it then real?
If it is real (and yet is not part of reality), then what do you mean by the word "real"?

If God exists even without us knowing he exists, it can only be because he does not exist in our reality. We have the same reality but different perspectives.

If God is not part of reality, then he is merely opinion or superstition.

Exists where?

Who gets to define existence/ reality?. And on what basis?

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

No, He did not "force" me to "mirror" the attitudes and behaviors of anyone. He didn't even recommend it. But He does not condemn doing so, either, if it is done with the intent with which I have done it, which is to enlighten those who are instigating said attitudes and behaviors as to just what their attitudes and behaviors are, and just how annoying and irritating and juvenile said things are. What part of that don't you understand?

By the way, if you agree that I have "mirrored" the attitudes and behaviors of the atheists here (or most of them, anyway), and you call me a "pugnacious dickhead" for the things I've said, why is it that your "righteous anger" is not also, and even more so, directed at the atheists who BEGAN and CONTINUED the insults and mockery, and whose attitudes and behavior I merely "mirrored"? Does the word, "hypocrisy", mean anything to you?


In Christ,

Douglas

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

David,
I am willing to accept that indeed God exists. The question of whether or not he exists isnt really important anyway for atheists.
What we are interested in is, is there a single very compelling reason to believe God exists?
If so, what is that reason?

Douglas J. Bender

IntenSity,


- Bible prophecies, particularly the ones prophesying, hundreds of years in advance, very specific historical events which actually occurred.

- The "Biblical Equations".

- The testimony of hundreds or thousands, or perhaps millions, of reliable witnesses regarding God's supernatural intervention in their lives.

- The "fine-tuning" of the Universe.

- The fact that the fossil record does not conform to evolutionary theory (an indication that life was "designed" and "created").

- Moral reasoning (if there is no God, there is no rationale for objective justice or morality - everything is essentially random, and one "morality" becomes just as "good" as any other, even if they are in complete contradiction).

- Etcetera.

In Christ,

Douglas

Mageth

Douglas, that's not "single" and none of those are "very compelling" on their own; in fact, since each of the above can and has been thoroughly refuted many times (here at SecWeb and elsewhere), even in combination they're not "compelling."