Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Statler Waldorf]

Using a claim (the Bible) to defend another claim (i.e. that there's a god and that it's a he and yet immaterial) is circular reasoning as well as psychobabble.

You asked me where in the Bible is says God is immaterial, so I gave it to you. As to your second claim, we use people’s words to learn about their attributes all the time. There’s no problem in doing so.

Saying things like "I know he exists" goes to show how far the delusion has gone.

You claim that you know I am wrong, perhaps that’s the delusion? Ad hominem arguments are so lame, are they all that you have left?

You try to tell us that we believe in a god whether or not we know it, and, believe it or not, that makes you a liar as well as guilty of misrepresenting our positions, even if it is your conviction based on a big, fat claim/lie (the Bible).

I do not try to tell you anything; I believe what scripture says over what you say; that is all. God says everyone knows He exists, and I believe Him.

Keep that particular belief to yourself because you can't possibly know what is in our minds.

I do not need to, God knows what is in everyone’s hearts; and God says that everyone knows that He exists in their hearts.

You have asked us in the past to be mindful about accurately portraying your position; please be courteous and do the same for us.

I do accurately portray your position, but I am not going to believe the Bible is wrong simply because you say it is.

To caveat that, in case you were confused, we don't tell you what you do and don't believe, so don't try that bullshit on us.

You have no way of knowing what I do or do not believe because you are a materialist. I on the other hand do know what everyone person really believes. I realize that bothers you but there’s not much I can do.

Stat, come on, man!
Double standards and bare assertions from you?!

We shall see my friend.

How low the mighty have fallen....

Each electron behaves like an electron.
They all have at least one thing that sets them apart from all other electrons, be it, spin, position, velocity, energy, etc...

…so essentially electrons repel one another because they are electrons and electrons repel one another? What is that?

It is what it is...
If there is a cause for it, we have no way of ascertaining it. If you do have such a way, please write your paper, claim the million dollars and the Nobel prize.

It is what it is? Could you imagine if a theist did this? “We know God exists because that is just the way it is!” From a Christian perspective such regularities make perfect sense, I want to know how they make sense in a purely material Universe. You do not know?

Until such a cause is proven to exist, there is no reason to assume that it does.

Sure there is, I am not aware of anything material being uncaused. There has to be a reason as to why matter behaves with such regularity.

Because on an irregular universe you, me, we wouldn't be here to ask such questions.

This is the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis.

A: How did you survive in the woods for three weeks on your own?
B: Because if I did not I would not be here to tell you I survived.
A: Huh?

"why"... as if someone thought of all this and then made it so...

You’re not supposed to have any “just because” beliefs in your conceptual scheme my friend. There is always a reason.

OK, it's not a bare assertion.... it's a biblical assertion...

And when I am asked specifically how I know something about the God of the Bible I am going to appeal to the Bible; makes sense.

So... the jewish yahweh concept didn't evolve into the christian trinity concept at some point?...say... 1800 years ago?

No, the Trinitarian God of the New Testament is still YHWH.

There's the bare assertion I remember reading earlier...

If I am going to receive a bare assertion (i.e. God is hiding) I see no reason as to why I am not allowed to respond with one.

Ah... another bare assertion...

Not at all. As has been evidenced in these discussions, non-believers love to believe in that which they cannot account for (such as regularities in Nature). More precisely, they believe in that which only the Christian Theist can account for (such as regularities in Nature). The ironic part is that they will then use these beliefs as a foundation for arguing against Christian Theism (such as appealing to science which assumes regularities in Nature have always existed and always will exist). Therefore, Christian theism must be true in order for them to be able to argue against it. It’s a classic case of self-refutation.

3rd bare assertion? tss tss tss "I am disapoint".

No, third supported assertion. Evidence requires that there are, always have been, and always will be regularities in Nature. Of course, only Christian Theism can make sense of such regularities.

And 4th... you are truly falling from grace...

Then make sense of them; so far all you have provided is, “that’s just the way it is” and they are “uncaused”.

Would it, now?

Yes, because there is no reason that our senses would accurately perceive reality in an unguided purely material universe. In a Christian Theistic universe we have reasons.

Why do you keep asking that?

It’s a principle of reasoning; you are not rationally allowed to believe something without being able to provide sufficient justification for possessing that belief. When a materialist appeals to natural regularities I want to know how he can make sense of that belief consistently within his materialism. What is causing such regularities?

The magic man in the sky takes care of every strange question that your (and other people's) minds can come up with.

It’s not a strange question at all; it’s a rather fundamental and rather simple one. I never said anything about a magic man in the sky either.

And if we ask why does the man in the sky exist?

I never said anything about a man in the sky; perhaps you are getting your conversations confused.

I may have read it wrong, but I think he means that if we don't exist, electrons would go on doing their stuff... but no one would be around to measure it and marvel in their effects...

Ok, so what? How is that relevant to what we are talking about? I am wanting to know what governs the behavior of such particles and matter in general in a purely material universe.

Well if they are so sure they are not delusional they better pray to their god this delusion is not gonna crumble under weight of evidence one day cause they might have hard time realizing they wasted so much time on a bullshit story.

*Sigh* Different screen writer, same old tired story.

Can you account for this being true in under every condition throughout the universe, or does it just seem that way because of your perspective?

Yes, I can. God who governs the Universe promises us that such regularities will persist until the end of days; so not only can my conceptual scheme account for them in the past and present but I can account for them in the future as well thus enabling us to make futuristic inferences and claims.

Does the merit of such a question have the same meaning without a material mind existing to give it meaning?

Without human minds existing electrons would still repel one another if that is what you mean.

Can a different perception yield different observations?

I am not sure what you mean by this.

You keep insisting there is a “what”. You haven’t shown reason to believe there is a cosmic prescriber, only that we as humans describe the cosmos. Descriptions do not imply PRE-scriptions.

So you do not believe that matter exhibits regularity? If not, then you have just rendered all scientific knowledge useless, if so then I want to know what is causing it to do so.

Stat, we perceive them as regularities because of our perspective. We have every reason to believe that our minds are purely material, and no evidence to support anything else. All we need is a mind that seeks to describe an experience, and we have a material mind describing it’s perspective of a material universe. You are claiming a prescriber without even knowing if there’s a prescription. We call them “regularities” to try to understand, but we don’t even know how regular they are. These descriptions are not separate entities from the things we are describing, and if these material things did not exist, there would be no use to describe them with such terms. You’re making a futile attempt to place descriptions used by our minds into a box as an object. You’re not making sense my friend.

I am afraid that I am not the one not making sense here. Are you arguing that our minds do not accurately perceive reality? For example, are you saying that electrons do not actually repel one another in reality we just perceive that to be the case?

You have knowledge of spirits and their composition? If not, what you’ve done is read the word “spirits” in the bible, then you pretend to know something about what a spirit is, and then invoke the concept of “Immaterial” because you think it confirms something you previously wanted to be true.

The immateriality of spirits is something that is analytically true. I am not about to allow you to re-define the English language for the purpose of this discussion. Secondly, why on Earth would I want God to be immaterial prior to ever reading scripture? Scripture clearly teaches that God is immaterial, what I want to be true has nothing to do with it.

Additionally, does it say “Omnipresent” Stat? I don’t see that in my bible. Is that another creative liberty that you’ve taken, it would be helpful if you would preface your quotes from the bible with something such as “What I think it means is…”

Where did I directly quote anything? Scripture does not use the term omnipresent but it does teach that God is omnipresent (Kings 8 and Psalm 139). You’re playing a desperate game of semantics now.

So that I know that you realize it doesn’t actually say that in the bible Hebrews 6 says God is immutable? Perhaps I missed it, but it looked to me that Hebrews 6 was nothing more than a description of what someone thinks God has promised the people who believe the story.

Yes, Hebrews 6 teaches that God is incapable of being changed.

The God that particular scripture describes falls short of even human standards of morality.

Human standards of morality are fallible, so whether or not God meets them is irrelevant.

At any rate, it doesn’t say anything about God being unchanging in form, unless I overlooked it.

We’re not talking about form. It says that God’s character and purpose are unchangeable. Numerous verses teach this.

Given the first two preceding examples that you gave, I’m tempted to think it was another attempt to plug something into the bible that you want to be there.

Why would I want God to be immutable?

---

Genesis 6 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[b] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

---

This is Hebrews 6, not Genesis 6. I could not help but notice that you cut out the last portion of the chapter which interestingly enough is the portion that says God’s character and purpose are unchangeable. Disingenuous perhaps?

Are you relenting Genesis as an authority on the universe now?

You’re disingenuously shifting the topic of discussion now. You asked me where the Bible taught such things, and I gave it to you.

Can I refer to anything in the old testament that makes your belief look foolish, or am I only limited to Genesis? I think you would rather have this one back. So, I’m going to pretend as though it didn’t happen.

You can refer to anything you’d like in scripture, but you’re not going to be able to find anything that contradicts the teaching that God is the reason that Nature exhibits regularities.

Can you cite the scripture that describes Creatio Ex Nihilo in plain direct terms? I assume this too is something you believe is true, right?

Sure. I think scripture is rather clear when it says that God created all things.

Gladly. I assume you won’t have any problem with me using your own failed attempts to use the actual words in the bible to defend its contents:

My successful attempts you mean? I do not see anything, did you do it?

Mmhmm…I know you do. You know it in the way that you believe any subjective thing to be true. God exists insofar as He exists in your mind.

No, I know it in the way that I know that I myself exist.

Your belief in God is indistinguishable from a delusion.

As is your belief in no god.

Your original objection was that anybody could be delusional, and not be aware of it.

True statement.

We’ve narrowed our common experiences of reality to one difference, God.

No we have not.

If there is something I hold as true in spite of being unable to distinguish it from delusion then by all means, bring it to the table.

Everything you hold as true is indistinguishable from being a mere delusion.

As it stands, you’re the one with a specific belief that is indistinguishable from delusion.

All beliefs are indistinguishable from delusions; that is why this thread is such a waste of time.

You think you know an objective truth that you cannot defend, except in subjective terms.

Of course I can defend it, my belief system can make sense of reality and yours cannot. I will take that.

You saying that you know it, is not a resolution to your burden.

According to whom?

No Stat, it would be closer to somebody running around refusing to believe that Allah is the actual God, which is exactly what you do every day.

Allah’s existence cannot make sense of regularities we see in Nature so the Muslim is just as hopeless as you are in such matters.

I agree with you there, however, you’re in no position to be sincere in your objection. If you could show that Allah in not the real God, and that it is your God, this conversation wouldn’t be taking so long.

It’s not hard to do so at all. However, since you do not believe in Allah this is nothing more than a fallacious red herring. Stick to what you actually believe and I will stick to what I believe.

If somebody wants to pretend that their mind doesn’t exist, I would love to talk to them as well.

You pretend that God does not exist.

But let’s not pretend like such a thing applies to our situation here. You and I both agree that our minds exist, and that’s been established. You are suggesting an additional entity exists, and is operating and governing the function of my mind. You are claiming to have knowledge of it, and you are unsuccessful so far. We have minds, and mine is inquiring into the claims being produced by yours.

Yes, we know we have minds because the very act of questioning their existence assumes they exist. The exact same thing is true of God. By questioning God’s existence you are assuming God exists because you need certain aspects of reality to be true that can only be true if God exists in order to question His existence (i.e. regularities in Nature). You’re engaging in self-refutation.

Can you or can you not distinguish your mind’s product as anything more than a delusion?

No one can, that’s why I objected to your original post.

Then why is it so hard for you to establish some in support of God?

It’s not.

Of every objective thing in the universe we are aware of, evidence can be found to support it.

Ok, then why do all electrons repel one another? You have yet to answer that question.

Of every theory we hold in a high degree of certainty, but short of objectively true, there is evidence to support IT.

How do you know if something is objectively true or not?

You are saying there is an objectively true God, that is the very source of evidence, but it just so happens that there is ZERO evidence that objectively links God to any and in ALL evidence for which we are aware?

That’s not true at all; many people find the evidence for such a God overwhelming. The fact you do not does not suggest such evidence in fact is lacking. I have given you a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning demonstrating such a God must in fact exist and you merely ignore it.

Oh Stat, surely you don’t believe that.

I certainly do, and you have helped to reassure me in that belief by failing to account for such regularities. If it were untrue, it should be so easy to refute my position and yet you have not even produced an honest attempt.

You overlook the possibility of C, and every other letter in the potentially infinite realm of possibilities.

That violates the law of the excluded middle. Either Christianity is true or anti-Christianity is true.

We both recognize things that appear to us a norms within the observable universe.

Yes, and yet you cannot explain how such norms can exist apart from the God of scripture existing.

You claim to have an explanation.

No, I have one. God’s existence accounts for such regularities and also can account for how we can know such regularities will exist into the future.

I do not.

And that is why you fail.

Your conclusion from this: Because I do not pretend to know what the actual explanation is, your explanation must be true, and your reason is because “You just know it.”? I don’t think so Stat.

You’re making an argument from ignorance here. You are essentially arguing that even though we have a perfectly good explanation for such phenomena you are going to reject it because you believe there is an alternate explanation that you like that exists that we just have not found yet. This sort of reasoning can be used to reject any fact. “We did not land on the Moon, we will find in the future evidence to prove this.” “The Holocaust never happened because we will find evidence in the future that proves it was all a fake.” “Materialism can account for regularities in Nature, we will find evidence to support this in the future.”

What if the universe is just a simulation being ran on the computers of our descendants? What if we are just a really complex version of The Sims Video game?

Both of which still require a creator and a belief in creationism, you’re not doing a very good job refuting my position.

If I were talking to someone that had never heard any form of a God hypothesis, and that person had no explanation of their own that they claimed to be true, by your rationale, the simulation theory must be true since the other person did not assert an alternative.

No because regularities in nature are not the only phenomena that must be accounted for, it is just the one I want to hear a materialist try to make sense of right now. Only the God of scripture accounts for all such phenomena. Secondly, such a simulation could not answer the question of how we know such regularities will continue to exist in the future.

If I could interject for a moment.

I don't not believe in god because of science. (although it is nice that science seems to support my view).

No.

I don't believe in god because the idea is laughably stupid.

And not just Yahweh or Jehova all of them.

Any belief system that relies on a superntaural entity as its main star is on to a loser as far as I'm concerned.

So attack away at science. This in no way counts as an argument FOR god or gods.

So a person is justified in not believing that something exists simply if they find it to be “laughably stupid”? If I found you to be laughably stupid then I am justified in believing that you do not exist? That’s quite the non-sequitur.