(April 18, 2018 at 3:01 pm)JackRussell Wrote: God knows how to reach me; his disciples are sadly lacking.

It should be trivial for god to demonstrate his existence. If I then rejected it one may have a case.

Silence is golden.

If you don't know the caller id (or, in some cases, even if you think that you do), I would still not answer.

Quote:That's a positive claim. Prove it.

No it's not it's a personal opinion not a claim . Once again you prove your knowledge of epistemology is shit.

---

(April 18, 2018 at 3:01 pm)JackRussell Wrote: God knows how to reach me; his disciples are sadly lacking.

It should be trivial for god to demonstrate his existence. If I then rejected it one may have a case.

Silence is golden.

And if he were real he would make the effort

(April 18, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's a positive claim. Prove it.

It's not a positive claim it's a statement of what I think.

Well then, by your own admission, when I say "God exists" that's not a positive claim either; it's just something I think. Basically you're saying there's nothing to debate; which it basically true. There can only be debate when both parties take a stance, which you are unwilling to do.

(April 18, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Hammy Wrote: And you gotta define God first. . . And that's not my job to do. So the onus is on you.

The God of Classical Theism. Your turn...

Neo-Scholastic

Quote:Hammy:
That's a positive claim. Prove it.

The God of Classical Theism. Your turn...

---

Quote:Classical theism is a form of theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism and Process Theism.

So far so good. But then...

Quote:Whereas most theists agree that God is, at a minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good, some classical theists go further and conceive of God as completely transcendent (totally independent of all else), simple, and having such attributes as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.

Some classical theists go further? You mean they can't agree on what classical theism is? How can this be?

Quote:Classical theism is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.

OK. But then...

Quote:In opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who rejects both divine simplicity and timelessness),

In opposition? Surely they jest!

So Neo, tell me again how simple the definition of classical theism, is. You know, given that theologians are unable to define it

Wiki My highlights.

Honestly? There are some compelling arguments in favor of a deity in general, perhaps solely as a creator (Deism or Pandeism.) But I can't think of a single solid argument in favor of any specific religion. They just don't add up.

Yeah, a specific religion is a VERY tall order. And for members of those specific religions, checking out all the jots and tittles is fraught with peril. For instance, OT and NT both agree women cannot instruct men in matters of religiosity, and AFAIK, the Seventh Day Adventists use a Bible with the same restriction and simultaneously follow Ellen White. It's the only thing one needs to know about Seventh Day Adventism; by their own Scripture, they ain't doing it right. No one needs to go a jog further into their false religion to realize it is essentially disordered from the get go. Too bad, I suppose, for the literal fools and gullibles they have suckered into their scammy mess, but their odds of doing better are scarcely any better anywhere else.

(April 19, 2018 at 11:39 am)Succubus Wrote: Neo-Scholastic

Quote:Hammy:
That's a positive claim. Prove it.

The God of Classical Theism. Your turn...

---

Quote:Classical theism is a form of theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism and Process Theism.

So far so good. But then...

Quote:Whereas most theists agree that God is, at a minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good, some classical theists go further and conceive of God as completely transcendent (totally independent of all else), simple, and having such attributes as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.

Some classical theists go further? You mean they can't agree on what classical theism is? How can this be?

Quote:Classical theism is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.

OK. But then...

Quote:In opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who rejects both divine simplicity and timelessness),

In opposition? Surely they jest!

So Neo, tell me again how simple the definition of classical theism, is. You know, given that theologians are unable to define it

Wiki My highlights.

That's like saying you don't accept the findings of physics because relativity and quantum mechanics haven't been fully reconciled OR punctuated versus gradual evolution. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't accept evolutionary theory because it hasn't been fully explicated? Do you really want to find your arguments stimied by some creationist suggesting that evolution, broadly defined, cannot be true because there are multiple theories about abiogenesis and mutation mechanisms?

Every field of inquiry has it's own internal disputes despite broad areas of agreement. Demanding full and complete specifications of God, like you're just, is nothing more than a disingenuous dodge.

How many pairs of Bible verses are not reconciled ??

Mark 14 (KJV)
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

Luke 22 (KJV)
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

(April 19, 2018 at 12:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's like saying you don't accept the findings of physics because relativity and quantum mechanics haven't been fully reconciled OR punctuated versus gradual evolution.

And you accuse me of a disingenuous dodge? You dare to draw a parallel between the theory of relativity and the stories in your goat roasters handbook!!
The theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are so absolutely correct that they have been nailed to doors, but different doors. They are different aspects of the same physics that govern the workings of the universe. They are as accurate a description of how the world works as it is possible to get. 

Quote:Are you suggesting that people shouldn't accept evolutionary theory because it hasn't been fully explicated?

Fully explicated? You mean fully understood? That some people don't understand evolutionary theory does not mean its beyond understanding; it means some people refuse to, or are incapable of, understanding it.

Quote:Do you really want to find your arguments stimied by some creationist suggesting that evolution, broadly defined, cannot be true because there are multiple theories about abiogenesis and mutation mechanisms?

And once again you shoot yourself in the foot; for the millionth time abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. But then how could creationist ever understand this? And btw, abiogenesis is not a theory, (yet) it's a hypothesis.

Quote:Every field of inquiry has it's own internal disputes despite broad areas of agreement. Demanding full and complete specifications of God, like you're just, is nothing more than a disingenuous dodge.

You were asked to define 'God' and your reply was, and I quote:

Quote:The God of Classical Theism.

There is no classical theism. Not so long as it can mean whatever its many proponents think it means. Your turn...
Describe God in terms of classical theism and I'll find another proponent of the same school who disagrees.

(April 19, 2018 at 11:49 am)Aegon Wrote: Honestly? There are some compelling arguments in favor of a deity in general, perhaps solely as a creator (Deism or Pandeism.) But I can't think of a single solid argument in favor of any specific religion. They just don't add up.

Nope, sorry, cant agree with you on even deism or pandeism.

They certainly try to avoid the tribal pratfalls as concepts, but I really don't see them as any better.

If one accepts the age of the planet and sun and universe, there is simply no good reason even to buy a generic "cosmic factory boss".

Even if one wants to claim a "starting point" it does not have to be cognitive much less a super natural cognition.

There is no good reason to gap fill with a super natural factory boss.

That is simply falling for, "Life has pretty things in it so it has to have a magic factory boss." No, it does not, not to mention the is tons of nasty stuff in nature and the universe not to mention the universe is mostly empty and hostile to supporting life.