I'm saying you are when you say that the facts 'show the opposite'. Bullshit. A bare assertion.

JP's arguments lack evidence.

EvD

(August 23, 2009 at 7:13 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 23, 2009 at 7:04 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: If it has nothing to do with Christ then it's nothing to do with Christianity.

It has everything to do with Christianity. It has nothing to do with Christs divinity in specific, but a lot to do with the ontology of God as seen from the orthodox Christians perspective, and therefore indirectly a lot to do with Christ. Again, you are conflating separate issues as a distraction.

Ev, are you seriously not getting this? You're showing yourself up a little. I'm actually surprised at how badly you're missing JP's point.

What he's saying is that the God he has proven to exist bares a scarce resemblance to the God of the bible if you stretch and alter the definition of each of God's attributes to mean completely different things altogether. Independently proving a God which (barely) resembles the god of the bible is a further indication that the document must be valid and thus Jesus is the son of God and Christianity is the one true religion.

I followed it with no problems.

Was the sarcasm easy to pick up?

(August 24, 2009 at 9:49 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Ev, are you seriously not getting this? You're showing yourself up a little. I'm actually surprised at how badly you're missing JP's point.

What he's saying is that the God he has proven to exist bares a scarce resemblance to the God of the bible if you stretch and alter the definition of each of God's attributes to mean completely different things altogether. Independently proving a God which (barely) resembles the god of the bible is a further indication that the document must be valid and thus Jesus is the son of God and Christianity is the one true religion.

I followed it with no problems.

Was the sarcasm easy to pick up?

You worried me for a very brief moment.

JP, do you have any sources outside the bible for Jesus' divinity?

(August 24, 2009 at 9:51 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote:

(August 24, 2009 at 9:49 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Ev, are you seriously not getting this? You're showing yourself up a little. I'm actually surprised at how badly you're missing JP's point.

What he's saying is that the God he has proven to exist bares a scarce resemblance to the God of the bible if you stretch and alter the definition of each of God's attributes to mean completely different things altogether. Independently proving a God which (barely) resembles the god of the bible is a further indication that the document must be valid and thus Jesus is the son of God and Christianity is the one true religion.

I followed it with no problems.

Was the sarcasm easy to pick up?

You worried me for a very brief moment.

Me too lol! But afterwards it was funny lol!!

EvF

JP has no proof for the existence of his God nor Jesus the Christ unless you are willing to conform to his christian objective worldview.In his mind to get to God you must start from the assumption that God exist in the first place.Aside from the bible and the orthodox church fathers and their interpretations of scripture he has zero,zilch,nada.

Well at least someone gets it (to an extent) then chatpilot. If you accept the premise then the logic is sound. JP never claimed more so you shouldn't say that like it's new.

fr0d0 said:"If you accept the premise then the logic is sound"

That statement is fallacious because in fact the premise is baseless and the logic is unsound.I must admit that JP is well versed in Christian apologetics but that does not diminish his responsibility to prove his premise first before he tries to present logical and sound arguments to support his conclusions.

Since this is an atheist forum I believe that most of us here that are atheist are not clouded by presuppositions regarding the stated premise that God exist,some of us like myself have actually come from that premise.But through logical and reasonable analysis have come to the conclusion that the case for God cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason.I view apologetics in a very poor light,the same goes for theology I don't consider either discipline a legitimate field of study.

In the scientific method you first come up with a theory and then you try to prove or disprove that theory through trial and error and countless hours of observation.Whereas in theology or apologetics you are not trying to prove a theory you are trying to prove a presupposition as a stated fact.Because of your presupposition your method of analysis is biased and flawed since prior to your study you have already made your conclusions.

I am of the opinion that science,logic,and reason do not and cannot coexist with religion since the former is based on observation and scientific research and subjective evidence and the latter is based on myth and a presupposed objective worldview.

(August 27, 2009 at 10:53 am)chatpilot Wrote: fr0d0 said:"If you accept the premise then the logic is sound"

That statement is fallacious because in fact the premise is baseless and the logic is unsound.I must admit that JP is well versed in Christian apologetics but that does not diminish his responsibility to prove his premise first before he tries to present logical and sound arguments to support his conclusions.

I couldn't agree more ... obviously some things in science are based on assumptions (in math it's something like ab will always equal ba and a+b will always equal b+a) and in science something like the universe is governed by consistent laws and it is explainable.

(August 27, 2009 at 10:53 am)chatpilot Wrote: I view apologetics in a very poor light,the same goes for theology I don't consider either discipline a legitimate field of study.

I tend to agree in the sense of it being [claimed to be] a rational and reasoned discipline.

(August 27, 2009 at 10:53 am)chatpilot Wrote: In the scientific method you first come up with a theory and then you try to prove or disprove that theory through trial and error and countless hours of observation.Whereas in theology or apologetics you are not trying to prove a theory you are trying to prove a presupposition as a stated fact.Because of your presupposition your method of analysis is biased and flawed since prior to your study you have already made your conclusions.

I'd go slightly further and say that scientists don't so much try to prove as disprove and that forms the basis of their support for a given explanation.

(August 27, 2009 at 10:53 am)chatpilot Wrote: I am of the opinion that science,logic,and reason do not and cannot coexist with religion since the former is based on observation and scientific research and subjective evidence and the latter is based on myth and a presupposed objective worldview.

Abso-fragging-lutely Captain ... NOMA is a pile of crap!

Kyu

Why in the name of <insert deity name, vulgar expression, or least favorite/favorite place here> does this thread have 59 pages?!

Second question: Is there anything worth reading in those 59 pages?

Third question: Is there anything new (as in: that i haven't heard a million times before) in your answers?

Final question: Why in the name of <insert deity name, vulgar expression, or least favorite/favorite place here> am i asking an Orthodox Christian these questions?!

/End rhetoric