(December 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The first thing he does is start talking about "cosmic evolution," which... is not evolution. So I think the issue isn't that Kent is effective at what he does, but that he and you share the same problem of thinking that you get to redefine what evolution is to fit the agenda you want to push.

The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

Give him credit he showed you evidence.

(December 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

Most people can detect a turd with one sniff.

(December 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Why are we discussing fictional things as if they could ever be real?

I do it all the time with works of fiction, discussing the character motivations and whether or not they make sense. I play RPGs (role playing games) where I create stories and one of the most important things in story telling is that the characters, from mortal antagonists to gods, are believable in their motives.

The mark of badly written fiction (and RPG adventures) is where the motives are sacrificed for the necessity of some game mechanic or other contrived reason. Stereotypical examples include:

• The fight scene in the Acme Danger Factory (why are there all these converyer belts leading to compy things and vats of acid to fall into?)
  
• The dungeon room that has a riddle which must be solved or the players will be killed by the trap.
  
• The spy villain who tells the spy about all his secret plans for world domination, puts him into an unnecessarily slow execution chamber and assumes everything goes according to plan.
  

This Yahweh vs. Satan struggle makes no sense. Even assuming Yahweh is mentally ill, his mental illnesses contradict each other. On the one hand, he demands constant adoration like a narcissist and threatens destruction and torture if he doesn't get it, like a sociopath. Yet this same character is so shy and socially shut down that he hides himself rather than bask in his worshipers adoration?

I mean, the all-powerful yet deeply insecure guy who needs such constant validation, like he has all the power in the universe and just needs to be loved, is kind of strangely touching. What he really needs is a hug? But the other derangements this character has make no sense. This is a badly written character.

And then there's Satan. What's his motivation again? Does he get to win if he drags enough souls into Hell? And why would he torture those who rejected Yahweh in Hell? You'd think if Yahweh was his enemy, he would try to recruit us once we arrive in Hell. "C'mon, you hate Yahweh too. Let's storm the gates of Heaven together!" But no, he tortures those who've sinned against Yahweh? He's also a badly written character.

If Christianity is just fiction, there's nothing to explain. Both of these characters are contrived to scare people into joining this religion and obeying the religious leaders. If these gods and devils are real, there's everything to explain. None of it would make any sense.

---

(December 19, 2014 at 4:28 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Okay. What if god existed and by sacrificing himself to himself (god is a man, obv), and was going to do all the shit and miracles planned for us, but instead got abducted by...

That would explain a lot. Like how come this same god in the Bible is so overtly active and yet can't be found today except on an occasional piece of toast.

(December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You gave scriptures where Jesus is obviously expressing his subordinance to the Father, but there is a reason for that, Jenny.

Indeed I did, not to mention scriptures in which Jesus says that he, Jesus, should not tempt god.

(December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Phillippians 2:5-11 "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, [b]though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."[/b][emphasis added by Jenny]

Let's look at a better translation in context shall we?

Quote:Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:5-11 NRSV

So Jesus began in the form of god but did not regard equality with god as something to be exploited. Sounds pretty separate from god to me. Otherwise how would exploiting god be an option? And yes because separate Jesus humbled himself then separate god exalted him. It all sounds rather, separate. It doesn't sound coequal either. Polytheistic in fact.

So, one more example of separateness and separate wills. Thanks.

(December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So that is why all of those scriptures that you posted are worded that way, because Jesus BECAME less than the Father once he humbled himself and became a man..and on earth Jesus demonstrated what it meant to become a man, to become less than the Father, but he is still God neverthless, because I can give you scriptures which state that as well.

The fact that you can quote scriptures that say Jesus became man and therefore less than god but was still god nevertheless doesn't change the fact that in those scriptures he is separate from god. Polytheism again.

(December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 3:23 pm)Jenny A Wrote: All of your explanations are pretty lame as they assume odd things like a witness coming upon four supernatural beings and telling people about 1-3 or them and neglecting the others.

Bullshit. If I go downtown to the casino with my cousins Steve and Brandon last night at 11:00...and the following morning my sister ask me when the last time I hung out with Steve, and I tell her that me and Steven hung out last night at the casino....and about two hours later, my brother ask me when was the last time I hung out with Brandon, and I tell him that me and Brandon hung out last night at the casino...when my brother and sister compare notes on who I hung out with last night, it would seem as though there is a contradiction, when in fact there isn't, because both accounts are true...this is an example of how a story can be told and depending on who you talk to you will get different accounts.

Anyone that has had any job where they interview multiple witnesses will tell you the same thing. If all Gospels accounts were the exact same wording and account for every single detail the exact same way, then all we would need is one account.

Bullshit yourself. Have you ever interviewed witnesses? Anyone who interviews multiple witnesses will tell you that their accounts tend to be irreconcilable period. Trust me, it was my job and I've done it a few times (mild understatement). But never did I encounter a witnesses who when asked a perfectly natural question like "who did you see?", or, "what did you see?" would tell about one dead body splayed out on the concrete when they saw four, or tell of one police car when six showed up. In fact it's rather hard to get them to stick to just one body or police car at a time.

I can just hear it now, Mary is asked "and did you see an angel at the tomb?" and she says yes because she did see one, but doesn't immediately pop out with, "oh yes there were a bunch of angels, two inside and two out." Actually, I'm pretty sure you couldn't stop her narrative to ask questions. If she'd seen the empty tomb and the angels, you wouldn't be able to shut her up until she'd told the whole story.

Nor can I imagine the authors of the gospels interviewing witnesses, if they could find any alive after 30 years asking questions like, "and Ms. Mary did you see an angel at the tomb? Please be careful and only answer my precise question with a narrative."

The gospels are very obviously a collection of folk lore, whether there was a Jesus or not. They are stories. Historical fiction. They do not bare the markings of men who questioned witnesses and weighed evidence. If they had done so, they surely would have told us.

(December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Bullshit. Even in the dawn definition you gave it states "to begin to become light as sun rises"...and we both that this happens gradually, not at the blink of an eye. As the sun rises it is still kind of dark, and all testify that it is still dark.

Still kinda dark eh? Is that the very best you can do?

(December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 3:23 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It's definitional as I explained. If you can control everything except one or two other beings, then you can't control everything. Conversely if you can't be controlled by anything except one or two other beings, then you can be controlled by something. In either case, you aren't omnipotent as omni means everything.

If you agree that omnipotence is the ability to do only what is logically possible, then you have to ask yourself is it logically possible for one being being able to "control" the other two beings. What reason would the Father have to "control" the other two?? If he controls the other two, it would be an action that is taken either for the better, or for the worse, and I can't think of a possible world at which God would need or want to control either, for the better, or for the worse...and if you can, enlighten me.

No omnipotence is in and of itself logically impossible because of the problem of not being about to make something bigger than you can lift. But even setting that little problem aside, if omnipotent means not all powerful with regard to the powers of others, than it isn't omnipotent. Whether two powerful beings would want to be in power over the other is not the question. The question is whether they could both be omnipotent at the same time and the answer is no. This equation does not work: a < b < c < b < a.

Quote:The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

If the premise is a steaming turd there isn't much chance of it turning into fragrant rose.

Creatards are the biggest steaming turds on the planet.

(December 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The first thing he does is start talking about "cosmic evolution," which... is not evolution. So I think the issue isn't that Kent is effective at what he does, but that he and you share the same problem of thinking that you get to redefine what evolution is to fit the agenda you want to push.

The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

Since what he says in the first minute reveals he doesn't know what evolution is, why would anyone need to listen further. But if you really must have a longer rebuttal, you can find hours and hours of it here:





You'll find plenty of coverage of Hovind.

(December 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The first thing he does is start talking about "cosmic evolution," which... is not evolution. So I think the issue isn't that Kent is effective at what he does, but that he and you share the same problem of thinking that you get to redefine what evolution is to fit the agenda you want to push.

The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

If the man starts off with an argument that's so factually inaccurate that it isn't even addressing the topic he's purporting to debunk, what hope do we have that the rest won't follow the same meandering, fallacious path?

Also, consider that we've heard Hovind's claptrap before. You aren't the first goofy apologist to think that the man's fever dream of what evolution is is some kind of scathing critique of a topic he clearly knows nothing about; in fact, Kent Hovind and his equally dullard son are two of the reasons I became an out atheist, rather than merely apathetic to the whole endeavor. They lie or are simply wrong with such frequency, their arguments fail to even be about evolution so completely, that their position was utterly repellent to me. Nobody who has to lie, or be that ignorant about topics you're claiming to be an expert in, could possibly have any handhold on the truth. Further investigation only confirmed what the Hovinds initially led me to suspect.

Have you read Kent's dissertation? I mean, we both know that Hovind got his degree from a diploma mill that isn't accredited and operates out of a trailer, but have you actually read his dissertation? I have: it reads like an elementary school book report.

Quote:Kent Hovind’s thesis has a spotty history. First of all, it’s from a dubious school: Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado. It’s been called a “diploma mill,” selling degrees earned in only a few months. This photo shows the entire university:

Quote:Pretty impressive, eh? The Harvard of Del Norte!

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...al-thesis/

Anyway, for anyone who needs a laugh or two...here is his "dissertation" which reads more like Creatard 101.

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hovi...tation.pdf

(December 19, 2014 at 3:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm)pocaracas Wrote: No one understands that trinity thing... you can use words, but you don't seem to grasp the enormity of how the meaning of those words are challenging each other.

Care to explain how a deity is not a being in and of itself?
What you said "three separate beings that share the same deity" makes as much sense as "three separate beings that share the same being"...
What is a being, in this context?
What is a deity?

The good thing about it is we can use the STANDARD definitions for both terms, being and deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being

Being: 1a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life
2: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3: a living thing; especially : person


As we can see, the Christian God, according to the belief, has a quality or state of existence and is conceivable, and is conscious life...and is a living thing.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity

Deity: 1a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity b capitalized : god 1, supreme being
2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Divinity, god, supreme being, supremely good/powerful...all of this applies to the traditional theistic God.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Did you know that merriam webster is not a good unbiased dictionary?
Just look at their definition of atheist:
athe·ist: a person who believes that God does not exist

Can you spot the bias?
No?
Pretend you're a hindu.


Let's get back to those definitions for being and deity.
a being is a living thing, or something that exists.
A deity is a god, or the nature of that god.
So, you want me to accept that you have 3 different living things in the nature of the god... is that it?

I think we need the definition of god, now (from the same merriam webster):
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

I'm going with 2, seeing as the first is clearly biased, and the third and fourth apply to people (odd that).
"A being".... as in "one"... not multiples...

(December 19, 2014 at 3:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm)pocaracas Wrote: It seems you equate "being" to "person"... hmmm... that word is supposed to be referring to a "human being"... doesn't make sense that it should apply to a divine being. Maybe you want persona, which can then relate to personality... and that's something we can grasp a bit easier, as we can sort of understand multiple-personality disorders...

Ok, I will put it to you like this....there are three members of "Team God"...and those members are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If you define it like that, then we have a team of 3 gods, polytheism... or tri-theism.... if the word doesn't exist, I claim royalties!

(December 19, 2014 at 3:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Multiple personalities in one god, simultaneously, each attending to different needs, all working together to... errr... keep this tiny speck of land floating in space and all its human inhabitants... err... not all, just the believers, behaving properly, while they mature spiritually to achieve the afterlife?

Does that make sense?

I like.

I've been dealing with christians for a while now... I should have picked up what you guys like
Hey, when I said speck, I meant the planet, I hope you got that... but here's a truly wonderful depiction of just how much of a speck it is:
If the moon were only one pixel - an accurate scale model of the solar system. Enjoy! I certainly did!

(December 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The first thing he does is start talking about "cosmic evolution," which... is not evolution. So I think the issue isn't that Kent is effective at what he does, but that he and you share the same problem of thinking that you get to redefine what evolution is to fit the agenda you want to push.

The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

Have you read his "PhD" "dissertation".

I have.

The man is a disingenuous idiot. I've also seen enough of his video material to be sufficiently convinced that viewing any more of it would be a complete waste of time.

His claims have been so thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere that any further consideration is a waste of everyone's time.