(January 29, 2015 at 3:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: My point is that a message delivered by God to people [plural] over the course of three years would be superior to the private revelations of one man.

Where exactly are you getting the guidelines for your "Messages from God to People Strength Measuring Method"?

(January 29, 2015 at 3:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: My point is that a message delivered by God to people [plural] over the course of three years would be superior to the private revelations of one man. You then tried to use Paul to catch me so I pointed out that Paul content was not new revelation. Mohammad and Smith wrote content that cannot be reconciled to Jesus' (Gods) teachings so therefore must be dismissed as not true.

Yeah, sorry, but using two irrelevant arguments instead of one doesn't mean both become relevant; messages supposedly delivered by god directly are not true by necessity (just ask any number of cults claiming to be led by a reincarnated Jesus) so saying that god spoke directly to christians but delivered his message through prophets in islam doesn't lead one to the conclusion that one is true and the other false. And as I've already pointed out, whether a supposed revelation is the same as earlier ones or a departure does not speak to its truth either. Neither of these points would actually help you determine which religion is true.

You seem to have this problem where you privilege the premises and delivery mechanisms of your own religion over others, which is bad because without demonstrating the efficacy or reality of those premises it's basically an assertion of personal opinion, and not an actual argument. Saying Paul's revelation must be true because it agrees with Jesus might be compelling to you, when you already believe that Jesus spoke a truthful message, but from the outside looking in, without already assuming the truth of your position, it's not a compelling point without christianity being demonstrated as true. Same with your other point; you assert that the christian method would be superior to the- ahem- propheteering method of other religions, but it is just that, an assertion. Besides, imagining a superior way to spread a message doesn't mean that anyone claiming to use that method is telling the truth, and anyone using an inferior method is lying; jetpacks would be a superior way to travel, doesn't mean that cars and planes no longer exist.

Quote: How is it dishonest to think another religion is wrong? They cannot be all right. Because of the very definition of a miracle requiring the supernatural, it is very much related to what religion is true.

Surely, surely, I don't have to tell you that "I don't believe that religion is true," is not a reason to dismiss other religions?

(January 29, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 3:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: My point is that a message delivered by God to people [plural] over the course of three years would be superior to the private revelations of one man. You then tried to use Paul to catch me so I pointed out that Paul content was not new revelation. Mohammad and Smith wrote content that cannot be reconciled to Jesus' (Gods) teachings so therefore must be dismissed as not true.

Yeah, sorry, but using two irrelevant arguments instead of one doesn't mean both become relevant; messages supposedly delivered by god directly are not true by necessity (just ask any number of cults claiming to be led by a reincarnated Jesus) so saying that god spoke directly to christians but delivered his message through prophets in islam doesn't lead one to the conclusion that one is true and the other false. And as I've already pointed out, whether a supposed revelation is the same as earlier ones or a departure does not speak to its truth either. Neither of these points would actually help you determine which religion is true.

You seem to have this problem where you privilege the premises and delivery mechanisms of your own religion over others, which is bad because without demonstrating the efficacy or reality of those premises it's basically an assertion of personal opinion, and not an actual argument. Saying Paul's revelation must be true because it agrees with Jesus might be compelling to you, when you already believe that Jesus spoke a truthful message, but from the outside looking in, without already assuming the truth of your position, it's not a compelling point without christianity being demonstrated as true. Same with your other point; you assert that the christian method would be superior to the- ahem- propheteering method of other religions, but it is just that, an assertion. Besides, imagining a superior way to spread a message doesn't mean that anyone claiming to use that method is telling the truth, and anyone using an inferior method is lying; jetpacks would be a superior way to travel, doesn't mean that cars and planes no longer exist.

Sure, all these truth claims are a matter of opinion until you rise from the dead after a brutal crucifixion. That tends to lend weight to your truth claims over others. Of course if you don't believe the resurrection really happened, than all of your points are logical and valid.

---

Whenever my atheist friends propose that unicorns, Boo the Giant Miniature Space Hamster, or whatever can be substituted for God in the philosophical arguments for God, you are missing a key point. When you tease out the premises, you see that a description of God forms.

God would have to:
1. Transcend time and space
2. To avoid infinite regression, just be metaphysically necessary
3. Omnipotent
4. Be non-physical
5. Have a mind (consciousness, purpose, etc.)

So, you cannot substitute just "anything" into the argument. That "anything" would take on all these characteristics and just be another name for God.

(January 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, sorry, but using two irrelevant arguments instead of one doesn't mean both become relevant; messages supposedly delivered by god directly are not true by necessity (just ask any number of cults claiming to be led by a reincarnated Jesus) so saying that god spoke directly to christians but delivered his message through prophets in islam doesn't lead one to the conclusion that one is true and the other false. And as I've already pointed out, whether a supposed revelation is the same as earlier ones or a departure does not speak to its truth either. Neither of these points would actually help you determine which religion is true.

You seem to have this problem where you privilege the premises and delivery mechanisms of your own religion over others, which is bad because without demonstrating the efficacy or reality of those premises it's basically an assertion of personal opinion, and not an actual argument. Saying Paul's revelation must be true because it agrees with Jesus might be compelling to you, when you already believe that Jesus spoke a truthful message, but from the outside looking in, without already assuming the truth of your position, it's not a compelling point without christianity being demonstrated as true. Same with your other point; you assert that the christian method would be superior to the- ahem- propheteering method of other religions, but it is just that, an assertion. Besides, imagining a superior way to spread a message doesn't mean that anyone claiming to use that method is telling the truth, and anyone using an inferior method is lying; jetpacks would be a superior way to travel, doesn't mean that cars and planes no longer exist.

Sure, all these truth claims are a matter of opinion until you rise from the dead after a brutal crucifixion. That tends to lend weight to your truth claims over others. Of course if you don't believe the resurrection really happened, than all of your points are logical and valid.

---

Whenever my atheist friends propose that unicorns, Boo the Giant Miniature Space Hamster, or whatever can be substituted for God in the philosophical arguments for God, you are missing a key point. When you tease out the premises, you see that a description of God forms.

God would have to:
1. Transcend time and space
2. To avoid infinite regression, just be metaphysically necessary
3. Omnipotent
4. Be non-physical
5. Have a mind (consciousness, purpose, etc.)

So, you cannot substitute just "anything" into the argument. That "anything" would take on all these characteristics and just be another name for God.

But, Boo the Overlord Hamster is all of those things.

And you can't prove me wrong.

(January 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: Sure, all these truth claims are a matter of opinion until you rise from the dead after a brutal crucifixion. That tends to lend weight to your truth claims over others. Of course if you don't believe the resurrection really happened, than all of your points are logical and valid.

So, to start with, all you've essentially said here is that if you're right about your religion, then your religion is right. That's just a tautology.

Besides, with no evidence of the resurrection to speak of, nor any secondary witnesses to that claim outside of the bible itself, it's not exactly the concrete historical event you seem to want to characterize it as.

Quote:Whenever my atheist friends propose that unicorns, Boo the Giant Miniature Space Hamster, or whatever can be substituted for God in the philosophical arguments for God, you are missing a key point. When you tease out the premises, you see that a description of God forms.

God would have to:
1. Transcend time and space
2. To avoid infinite regression, just be metaphysically necessary
3. Omnipotent
4. Be non-physical
5. Have a mind (consciousness, purpose, etc.)

And one can simply assert that Boo has all of those qualities. Which is secondary to the main obstacle you have, which is that we have no evidence that any combination of those qualities, and even some of them individually, are even possible, which is a huge part of determining whether a belief is rational or not. Obviously, it isn't rational to believe that impossible things are real, so that's kind of a huge hurdle for you right there.

Quote:So, you cannot substitute just "anything" into the argument. That "anything" would take on all these characteristics and just be another name for God.

And you don't think it's a little dishonest of you to list generic characteristics for a deistic god in order to co-opt any alternative we propose (alternatives, I might add, that are rhetorical in nature, designed to show just how unjustified your own beliefs are) while you actually believe in a specific christian god that has more characteristics than just that basic set, of which our hypothetical alternatives can differ and wouldn't just be another name for your god specifically?

(January 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: God would have to:
...
2. To avoid infinite regression, just be metaphysically necessary
...

Why would a god have to avoid infinite regression?
If it can't infinitely regress, it's omnipotence would have to come under serious question.

(January 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, you cannot substitute just "anything" into the argument. That "anything" would take on all these characteristics and just be another name for God.

Or, you are the one substituting 'God' as another name for the "anything".

(January 29, 2015 at 4:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, to start with, all you've essentially said here is that if you're right about your religion, then your religion is right. That's just a tautology.

Besides, with no evidence of the resurrection to speak of, nor any secondary witnesses to that claim outside of the bible itself, it's not exactly the concrete historical event you seem to want to characterize it as.

When you say "bible" it implies one source. It didn't become the NT until 300 years later so what you have are 4 gospels, and multiple period letters from Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude. Again, we have a whole bunch of people who not only believed, but acted upon that belief.

(Still waiting for a reply to his question about a muslim using the same claims and reasoning)

(January 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: Sure, all these truth claims are a matter of opinion until you rise from the dead after a brutal crucifixion.

But you don't have this evidence.

All you have is some ancient texts, written decades or more after the alleged events by unknown authors, and some remarks made by non-contemporaries even later.

Quote:Whenever my atheist friends propose that unicorns, Boo the Giant Miniature Space Hamster, or whatever can be substituted for God in the philosophical arguments for God, you are missing a key point. When you tease out the premises, you see that a description of God forms.

God would have to:
1. Transcend time and space
2. To avoid infinite regression, just be metaphysically necessary
3. Omnipotent
4. Be non-physical
5. Have a mind (consciousness, purpose, etc.)

So, you cannot substitute just "anything" into the argument. That "anything" would take on all these characteristics and just be another name for God.

"God" is a job title, not a name.

But in reality, you are missing the point.

(January 29, 2015 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: When you say "bible" it implies one source. It didn't become the NT until 300 years later so what you have are 4 gospels, and multiple period letters from Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude. Again, we have a whole bunch of people who not only believed, but acted upon that belief.

Yeah, four gospels written anonymously and epigraphed later, and the claims of a bunch of other guys with zero independent or non-biased references to speak of. Expanding on the problems I had with your claim doesn't make it all okay, it just means you've got more problems.

Now, care to answer my other contentions with what you said?