(June 16, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I can give you a dozen reasons to believe that the NT is historically reliable. Tim O'Neill gave the forum reasons why Jesus is not a myth. There are solid reasons to think that the resurrection really happened.

Oh please do. Maybe you manage to drop your pants even further than with your Hitler bullshit.

(June 16, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Well, the glossary in the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church sez:

GOD: The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed Himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation.

How's that for starters?

Theological mental acrobatics to square a circle?

(June 15, 2015 at 1:24 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Those are observations, not presuppositions, Randy. They are conclusions that I came to.

are the children dying every day only a lie then? Do the 21 major religious groups in the world today all worship the same thing despite contradicting each other significantly?

What place does toxocariasis (caused by eye-burrowing parasites that literally eat children's eyeballs) have in this design? Why is the world so imperfectly constructed if it had a perfect creator?

And now, instead of dodging my points with falsely identified logical fallacies I wasn't guilty of committing, would you be so kind as to put the condescension aside and actually address my post? Believe it or not, I'm here for discussion and your dismissive attitude is killing it.

Let me ask again: what are the steps in your reasoning that lead you from the conclusion of a creator to a theistic god, then your deity, then your denomination? [emphasis added]

If you aren't taking me seriously Randy, say so. I don't want to waste my time if you're not willing to engage.

Well, I was about to address the problem of evil which is what you first two or three questions are about, but then I read again and saw the question I have highlighted above. Which am I supposed to be answering?

(June 16, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Which am I supposed to be answering?

Well, it's actually one question. Isn't that kind of obvious? He's asking how you went from believer to catholic. Does that clear things up?

(June 15, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 7:31 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Many atheists say that all arguments for the existence of God rely on fallacious “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning.

Those 'many atheists' are wrong, there are many arguments for the existence of God that rely on other fallacies.

And discussing them one by one would be fine with me.

The purpose of my OP was simply to point out to those IN THIS FORUM who spout "GotG! GotG!" to just about anything I post that there are problems FOR THEM in that line of thought.

In that purpose you failed.

(June 15, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Cato Wrote: Just finished my daily check of this thread to discover Randy's God is still missing. I expect more of the same tomorrow.

That's because you're looking in the wrong place. I expect more of the same tomorrow.

(June 16, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 15, 2015 at 12:50 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: What is your definition of "God", Randy? You're the one who believes in it, so you're the one who needs to define it.

Well, the glossary in the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church sez:

GOD: The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed Himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation.

How's that for starters?

The only part that actually comes close to meaning anything, and that's "creator of all that is".  Other than that, it's just word salad.

(June 15, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There are many more flaws in the arguments Horn mentions above than just being appeals to ignorance. 

Sure...at least, that's what you claim. But remember, my OP was aimed at those who repeatedly resort to the "GotG" argument over and over and over again in this forum. They know who they are.

Quote:

Quote:The problem with the "God-of-the-gaps" objection is that it can have unintended consequences for atheism. Specifically, it makes atheism impossible to falsify, in the same way that most religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Rather than rely on science, "God-of-the-gaps" pushes atheism far away from being a scientific belief.

Nice way to shift the burden of proof, there, Mr. Horn. 

Damn straight it was. And legitimate.

Quote:Atheism does not have tob be falsified. It is not a claim. It is a response to a claim.

Depends on the circumstances. Atheists can make positive claims about their beliefs, too. So, it's a nice little thing you folks have going...all agreeing to deny any burden of proof no matter what and all...but I don't buy it.

Quote:So tell me Mr. Horn, do you need to falsify your disbelief in: Bigfoot, alien abductions, various lake monsters, lizard shape shifting aliens and the other 1000's of claims you disbelieve? Or is simply being unconvinced by the lack of evidence enough?

Actually, Horn does address this in his book. Have you read it? If Christians read books by Atheists about atheism, maybe some of you should get off your lazy backsides and read some books written by Christians. But back to Horn: apart from claiming agnosticism with regard to UFO's, Horn points out the bigger truth that absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.

I'll just repeat that phrase forever every time someone says, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Shouldn't be too long before we're no longer talking at all.

Quote:

Quote:Atheists have two options. First, they could admit that no amount of evidence could satisfy the “God-of-the gaps-objection” and show God exists. This would leave atheism behind the safe veil of protection that cloaks other unfalsifiable beliefs, such as the belief the entire world is a computer simulation.

If atheists say that atheism does not claim "There is no God," only that some people lack a belief in God, then atheism can't be true at all. A belief can only be true (in a non-trivial sense) when it makes a claim about the world and not just about someone's state of mind. Saying "I lack a belief in God" no more informs us about reality than saying "I lack a belief in aliens" informs us about the facts related to extraterrestrial life.

Not our problem. 

If a god existed, he would be able to come up with a way to convince the most skeptical among us. 

If he was unable to think of a method to convince us, then he doesn't deserve the title 'god'. 

How would God come up with a way that could not fail to convince the most skeptical without being coercive?

Quote:

Quote:Second, if these options proved unsatisfactory, atheists could instead put forward strict standards of what kind of evidence would falsify atheism and prove God exists. Although, if those standards included extremely improbable events or something coming from nothing (such as perfect prophecy or healing an amputee) then the traditional arguments for God come back into play, since they include similar phenomena about the universe (such as cosmic fine-tuning and the origin of the universe in the finite past) in order to show God exists.

Rather than argue from what we don’t know (or “God-of-the-gaps”), good arguments for theism take what we do know and show how it logically leads to the transcendent creator of the universe.

Of course, since theists are unable to provide evidence for their claims, the logical arguments are all you have. 

To bad they are all flawed.

Tell that to Alvin Plantinga.  

(June 15, 2015 at 5:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: Randy, can I interest you in a psychological definition of god?  Works pretty good without any of the pesky cognitive dissonance.  Let me know.

Post away. I may disagree, but I'll read what you post.

(June 16, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And I have explained to you on more than one occasion why it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

Gee, you've BEEN TOLD. Why do you continue with your dishonest claims that God does not exist when you already know the truth?

See my point? Yeah, you've TOLD me what Darwinism means...I just don't believe your interpretation is applicable in a social situation.

So, I'll argue for what I believe based on what I believe, and you, of course, will continue to do the same.

The difference, of course, is that words have meanings, and if you're going to discuss something that significantly varies from what that meaning is, then you are no longer discussing the subject of the word. In your case, you are misrepresenting what the concepts associated with Darwinian fitness in order to make the whole subject look bad; aside from being a guilt by association fallacy, and an appeal to consequences, when you assert that a term means one thing when you know it was coined with the intention of meaning something else entirely, that is dishonest.

Because this isn't just my opinion versus your opinion, where both interpretations are equal, that's not how language works. Words mean things: if I give you a glass of water, and you attempt to assert that I actually gave you a glass of poison, to make me look bad, then you are factually in error.

The usage of the concepts that I am using isn't just my opinion, it's the meaning they were given when they were coined. It's the meaning as Darwin understood it. It is the literal embodiment of "Darwinian" theory, and the reason you are being dishonest isn't because you haven't instantly jumped to my way of thinking, it's because you are attempting to replace the ideas Darwin actually proposed with ones he did not, and call that "Darwinism" anyway.

It's roughly the equivalent of me taking the whole text of Mein Kampf and attributing those ideas to Jesus; is that an honest representation of the words of Jesus? Am I able to lean on "my interpretation is that Jesus is best embodied by Mein Kampf," as justification? Are all interpretations equal then?

Or is it that people can be factually incorrect when it comes to their interpretations? And that when they use their interpretations even after being corrected, when they knowingly attempt to rewrite history because it better suits their ideological goals rather than the facts that they know after having been told, that they are acting dishonestly?