Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[Ahriman]

Grand Nudger: do you understand Christianity?  if you know the message of Christianity, you know that a Christian is commanded to share his beliefs with others, using only sound doctrine, so what else would you expect from a Christian other than that one would come here? i think any complaint of my being here is really a complaint that Christians exist.

and people's reasons for believing or not believing have not been clear, not to me at least: there are too many terms with varying definitions, many of which (i believe) arent even their own.  what have i said that was ludicrous?  if any really wanted to discuss anything with me, i would drop the name "God" if they would drop the term "gods".

My complaint about Christians is not that they exist but that so few follow the advice supposedly given by Jesus concerning witnessing: to be as gentle as a dove, wise as a serpent, and if they won't listen to you, shake the dust off your feet and move on. We've all heard the 'good news', Christianity has reached market saturation. Now is the time to consider our position, and your position, very carefully to make sure you understand us and that you can offer some words likely to be effective. Praying about it might help.

Lol is he obligated to do that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Grand Nudger: do you understand Christianity?  if you know the message of Christianity, you know that a Christian is commanded to share his beliefs with others, using only sound doctrine, so what else would you expect from a Christian other than that one would come here? i think any complaint of my being here is really a complaint that Christians exist.

Simple human decency, which I suppose can be difficult in the face of some desires and the beliefs founded upon them.  

and people's reasons for believing or not believing have not been clear, not to me at least: there are too many terms with varying definitions, many of which (i believe) arent even their own.  what have i said that was ludicrous?  if any really wanted to discuss anything with me, i would drop the name "God" if they would drop the term "gods".

I've found them to be crystal clear, but I understand if your faith cant allow for that - thus your need to come up with nonsense explanations for things people will very clearly explain to you when you ask.  We get that alot here.

[R00tKiT]

If omniscient, then God has perfect foreknowledge of his own actions. 
Perfect foreknowledge precludes the ability to choose something different than what he knows he will choose.
This cancels out his omnipotence.
If God is strictly outside of the universe, then he cannot act on the universe, since any action that occurs to the universe is automatically part of the universe.

I literally cringe whenever I read very short posts like these boldly claiming that theism is incoherent, did it really happen ? that some guy casually trying to look like a smartass managed such an incredible feat... Do you know that thousands of brilliant atheist philosophers through history would sell both of their kidneys to find such an argument, and that you'll look like an idiot if you try to present some crappy pseudo-argument that pops up in google search whenever one types the keywords argument against theism ?

I'll give you some time to do three things : 

1/ find out what's wrong with your cute attempt to short-circuit theism, even though I'm 100% sure it wasn't even your attempt.
2/ After completing step 1, humbly explain to us that this was a brain fart (or that you picked the wrong website to copypasta from), and that you were mistaken.
3/ leave these discussions to people who are capable of heavy thinking and, more importantly, people who understand that there are no knockdown arguments against theism.

If you can't complete step 1, then you should seriously consider the possibility that you really are an idiot.

Well, the argument is that the complexity is such that no natural system could produce what we observe. 

That's not at all the argument. Your formulation above in bold is clearly a negative assertion, and negative assertions generally can't be proven. All variants of the design arguments are either analogical (e.g. the universe is analogous to intelligently designed machines + the analogy is strong enough to warrant a designer of the universe) or inductive (the designer hypothesis is a better explanation of available data than all competing hypotheses).

You're also making the implicit assumption that natural selection and the design hypothesis/theism are incompatible, needless to say that you need to provide very good justification of such an assumption.

In general, giving evidence of design isn't as easy as many seem to think. Among other things, it requires knowing enough of what can happen *without* intelligent interference to justify the necessity of such interference. On the other hand, it is often found that things that initially *look* designed can actually be the result of natural processes.

So the upshot is that the 'look around' argument simply doesn't get to the conclusion.

I can say the exact same thing about evidence of walls existing, or any other basic belief that we acquire through perception. In short, your objections to the appearance of design invariably lead to skepticism.

And, again, you're assuming that something being the result of natural processes explains away design. You need to actually justify the explaining away -the option of guided evolution is always available to the theist, so you basically did nothing to refute the design argument.

Perhaps it's better to use an analogy here : let's say you have a dozen of highly intelligent AI robots. These robots started investigating their own origins and eventually ended up tracing the entire history of technological progress made by mankind. One day, one robot suggested that : we have a lot of evidence of less intelligent machines, we found ((fossils)) of analog computers, calculators, floppy disks with laughably limited storage, and countless other machines in nature. It seems we can explain our origin or genesis without appeal to some intelligence called "human". Now, it's not hard to see that something is wrong here.

Yes, and what is wrong is that AI robots do not reproduce with mutations and are not subject to natural selection.

So, your only objection to my parody analogy is that AI robots don't reproduce ...........? We already have self-replicating malware that can modify its behavior to avoid detection (look up polymorphic virus), does that mean such malware doesn't warrant a programmer who wrote the malware ?
 
and let's say we managed to produce AI robots that can reproduce and can evolve through natural selection, does that mean we never existed .......?

Actually, I would say that the existence of something is ultimately determined by whether it can be detected in principle. So, yes, the detection of the wall through the senses is *precisely* why I believe they exist. It is part of the definition I use for 'existence'.

And your definition is plainly ridiculous. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That something is undetectable just means we can't detect it, and that empirical observation isn't enough to justify the assertion that it exists.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yay the village idiot is back to tell us all how "clever" he is. Sadly it's always false advertising 

[LinuxGal]

And your definition is plainly ridiculous. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That something is undetectable just means we can't detect it, and that empirical observation isn't enough to justify the assertion that it exists.

If something is undetectable, even in principle, then it is indistinguishable from non-existent.  We can dismiss its existence without further ado.

[Angrboda]

And your definition is plainly ridiculous. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That something is undetectable just means we can't detect it, and that empirical observation isn't enough to justify the assertion that it exists.

If something is undetectable, even in principle, then it is indistinguishable from non-existent.  We can dismiss its existence without further ado.

Oh geez, don't do that! Now he'll just talk some more.

[The Architect Of Fate]

And your definition is plainly ridiculous. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That something is undetectable just means we can't detect it, and that empirical observation isn't enough to justify the assertion that it exists.

If something is undetectable, even in principle, then it is indistinguishable from non-existent.  We can dismiss its existence without further ado.

What are you thinking?  now he blathers on and on and on and will not say a damn thing.

[rlp21858]

Mister Agenda: i also want no part of the "mainstream" approach to Christianity, so i understand people's disillusionment with the entire thing. anyone can call himself a Christian, but this doesnt mean he is one and any message can come in the name of Christianity but that doesnt mean it's part of it. though i use the name "Christian" too, i believe a distinction must be made between the title and one's actions, and this is recognized in the Christian world. but the terms that people use go back and forth. too many try to legitimize varying impotent intensities of action under the name of Christianity by creating additional names for them ("Angry Christian", "Lazy Christian", "Compromising Christian, etc") and this just creates confusion and gives Christianity a bad name. but Jesus made it easier to identify his followers: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." not by a title but by their actions.

i cant say that any person who commits an evil action isnt a follower of Christ. but i do believe the name "Christian" should indeed be synonymous with harmlessness and truth, and that anyone who brings a message under this name who cannot abide by these should not be regarded.

my purpose for being here is not to try to persuade anyone to accept any actions they believe to be evil that were done by those that use the name, but only to try to be a proper witness for Jesus Christ, to encourage members here not to reject the message on their account, *and perhaps to offer some hope or spirtual understanding to anyone who still has any hope left in the doctrine.

[Angrboda]

Mister Agenda: i also want no part of the "mainstream" approach to Christianity, so i understand people's disillusionment with the entire thing.  anyone can call himself a Christian, but this doesnt mean he is one and any message can come in the name of Christianity but that doesnt mean it's part of it.  though i use the name "Christian" too, i believe a distinction must be made between the title and one's actions, and this is recognized in the Christian world.  but the terms that people use go back and forth.  too many try to legitimize varying impotent intensities of action under the name of Christianity by creating additional names for them ("Angry Christian", "Lazy Christian", "Compromising Christian, etc") and this just creates confusion and gives Christianity a bad name.  but Jesus made it easier to identify his followers: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."  not by a title but by their actions.

i cant say that any person who commits an evil action isnt a follower of Christ.  but i do believe the name "Christian" should indeed be synonymous with harmlessness and truth, and that anyone who brings a message under this name who cannot abide by these should not be regarded.

my purpose for being here is not to try to persuade anyone to accept any actions they believe to be evil that were done by those that use the name, but only to try to be a proper witness for Jesus Christ, to encourage members here not to reject the message on their account, *and perhaps to offer some hope or spirtual understanding to anyone who still has any hope left in the doctrine.

I'm not sure I buy the theory underlying the passage in Matthew. As is commonly noted, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And a bad argument can have a true conclusion. And a bad person can do good acts. A potent example of this is the psychopath playing someone they want to take advantage of, or trying to pass in a society of normals. Someone like Joel Osteen may be tirelessly engaged in the lord's work, yet inwardly just a conman and a grifter who is using the ministry to his own benefit. And the reverse is true as well. Someone who is basically good can be given to incredible moral failures and acts. Someone who is not very bright may err frequently in applying moral principles in his life despite a resolute intention to do so. So, while by their fruits ye shall know them is a popular maxim, I think in it is too simplistic, overlooks the complex relation between character and intent, and fails to carve nature at here joints.

Beyond that is the whole question of who has the authority to assign whom what labels and on what basis. Unfortunately, these internecine squabbles between different kinds of Christians tend to take on a no true Scotsman flair. As far as I'm aware, Jesus' primary criterion for being a Christian was belief; all else seemed secondary -- a matter of the fine print of the contract.

[LinuxGal]

Beyond that is the whole question of who has the authority to assign whom what labels and on what basis.  Unfortunately, these internecine squabbles between different kinds of Christians tend to take on a no true Scotsman flair.  As far as I'm aware, Jesus' primary criterion for being a Christian was belief; all else seemed secondary -- a matter of the fine print of the contract.

Paul's primary criterion for being a Christian was belief, with all else secondary:

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Jesus' primary criterion for being a Christian was obedience to God:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.