Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[Edwardo Piet]

Well whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. And if you don't know, then that's fine because you're not believing in something in the absence of evidence.

Wow, you're so quick to spout off what Richard Dawkins says you don't even know what you're talking about... There isn't an absence of evidence for something, that's for sure. We exist. You are not believing in something in the presence of evidence - you are ignoring the implications of the evidence.

I do know what I'm talking about. All I'm doing is simply saying that it's better to say "I don't know" than to assert an explanation without it having any evidence. Bare assertions are no good on their own, why should they be believed without evidence for them?

Yes reality exists. That is self-evident in our experience of it. What we call reality exists in the sense we experience it. But my whole problem with your argument is you are just making bare assertions. You are telling me that there are implications which imply that God exists, that reality itself is evidence that implies God....oh really? And why should I believe you? Simply saying it is so, doesn't make it so. How is reality an implication for God? Perhaps you could provide an argument?

I could just as easily make the bare assertion fallacy in respect to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can simply tell you that reality itself is evidence that implies that the FSM created the universe. It's the same bare assertion approach that you are taking - just like you, it's not even an argument. I won't take you seriously on a bare assertion on your part, for the same reason the FSM wouldn't be taken seriously on a bare assertion. You have to give an explanation for why God explains the universe, not merely assert that he does. If you truly want to be taken in the slightest bit seriously by anyone rational, you can't just barely assert things. You need an argument

Well, simply stating that God is necessarily required for morality, or that God is necessarily required for an explanation for the universe, are fallacious arguments.

Something is required for morality, and something is required for an explanation of the universe. I have found a reason for both morality and the universe through God.

Well, you say you have found a reason, that God is the reason - but all I've had from you is that bare assertions that he exists. Simply because you personally can't imagine anything being explained without him. Which is the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy.

The point is that you are barely asserting him. Yes, I believe that morality and the universe need explanations. But I don't see how God at all explains them, because then you have the same problem for God...only a bigger problem because he's much more complex, he's much more sophisticated. If morality and the universe requires explanation, then, by the same logic, he requires explanation too.

How does God explain it all exactly? And how can he, logically, be exempt from needing explanation? Whatever sparked off the universe in the first place, like the big bang, why can't that or whatever sparked that off - ...and so on... - be the beginning? Why does God, who is much more complex and improbable, need to be added into the equation?

But as it happens, despite the fact there's no explanation for the universe yet, at least not right down to the core....we do have an explanation for morality. Human beings, along with other animals, have evolved, and morality evolves because it's beneficial to our genes. Now, the workings of morality isn't fully explained. But it's basically part of humanity. We know morality exists in a subjective sense - in an objective sense, however - there's no evidence. I do not believe in objective morality because I know of no evidence for it.

Simply stating that you can be moral or that the universe just can exist is incredibly ignorant. For example: where do you base morality? Why shouldn't you kill (e.g. to mate with whomever you want to)? Why shouldn't you steal (since the fittest survive)?

Actually simply stating that they just can exist isn't ignorant at all. It's obvious. They obviously can exist, because they do. It is possible for them to exist, obviously, because they do.

We know that morality exists at least on a subjective level, in the sense that not everyone is like Hitler, and not everyone is perfect neither. But because it's subjective, Hitler may have thought what he was doing was good, but those of us who are more caring, obviously don't agree with him.

And it's just plain self-evident that the universe exists. We define everything that we believe exists on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, and then some, to be the universe. So assuming reality itself exists, yes, the universe does. It's not ignorant to state that universe exists. I would say that everything we experience, that we say to be part of this universe, is by definition, part of it.

Where do I base my morality? On what I think is moral. The same as everyone else. Why don't I rape and murder? Because I care about people, I don't want to hurt people. Empathy is the key thing when it comes to morality I say. And that came about through evolution.

What caused this existence and why does the universe exist? Are you working through the logical options right now, why or why not?

I don't know of any evidence for why the universe exists. Nor do I know of any evidence that the universe needs a reason to exist. It just is, mechanically, as far as I know. Why does there need to be a reason?

What caused its existence? I don't know. No one knows yet, at least not down to the core. Assuming that the big bang caused it, we then don't know what caused the big bang, and so on, so ultimately, no one really knows, at least yet.

So until we know, if we ever do, I am not going to just assume that God created it all, because I don't just accept random baseless assertions. If I'm told God explained it all, I'll ask "How?", if there's no support for the God argument - and, in my experience on this planet so far, there never has been yet - then I'm not going to just believe it without reason. I need evidence.

EvF

[Ryft]

You are the dumb fuck who is insisting this one God is three persons. YOU cannot seem to distinguish or understand ONE deity does not equal THREE deities.

It takes horrific mental gymnastics to go from my statement (that one God is one God) to Dotard's statement (that Arcanus thinks one God is three Gods). It is inconceivable for a conclusion to violate the standards of sound reasoning any more graphically than his did. He persistently insists that both myself and Christianity affirms three deities, a conclusion he cannot support with anything other than extraordinarily bad reasoning. Bravo, and well done.

Christianity consistently affirms belief in only one God, from scriptures to creeds to liturgies, and has for thousands of years. The assertion that Christianity believes in three deities is derived from conclusions drawn through fallacious reasoning—i.e., very wrong-headed inference. The fact that Dotard's argument stands on such irrational ground speaks volumes to any thinking observer.

If you are assigning these persons supernatural qualities, then they can rightfully be labeled deities, or entities.

A supernatural quality does not a deity make, under Christian theism (e.g., angels are ascribed supernatural qualities but are not deities). If someone wants to attack something Christianity does not teach, that's perfectly all right. But if someone tries to hold it as a criticism of Christianity, I'm going to draw everyone's attention to it being the Straw Man fallacy. Conclusions produced by fallacious reasoning are tremendously underwhelming to those who value critical thinking skills.

So tell me, Mr. Jon Paul wannabe, how the fuck can you say this ONE God is THREE persons? I don't give a fuck if a bunch of ancient dumbasses said it is so. I'm asking YOU how the hell do you reconcile that?!

I fail to see what is irreconcilable about three persons all having the same substance. The 'what' of an entity is distinct from how many entities possess it.

It's a simple question. Is it one, or is it three?

I believe any intelligent person could detect that his question is blatantly incomplete: one what, or three what?

"Christianity affirms only one God. And Christianity affirms God is three persons." And you don't have a problem with that? You just accept it, even though it is a contradiction, for no other reason than your pathological fears.

Christianity affirms that x, y, and z are all P. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a contradiction.

I, too, wish to know the underlying causes for Arcanus to attack me as he did. What I was trying to 'prove' is that the personal attacks Mr. Arcanus rolled out into the discussion can be played by me also. Two can play that game.

It is deeply ironic that Dotard wishes to know why I took such a tone. He sets the tone of the discussion; my response corresponded to the tone that he set; and he suddenly feigns bewilderment at the tone of the discussion? Even going so far as to give me a negative rep point!

Well there ya go.

Christianity confirms it cannot make up it's mind. It performs mental gymnastics in a desperate need to make it all make sense, yet it fails. Well, actually you fail.

Now I'll wait for the standard "you just don't understand" line of crap. I understand you have a hard time distinguishing "one" from "three". ;)<--One winky face. ;););)<--Three winky faces. See how that works?

Unless you live in bizarro world or christiandom. Those are the only two places I know of where 1=3 or 3=1. It matter not that "christianity affirms" 3=1 or 1=3. Christianity also "affirms" God made the sun stop so a war could be fought. It also "affirms" fidelity can be tested by making a woman accused of such eat dirt off a floor to see if she gets sick. It also "affirms" God flooded the entire world and killed off all human kind save for a small family.

I do believe you know what I am driving at here.

The Father is greater that I, and, I and the Father are one, are contradictory statements and you are failing to demonstrate otherwise.

Given the unfairness of the negative rep point, I have no interest in ever responding to Dotard again.

Incidentally, Dotard is dismissive of the phrase "Christianity affirms" and probably because that phrase in no way proves something as true. But who in their right mind would think otherwise? Not to put too fine a point on it, not even Christians believe that a thing is true merely because "Christianity affirms" it. However, ANY thinking person familiar with logical reasoning knows that what "Christianity affirms" is the criteria for evaluating whether or not some criticism of it commits a Straw Man fallacy.