How do you know God isn't dead?

[smax]

Thomas Jefferson is not a proper authority on such matters, so that’s just a fallacious appeal to authority.

Everything that opposes your view is fallacious, irrelevant, or nonsensical.

This is how you react to any and all arguments that effectively challenge your position.

I barely met you, and yet I know and can predict your every move. Be careful, I intend to demonstrate this fact conclusively before too long.

Let's continue with the fun....

Yup!

Thanks for the laugh.

Yes, you claim you have read it, but your displayed ignorance on the subject matter leads me to question that claim.

Here's how much I care what you think........

No…a creator who brings glory to Himself through the punishment of the rebellious creature.

And yet here I am, unscathed!

I can feel your blood boiling from here. LOL

How do you know you won’t? Are you planning on converting sometime soon?

Because your delusions have no bearing whatsoever on me. None.

They are powerless.

Yup. That in no way contradicts what I said, premises are assumed to be false until otherwise refuted at which point they become false premises, God’s existence has never been refuted.

A little Freudian slip there, heh!

Just like clockwork, my friend. You are in much more over your head than you would ever like to admit or think.

This is actually the second time you've unconsciously conceded an important point regarding your beliefs.

Don't let that discourage you, though, as you are finally working toward something truly worth while.

None of that applies to the God of scripture, so you just wasted your time.

I'll take that extremely weak, baseless, and unsupported comeback as a concession that were proven completely wrong.

First you stood on the fundamentals you THOUGHT applied to premise, and now that your perception has been proven to be false, it's just that "None of that applies to the God of scripture..."

LOL.

It doesn’t matter, you were quoting me and if you do it again I’ll have to report it, which I hate doing.

Proved you wrong again. I asked you a simple yes or no question, and you didn't answer. Deflection.

And, feel free to report the nameless quote and spare me any more of your threats.

I stand by the merits of my argument.

Why would I try to hold a position that is not possible? I am just intellectually honest and philosophically sophisticated enough to admit I am just as biased as you are. You’re the one being disingenuous by claiming to be objective when such a position is logically impossible to hold.

So you admit that are mentally ill and incapable of actually considering any other point of view. An illness you think has no cure.

Problem is, you've already demonstrated the opposite twice now.

I trapped you. You just refuted your claim that Christians do not really believe what they claim to believe because it’s all based upon your subjective opinion on how you think they ought to behave if they really did believe it. Thanks for that.

You are so clever, you got me! Oh wait, you didn't. Turns out I wasn't giving you my opinion about Christians and their actions. Observe and learn:

James Chapter 2:

14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

And I can provide many other supporting scripture on this subject.

I didn't make the rules of your delusion, I'm just very familiar with them.

You might want to keep that in mind from here out. It's already causing you problems, and I wouldn't want this to be easy.

bwahahahaha!

That’s only because you cannot back up your position concerning that subject.

You don't know my position.

That’s only relevant if the personal God feels the need to comply with your silly request, there’s no Biblical support for God ever feeling that need, so that’s an irrelevant argument.

Sure there is, you just can't accept the support because of the implications.

Jeremiah 33:3, "Call to Me and I will answer you and tell you great and wondrous things you do not know."

Obviously not, or else you’d realize that science only deals with probabilities and therefore there is no such thing as a “scientific impossibility”.

Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a

body of facts

or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

You stand corrected.

No, you’ve pointed out inconsistencies in your claimed understanding of the Bible, that only proves that you are fallible, which was never really something I doubted to be the case.

Hahaha! I gotta tell you, you blaming me for the inconsistencies in scriipture takes the cake, man! Just how much power do you afford me?

Okay, enough with the humor, let's tackle something basic. You know, we do have hundreds of inconsistencies to choose from.

Who is Joseph's father? And why the fuck does it matter in the first place?

Matthew 1:16: … and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli…

Next week on Maury.....

Who is Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli?

And how the fuck does it matter when it comes to the Virgin Mary and her baby Jesus?

You’ve not mocked God.

I know you are bad with definitions and terms, as evidence from your poor understanding of the use of a premise, but here's another one on me. No charge.

Mock:
1. To treat with ridicule or contempt; deride.

Depends on what you mean by effective. I find that prayer is very effective.

I know believers who have prayed for the safety and health of all newborn babies.

This prayer is completely consistent with the guidelines of prayer laid out in scripture, and yet newborn babies continue to suffer death and all kinds of diseases and defects.

Doesn't that just warm your cold, Calvanist heart?

You can toss out all the bad arguments you want, they don’t magically add up to a good argument.

Considering that you were conclusively proven wrong on each point, I'd say the opposite.

But hey, you still have your patented "That doesn't apply to the God of scripture" comeback.

Who knows, someone might actually think that's a valid and effective response.

Keep using it until you come up with something that's actually good.

Well even conceptually Yahweh cannot die, so whether you are speaking conceptually or existentially either way we know that God is not dead.

Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

If God cannot kill himsef, he is not omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then scripture lies. If scripture lies, you belief is a lie.

Smax didn’t seem to understand that.

The discussion is still going, therefore, it cannot have been "over before it started".

Duh!
[/quote]

[Tonus]

Damn im lost...what are we even arguing about now.

When I see these long exchanges, I am reminded of the Bruce Lee film Enter the Dragon. There is a scene where another fighter is bullying the young men on a small boat, and he tries to confront Lee's character, asking him which fighting style he uses. Lee answers that his style is called "the art of fighting without fighting," whereupon he tricks the other guy into getting off of the boat.

So what you're seeing in this topic is several examples of "the art of discussing without discussing."

[Statler Waldorf]

Finally. Agreed.

I think we agreed on that the whole time and were probably talking past one another.

Show me the money.

What money?

See how pointless this was anyways? We're at square one.

It was not pointless at all; we both agree that God is not dead and that the original post was rather silly to begin with.

Everything that opposes your view is fallacious, irrelevant, or nonsensical.

Yup, that’s why I hold the view I hold.

This is how you react to any and all arguments that effectively challenge your position.

A fallacious appeal to authority is not an effective challenge to my view.

I barely met you, and yet I know and can predict your every move.

There’s a simple explanation for that, unbelievers are unable to postulate a logically cogent view of reality, so of course all attacks upon Christianity are going to suffer from some form of irrationality, I am just here to point that out.

Here's how much I care what you think........

Maybe it’s time to start caring…

And yet here I am, unscathed!

More Biblical ignorance proudly displayed.

Because your delusions have no bearing whatsoever on me.

God’s existence does though.

This is actually the second time you've unconsciously conceded an important point regarding your beliefs.

There’s no such thing as an unconscious concession. Do you really want to go back to pointing out typos? I’ll be glad to point yours out to you if you’d like.

Premises are assumed to be true unless otherwise refuted, that’s basic logic; I am not surprised you were unaware of that fact though.

Don't let that discourage you, though, as you are finally working toward something truly worth while.

Worthwhile is one word.

I'll take that extremely weak, baseless, and unsupported comeback as a concession that were proven completely wrong.

Pointing out that you were committing the fallacy of erecting a straw-man argument is not a weak comeback at all; your utter disregard for rationality is troubling.

I
Proved you wrong again. I asked you a simple yes or no question, and you didn't answer. Deflection.

You asked an irrelevant question, the Mods do not care whether you credit someone with the quote or not, if you use the quote function you must use it appropriately, stop whining about it.

And, feel free to report the nameless quote and spare me any more of your threats.

If you do it again I will, I cut you some slack since you’re new here.

So you admit that are mentally ill and incapable of actually considering any other point of view. An illness you think has no cure.

You omitted a “you” in that sentence I believe because it doesn’t make any sense. Being biased is not a mental illness; it’s the natural condition everyone holds.

You are so clever, you got me!

‘twas not hard to do.

And I can provide many other supporting scripture on this subject.

Yup, and how do you know if a Christian is doing good deeds or not?

You don't know my position.

I know it’s logically incoherent, and that’s all I need to know about it.

Jeremiah 33:3, "Call to Me and I will answer you and tell you great and wondrous things you do not know."

You’re not calling out to the Lord, you’re challenging Him.

Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Yup, and since it’s based on inductive reasoning it only deals with probabilities and never deals with what is impossible. You’re just scientifically ignorant.

You stand corrected.

Such ignorance, are you really going to assert that scientific knowledge is infallible?

I gotta tell you, you blaming me for the inconsistencies in scriipture takes the cake, man! Just how much power do you afford me?

There are no inconsistencies in scripture; there are numerous inconsistencies in your superficial understanding of scripture.

Who is Joseph's father? And why the fuck does it matter in the first place?

That depends on which Joseph you are referring to.

Matthew 1:16: … and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

We already addressed this issue in the conflicting statements thread, Matthew is referring to Mary’s father Joseph here, the English translation made an error here; the Aramaic text correctly renders it as her father Joseph son of Jacob. No conflict.

Luke 3:23: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli…

Yup, Jesus’ adopted father Joseph was son of Heli. You see, it was all because of your ignorance and lack of understanding! If you had done some actual studying rather than pulling this off of some second rate atheist website you’d know that the term in Matthew should have been translated as “father” and is used that way in the ancient Aramaic texts.

Who is Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli?

Both had sons named Joseph, so I guess that depends on which Joseph you are referring to.

I know you are bad with definitions and terms, as evidence from your poor understanding of the use of a premise, but here's another one on me. No charge.

If premises were not assumed to be true beforehand then why would the term “false premise” be needed? If they were indeed assumed false that would be a completely redundant term. You’re so small time.

Mock:
1. To treat with ridicule or contempt; deride.

Yup, you have not mocked God.

I know believers who have prayed for the safety and health of all newborn babies.

So?

This prayer is completely consistent with the guidelines of prayer laid out in scripture, and yet newborn babies continue to suffer death and all kinds of diseases and defects.

Yup.

Doesn't that just warm your cold, Calvanist heart?

God knows what He’s doing.

Who knows, someone might actually think that's a valid and effective response.

Pointing out a misrepresentation is a valid response, if you had even a rudimentary understanding of basic logical reasoning you’d know that, but then again you are the guy who ascribes to verifcationism.

Keep using it until you come up with something that's actually good.

Good? How do you determine what is good?

Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Yup.

If God cannot kill himsef, he is not omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then scripture lies. If scripture lies, you belief is a lie.

You’re not using the term omnipotence correctly. Being all powerful only means that God can do all that is logically possible since both His actions and the laws of logic themselves directly derive from His character. Please stop misrepresenting the Biblical position; it makes you look so ridiculous.

The discussion is still going, therefore, it cannot have been "over before it started".

Sure it can, you persist on carrying it on even though other atheists on here are even now starting to call you out on your mistakes. You’re whipped.

[smax]

I wouldn't call any of this a mistake, especially considering how many concessions you've had to make, and the fact that your subconcious seems to be struggling with a lot of the information.

Not only that, but your selective reasoning with scripture shows that even your conscious mind is aware of how extremely weak your position is.

Example:

You say that scripture is infallable, and yet you yourself question it's validity for the sake of saving face in your own argument here.

Pretty darn telling, my friend. Darn telling, indeed.

---

One more thing, I'm the only one of the two of us that truly understands scripture. The reason is simple: I accept scripture for what it is: a poorly written, inconsistent, contradicting and unsubstantiated human invention of literature.

Just by affiliation, you cannot understand it, because you have to believe it's something that it isn't.

Advantage: me.

And, please, don't give up your "intellectual honesty" now.

Now edit this post for me, now!

[Statler Waldorf]

I wouldn't call any of this a mistake, especially considering how many concessions you've had to make, and the fact that your subconcious seems to be struggling with a lot of the information.

Prove the subconscious exists.

You say that scripture is infallable, and yet you yourself question it's validity for the sake of saving face in your own argument here.

Scripture is infallible, not infallable. I never questioned its validity either.

One more thing, I'm the only one of the two of us that truly understands scripture.

No way, you didn’t even realize that Matthew and Luke are talking about two different genealogies.

The reason is simple: I accept scripture for what it is: a poorly written, inconsistent, contradicting and unsubstantiated human invention of literature.

No, it’s the infallible word of God.

Just by affiliation, you cannot understand it, because you have to believe it's something that it isn't.

You cannot understand it because you suppress the truth.

I’ll ask you a few questions now…

What gave birth to the first Human and what did the first Human mate with?
How do you know that you can trust your ability to reason? Your senses? Your memory?

[smax]

I intentionally leave a couple of simple, yet irrelevent mistakes. I demand that you edit my post. And you do!

In the real world, that's a called a bitch. I didn't coin the term, I'm just familiar with it. Don't kill the messenger.

Anyway, you are wrong about those scriptures, and that's why you aren't breaking them down contextually. Because you know you can't make your case that way.

Instead, you just deflect by questioning the meaning of the text.

and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born = Jacob is Joseph's father

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli = Heli is Joseph's father

In both cases, Joseph (Jesus father and Mary's husband) is clearly indentified and different father's are given.

Also, one can't help but notice how you ignore the fact that Joseph's lineage is irrelevent if Jesus was truly conceived of the holy spirit. Even to the writers of the writers of the writers of the Bible, a virgin birth just doesn't make sense, so they included Joseph's lineage!

It's almost as if someone said:

"Let's see if this whole virgin birth goes over well. If not, we can always just say that Jesus was Joseph's really extraordinary son! What do you say, fellas!"

By the way, tossed a few mistakes in there for you. Have fun little buddy!

[Statler Waldorf]

I intentionally leave a couple of simple, yet irrelevent mistakes. I demand that you edit my post. And you do!

I have no issues at all with doing that, it makes you look rather uneducated. It’s irrelevant not irrelevent.

In the real world, that's a called a bitch. I didn't coin the term, I'm just familiar with it. Don't kill the messenger.

Someone who helps you with your spelling and grammar? I believe it’s called a tutor.

Anyway, you are wrong about those scriptures, and that's why you aren't breaking them down contextually. Because you know you can't make your case that way.

I am not wrong at all, Matthew traces the lineage to Mary, proving Jesus is a son of David, and Luke traces the lineage to Joseph son of Heli; you just didn’t have a clue what you were talking about.

Instead, you just deflect by questioning the meaning of the text.

No, I questioned the translation, the term should have been translated as Father of Mary (which is obvious from the fact this is Mary’s bloodline not Joseph’s) as the ancient Aramaic texts have it translated, the word used there can mean either father or husband in Greek so Matthew did not make a mistake at all, he was merely talking about Mary’s father Joseph.

= Jacob is Joseph's father

Yes, Jacob is the father of Joseph who is the Father of Mary, that’s how it reads in the original Greek and that’s what Christians believe is infallible. Mary’s husband was Joseph son of Heli.

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli = Heli is Joseph's father[/i]

Yup.

In both cases, Joseph (Jesus father and Mary's husband) is clearly indentified and different father's are given.

You mean identified? And you’re wrong, in the original text Matthew says Mary’s father is the son of Jacob and Luke says that Jesus’s adopted father Joseph is the son of Heli. Joseph was a very common name from that time period.

Also, one can't help but notice how you ignore the fact that Joseph's lineage is irrelevent if Jesus was truly conceived of the holy spirit. Even to the writers of the writers of the writers of the Bible, a virgin birth just doesn't make sense, so they included Joseph's lineage!

Adopted lineages are not irrelevant in Jewish culture at all. The virgin birth makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, tossed a few mistakes in there for you. Have fun little buddy!

No problem my uneducated and ignorant friend.

I’ll ask these questions again since you ignored them the first time (I am thinking you cannot answer them).

What gave birth to the first Human and what did the first Human mate with?
How do you know that you can trust your ability to reason? Your senses? Your memory?

[pocaracas]

What gave birth to the first Human and what did the first Human mate with?

Present humans are considered to belong to the "homo sapiens sapiens" or "anatomically modern Homo sapiens"
The first one, mated with the previous homo sapiens. In time, the previous species became recessive and faded away, leaving only the homo sapiens sapiens species.
Do you find it hard to think of new species appearing slowly, over the course of many generations? Do you think a new species appears spontaneously from the offspring of the previous one?

How do you know that you can trust your ability to reason? Your senses? Your memory?

I can't... but if I don't trust them, then what can I do? what can I learn? what am I?

[FallentoReason]

It was not pointless at all; we both agree that God is not dead and that the original post was rather silly to begin with.

Ah... you're doing it again: you're trying to sneak a conceptual being who was granted hypothetical life on the pages of an internet forum into real life. I don't agree that "God is not dead" nor that he was ever alive.

You can't will a being into existence, so show me the money; how do you know God exists?

[smax]

Staterlater Wardacough

I set the trap and you take the bait. I've quietly established an extremely predictable pattern on your part. And, the funny thing is, I warned you that I was going to do just that a couple pages back and you still took the bait. [/quote]

But, yeah, you're my TOOODOOR.

and Luke traces the lineage to Joseph son of Heli;

Scripture claims there is no lineage to Joseph. Or does it? Hmmmm.....

It's like you are looking in the mirror, and there is a huge zit on your face. But you keep telling yourself it's not there.

No, I questioned the translation, the term should have been translated as Father of Mary (which is obvious from the fact this is Mary’s bloodline not Joseph’s) as the ancient Aramaic texts have it translated, the word used there can mean either father or husband in Greek so Matthew did not make a mistake at all, he was merely talking about Mary’s father Joseph.

This might be the biggest crock of shit you've produced yet. The NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, KJB (CE) HCSB, ISV, NET, ABPE, GWT, KJV, AKJV, ASV, DRB, ERV, WBT, WNT, WEB, and YLT all disagree with your assessment, which is completely and utterly baseless.

Even your selective reasoning with the Aramaic texts is baseless.

This is actually one of those times when you are very fortunate to be in this element here, where most of the Atheists here do not have the religious background to call you out on this ridiculous take of yours.

You've found a new low. No doubt about that.

Oh, and thanks for admitting that Jewish customs and tradition had more to do with the inspiratiion of scripture than your alleged "holy spirit".

No problem my uneducated and ignorant friend.

You better hope I'm educated, because I'm schooling you. How embarassing would that be for you if there is nothing behind it?

By the way, you're not honest enough to compel me to answer any of your questions. You either won't like or accept the answers, or, as I just learned, you'll make some shit up out of thin air.

Matthew 1:16, the scripture that exposed you as being a fraud.

Isn't that ironic.