Dualism

[fr0d0]

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Playing with words again. It's laughable for YOU to suggest this is people believing there's proof. People's beliefs themselves are not in question here.
You have named 3 non examples... you need to go away and find an ACTUAL example.
Why should I have to go away and find anything? I have made no claims. I said it was a personal stance that I've yet to find fault with. Did you miss that bit?

Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.

Yeah right. You mean you have no idea what direction and guidance is offered by Christianity. How convenient. How gob smackingly unbelievable you've lived life in ignorant bliss of these facts. But then of course you're not being genuine. I'm supposed to wait with baited breath on your cynical misinterpretations. Lets not waste each others time ok?

I see you are really getting into the substantiating mode here... Is it so hard to say even one small positive thing about the direction you and your christian friends have plotted for the entire human race? Mind your PR (no purple rabbit hides in there) my friend. I'm afraid that when you continue on this road the big chief from the sky will have to come down for some old testamential plagues to flog us happy with the plan we never asked for.

I have no wish to prostelytise in your general direction PR. You're going to do all the leg work on that particular quest using your own cute li'l feet. Goad all you like. I will not rise.

So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

To bring you up to speed.. Dawkins speaks of empirical and non empirical evidence. The history of my discussion with Evie includes exploration of these ideas. So I use the word proof to be more exact. Empirical evidence only. It's clear from the Christian Bible that there is never proof of God. I go as far as saying that this is a signature of God. If we can prove it, then it isn't God. I stand to be corrected on this. So far it's holding true.

I cannot prove that 5 = 6. Can you? Lo and behold, it is the mark of the lord, the mathmatical god has revealed himself through the numbers! His ways are mysterious indeed. Never heard such bullshit in my life, lmao.

We know 5 does not = 6. We can prove 5 = 5. We cannot prove God does not exist. Are you saying what you say is bullshit?

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.

Sorry, I'm not a literalist. Genesis 1 is not provably a literal account. It's many other things. Sometimes incredibly complex poetry, sometimes allegorical.

Somehow expected you not to be a literalist. But what the hack do you mean that Genesis 1 (we are not going through all Genesis paragraphs on by one, are we, my rash is already beyond treatment right now) is not provably a literal account? That it is not provable, that it is not an account, that its literal meaning is not provable but true? Make up your mind, boy.

I'm merely discussing your subject. Playing with words again? I only say I understand it to be non literal.

tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

LOL

Are you getting it? Biblical truth doesn't impact on scientific discovery. That's what I think too.

You are misreading here. I am not exclusively comparing science to religion here. I didn't add the equal rights and the slavery thing for nothing.

I thought you were being sloppy, sorry. Do you not know of William Wilberforce?

Corrupt people; Societies with differing standards to our own... sure have done the opposite of Christ's stated aims. Christianity isn't at fault here. I'm sure the same is true for other religions too. Your sloppyness would have to be pretty thorough to blind yourself to the facts so completely.

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p

[Kyuuketsuki]

We cannot prove God does not exist

We also cannot prove the IPU, the FSM, the teapot orbiting between Mars and Earth, the Great Green Arkleseizure, the Mutant Stargoat, whether there is a cream cake at the middle of the Earth, UFO's, Ghosts and many, many other things. That's not to mention the hundreds of other gods that are currently claimed to exist and the many thousands that have been claimed or the fact that none of us can literally prove any of what we sense is real.

In essence your entire argument is fucking pointless.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

It's not my argument

[Purple Rabbit]

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Playing with words again. It's laughable for YOU to suggest this is people believing there's proof. People's beliefs themselves are not in question here.
You have named 3 non examples... you need to go away and find an ACTUAL example.
Why should I have to go away and find anything? I have made no claims. I said it was a personal stance that I've yet to find fault with. Did you miss that bit?

Let's have a look how the argument went so far.

First you demanded justification for my claim that theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. You did that here:

PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
There's a claim. substantiate please.

Then I give you three examples of two dead theologians and one contemporary theologian (Anselm, Aquinas and Swinburne). I do that here:

Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.

Then you discard my examples on the ground that the proofs of these men are invalid. You do that here:

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Of course this is a rather vitreous diversion tactic, a wordgame played in the hope no-one notices that you have changed the rules while playing the game. It is not relevant at all if these so called proofs are valid or not, what counts is that these theologians claimed them to be valid.

To summarize:
P1 - these men were/are theologians.
P2 - these theologians claimed proof for the existence of god.
C1 - Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

From P1 and P2 it follows that theologians through the ages have claimed proof for the existence of god. If you do not agree with this please make clear what's wrong about P1 or P2 or how the premisses not necessarily lead to the conclusion, for you have done none of that so far.

From C1 it follows that through the ages theologians do not share your key assumption that belief does not require proof. The rest of your talk is blabla to divert attention from this key point.

Please sanatize your argumentation. I believe that you can do better than you have done so far.

[Kyuuketsuki]

It's not my argument

You're the one who said, "We cannot prove God does not exist" you moron ... of course it's your fucking argument.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

Well it took about two seconds to pinpoint the faulty reasoning in the article you provided in the link. The article deals with the rebuttal of a strong moral claim (“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”), not with the technical rules for rational argument that require justification for expressed truth claims offered as part of that rational argument. Many theologians sought rational argument and accepted that this implies a burden of proof. The belief as such does not require justification as I stipulated earlier, rational argument about it does.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p

Well, I think you are fighting some personal windmills here. I am not a native english speaker and I could not decide on the right spelling of the word ludicrousy, and expressed my frustration about it between brackets. That's all. No reason for ad hominem.

[Purple Rabbit]

So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

To bring you up to speed.. Dawkins speaks of empirical and non empirical evidence. The history of my discussion with Evie includes exploration of these ideas. So I use the word proof to be more exact. Empirical evidence only. It's clear from the Christian Bible that there is never proof of God. I go as far as saying that this is a signature of God. If we can prove it, then it isn't God. I stand to be corrected on this. So far it's holding true.

I cannot prove that 5 = 6. Can you? Lo and behold, it is the mark of the lord, the mathmatical god has revealed himself through the numbers! His ways are mysterious indeed. Never heard such bullshit in my life, lmao.

We know 5 does not = 6. We can prove 5 = 5. We cannot prove God does not exist. Are you saying what you say is bullshit?

Your knowledge of mathematics is not relevant at all. That you or I think it is bullshit is not relevant at all. We can believe that 5=6. You and I are totally free to do so. You cannnot prove that 5=6, can you? Then this must be the mark of the lord.

tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

LOL

Are you getting it? Biblical truth doesn't impact on scientific discovery. That's what I think too.

You are misreading here. I am not exclusively comparing science to religion here. I didn't add the equal rights and the slavery thing for nothing.

I thought you were being sloppy, sorry. Do you not know of William Wilberforce?

I asked you to name one uniquely biblical 'truth' that has ever helped to (among other things) abolish slavery. For this purpose it is not enough to name anti-slavery christian thinkers. You will have to show that the anti-slavery idea was a uniquely christian idea. The idea that slave trade is immoral however is not uniquely christian. Humanistic thinkers and other non-christian thinkers condemned slavery long before the religious abolitioners movement gained substantial support. Against your claim there is also ample evidence of condonement of slavery in the OT and a strong case can be made that christianity has been a supporting force in the slave trade. I do not deny that there have been christian anti-slavery thinkers. I do deny that the sole source of this idea is biblical. There is ample evidence that it is not a uniquely biblical moral stance and that in various reliogions and cultures the idea has emerged. Christianity cannot claim to have invented it and humbleness on this point is advised since christianity played a dubious role in the rise of the slave trade.

[fr0d0]

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Playing with words again. It's laughable for YOU to suggest this is people believing there's proof. People's beliefs themselves are not in question here.
You have named 3 non examples... you need to go away and find an ACTUAL example.
Why should I have to go away and find anything? I have made no claims. I said it was a personal stance that I've yet to find fault with. Did you miss that bit?

Let's have a look how the argument went so far.

First you demanded justification for my claim that theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. You did that here:

PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
There's a claim. substantiate please.

Then I give you three examples of two dead theologians and one contemporary theologian (Anselm, Aquinas and Swinburne). I do that here:

Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.

Then you discard my examples on the ground that the proofs of these men are invalid. You do that here:

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Of course this is a rather vitreous diversion tactic, a wordgame played in the hope no-one notices that you have changed the rules while playing the game. It is not relevant at all if these so called proofs are valid or not, what counts is that these theologians claimed them to be valid.

To summarize:
P1 - these men were/are theologians.
P2 - these theologians claimed proof for the existence of god.
C1 - Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

From P1 and P2 it follows that theologians through the ages have claimed proof for the existence of god. If you do not agree with this please make clear what's wrong about P1 or P2 or how the premisses not necessarily lead to the conclusion, for you have done none of that so far.

From C1 it follows that through the ages theologians do not share your key assumption that belief does not require proof. The rest of your talk is blabla to divert attention from this key point.

Please sanatize your argumentation. I believe that you can do better than you have done so far.

What a moronic argument. Let me explain to to why that is so.

Your substantiation that Christians have believed in God on grounds of proof is that they believe using the logic "because we can think it exists then it does". THIS IS NOT PROOF. THEY HAVE NO PROOF. There is no evidence that theologians through the ages have believed in God with proof. Your arguments beggars belief. Please come into the real world.

You're completely playing with words to justify your statement. If we accept proof that is contrary to our understanding then sure, we could justify just about anything. I am not talking philosophical proofs... these are hypothetical at best. I'm talking proof that's valid scientifically. Because some jerk of a philosopher says if he can think of the earth as flat then it is, is pure jibberish.

This is pure wordplay on your part. You have no valid points to make, you're 100% pedant & no trousers.

---

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

Well it took about two seconds to pinpoint the faulty reasoning in the article you provided in the link. The article deals with the rebuttal of a strong moral claim (“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”), not with the technical rules for rational argument that require justification for expressed truth claims offered as part of that rational argument. Many theologians sought rational argument and accepted that this implies a burden of proof. The belief as such does not require justification as I stipulated earlier, rational argument about it does.

So you swing wildly in the opposite direction when it suits you. Now we're back to proper debating with "following technical rules'. Pure pedantry again. Many theologian may have tried to find proof by whatever means. None did so. Yours is the positive claim. I believe the point goes that it is you that must support your claim.
Like I said... I've merely pointed out an idea. It seems to be common to all major religions. You have yet to find one valid argument against it. Proof = scientifically valid proof. Proof = anything that would establish beyond logic that there was no reason for faith.
If religions require faith then they have no proof. No logical reason to believe without faith. Show me this isn't true where the religion requires faith.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p

Well, I think you are fighting some personal windmills here. I am not a native english speaker and I could not decide on the right spelling of the word ludicrousy, and expressed my frustration about it between brackets. That's all. No reason for ad hominem.

I used the word in the preceeding post. It doesn't exist. No need to be so anal.

---

It's not my argument

You're the one who said, "We cannot prove God does not exist" you moron ... of course it's your fucking argument.

Kyu

Oops! Personal insult :p

You mean you think my statement was moronic perhaps?

---

I asked you to name one uniquely biblical 'truth' that has ever helped to (among other things) abolish slavery. For this purpose it is not enough to name anti-slavery christian thinkers. You will have to show that the anti-slavery idea was a uniquely christian idea. The idea that slave trade is immoral however is not uniquely christian. Humanistic thinkers and other non-christian thinkers condemned slavery long before the religious abolitioners movement gained substantial support. Against your claim there is also ample evidence of condonement of slavery in the OT and a strong case can be made that christianity has been a supporting force in the slave trade. I do not deny that there have been christian anti-slavery thinkers. I do deny that the sole source of this idea is biblical. There is ample evidence that it is not a uniquely biblical moral stance and that in various reliogions and cultures the idea has emerged. Christianity cannot claim to have invented it and humbleness on this point is advised since christianity played a dubious role in the rise of the slave trade.

And I answered that biblical truth isn't scientific truth. Religious truth sets the parameters for people to live fulfilled lives. The biblical principle is what moulds our social structure. You seek to attribute things that are against biblical truth to biblical truth. A logical nonsense. Religious truths. no matter what the source (as you pathetically try to dismiss them on exact lineage) hold true. Christianity in particular is in essence an anti slavery religion. That's what it was born out of. That's the thrust of it's ethos. You can misinterpret to your hearts desire, the facts simply don't support that.
I never said that the sole idea of anti slavery is Christian. A personal windmill of yours? Wilberforce was simply a prominent mover, who also had Christian motives..

[Giff]

The biblical principle is what moulds our social structure.

Unfortunate is that somewhat true Fr0d0, in some places. Also if we look in history is your statement correct. That's why we had the crusades for an example, incvisition(if I spelled it right), book burning, witch hunting, massmurdering people with diffrent religion, militant missonry missions and so on.

So the biblical truth is that killing people is justified. If you look is it justified in the bible. Also stone people to death and such. Ignoring this and just take out the good parts isn't biblical truth. I don't know really want to go with biblical and religious truths. What is the truths about them Fr0d0?

I can easily say that your statmen that :

Religious truth sets the parameters for people to live fulfilled lives

is false. You don't nead religion or religious truths to live fullfiled lives. Ridicilous statement. I haven't been needing it, people who have been atheist or non-religious all their lives haven't been needing it. Just pure crap coming from your side.

When it comes to Jesus so is that another thing. As, Michael Maher , do I of course agree with the christian philosohpy to take care of eachother and love other people. Who wouldn't agree with that? It's nearly the same message as Buddha for an example. I can agree with the philosophy but I don't agree with the religion or the religious view.

But again, if you explain what religious truth would that be helpful.

Because I don't get you really there. As I said is the bible full of things and messages. many is violent and intoelrant. Most is of course telling stories about diffrent devine events. But when it comes to deliviring mesages is there many of them, they encourage discremination, justifieing killing of others and so on, together with message of peace and harmony. As far as biblical truth is do I find it to be very contradicting.

To follow the bible and regard it as any truth is dangerous, and if not quite stupid since many of the things there is just plain silly in our modern world.

Religion and relgious is a illusion which people use to fill their lives with meaning. It might be a pleasent illusion, but it is still not the reality.

[Purple Rabbit]

Let's have a look how the argument went so far.

First you demanded justification for my claim that theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. You did that here:

PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
There's a claim. substantiate please.

Then I give you three examples of two dead theologians and one contemporary theologian (Anselm, Aquinas and Swinburne). I do that here:

Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.

Then you discard my examples on the ground that the proofs of these men are invalid. You do that here:

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Of course this is a rather vitreous diversion tactic, a wordgame played in the hope no-one notices that you have changed the rules while playing the game. It is not relevant at all if these so called proofs are valid or not, what counts is that these theologians claimed them to be valid.

To summarize:
P1 - these men were/are theologians.
P2 - these theologians claimed proof for the existence of god.
C1 - Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

From P1 and P2 it follows that theologians through the ages have claimed proof for the existence of god. If you do not agree with this please make clear what's wrong about P1 or P2 or how the premisses not necessarily lead to the conclusion, for you have done none of that so far.

From C1 it follows that through the ages theologians do not share your key assumption that belief does not require proof. The rest of your talk is blabla to divert attention from this key point.

Please sanatize your argumentation. I believe that you can do better than you have done so far.

What a moronic argument. Let me explain to to why that is so.

Yeah, let us enjoy your enlightened mind and your kind heart so typical for bubble religious self approval.

Your substantiation that Christians have believed in God on grounds of proof is that they believe using the logic "because we can think it exists then it does".

Sorry, that's not what I claimed. I have repeated my claim several times now and I will repeat it again and again till you show some reading skills. Please take your time in reading my claim, here it is again:

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

Please register the following:
(1) I do not claim to know if the proof that the theologians brought forward played any role in their personal belief. I only claim that they "through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god". That's what I claim, nothing more, nothing less.
(2) I think it is possible though that these theologians believed in the validity of their proofs. If you think that they didn't believe in the validity of their own proofs, you imply that they were frauds. Quite possible. They wouldn't be the first religious frauds known in history. Quite possible indeed. But you cannot know this for sure because you cannot look inside their heads, can you? Especially the deed ones offer a serious problem in that respect. If you assert that you know they did not believe their own proofs, I would simply not believe you on your word alone. I would require evidence. And so the circle closes.

THIS IS NOT PROOF. THEY HAVE NO PROOF.

Please pay close attention to register the following:
(1) It is YOUR unsubstantiated belief or opinion that it is no proof. There are christians even nowadays who think it is proof. So it is in fact possible that these theologians expressed them as proofs because they really thought they were proofs. If you have evidence of some sort to support th claim that these theologians never thought or could have thought that these were proofs, now is the time to come forward with it.
(2) If it is your belief that these were not proofs then according to you it is unprovable that these were not proofs but still you claim it to be so. That would express itself to me as undebatable opinion. If it is your opinion but you don't wanna debate the content of it, the result is the same. You assert, but you don't wanna debate about it. Fine, but then why flog us with undebatble issues. A forum is typically a place for debate.

Please come into the real world.

Do you mean the one in which debate requires substantiating of expressed opinions? Come aboard, my friend, and enjoy the pleasures of decent argumentation. You might enjoy it.

You're completely playing with words to justify your statement.

You are stressing yourself hard to divert attention from the content to all sorts of allegations. That's a rather childish way of debating. It is your choice however.

In essence you plea that belief never requires justification. You imply that personal beliefs never need to be challenged in any way, because that's the nature of beliefs, believe it or not. In this way the road is open to create your own solipsistic bubble build on unprovable, undeniable, untouchable personal beliefs. And you are completely entitled to have that bubble, a place where your personal truths are safely locked away from doubts and external scrutiny.

I prefer to expose my personal truths every now and gain to criticism of others. Often debate is a consequence of that and I have experienced considerable advantages in receiving these critiques on my stances. Indeed, much of what I think of religion nowadays has been formed through debate in past years. So we walk different roads.

If we accept proof that is contrary to our understanding then sure, we could justify just about anything. I am not talking philosophical proofs... these are hypothetical at best. I'm talking proof that's valid scientifically. Because some jerk of a philosopher says if he can think of the earth as flat then it is, is pure jibberish.

Well science itself offers examples were that's not the case. Much of quantum physics is contrary to human understanding. People, even the very intelligent ones, have a hard time grasping QM. Very famous quote of Richard Feynman (not particularly unintelligent or without expertise on the subject): "If you think you understand, then you don't". There is some tongue in cheek there, but at the heart of QM there are unsolved puzzles (the various yet inreconcilable interpretations of QM) that are to difficult for humans to grasp. Still QM is very accurate in predicting quantum phenomena and it is also very scientific. So there you go.

Of course in your personal bubble of undeniable and unprovable beliefs, you don't have to believe me. Hell, you don't have to believe even that there is something as quantum phyics at all. It would require no evidence at all for you, only your believe, to believe that QM is pure jibberish.

This is pure wordplay on your part. You have no valid points to make, you're 100% pedant & no trousers.

---

I'll let the readers be the judge of it. Amidst my rather extensive argumentation your unsubstantiated allegations and diversion tactics stand out just fine.

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

Well it took about two seconds to pinpoint the faulty reasoning in the article you provided in the link. The article deals with the rebuttal of a strong moral claim (“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”), not with the technical rules for rational argument that require justification for expressed truth claims offered as part of that rational argument. Many theologians sought rational argument and accepted that this implies a burden of proof. The belief as such does not require justification as I stipulated earlier, rational argument about it does.

So you swing wildly in the opposite direction when it suits you. Now we're back to proper debating with "following technical rules'. Pure pedantry again. Many theologian may have tried to find proof by whatever means. None did so. Yours is the positive claim.

Have you really, really read my claim? I'll give it to you again: "Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god."

Please register the following:
(1) For this claim it is enough to show that "theologians through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god." Should be pretty obvious I think.
(2)That it is not necessary for this claim to be true that the proofs are validated by you, me or anybody?
(3) Right, hope you're still with me. The steps so far are actually easy. Well then, I gave you Anselm, Aquinas and Swinburne. All theologians. All brought forward arguments as proofs of the existence of god. I don't know whether they believed their own proofs or if their proofs played any role of significance in their personal beliefs in any way, since I cannot look inside heads of people, including heads of theologians and especially in heads of dead theologians. I do not claim that I can. Maybe they were secretely instructed by invisible aliens to bring forwards these arguments as valid proofs, or maybe they were instructed by a purple rabbit from the 26th dimension as some kind of practical joke. I really, really, really don't know or claim to know. So do you understand what I am saying here in plain english?

I believe the point goes that it is you that must support your claim.

I have done so extensively but you don't seem to register. Need another go at it?

Like I said... I've merely pointed out an idea. It seems to be common to all major religions. You have yet to find one valid argument against it. Proof = scientifically valid proof. Proof = anything that would establish beyond logic that there was no reason for faith.
If religions require faith then they have no proof. No logical reason to believe without faith. Show me this isn't true where the religion requires faith.

We're finally on to something here. Here you assert that belief requires no scientific proof. Earlier you asserted that because belief is unsubstantiated in nature it requires no proof. But why stop there? If the nature of belief is that it needs no substantiating then it does not require justification of any sort. Is there some law of nature I don't know of that states that beliefs specifically do not require SCIENTIFIC proof, because science is fauled up by some nasty beast from the 23rd dmension, playing tricks on a certain rabbit? Please elaborate.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p

Well, I think you are fighting some personal windmills here. I am not a native english speaker and I could not decide on the right spelling of the word ludicrousy, and expressed my frustration about it between brackets. That's all. No reason for ad hominem.

I used the word in the preceeding post. It doesn't exist. No need to be so anal.

Change of dipers please!

I asked you to name one uniquely biblical 'truth' that has ever helped to (among other things) abolish slavery. For this purpose it is not enough to name anti-slavery christian thinkers. You will have to show that the anti-slavery idea was a uniquely christian idea. The idea that slave trade is immoral however is not uniquely christian. Humanistic thinkers and other non-christian thinkers condemned slavery long before the religious abolitioners movement gained substantial support. Against your claim there is also ample evidence of condonement of slavery in the OT and a strong case can be made that christianity has been a supporting force in the slave trade. I do not deny that there have been christian anti-slavery thinkers. I do deny that the sole source of this idea is biblical. There is ample evidence that it is not a uniquely biblical moral stance and that in various reliogions and cultures the idea has emerged. Christianity cannot claim to have invented it and humbleness on this point is advised since christianity played a dubious role in the rise of the slave trade.

And I answered that biblical truth isn't scientific truth.

Firstly, the notion that slavery is immoralis NOT a scientific notion, it is a moral one. Secondly, I did not dmand from you to name a scientific truth that has helped the world. I can hink them up myself, thank you. Thirdly, how many truths are there in your reality? Is there also koranic truth and Vishnu truth?

Religious truth sets the parameters for people to live fulfilled lives.

I can inform you that secular moral values like the individual's right on moral independence is very fulfilling indeed. So if biblical 'truths' indeed give any fulfillment, it certainly is not a unique feature of biblical moral.

The biblical principle is what moulds our social structure.

In general, all kinds of moral values mould social structures. That is true for tribes who almost have no contact with the western world, it is true for the religious morals of monks in tibet, and it is true for explicitly non-biblical moral values like the moral value that separation of state an church is a good thing. So this again is no special feature of biblical truths.

You seek to attribute things that are against biblical truth to biblical truth. A logical nonsense. Religious truths. no matter what the source (as you pathetically try to dismiss them on exact lineage) hold true. Christianity in particular is in essence an anti slavery religion. That's what it was born out of. That's the thrust of it's ethos. You can misinterpret to your hearts desire, the facts simply don't support that.
I never said that the sole idea of anti slavery is Christian. A personal windmill of yours? Wilberforce was simply a prominent mover, who also had Christian motives..

This is typical cherry picking from statements in the bible. Please identify for me the statements in the bible that are nonsense and should be discarded up front and the statements that constitute genuine biblical truth. And please reveal on which divine source you base this distinction. Are there any addendums or errata to the bible that were forgotten in the original publication (whatever that is)? Is the following (just one out of many examples) on your errata list?

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)