The Stage is Yours.

[Rayaan]

No I can't accept that answer Rayaan. Allah directly deceiving his believers, for whatever reason, even if it might be for the greater good, is still Allah lying. If he's truth.. then how can he lie? To me that's a fundamental I can't get past.

Deception does not necessarily involve lying. It tends to be more indirect than lying because lying is done in the form of speech or words, but Allah doesn't deceive anyone that way (i.e through words or speech). And, again, my explanation was that deception by itself is a bad thing, but when a deception is created in order to thwart or stifle the evil plans of others (which is what Allah did), then it is not a bad thing. Your opinion, however, is that deceiving is a bad thing for whatever reason. You neglect the reasons and the specific circumstances in which Allah deceived certain people. But, I have explained my answer to that several times in this thread so far and I'm afraid that we will be just repeating ourselves if we keep discussing this topic. So, I may leave this one alone for now because this is probably one of those things that you and I simply have a difference of opinion on.

If God committed the crimes deserving punishment, then he couldn't die as an innocent sacrifice, paying for the wrongdoings of others. Just like innocent animals are slaughtered as sacrifices.. it isn't them doing any wrong, but the person that had done wrong wanting to pay back their debt and purchase back their innocence so that they could placate God, with a clean slate.

But my question was not whether or not God's punishment was an innocent sacrifice, but rather: How is it reasonable to you that God/Jesus would sacrifice himself for the sins of other people? And secondly, how do you think that the belief in such a particular model of God is the logically correct belief?

You also said that the Christian God is only a positive force, but I think that the idea of crucifixion of Jesus contradicts his positive nature because the act of killing himself on a cross and coming back to life appears to be an act of self-destruction, in my opinion, even though it may be an innocent sacrifice. Is "self-destructive" one of the attributes of the Christian God?

So 1. We accept that humans are succeptable for failure,

Surely, I accept that also.

and 2. we have a very long tradition of sacrifice payment to rectify that.

That is because modern day Christianity is built upon the cult of guilt. I think that some sects in Christianity have taken this to the extreme, in that, by imitating what they believe to be the suffering of Christ for mankind on the cross, through rigorous self-mutilation, they can obtain a degree of gnosis as well as redemption.

The important thing is that God does not and should not have the need to make Himself suffer and die so that someone else can be forgiven. That’s not how forgiveness works.

Jesus removed the need for sacrifice, which is the evolutionary step for religion.

An "evolutionary step" only by your standards.

Also, is that your most 'specific' explanation of your such bold assertion that Christianity is the only logical conclusion and that all the others fail?

I've re-quoted below some of your earlier posts in this thread just to point out the vagueness of your other replies.
*rewinds the tape*

I didn't provide details, no. It is my assertion that all conclusions lead back to god. They don't lead back to no god. I'm not condemning any other world view there, just laying down the criteria. If you believe that your own view works out, and I hope you do, I haven't found that.

"All conclusions lead back to God" ... or do you mean the Christian God who killed himself on a cross as a sacrifice just to forgive the sins of others?

If the latter, then what is one of those 'conclusions' that leads back to that God?

It's not vague. It's just not dealing with the minutae. The detail is just that, very detailed. For anything to make sense metaphysically, it is my contention that the christian god is the only satisfactory answer. I work that out continually. Why should I act positively? Because it makes sense in the wider scheme of things that positivity is life. Any question you pick makes sense including God. Minus God it fails to make sense.

- For anything to make sense metaphysically = Christian God
- It makes sense in the wider scheme of things that positivity is life.
- Minus God everything fails to make sense.

^ Still vague, because there is no information about the Christian God specifically (the one who is fully man and fully God at the same time)

And you should also be able to explain to me why you think that the Christian model of God is only model that answers everything perfectly which you still haven't done yet.

See my answer above. Also, this is way to big a question, and one I'm not qualified to answer. I could try and put it all together for you, but it would fail scrutiny because I am no expert. See any studies on the summa theologica by Thomas of Aquinas. I'm sure someone like Ryft could be far more exacting for you if you require sources.

And here, you incompetently told me that this is "way too big a question" and that you're "not qualified to answer," and then, you told me to look at what someone else said.

= "I cannot answer that."

[fr0d0]

If I agree with you that there cannot be proof of God's existence, then how and why am I supposed to provide proof?

You should be able to do that when you say this:

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

Tricky dickie Rayaan tut tut

"exists as" not exists in reality. I'll forgive your poor grasp of the language smiler

Meanwhile, give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you

[The Grand Nudger]

Tricky? That's some pretty basic shit (and you've been called on it so often I've lost count). You should have already had an answer for that question before you ever offered the statement.

2 weeks, 2 thousand years, whats a little time between unsubstantiated bullshit, amiright?

[ElDinero]

'I have an answer, and have presented it all over the forums, but whenever I present it you guys turn tail and hide!'

Just trying out a little roleplay. Good fun.

[Reforged]

You should be able to do that when you say this:

Tricky dickie Rayaan tut tut

"exists as" not exists in reality. I'll forgive your poor grasp of the language smiler

Meanwhile, give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you

Wheres the trickery? How is it you get to blame your lack of competence in saying what you mean on a poor grasp of language on his end?
But then this is a similar story we always see repeated with you isn't it?
"Its not *my* fault what I said didn't communicate what I meant, its *your* fault for not interpreting it a specific way so it does!"
You'd never admit it was down to a lack of explanation on your part, oh no.
Pathetic, childish and incredibly predictable.

Also if you are simply saying it exists as the only possible conclusion then that would imply... well that yours is the only possible conclusion.
Well that clearly isn't the case, many conclusions are possible. We have thousands of religions to prove that. Yours just happens to be the one you're most comfortable with.

2 weeks? What for? To get your head even more firmly up your ass?

[Rayaan]

"exists as" not exists in reality. I'll forgive your poor grasp of the language smiler

That can mean either of the two below:
(A) God doesn't exist in reality, but exists only in the metaphysical world; or
(B) That God just cannot be proven to exist in reality.

I believe that you're implying letter B, most likely.

But, whichever it is, they both clearly and logically contradict your statement that God is "directly and personally knowable" as you said earlier (in post # 151):

(In Xtianity God is directly and personally knowable)

And that is because you believe that Jesus is God, that Jesus is fully man and fully God at the same time, that the sacrifice of Jesus is actually the sacrifice of God, and that people have seen him and met him in real life. Hence your statement that the Christian God is "directly and personally knowable."

But, if the Christian God is directly and personally knowable, then it is definitely contradictory to say that His existence cannot be proven in reality.

Similarly, if the Christian God is directly and personally knowable, then belief in Him cannot be just a metaphysical stance.

---

*search ninja*

God's existence can't be known. Bomb proof.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-5979-po...#pid116956

Belief is a metaphysical stance. Welcome to the dark side.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-7634-po...#pid154351

Those two comments from different threads clearly contradict your statement that God is directly and personally knowable.

Proof:
God is directly and personally knowable =/= God's existence can't be known
God is directly and personally knowable =/= metaphysical

I'm sorry, fr0d0, but I can't help but think that you're intentionally evasive and dishonest in your replies, especially knowing how many times you contradict yourself.

---

Meanwhile, give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you

Take it easy on yourself. If you do reply after 2 weeks (or whatever amount of time), then I would like you reply to this post as well, not just the one above you.


Here's an escape trick for you:
If you think that you are unable to satisfactorily address my comments, then pretend as if you forgot to reply in this thread after the 2 weeks. Don't worry, though, because I'll forgive you. =D

[fr0d0]

Well that's the crux of the matter that I need to get you to address Raph. I need to be precise in my language for those that don't understand the subtelties, and sometimes I forget that. Apologies for confusing you.

You may have seen me extend that statement to "we cannot have empirical evidence of a god". Even Dorkins will make this correct assessment, but then still contradict that by citing the lack of empirical evidence again.

What have we got left if there isn't empirical evidence? Is there evidence besides the empirical? This is the new world you are seemingly unaware of.

As a materialist I would expect you to deny this world exists. See if you can't surprise me.

[ElDinero]

Right, let's try one more time. If this God manifests in reality, if it has an effect on the world as we know it, then the effects are measurable. If there is no empirical evidence, then how do you know it exists? How can it be shown, indeed how can ANYTHING be shown to exist, without being able to demonstrate it?

Now to pre-empt a post and save us the bother of me having to ask the next question, because we all know that you won't elaborate without being pushed to (if even then), if your next response is 'Because of logic' or anything along those lines, you now have to demonstrate what these logical processes are. You can't just say they exist or that you have used them.

Since it apparently needs to be explained to you over and over and over again, YOU HAVE TO TELL US WHAT THIS PROCESS OF LOGIC IS. BE SPECIFIC. Give us an example of some way you have followed a logical thought process and that it necessarily results in the Christian God, as per your original post that has now been the subject of pages of wasted rhetoric, because of your unwillingness to help the process.

[Rayaan]

[fr0d0]

"exists as" not exists in reality. I'll forgive your poor grasp of the language smiler

That can mean either of the two below:
(A) God doesn't exist in reality, but exists only in the metaphysical world; or
(B) That God just cannot be proven to exist in reality.

I believe that you're implying letter B, most likely.

B is correct

But, whichever it is, they both clearly and logically contradict your statement that God is "directly and personally knowable" as you said earlier (in post # 151):

(In Xtianity God is directly and personally knowable)

And that is because you believe that Jesus is God, that Jesus is fully man and fully God at the same time, that the sacrifice of Jesus is actually the sacrifice of God, and that people have seen him and met him in real life. Hence your statement that the Christian God is "directly and personally knowable."

No it does not directly logically contradict anything. You simply don't understand what I mean by directly and personally knowable.

You think there is some physical (empirically provable) link between humans and God? Then this is your ignorance of Xtianity showing again.

But, if the Christian God is directly and personally knowable, then it is definitely contradictory to say that His existence cannot be proven in reality.

Only if you think that direct and personal = empirically provable. Which it cannot be.

Similarly, if the Christian God is directly and personally knowable, then belief in Him cannot be just a metaphysical stance.

It is only a metaphysical stance. That direct and personal relationship transcends the physical barrier. There is no way to prove empirically that God contacts you, or that you contact him. If you believe that, then your are also trashing your own belief and are declaring atheism here. Or at best deism.

---

*search ninja*

God's existence can't be known. Bomb proof.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-5979-po...#pid116956

Belief is a metaphysical stance. Welcome to the dark side.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-7634-po...#pid154351

Those two comments from different threads clearly contradict your statement that God is directly and personally knowable.

No, they do not. You are simply ignorant of the ideas.

Proof:
God is directly and personally knowable =/= God's existence can't be known
God is directly and personally knowable =/= metaphysical

You confuse empirical with non empirical. Not an error I'd expect someone supposedly familiar with a metaphysical stance, such as yourself. But perhaps you manage to believe in Allah without understanding him to be a transcendent being. I would suggest you look into your belief stance and perhaps re-evaluate your position.

I'm sorry, fr0d0, but I can't help but think that you're intentionally evasive and dishonest in your replies, especially knowing how many times you contradict yourself.

I take that very seriously and can only excuse you as being completely ignorant. From what you've stated above, that seems to be true.

---

Meanwhile, give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you

Take it easy on yourself. If you do reply after 2 weeks (or whatever amount of time), then I would like you reply to this post as well, not just the one above you.

It was a joke Rayaan. You've taken an age to reply, which is perfectly fine. Mine was a joke in return. Are you laughing or smiling? I can't tell.

Here's an escape trick for you:
If you think that you are unable to satisfactorily address my comments, then pretend as if you forgot to reply in this thread after the 2 weeks. Don't worry, though, because I'll forgive you. =D

Thanks for the insult. Join the queue. Asshole.