I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Do you believe it's possible for a man to be kind, gentle, honest, loving and caring without believing in God?

If you say it that way it gives him an out ... he can effectively say yes but that doesn't mean his god didn't set the scene first (IOW, regardless of whether we believe or not it's still there).

Better (I would have said) to ask if he believes it is possible to be good, kind, loving, caring and moral without a god ever existing?

Kyu

[Guerilla Radio]

Do you believe it's possible for a man to be kind, gentle, honest, loving and caring without believing in God?

If you say it that way it gives him an out ... he can effectively say yes but that doesn't mean his god didn't set the scene first (IOW, regardless of whether we believe or not it's still there).

Better (I would have said) to ask if he believes it is possible to be good, kind, loving, caring and moral without a god ever existing?

Kyu

The question is meant to be a lead up to if there exists morality outside Christian values and if so, why would it be necessary to follow the teachings of the bible when one can have their own judgement of right and wrong and be a "good" person.

You're still welcome to ask him that question yourself if you wish.

[Rhizomorph13]

The bible and christianity are not points proffered up in JP's argument. He would acknowledge that people could be good outside religion because god can reach people directly. As to speaking about morality without god, he would probably point out that it would be absurd to speak of god not existing because then the whole spatio-temporal existence would cease to exist.

If I understand the main thrust of all his arguments, JP is saying that for our reality to be consistently logical, god has to be a part of it. What he has done is create a logical argument that, when approached by our two worldviews (atheist and theist) it only makes logical sense if there is a god.

I remain unconvinced though and see his argument as circular because to agree with it necessitates a theistic worldview.

From the wikipedia about the Trancendental Argument for God (TAG) modified to reflect at least one of JP's arguments:

(1) Morality is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or Knowledge)
(2) If there is no god, morality is not posssible
(3) Therefore god.

So to ask him if people could be moral without the existence of god is not necessary and it would not undermine or directly refute his argument. The problem in the argument above, is that morality is relative and there is no evidence that god has anything to do with morality. Therefore (2) is fallacious and (3) falls on its ear.

Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

No, i directly quoted you re this diifference - re: the truth of the theory of evolution. I specifically pointed out the difference beetween my quote and and yours (describing it as trivial). Anyone can go back and check this - therefore you are a LIAR. (Thou shalt not bear false witness)

Even in your own post, you quoted it as: "JPs argument can be likened to whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds", which is obviously a straw man, since my argument was whether the conceptual content of the theory such as described in the theory actually conceptually applies to reality (e.g. independently of human minds), exists independently of human minds or only exists in human minds.

Again, you repeat your assertions without actually engaging my argument. Neither of my arguments are about explaining how humans have come to know logical truth, but about the reality and nature of logical order. My (heterodox transcendental) argument is about explaining why any logical rules, laws, patterns, behaviours, or order applies to the natural realm to begin with, and the orthodox transcendental argument is about whether the logical order is transcendent. But neither are about any specific logical laws.

Then what IS your argument about?!?!?!?!?!?!?? It seemed to me to be focusing on moral and logical laws, now you say your arguments are " neither are about any specific logical laws.

The answer is in the very post you quoted and replied to.

Again, you repeat your assertions without actually engaging my argument. Neither of my arguments are about explaining how humans have come to know logical truth, but about the reality [origin] and nature of logical order. My (heterodox transcendental) argument is about explaining why any logical rules, laws, patterns, behaviours, or order applies to the natural realm to begin with, and the orthodox transcendental argument is about whether the logical order is transcendent. But neither are about any specific logical laws.

It fucking IS a first cause argument, and again

Fine, attack a first cause argument. But then you are not attacking my argument.

I invite everyone to look up the cosmological argument

There is no one "the" cosmological argument, but a large variety of arguments, who are all in the class of cosmological arguments because they are cosmogonical, but their course of argumentation will vary according to each one.

---

Do you believe it's possible for a man to be kind, gentle, honest, loving and caring without believing in God?

Yes. As I've said, since God is himself the truth, goodness, and love, anyone who nears himself to goodness, love or truth in accepting Gods graces which he pours on all of us, by acting in accord to them in his deeds and in his spirit, is nearing himself to God from my perspective - even if they, from my perspective, are ignorant of who God is, they can still echo some of what he is and what he wants in their actions and spirit.

---

Better (I would have said) to ask if he believes it is possible to be good, kind, loving, caring and moral without a god ever existing?

There would be no ethical reality, in that case, independently of the opinion of the person (the opinion of Hitler or Stalin, for instance) and such a universe would be beyond good and evil, as Nietzsche rightly points out.

---

(1) Morality is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or Knowledge)
(2) If there is no god, morality is not posssible
(3) Therefore god.

Again, an oversimplification to the point of being irrelevant to understanding the argument. If you want some of the real expositors and persons of transcendental reasoning, read Kant, Emerich Coreth, read Van Till, Plantinga, Gordon Clark, etc., but don't dismiss it because of either me or wikipedia's version of it.

[Darwinian]

I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

Are you happy?

[Jon Paul]

In one breath you claim God is "outside" you, and something yuou try to be like.
In the next breath you claim God is the Universe-so do you live "outside" the Universe.

I have never claimed God is "the universe".

I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked of mythology and the parables because that is exactly what the bible is, a storybook of parables and mythologies that don't know if God is outside of you "John 3:16"
or inside of you "John 17:21"
is it e pluribus unum or not?
are we of the one, or seperate from one?

God is in all things. There is not a thing that would exist without Gods presence in it, but there is not a thing or a totality of created things which equals to God, either, because each one of them is itself contingent on God. There is no contradiction there. In fact, if you understand the doctrine of actus purus, you would understand this much more, because God is the actualising principle in all things, but yet those things are not actus purus, but to the contrary, impure actuality which depends on actus purus (God). This means that God is transcendent, not only to, but also in in all things. So there is an ontological differentiation between God and the universe, because the universe doesn't self-subsist (actus purus) but subsists off actus purus.

You also know that the earliest writings of the New Testament took place well over 100 years after the death of Jesus

I certainly don't. The first writings (that we still have at hand) originate within 15-30 years of his death in the early Church, of the earliest epistles and gospels, and thus within the lifetime of his disciples and apostles. The many scholars who believe in Q will push it back even earlier. Even aside from scripture, oral tradition has been sufficient for many cultures, even today (Muslims) to preserve larger quantities of teachings and tradition than even that which is recorded in the NT, such that the earliest writings we have at hand (not even the earliest ones, according to most scholars who believe in the primordial Q document(s)) only represent a written record of what corresponds to a quantity that in many other cultures has been preserved purely by oral tradition for thousands of years. But that is not what happened in the Christian Church, in which it was written down very early. On the other hand, the gnostic gospels are written 100-250 years after Jesus death, and use the earlier sources, some of which we now don't have at hand (according to many scholars) which thus put the boundary of written record of Jesus even earlier back (perhaps to Q) than 15-30 years after his death, but in the gnostic gospels, with patterns of theological additions and corruptions into the gnostic theology which can be clearly distinguished from the earlier sources they use which we do have, which leads me to think that what you said is much closer to true in the case of the gnostic writings.

[Jesus] who left NO writings of any kind behind.

That's right. Jesus didn't come to write a book; He came to establish a Church.

That there is no recorded history of Jesus outside your admitted mythological book of parables

Again, you take the most pessimistic view because of your pathos. I can do nothing to change that.

The New Testament is historical narrative, even with it's theological content. As to recorded history of Jesus outside the New Testament, it certainly exists. I think to deny that the New Testament, itself historical narrative, many parts are which are written close to his life, at least attests to his historical existence is special pleading because any other ancient scriptures written so close to an individuals life, even with theology in it, will be generally used for historical vericity.

But historical reference exists also outside of it. Both in the undisputed reference of Josephus (the other is disputed), and also in other writers like Thallos, Pliny, Suetonius, Mara Bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Tacitus and plenty of other Roman historians. In fact, it has been noted that there are more references to Jesus closer to his lifetime, than to the Roman emperor of his lifetime (Tiberius), so that to dispute Jesus existence equals to special pleading, and now double special pleading after discounting both the NT and the references outside of it. A review of the historical reliability of the NT, and compilation of evidence of the historical Jesus outside the NT, of the historical references and facts can be found accesibly in books like The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by L. Bloomberg and Jesus Outside the New Testament: Studying Ancient Evidence by Van Voorst.

---

Are you happy?

Happy in some things, and with some things, not so happy with others. Then again, happiness in itself isn't the highest goal of life (for me), but rather the foundation for that happiness is important. It could make someone happy to torture others (a sadist of sorts), but that doesn't make that happiness something I believe he should pursue.

[chatpilot]

The earliest gospel is purported to be that of Mark and it has been dated to approximately 60 to about 70 AD.about 35 to 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus Christ.The epistles are irrelevant in this discussion because they are not meant to be a biography of the earthly life of Jesus.In fact,the synoptic gospels namely;Matthew,Mark,Luke are the only three gospels that are supposed to be true representatives of the life of Jesus.John on the other hand focuses more on the spiritual aspects of Jesus and not so much on his earthly existence.

The Q document on the other hand is an hypothetical document which is believed to be the source document from which Mark and other gospel writers later obtained material to write their respective narratives.Another important point to bring up regarding the gospels is that there are no original copies that have survived to this day.Everything we have are from oral traditions and copies of copies of copies.Thus in my opinion this devalues the worth of those gospels.

Not to mention the difficulties facing the translators of the gospels in translating from Koine Greek to Latin,English etc. etc.Not only are the text themselves subject to being lost in translation but they are also subject to human errors and a particular scribes religious preconceptions and political motivations.

[omjag86]

God is in all things. There is not a thing that would exist without Gods presence in it, but there is not a thing or a totality of created things which equals to God, either, because each one of them is itself contingent on God. There is no contradiction there. In fact, if you understand the doctrine of actus purus, you would understand this much more, because God is the actualising principle in all things, but yet those things are not actus purus, but to the contrary, impure actuality which depends on actus purus (God). This means that God is transcendent, not only to, but also in in all things. So there is an ontological differentiation between God and the universe, because the universe doesn't self-subsist (actus purus) but subsists off actus purus.

And I cannot get beyond your pathos either. The doctrine of actus purus..this is all theory and hyperbole. You have been asked and presented no evidence of a transcendent being. You are still assuming a grand diety that is dictating itself as actus purus and everything else (inpure? inactive?) existing impure, but not existing until actus purus comes along. Again a circular arguement that simply serves YOUR EGO's purpose.
I must conclude the same as so many have prior to me, you are not here for intellectual debate of any kind, but rather to sharpen your skills so that you feel good about yourself because you identify yourself as superior to all of us, a disciple of your mythological God's word.


[quote]I certainly don't. The first writings (that we still have at hand) originate within 15-30 years of his death in the early Church, of the earliest epistles and gospels, and thus within the lifetime of his disciples and apostles. The many scholars who believe in Q will push it back even earlier. Even aside from scripture, oral tradition has been sufficient for many cultures, even today (Muslims) to preserve larger quantities of teachings and tradition than even that which is recorded in the NT, such that the earliest writings we have at hand (not even the earliest ones, according to most scholars who believe in the primordial Q document(s)) only represent a written record of what corresponds to a quantity that in many other cultures has been preserved purely by oral tradition for thousands of years. But that is not what happened in the Christian Church, in which it was written down very early. On the other hand, the gnostic gospels are written 100-250 years after Jesus death, and use the earlier sources, some of which we now don't have at hand (according to many scholars) which thus put the boundary of written record of Jesus even earlier back (perhaps to Q) than 15-30 years after his death, but in the gnostic gospels, with patterns of theological additions and corruptions into the gnostic theology which can be clearly distinguished from the earlier sources they use which we do have, which leads me to think that what you said is much closer to true in the case of the gnostic writings.[quote]
I think my fellow atheist has debunked all this nonsense quite sufficently in his reply.
Again you are deleting and distorting and changing all sorts of information here-to prop up your idea of the world and your place in it-you are all EGO which you hide behind your idea of a complex, transcendent God.
But here you go, I'll take the bait on this one thing; Is evil also "not actus purus" until your transcendent God waves his transcendent magic finger outside of time thus making evil actus purus?

OM-try it-jag86

[chatpilot]

In order to accept JP's doctrinal mumbo jumbo you have to first accept and acknowledge that his god exists and that he is the creator of all things great and small.You have to accept that there is an objective mind greater than our own subjective minds that creates and orchestrates everything in this world.Due to the fact that most members of this site are atheists those preconceived ideas of god are nothing more than blabber.Since as an atheist we don't believe in god or gods of any kind or nature and view religions as nothing more than the primitive musings of a previous age of ignorance.

And to answer the question about morality as I have said before you don't need god to be good or moral.Morality is a societal and cultural phenomenon and is based upon where you are raised and what values you are taught by the society in which you reside.In many ways morality is similar to religion,if you are taught by your society that god is Allah,Buddah,Thor,Horus,etc that is what the predominant belief in your culture is and that is what you are going to believe as well.

[Jon Paul]

The earliest gospel is purported to be that of Mark and it has been dated to approximately 60 to about 70 AD.about 35 to 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus Christ.The epistles are irrelevant in this discussion because they are not meant to be a biography of the earthly life of Jesus.In fact,the synoptic gospels namely;Matthew,Mark,Luke are the only three gospels that are supposed to be true representatives of the life of Jesus.John on the other hand focuses more on the spiritual aspects of Jesus and not so much on his earthly existence.

They are not irrelevant. Anything that attests to his existence, and even internally refers to other texts which do document his life is relevant. And what I said was between 15 and 30 years after his death, depending on how pessimistic or optimistic one wishes to be, per pathos, both things are claimable. In any case, what I basically said is not very controversial.

The Q document on the other hand is an hypothetical document which is believed to be the source document from which Mark and other gospel writers later obtained material to write their respective narratives.Another important point to bring up regarding the gospels is that there are no original copies that have survived to this day.Everything we have are from oral traditions and copies of copies of copies.Thus in my opinion this devalues the worth of those gospels.

It doesn't devalue it more than most other ancient texts but there is enough evidence that they existed by references from other texts. And of course Q is a hypothetical document, but it is a highly likely document. And even if it didn't exist, most scholars would agree that another or several earlier ones did (since there are many interrelations and references in the epistles and the gospels themselves both to each other and earlier writings we don't have).

Not to mention the difficulties facing the translators of the gospels in translating from Koine Greek to Latin,English etc. etc.Not only are the text themselves subject to being lost in translation but they are also subject to human errors and a particular scribes religious preconceptions and political motivations.

The problem mostly lies in the modern interpretations of it; exegesis and hermeneutics can give us a sufficiently clear picture. You are just taking a pessimistic view of everything, because your dislike of Christianity leads you to seek reasons not to be a Christian. And that's fine, but it's clear we will have different opinions then.

And I cannot get beyond your pathos either. The doctrine of actus purus..this is all theory and hyperbole. You have been asked and presented no evidence of a transcendent being. You are still assuming a grand diety that is dictating itself as actus purus and everything else (inpure? inactive?) existing impure, but not existing until actus purus comes along. Again a circular arguement that simply serves YOUR EGO's purpose.
I must conclude the same as so many have prior to me, you are not here for intellectual debate of any kind, but rather to sharpen your skills so that you feel good about yourself because you identify yourself as superior to all of us, a disciple of your mythological God's word.

I have presented arguments and evidence. You have given no arguments, done nothing to refute it. You have just expressed your disapproval. Well, what a surprise! Here I am, on an atheist forum, and I find someone who disagrees. What a surprise, indeed.

I think my fellow atheist has debunked all this nonsense quite sufficently in his reply.
Again you are deleting and distorting and changing all sorts of information here-to prop up your idea of the world and your place in it-you are all EGO which you hide behind your idea of a complex, transcendent God.
But here you go, I'll take the bait on this one thing; Is evil also "not actus purus" until your transcendent God waves his transcendent magic finger outside of time thus making evil actus purus?

He told me nothing I haven't heard before or didn't already know of, so no, it has not been "debunked". You give only a continuous attestation to the fact that you will support anyone who supports your viewpoint by attacking mine. You provide no arguments, no refutation, yet anyone who supports your view is right.