Conversion

[LukeMC]

Where did the TAG specify a God who made a world in which there was a deer in a remote forest of Norway that ran over a road December 2, 1987? It didn't, but that is implicit in the biblical doctrine of God that the TAG compares to atheism. As to those actions of God recorded in biblical scripture, that is completely irrelevant to the TAG as it doesn't pertain to either metaethics or metalogic which is TAGs only concern.

So by what metric do you weigh up the validity of the bible? The fact that a bullshit argument happens to point towards the god of this particular scripture?

[Eilonnwy]

Jon, your metalogic and metaethics are bullshit. You can't prove anything you just said empirically through the scientific method, thus you don't meet my requirements. You make assertions, and you can't prove anything by making assertions. You have the burden of proof and fail to meet it at every turn.

Besides all that, you say god is omnipotent, can he create a rock that even he can't lift? Your descriptions of god are, by nature, contradictory. (In other words, not possible)

You claim these qualities describe a Christian god, but that, once again, is your assertion. Other gods mentioned here are described to have the same exact qualities. Stop. Making. Assertions. Provide some actually fucking proof.

BTW, as a side note, even if you could prove the Christian god empirically, that doesn't mean I would worship him. I would never worship a god that condones murder and slavery. I would never worship a god that continues to watch people suffer in poverty and does nothing. That's an evil god.

[Jon Paul]

You can't prove anything you just said empirically through the scientific method,

I never said that. I said that we can prove Gods existence empirically after the effect, but that this has to happen outside of natural science because the natural sciences a priori exclude the testing investigation of propositions that transcend the natural world as within it's scope. If you, on the basis of that a priori exclusion, presume that it means God doesn't exist, you are begging the question based on an a priori exclusion which will work for any other positive denial of any other claim - and that is simply not what the scientific methodological naturalism mandates. What it does mandate is to wholly exclude the investigation of such proposition from the natural sciences since it is outside of their realm.

Besides all that, you say god is omnipotent, can he create a rock that even he can't lift? Your descriptions of god are, by nature, contradictory.

A rock that can't possibly be lifted by an omnipotent being is not an actual potentiality, and so, it doesnt fall within the definition of omnipotence. It is like a perfectly circular triangle, not a potentiality, but a self-contradiction. Since the logical order is transcendent and present in the divine nature, self-contradictions are not possible. This objection is often raised by ignorant atheists; very bad attempt to attack the coherence of monotheism.

BTW, as a side note, even if you could prove the Christian god empirically, that doesn't mean I would worship him. I would never worship a god that condones murder and slavery. I would never worship a god that continues to watch people suffer in poverty and does nothing. That's an evil god.

Now you are speculating what you would believe if Christianity was true. And if heaven was real, suffering for a whole life would be much better than being lost in hell for eternity. And so, since a Christian knows nothing about which souls are saved and which are not, there would be no way to judge whether God is "evil" for permitting suffering in this life, until you see the justice in the next one. Besides, if the God of Christianity does exist, there would be no higher or more real moral authority to appeal to, that would know better how to create the best possible world, than an omniscient God.

[Eilonnwy]

I am not begging the question. Begging the question is circular reasoning, not demanding evidence for your claims. You can't weasel out of it. You want to convince me god exists, I gave you my requirements. I'm not going to leave the point behind just because you want me to.

Omnipotence is logically contradictory. You can't make exceptions to suit your claims, sorry.

And if god sends souls to be punished for eternity, then he most certainly is an evil prick. Is there anything, ANYTHING you child could do that you would send to a basement to be tortured for eternity? Come on, be honest. Would you torture your child even for a week for not obeying you? I want to know.

[Jon Paul]

So by what metric do you weigh up the validity of the bible? The fact that a bullshit argument happens to point towards the god of this particular scripture?

If you mean by what metric, after transcendental monotheism is taken to be sound on the grounds of this or another argument, you would weigh it up according to theistic principles, and a theistic viewpoint of history, in which revelation is possible. And in that perspective, the bible records a perfectly consistent and true revelation of that God. Besides, the TAG doesn't exist without the Christian scriptures or Christian belief, because the TAG is fundamentally a comparison of the intrinsic coherence of a Christian worldview and epistemic structure as contradistinguished with an atheist one.

[LukeMC]

So by what metric do you weigh up the validity of the bible? The fact that a bullshit argument happens to point towards the god of this particular scripture?

If you mean by what metric, after transcendental monotheism is taken to be sound on the grounds of this or another argument, you would weigh it up according to theistic principles, and a theistic viewpoint of history, in which revelation is possible. And in that perspective, the bible records a perfectly consistent and true revelation of that God. Besides, the TAG doesn't exist without the Christian scriptures or Christian belief, because the TAG is fundamentally a comparison of the intrinsic coherence of a Christian worldview and epistemic structure as contradistinguished with an atheist one.

Following from the bible being a perfectly consistent record [...], where does this leave Noah's flood?

[Eilonnwy]

So by what metric do you weigh up the validity of the bible? The fact that a bullshit argument happens to point towards the god of this particular scripture?

If you mean by what metric, after transcendental monotheism is taken to be sound on the grounds of this or another argument, you would weigh it up according to theistic principles, and a theistic viewpoint of history, in which revelation is possible. And in that perspective, the bible records a perfectly consistent and true revelation of that God. Besides, the TAG doesn't exist without the Christian scriptures or Christian belief, because the TAG is fundamentally a comparison of the intrinsic coherence of a Christian worldview and epistemic structure as contradistinguished with an atheist one.

Blah blah blah. A whole lot of fancy words but once again, assertions and circular reasoning. *yawn*

[dry land fish]

Since I've been on this forum I've read and been involved in several arguments about the nature and existence of god. This makes me wonder if there has ever been a genuine conversion on this site. It further gets me thinking about why we believe what we believe and what it would take to switch.

What would it take to convince a theist that they are wrong?

What would it take to convince an atheist that they are wrong?

Rhizo

There is nothing that would make me believe in a God. If I don't already believe then I won't ever believe. I don't think I'd want to worship God if they were real. I couldn't do what the Bible tells me to do. Give up drinking, give up gambling, cursing. I couldn't condemn gay people for their sex lives and I couldn't get up at eight in the morning on a Sunday to go to church!! I definitely couldn't do what the Koran tells people to do an I wouldn't become Jewish. I'm not interested in their rules either. Being Amish is out of the question. Yeah...I'd be a Satanist. He seems to have the most fun anyway!

[Edwardo Piet]

Regardless of human errors and limitations in acknowledging specific principles. As Arcanus said, it is not a theory of ethics, or of logic, but of metaethics and metalogic, that is, the origin of the conceptual reality of logical order at all, not the specific principles.

By definition, at any given moment - you can't know what is outside your own human errors and limitations. You can only know through your own subjectivity. Unless you somehow magically have evidence to the contrary.

So how do you claim to maintain knowing of God's existence? Where is your evidence?

And you can't rationally speak of any 'logic' that you give me and claim to be 'logical' that there isn't evidence of the truth of, untill you give me evidence that backs it.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

By definition, at any given moment - you can't know what is outside your own human errors and limitations. You can only know through your own subjectivity. Unless you somehow magically have evidence to the contrary.

Of course we are subjective, and as subjective individuals, subject to error. If you are right in this, then you are only conceding the fundamental truth of the conclusion of the argument.