The Problem with the Gospels

[fr0d0]

1. I didn't mention evidence.

No you didn't! Haha! Meh - existence... same thing

2. If I did I would be allowed to because you failed to respond to my last post in our debate for so long, that Adrian just closed it in the end.

WHAT??? Oh thanks. Nice of you guys to tell me. There was nothing to reply to. You repeated an earlier question. That didn't need an answer. I had no reason to answer.

Additionally: you have claimed before that I said I didn't want to continue the debate any further. But I say that I never said such a thing... and I asked if you could perhaps provide a quotation where I ever said that - because I, furthermore, never would say anything like that... I never agree to disagree unless the other person brings the whole. 'agree to disagree' notion up first. You know what I'm like.

I asked you twice to take something to the evidence thread, but you didn't do it.

3. My statements are 'obviously wrong'? All I am trying to understand is what you actually mean when you say God 'is' but his existence is irrelevant. By definition how can he 'be' if he does not exist? That is a contradiction.

I agree it's a contradiction. hence my reply.

God cannot 'be'... he cannot be a thing at all that 'just is' if he doesn't exist. For something to be something that 'just is' (or for something to be anything at all!) - it by definition... has to exist.

No it doesn't. And I'll discuss this no further for reasons already stated.

4.

I've explained that to you before so I'll see if you can figure it out on your own this time, otherwise what's the point of discussion if we learn nothing?

Are you backing out again? I am discussing. How can you say we will learn nothing if you don't know what's round the corner? I'm happy to continue the discussion... are you?

Again???

I can say we will learn nothing if we've discussed this before and you ask the same question again. If we follow the same route chances are the same outcome will occur. We have to approach the problem differently.

You're not listening to me. I'm asking you to think about it a bit rather than have me drip feed you. You're not stupid, work it out.

[Edwardo Piet]

No you didn't! Haha! Meh - existence... same thing

No... evidence and existence are two different things obviously.

WHAT??? Oh thanks. Nice of you guys to tell me.

I thought I did tell you on MSN once? Apologies if I didn't. Do you want to do it again if Adrian will let us?

There was nothing to reply to. You repeated an earlier question.

It was specifically just to ask for clarification that I understood your point. I wanted a response.

That didn't need an answer. I had no reason to answer.

See right above. You may have not thought you needed a reason, but I thought you did... hence my asking for clarification. And since it was your turn to respond since I'd posted last... if you're not going to reply then what am I supposed to do? I was waiting... and I told you that I was waiting too.

I asked you twice to take something to the evidence thread, but you didn't do it.

And as I'd said and am still saying: It was your turn.

I agree it's a contradiction. hence my reply.

Huh?

You agree that you contradicted yourself... and yet you think that when you replied by telling me that I simply was 'not making sense'... you think that that reply of yours actually makes any sense?

Okay so you 1. Agree you contradicted yourself 2. Simply asserted that I am not making sense.

I will respond with that.... I 1. pointed out that you contradicted yourself... you agreed to that. 2. You completely failed to elucidate how I am not making any sense... especially when you agreed with my point apparently! In which case... if you agree with my point (that you contradicted yourself...) then how am I not making sense?

No it doesn't. And I'll discuss this no further for reasons already stated.

That's another contradiction from you...sorry!

You agree that you contradicted yourself when you say you don't think in terms of His existence and yet He 'just is'. Because he can't 'be' if he doesn't exist... for there is no he to 'be'. Okay... you agreed with me that you contradicted yourself there... and then you say that saying that God doesn't exist does not mean that there is no God? You contradict yourself again!

Again???

I say "again" because you failed to respond to my last post in the debate and yet were at the same time telling me to respond. It was your turn. I wasn't meant to be debating myself!

I can say we will learn nothing if we've discussed this before and you ask the same question again. If we follow the same route chances are the same outcome will occur. We have to approach the problem differently.

How else do you suggest we approach it?

You're not listening to me. I'm asking you to think about it a bit rather than have me drip feed you. You're not stupid, work it out.

Yes, I'm not stupid. And that's exactly why I am pointing out that you are contradicted yourself! So if you do indeed have a point perhaps you could provide better clarity than attempting to explain yourself and yet contradicting yourself in the process! I wouldn't mind, you are trying your best... but then after you agree that you've contradicted yourself... you then change your mind again and contradict your admittance to your own contradiction! It's way too confusing to discuss that way!

EvF

[fr0d0]

*sighs*

Do you really think I'm saying I contradicted myself Evie? C'mon.. wake up. What I'm asking for here is for you to stir those brain cells into action rather than me think for you. We do that all the time and you never take anything in. So I'm trying this tack.


The "debate"

You repeated a question without qualification. My non answer was justified without further explanation from yourself. Why can't you post twice? Where is this unwritten rule you speak of? Why wasn't I made aware? I asked you to make another post - how clear can I make it that I want you to make two consecutive posts?

[Edwardo Piet]

Do you really think I'm saying I contradicted myself Evie? C'mon.. wake up.

You did say that.

That is a contradiction

Your response:

I agree it's a contradiction. hence my reply.

(my bolding).

What I'm asking for here is for you to stir those brain cells into action rather than me think for you. We do that all the time and you never take anything in. So I'm trying this tack.

By 'tack' I assume you mean tactic... and what I wonder is... what kind of a tactic is the tactic of 'contradict yourself', 'admit to contradicting yourself', 'contradicted your admittance to contradicting yourself' and then acting bewildered at me even suggesting that you ever said you contradicted yourself?....... (even when you did)????

My brain cells are working fine thank you. You are not making any sense. I don't say it simply like you say it without any explanation whatsoever... I say it with my explanation that you are not making any sense due to the contradictions I point out... and due to you contradicting your own admittance to such contradictions!

The "debate"

You repeated a question without qualification. My non answer was justified without further explanation from yourself. Why can't you post twice? Where is this unwritten rule you speak of? Why wasn't I made aware? I asked you to make another post - how clear can I make it that I want you to make two consecutive posts?

My last post was asking for clarification in your previous post.... because I wanted confirmation. If I was to post another post what on earth were you expecting it to be? I was not meant to be debating myself. How is the debate going to move on if you won't even respond to me asking if I fully understood what you meant by your previous post?

Why couldn't I have posted twice? Well I don't like to double post... but I mean... just because it's possible for me to do so doesn't mean I'm going to simply write a post when there's nothing more to be said.

A double post from me would be pointless. It makes no difference to editing my post. And nothing more needed to be added to it.. I was simply awaiting your response to my asking for clarification. What could be simpler?

You say that your non-answer was justified without further explanation from me....

...Well actually....... your non-answer was just a refusal to answer my question. And my explanation was and is simply that I was asking for clarification.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You gotta use your noodle to see why what I said wasn't a contradiction. Your conclusion was self contradictory and therefore misunderstood my statement. I told you this: "yes that's a contradiction"

In your final debate post you never mentioned clarification. You just repeated a question. I had no need to answer.

[Edwardo Piet]

But you said "yes", you said: "Yes that's a contradiction"

Why are you saying "yes" if you aren't agreeing with my point - the very part you were quoting... - of you making a contradiction?

Okay fair enough... you didn't actually mean you agreed with my point that you were contradicting yourself....

So when you quoted my accusing you of contradicting yourself.... what contradiction are you accusing me of then... when you say that that's a contradiction in response?

How am I contradicting you by telling you that you are contradicting yourself?

You say my logic is flawed. But you are flawed in English if you really think that God can "be" something so that he "just is" without existing. He can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist... because there is no He to do or be!.

"God does not exist" means "There is no God". Existence is entirely relevant unless all you are arguing for is the concept of God, nothing but a metaphor, a placebo at best. Whether that be through inspiration or consolation or both....

In my final debate post... I didn't explicitly say the word clarification but that is exactly what I was asking for:

It's the definition you are getting wrong Evie. God is. This eradicates the need for existence.

in response:

That's a contradiction. "God is"=God exists. Otherwise what are you talking about when you say "God is"?

(bolding added now for emphasis).

What did you expect me to add to that? I was waiting for a response to if you agree... and if not, I was asking what you were talking about.... in other words - for clarification.

Actually this exactly what I wish to know now. "God is", means God exists. So when you say he 'just is' but existence is irrelevant. Then that means that he is completely irrelevant. Because he can't be relevant if his existence isn't... because him being and him existing are part of the same thing... because he can't 'be' or 'do' anything without existence.... if God does not exist, then there is no He... there is no He at all to be, or do, or whatever. God does not exist= There is no God. That's what it means. It's called English.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You weren't contradicting me Evie you're statement was self contradicting and therefore incorrect. Sheeshk!

God does not exist= There is no God. That's what it means. It's called English.

Except God doesn't fit the definition 'exist'. God just 'is'.

[Edwardo Piet]

If God "is" that means he exists....

Do you not realize that?

If he "is" then that is opposed to "is not". "Is"= something "is not"= nothing. And if he is something then he is some thing that exists. If he is nothing then he is not some thing that exists, he is no thing at all and can't exist.

If he "is" then what is he? Well, at the very least he is something, and something is only something if it exists, otherwise it's not something - it's nothing at all.

Get it?

Okay...so where is my self-contradiction by the way?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Ok let me remind you what you're talking about:

It does not make sense to say that God 'just is' and yet he also does not exist, that is a contradiction.

See I never said that God doesn't exist. YOU did.

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 said: "I don't think in terms of 'existence' but rather that God just 'is'. I think that's common for most Christians."

Does that statement truly make sense to anyone but yourself fr0d0? When I was a Christian I thought of him in terms of existence, and I had this blessed assurance that he was the Alpha and Omega of all things. But I never said he just is, I tried to explain to anyone that asked why he just is. Maybe that was the beginning of my intellectual journey to atheism, since actually trying to explain to someone that has no knowledge of god that he just is, is quite frankly impossible. True knowledge is detrimental to a Christian since trying to make sense out of the nonsense that is religious beliefs is an act of futility.

Minimalist: Thanks for that link I personally knew Bart when I used to work for Oxford University Press a couple of years back, he wrote many books for us and I used to get into some nice discussions with him about Christianity. I try to read everything he puts out. He started as a Christian himself but studying the bible in depth led him to agnosticism.