Atheism is unreasonable

[TreeSapNest]

I'll get the barbucue started. You get the gun. Bill, you get the knives. Mmmmm. It's steak for dinner tonight.

[His_Majesty]

Perhaps the theory allows for both interpretations. As such, it is not the final word on the subject that you wish it to be. Have you considered that?

So a proposition can be A and not A at the same time? Wow

Say it like a little kid: There is no infinity problem.

Everyone that say that are the same ones that can't provide adequate responses to the analogies.

[The Valkyrie]

[fojo]

Until there's evidence for something else, why believe? It's pretty simple really

[His_Majesty]

You missed my point, which is that such a dogma necessarily undermines any claim of mercy, or even benevolence, made about that god.

Now now now, Parkers, you can't draw those conclusions without presupposing your own personal standard that you are subjecting God to, which makes it a matter of your OPINION, instead of it being a matter of fact...and do you know how I know? Because I have a difference of opinion that you, which proves my point.

According to Matthew, your god is perfect.

I will have to agree with Matthew on this one.

Nonsense. Eternal punishment attaching to one and only one option means that my will is as free as the robbery victim's free choice to surrender his money -- never mind the gun at his head.

Only one option? I count two.

1. Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and as a ransom for your sins and have eternal life.

2. Reject Jesus as Lord and Savior and be doomed for eternity.

There are two choices, just because you choose the less pleasurable choice doesn't make it a choice nevertheless. You've been evangelized to, you've been preached to, you have open acknowledgement of Jesus Christ...all of this and you still reject him?

You have no one to blame but yourself.

If your god knows everything, he knows our choices. Can I prove your god wrong by making a choice that goes against what he knows I'll choose? If yes, then your god doesn't know everything. If no, then there's no real choice I can make.

Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and he will "know" that you've made the right choice.

I though you'd spent years debating this issue, kid. Here, let me google that for you.

I did, and there is no coincidence that I've never heard the term before you used it here.

Once again, I'm not basing the expectation of perfect mercy on his alleged omnibenevolence; I'm basing it on Matthew's assertion of his perfection. Aquinas and Anselm agree with me, by the way.

First, define "perfect mercy".

Oddly enough, you're falling back on "Christian theology" here, but immediately above, you're rejecting Christian theology.

How do you reconcile this inconsistency of yours?

I've never rejected Christian theology.

Disparaging an objection you haven't rebutted is dishonest argumentation. You've yet to give a coherent definition because the same "problem of infinity" which you claim negsates a naturalistic explanation also bedevils your god. In short, business as us-- er,special pleading.

I just want an answer to my anaologies, and be spared of the rheteroic.

Also, I notice you didn't present the evidence I asked for, so I will ask again: what evidence do you have for this god-thingy?

Science, philosophy, mathematics, and history.

You compared yourself to Jesus Christ.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and he is not I, and I am not him.

The fact that you cannot see that to be the case doesn't mean it hasn't happened; it only means that you're not very percipient.

You'll notice I haven't argued that humans don't age. You claimed that the human body is a closed system, and you've been corrected. But you're too obstinate to admit error.
Also, it appears to have escaped your notice that cancer is a growth, not degradation.

Why does the second law apply to the human body, then, Einstein?

---

I don't even know for sure that Jesus existed and you want me to guess what thoughts were in the heads of his followers?

Do you know for sure that Julius Caesar existed? Or are you committing the taxi cab fallacy?

None of their adventures are well-documented either, unless you count Paul.

So what? King Tut's reign wasn't well-documented, when he spent 8 years on the throne...the same length of time as the President of the U.S, and the President's adventures are well-documented...so why not a king?

Catholic church traditiion has most of them dying horrible deaths as martyrs, but again, that's the claim, not the evidence. Certainly people have willingly died for beliefs that fall far short of believing in a literal resurrection, so that doesn't prove anything.

If they actually died as martyrs, then it proves everything.

So it beats me. Some early sources make it sound like a 'spiritual resurrection', others make it sound like a literal one, but none of them are actually contemporary to the event in question.

It was a physical resurrection.

If the future can be changed, it can't be fully known. That's what I lean towards. I don't think true omnisicence is possible, and if there's a God, it can't logically foresee everything.

An omniscient being would know about the changes, right?

That's the other way to approach it, but it puts God in the position of not having any options, God must do what God already knows God will do. Where's God's free will in that scenario?

Good question

It's always interesting to see which leg a Christian will choose to cut off of the theodicy tripod to save what they can. You chose to limit omnipotence, which is a worthy choice in my book. So many Christians choose to take their saw to omnibenevolence instead.

Well, I mean not even God can do what is logically impossible, like squared circles and one-sided sticks.

Too bad that argument fails. There's no more evidence that Jesus resurrected than that the Trojan War started because of an argument among Greek goddesses. Have you considered using an argument based on something actually known to be true?

Then accept a debate regarding the Historicity of the Resurrection, or are you all talk?

[pocaracas]

Perhaps the theory allows for both interpretations. As such, it is not the final word on the subject that you wish it to be. Have you considered that?

So a proposition can be A and not A at the same time? Wow

Wow... learn to read, you must...

Say it like a little kid: There is no infinity problem.

Everyone that say that are the same ones that can't provide adequate responses to the analogies.

To you, adequate means "something that agrees with your interpretation". Sorry, your analogies are flawed, and you know it, but you like to see people stumped by them. All theists like that about their analogies.
It's curious how most things in theology are conveyed by analogy... it's like the "real" thing is not available for comment.

[His_Majesty]

Wow... learn to read, you must...

You posited the theory to work for both interpretations...the finite interpretation, and the eternal interpretation.

So A is A and A is B at the same time.

To you, adequate means "something that agrees with your interpretation". Sorry, your analogies are flawed, and you know it, but you like to see people stumped by them. All theists like that about their analogies.
It's curious how most things in theology are conveyed by analogy... it's like the "real" thing is not available for comment.

Red Herring in full effect.

[pocaracas]

Wow... learn to read, you must...

You posited the theory to work for both interpretations...the finite interpretation, and the eternal interpretation.

So A is A and A is B at the same time.

You laugh too much...

The theory... actually theorem... was you who brought up.
And that theorem allows for both interpretations. Meaning that it is incomplete. It is lacking in further detail in order to conclusively say something about the past of time.

To you, adequate means "something that agrees with your interpretation". Sorry, your analogies are flawed, and you know it, but you like to see people stumped by them. All theists like that about their analogies.
It's curious how most things in theology are conveyed by analogy... it's like the "real" thing is not available for comment.

Red Herring in full effect.

Actually... not quite... it's one more point against your position.
You may address it as well, or, just cover your ears and listen to what people are telling you. Reality, in many instances, doesn't seem logical: evidence: Quantum Mechanics - Your computer!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now now now, Parkers, you can't draw those conclusions without presupposing your own personal standard that you are subjecting God to, which makes it a matter of your OPINION, instead of it being a matter of fact...and do you know how I know? Because I have a difference of opinion that you, which proves my point.

Your difference of opinion is with your own holy book, and the theologians who've explicated your religion.

I will have to agree with Matthew on this one.

Yet you're defending the contrary view. When you arrive at a contradiction, one of your premises is flawed.

Only one option? I count two.

1. Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and as a ransom for your sins and have eternal life.

I.E., give your money to the robber "of your own free will".

2. Reject Jesus as Lord and Savior and be doomed for eternity.

I.E., refuse to surrender your money, and get murdered.

You really haven't thought about what I've written here.

There are two choices, just because you choose the less pleasurable choice doesn't make it a choice nevertheless. You've been evangelized to, you've been preached to, you have open acknowledgement of Jesus Christ...all of this and you still reject him?

You have no one to blame but yourself.

So, you'd find the robber not guilty ... got it.

Tell me again about your so-called morality.

Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and he will "know" that you've made the right choice.

Rather than preaching, answer the point, or admit your incompetence to do so.

I did, and there is no coincidence that I've never heard the term before you used it here.

Indeed ... because like any other fundy, you don't pay attention. I've been debating this subject since you were in diapers ... it's a pity your answers are so infantile.

First, define "perfect mercy".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/perfect

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...lish/mercy

I've never rejected Christian theology.

You're arguing against it in this thread. Are you so uneducated you don't realize this?

I just want an answer to my anaologies, and be spared of the rheteroic.

Science, philosophy, mathematics, and history.

Those are intellectual disciplines, not evidentiary material.

Do you need me to look up "evidence" for you as well, or can we trust you to learn how to google these things sometime this year?

There is only one Jesus Christ, and he is not I, and I am not him.

Obviously. He actually said some intelligent things here and there ... in stark contrast to you.

I'll wait while you look that up, too.

Why does the second law apply to the human body, then, Einstein?

Because the Universe seems to be a closed system ... Einstein.

Any more questions? Because my job is done here.

[Mister Agenda]

Do you know for sure that Julius Caesar existed? Or are you committing the taxi cab fallacy?

No, but the confidence level is much higher, especially regarding his thoughts given his own accounts of his military campaigns. Are you going to trot out your taxi cab every time I make a reasonable point?

So what? King Tut's reign wasn't well-documented, when he spent 8 years on the throne...the same length of time as the President of the U.S, and the President's adventures are well-documented...so why not a king?

So we shouldn't be too confident of King Tut's adventures given the lack of detail.

If they actually died as martyrs, then it proves everything.

Does that reasoning apply to martyrs of other religions as well, or is it special for Jesus? If they actually died as martyrs, it proves they died for what they believed. It doesn't tell us what they believed, and it doesn't make what they believed true, any more than Heaven's Gate cultists dying for what they believed means there really was a mother ship coming for their souls.

It was a physical resurrection.

That's the most popular version among Christians of today, yes.

An omniscient being would know about the changes, right?

If the omniscient being knows about them, they are what it foresaw, and wouldn't BE changes. 'I see in the future that the future will be changed thusly' isn't very coherent.

Good question

If you think about it, God doesn't have to have all of the powers attributed to their fullest possible extent in order to do everything he is supposed to have done. In fact, the stories make more sense if he has some limits. For instance, God frequently is depicted as having emotional reactions to events, which seems odd if he's seen them coming for millions of years. If his omniscience is limited to what it's logically possible for him to know, and free will makes people's actions somewhat impossible to predict, it might not be logically possible to know every detail of the future, though he could still know each event as it unfolds and predict everything that is predictable. Just a thought.

Well, I mean not even God can do what is logically impossible, like squared circles and one-sided sticks./quote]

You might be surprised at how many Christians would assert God can perform paradoxical things with justifications like 'he is the author of logic so he isn't bound by logic'. Don't sell yourself short on having a more reasonable perspective.

[quote='His_Majesty' pid='796060' dateline='1415921093']
Then accept a debate regarding the Historicity of the Resurrection, or are you all talk?

Um, a debate would be more talking, so that's one of the stupidest challenges I've ever been offered. There's no record of the events of the resurrection outside of the Gospels written at least decades later. Logically, the Romans would have noticed this bit from the crucifixion, in fact it is so likely they would have noticed it that an explanation is required for why they neglected to record it:

Matt 27:50-54 “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”

The dead were walking the streets of Jerusalem...and no one thought to write it down until at least 40 years later? Now THAT stretches belief. And if the crucifixion is fanciful, still more the resurrection, with each Gospel having a different version and a claim for 500 witnesses without naming any and none of them writing it down as far as we know.

Jesus may have been historical, but his supposed miracles don't rise above the level of legend.

---

You posited the theory to work for both interpretations...the finite interpretation, and the eternal interpretation.

So A is A and A is B at the same time.

That a theory isn't changed in either case doesn't mean both are the case. It just means the theory doesn't establish which one is the case. No contradiction of identiy involved.