Page 19 of 36 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 352

Thread: They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

  1. Top | #181
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    3,457
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus.
    And it is a false analogy. Here is why............

    You said................
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

    Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy
    This is important..................Notice you just emotionally rejected the evidence for God's existence. Thus concluding God has no evidence. I gave you a chance to put some intellect behind your groundless rejection. You did not respond as to why you rejected the evidence. Instead you emotionally jumped to your pet meme of Santa Claus.
    So....and this is key........
    Your only connection to that pseudo analogy is your emotional rejection of the evidence for God.

    So you're emoting that God and Santa each have no evidence......the basis of your false analogy.

    Santa Claus has no evidence for his existence.
    God does.................and your are emotionally rejecting the evidence.
    So the commonality that your analogy rests upon only exists in your emotions.
    On his PBS show Power Of Myth Joseph Cambel showerd how through all human history all myths are fundamentally tyeh same.

    The John Wayne cowboy persona. Rambo in all the movies was on a Homeric journey home.

    Modern Christianity is a myth based an embellished gospels with a few sound bites attributed to a person. In the early days there were multiple versions of Jesus. Not all supernatural. The basis theology you have today and the biblical cann0n came of a police consensus of competing sects at Nicea which was the beginning of the RCC and its suppression of alternative theology. The council concluded with essentially a loyalty oath to the new theology.

    You probably do not know the history of the bible translation you use. Why was there a King James translation and what did it mean and the purpose it served?

  2. Top | #182
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,734
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    15,774
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    ...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

    However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized [...]
    Says the guy creating a kalam blah blah argument on a thread about trivck questions...

  3. Top | #183
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,669
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,725
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    Blind faith runs deep in this one. .
    Believers of aliens do not believe in God or religion ... they belong in your group (atheist).


  4. Top | #184
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,669
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,725
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus. Note that the tradition of giving on Christmas actually dates back to a real person centuries' ago. A man named Nicolas who was reported to toss pouches of money to poor as he rode by. BecamemSaint Nick.

    The difference is we know the origins of Sanata Claus and a real flesh and blood historical figure.
    Well the santa we usually see, portrayed during Christmas is so unlike Saint NIck . He comes from the North pole , has a white beard, blue eyes and travels in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, as its said . Two individuals morphed into one. Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere, Saint Nicholas also had the title role of "Bishop" of Myra , his inspiration must therefore be Jesus.

  5. Top | #185
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,734
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    15,774
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    Blind faith runs deep in this one. .
    Believers of aliens do not believe in God or religion ... they belong in your group (atheist).

    What is the difference between a god and an alien, tho?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere,
    You probably mean the Roman Saturnalia traditions, right?

  6. Top | #186
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    14,217
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    38,717
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    Blind faith runs deep in this one. .
    Believers of aliens do not believe in God or religion ... they belong in your group (atheist).
    Um, no. Never watch Star Trek?
    The ending of 'Bread and Circuses'?

    Every time someone dismisses the arrogant claims of an omnipotent, onmiscient being with 'you're no god!' without explaining the difference, or why they hold a special place for 'real' gods?

  7. Top | #187
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,669
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,725
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post

    What is the difference between a god and an alien, tho?
    Would you believe that Prof. Dawkins thinks there's a difference? (Aliens plausible ... biblical God not at all).


    You probably mean the Roman Saturnalia traditions, right?
    Well no , since that would regard the 25th Dec being pagan and not biblical ...perhaps santa of the north pole too, but not Saint Nicholas although people combine the two.

  8. Top | #188
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,454
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,493
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Well the santa we usually see, portrayed during Christmas is so unlike Saint NIck . He comes from the North pole , has a white beard, blue eyes and travels in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, as its said . Two individuals morphed into one. Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere, Saint Nicholas also had the title role of "Bishop" of Myra , his inspiration must therefore be Jesus.
    A kid's faith in Santa has nothing to do with the history of Santa.

  9. Top | #189
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    3,457
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus. Note that the tradition of giving on Christmas actually dates back to a real person centuries' ago. A man named Nicolas who was reported to toss pouches of money to poor as he rode by. BecamemSaint Nick.

    The difference is we know the origins of Sanata Claus and a real flesh and blood historical figure.
    Well the santa we usually see, portrayed during Christmas is so unlike Saint NIck . He comes from the North pole , has a white beard, blue eyes and travels in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, as its said . Two individuals morphed into one. Anyway, to "note the tradition" as you say, "giving to the poor", one could wonder where St.Nick was "influenced" or rather, by who? Perhaps there's a clue somewhere, Saint Nicholas also had the title role of "Bishop" of Myra , his inspiration must therefore be Jesus.
    Of coursem and that shows ow myths evolve. An 1800s story evolves into a host of movies in modern times with diffent stories and takes.

    The underlying plot in the supernatural aspects of the gospel story existed well before the time of Jesus. I read the story in general takes the form of an action adventure fiction of the day.

    A deity has an offspring with a human female. The offspring has some but not all of the deity's power, a demigod. The demigod sacrifices himself in an heroic act saving the clan or group, then goes to stay with the deity/father. In the case of Jesus he sacrificed himself for Jewish salvation. Greek mythology. The term Christ comes from the Greek. It was not used by the first Jewish followers. The term Jesus is also a general term in Jewish history.

    Was the parents Jesus and Mary Christ? Not likely. The term Jesus Christ is from the Greek translation of Hebrew concepts. No one knows what the person may have been called when je lived.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

    Like Santa Claus the gospel tale undoubted grew out a possible historical Jesus growing in each retelling and embellished by the writers who appear to be Greek influenced.

    Was there a flesh and blood Hercules who had above average strength and endurance on which the myth was based?

  10. Top | #190
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    620
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,540
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Nice try.
    You did not quote what I was responding to and trashed the context.
    So I put it back in.........................
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" assumes the desired conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
    How does that assume anything?
    It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.
    ...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

    However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized that your original special pleading counter failed to even scratch the Kalam.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.
    The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.
    It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.
    I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
    again................
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models
    ..... note what you are actually conceding there. In one sentence you are claiming no evidence but in the next conceding the possible evidence. Cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    I gave you a link to scientific papers from scientists who disagree and support that disagreement with a model that is so far standing up to scrutiny.
    OH Really? Just how does the CCC avoid the BGV theorem. That is a test. Let's see if YOU can get beneath the pop science. I'll be waiting.

    I must add here, I admire and respect the work of Roger Penrose, I just don't see how this model is even remotely possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    “Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.
    No, is is a conclusion that follows from 'wishful thinking' premises.
    Again your new premature conclusion there rests upon your new attempts above to counter the argument. Your counters again failed. In a couple instances you actually seemed to concede more to my position. If you think that my counters to your counters were insufficient then show me.
    But so far............. You have yet counter either premise or the logic.

    Note I did not simply deny your counters I destroyed them.
    Let me try to shorten this up.............
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.
    Your last post was replete with similar INFERENCE there.
    However..................
    I have supported p1 with logic and scientific observation not faith. I supported p2 with the SBBM, the BGV and could easily add ........
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist.
    ........ and none of it would matter. For you have this childish trick to turn it into wishful thinking.

    So how is it you can still INFER I have no evidence and only faith...............Arbitrary Skepticism. Yeah I know, I should add the word System to that and abbreviate.
    But......
    According to your Arbitrary Skepticism any theist rationally reasoning from the scientific evidence can do so......... if and only if...... the theist has ........absolute certainty. After all "knowbody knows."…….and you are the virtuous king of ignorance.

    For example..... If I were to rationally reason that the SBBM and BGV plausibly INFERS a beginning (like some of the leading atheistic cosmologists) then your arbitrary skepticism simply equates my inference to a leap of blind faith, because I don't have absolute certainty. You can simply separate me from the evidence by eliminating any and all INFERENCE with your arbitrary skeptical standard of "absolute certainty" / "knowbody knows".

    I'm not allowed to rationally infer……..
    But you......oh.........YOU with your blessed ignorance can INFER that I have no evidence.

    You can INFER I only have wishful thinking.
    You get to INFER anything you want because "knowbody knows" does not apply to you.
    You can certainly INFER without absolute certainty....here........
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    I know for theists "we don't know' is an anathema
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Someone who claims to know stops searching.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Someone who believes not only stops searching but also denys contrary evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.
    Your skepticism is arbitrary and overtly unreasonable.
    You infer all the time without absolute certainty yet separate the theist from plausible inference with your arbitrary absolute certainty.

    Thus your criticisms regarding the Kalam at the moment are of no effect and can be dismissed.

    We can't even discuss the evidence b/c you have emotionally decided I'm not allowed to have any.

    Thank you for helping me to finally see that. You made it all so clear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •