Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
Comment moved to guano. Please raise moderation issues in the appropriate thread.
Generally when Christians talk about atheists we are just referring to some one who claims there is no God.
Of course they exist.
On the other hand the Christians I know all affirm the truth of Romans.
We don’t see any contradictions in those two things
peace
Where did the natural processes come from? How did they get smarter than the scientists who investigate them?
You made that claim here. Are you saying now that you do not assert that it is the case that “Everyone knows God exists.”?
Then I ask, again, are you asserting that literally every human being believes in a god?
You are the one claiming that everyone believes in a god. What do YOU mean by that word in the context of that claim?
So the god concept you are referring to when you say “Everyone knows God exists.” is the Christian god? Just to be very clear, what do you consider the essential characteristics of that god? Creator of the universe? Creator of the first two humans? Confuser of languages? Responsible for flooding the entire planet, killing everyone but Noah and his family? Impregnator of virgins? If any of those are part of your god concept, I definitely don’t believe in it.
I think you know what I’m asking for here. Please answer my questions directly. I am genuinely interested in understanding your position, but your last couple of responses have not been particularly clear.
Atheism is not based on evidence… It’s faith based that is clocked in speculations and fairy-tales presented as science.. It fills the need out there for people who for one reason or another refuse to be accountable to a higher being… I can’t respect that because this idea is based on the premise that begins with a lie…
That is also against the rules:
“This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.”
At the very least you are accusing atheists of being ignorant of their own beliefs or too stupid to understand them. Arguably, you are saying we are demented.
It seems to me that if you want to participate within the rules, you must accept (at least for the purpose of discussion here) that we atheists do exist. That has the two additional benefits of being respectful of others’ beliefs and being aligned with reality.
I don’t claim that. I simply don’t believe in any of the gods I’ve heard about, including several varieties of the Christian one. The term I’ve heard used is “weak atheist” (which seems a bit pejorative, but it is what it is).
Oh, and I do exist.
TSZ in 2018 looks a lot like TSZ in 2017, so far.
Alan is petulantly moving comments from one place to another, despite the lack of any discernible benefit. Colewd is pretending to understand the arguments for common descent. J-Mac is incoherent. And fifth is repeating his classic PRATT:
keiths,
If you want to discuss moderation, there’s the appropriate thread. If you want to indulge in a “gloves off” exchange of view, there’s Noyau.
Again, you’ve got it backwards J. Try and think. Atheism is the naturally default position. It’s believing in those magical beings called gods that requires evidence. Do you really not understand this simple point?
Again backwards J. The speculative fairy tales are those books religious people call sacred. Atheists just don’t buy into the fantasies. That’s all.
Again backwards J. If somebody comes and tells me that I’m accountable to a higher being, among zillions of imaginary beings competing for such accountability, then I require quite a bit of evidence, rather than just buying into the fantasy,
Again backwards J. How could it be a lie that believing in magical beings called gods, particular ones over many competing fantasies, requires quite a bit of evidence?
Really J, try and read for comprehension.
Alan,
Please curb the urge to interfere with discussion. Your input is neither needed nor desired.
Guys, I think we should take these conversations to Noyau. They’re not very sandboxy, Unless you’re planning to graduate them into OPs at some point.
P.S. Just a suggestion.
I never thought of my self as much of an “asserter” in this regard
More of a messenger
None of God’s characteristics are any more essential that any of the others. All are essential.
For example when it comes to the possibility of knowledge I would say one essential characteristic is “able to communicate in such a way so as we can know stuff”
If we were talking about the possibility of objectivity an essential characteristic would be “Just”
What we feel to be essential at a given moment depends on what we are talking about.
I already gave you the most direct answer I can to this question given the focus of our present conversation.
I’ll do it again.
God is ………truth…. I mean that literally………… I really do.
If truth exists then God exists necessarily
If you don’t understand feel free to ask specific clarifying questions
I’ll try and help you anyway I can
peace
So your only claim is that you haven’t knowingly met a god that suits your “god” fancy yet?
Ok but that sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.
peace
fifth, now:
fifth, then:
What can you do but roll your eyes, clap fifth on the back, and say “Way to bring glory to God!”
keiths,
geeze
Do you understand the difference in usage common usage and definitional precision?
Most folks understand that I can call a physical object a circle with out implying that it’s possible to perfectly represent the mental concept of “circle” in a physical object.
Most folks would have no problem with my commenting on the beautiful sunrise in one context and in another context asserting that the sun does not actually rise.
peace
fifth,
Most people are able to see the contradiction between “Of course atheists exist” and “There are no atheists”.
I’ll bet that even you can see the contradiction, now that it’s been pointed out. However, you are pretending not to in hopes of saving face.
It’s no mystery why you don’t want your pastor and fellow church members to witness your performance here at TSZ. Hide that lamp under a bushel!
I think you just proved me right. 🙂
Thank you for playing.
keiths,
Oh, but remember that most of those presuppositional bullshitters think their imaginary friend’s thoughts after “Him,” which implies that their imaginary friend would be too blame for the poor thinking.
Way to glorify their imaginary friend indeed.
Do you really think that revelation is a claim for some reason?
really????
How odd
Revelation can’t be a claim by any stretch of the imagination.
By definition It’s just one person telling another person stuff.
peace
fifth, to Rumraket:
You’ve blown it again, fifth. Rumraket is correct, and you’re wrong.
The funniest part is that you quoted the entire exchange yourself, not realizing that it proved Rumraket’s point.
Here’s your claim:
And yes, that is obviously a claim: you are claiming that it is revelation all the way down.
Revelation:
.
a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way.
“revelations about his personal life”
synonyms: disclosure, surprising fact, announcement, report; More
2.
the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world.
“an attempt to reconcile Darwinian theories with biblical revelation”
newton,
your point is?
I don’t see anything resembling a claim in those definitions
What I see are descriptions of different ways that information is communicated to individuals.
For clarity I prefer this definition from Merriam Webster
quote:
a : an act of revealing to view or making known
b : something that is revealed; especially : an enlightening or astonishing disclosure
c : a pleasant often enlightening surprise
end quote:
peace
no, I’m just saying I know I can know stuff by revelation.
There might be other ways to know things but I am unaware of them
I assume that you agree that if God exists and knowledge is possible he can reveal things so that I can know them.
That is not a claim it comes by definition with omnipotence
peace
fifth,
Was it divine revelation that told you that atheists really do believe in god but just deny it?
You are claiming that you are receiving revelation.
For example, you read something in the bible, which you take to be revelation of some true states of affairs. How do you know they are? How do you know those claims in the bible that you would call revelation, are true? Your answer here would be “revelation” again. And so round and round it goes. How do you know that revelation is true? – More revelation. How do you know that is also true? – Yet more revelation on top etc. etc.
They’re just claims piled on top of claims. At no point to you actually establish the truth of any of the claims. You just go around in the same circle over and over again, or you infinitely regress through a chain of claims of revelation without end.
That’s is the essence of presuppositional apologetics.
not at all,
You completely misunderstand what I’m saying
I merely stated that by definition knowledge is possible if revelation happens.
Of course It’s possible that revelation does not happen and I know nothing at all.
Now here is the cool twist so you need to pay attention
I know that !!!!……
Get it now?
peace
Do you agree that it’s true by definition that if knowledge is possible an omnipotent being can reveal something so that I can know it?
This is important.
You need to take a look at the question and take your time and understand what is being said.
If you disagree please say so and we can discuss it further.
peace
I said atheists know God exists.
I was repeating what the Apostle Paul said.
If you are asking if I believe that the Bible is the word of God I would say that I do believe that.
peace
Hey all,
If you believe there is no way to win a debate with a presuppositionalist why do you continue to try and do just that.
😉
I assure you I’m fine just talking about the article.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
As usual, you are making two quite different claims and assuming that they are the same.
1. If revelation is possible, then knowledge is possible.
2. If knowledge is possible, then revelation is possible.
These are clearly distinct. One can affirm or deny either (1) or (2) without any contradiction.
If you accept (1), then it does not follow that there is revelation just because there is knowledge. If you accept (2), then if there is knowledge, then it is possible that there is revelation. But from the fact that something is possible, it does not follow that is actual.
The upshot here is that whether you prefer (1) or (2), the actuality of knowledge must function as an independent premise, not as something that is inferred from the major premise alone.
If there is no God – a higher power and definitively much more intelligent than Szostak or Venter, who try to recreate life… here is the problem that everyone has to face :
Enzymes are required to produce ATP but ATP is needed to produce enzymes. DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Proteins can be made only by a cell, but the cell membrane can be made only with proteins…
This is just the fundamentals of the issue as no one even knows what makes matter animate …
There is just no way that this issue could’ve been resolved by any natural processes as it requires coordinated actions of life systems beyond any comprehensible creative actions known today…
I am willing to put everything on the line that this issue will never be resolved by human intelligence for many known to me reasons, including:
1. What makes lifeless matter alive reaches beyond the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. All clues seem to point toward dark energy that permeates all matter possibility making it animate.
2. The Bible stats the following:
Ps 36:9
“For you (God) are the one who gives and sustains life.”
There is just no way that this bible scripture could be proven wrong, which means that scientists will never be able to re-create life because God is the source and the sustainer of life…
These are the simple facts and by making assumption that God or much higher ID with power beyond what humans know doesn’t exist, one just chooses to lie to himself… This is actually remarkable, because the bible says that many saw Jesus resurrecting people including Lazarus, who had been dead for 4 days and still refused to believe it and tried to kill Jesus for it..
So, we shouldn’t be surprised that today fact like the ones I mentioned above have no effect on the great majority, because these facts are NOT what people what to hear; who made up their minds that God doesn’t exist and the end of story…Sad but true state of our society…
BTW: Until the issue of the self assembly of the first cell can be resolved, there is no natural selection acting on mutation. There is no population genetic, no fitness speculations, there is no common descent, no nested hierarchy, no nothing…
Many on this blog think that by avoiding these fundamental and inescapable issues of the origins of first living cell, it will somehow be fixed by itself…These people simply chose to lie to themselves and by promoting these lies they misled and keep misleading many…
Why?
So, take it away Joe F and others!
I created a new post for this discussion. It is waiting for review. I’ll add my responses to fifthmonarchyman’s recent comments there.
No they are not the same but they are related
1) is true by definition
2) is a tentative assumption.
I’m not aware of any way to have knowledge sans revelation.
If you have a suggestion I’m all ears
I agree,
and I’ve repeatedly said that it’s possible that I’m mistaken and knowledge is not possible..
knowledge is possible unless I’m mistaken and knowledge is not possible.
Again the cool twist is……I know that
Do you get it now???
peace
I was just revealing by most definitions revelation is not just one person telling another person stuff. After all if that was all it was, it hardly is a basis for knowledge. Persons are mistaken sometimes.
Not sure definitions make a claim and I really don’t have an opinion one way or the other whether divine revelation is true just looking for a succinct maybe three sentences what the evidence is for it, how exactly it is revealed.
I agree and different ways have different descriptive terms
Maybe the full definition then:
“1a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth
b : something that is revealed by God to humans
2 a : an act of revealing to view or making known
b : something that is revealed; especially : an enlightening or astonishing disclosure shocking revelations
c : a pleasant often enlightening surprise her talent was a revelation”
You were talking divine truth right?
peace
And it’s approved already! I have inaugurated it with a few responses to fifthmonarchyman. I hope he and anyone else interested in his claims joins us there.
God is truth so all truth is divine.
peace
Actually without divine revelation, after all if human revelation does not guarantee it. So without divine revelation as a justification you know nothing at all.
So by you own formulation without divine revelation either you know you know nothing somehow which is knowing something, or you are mistaken because you actually know something somehow
By definition not if it is logically impossible for even omnipotent being to reveal something to a finite being so they can know it is true. Hence the need for faith.
Only absolute truth, so we are talking about the part of the definition you left out
certainty is not necessary for knowledge to exist.
Knowledge might be impossible.
But if knowledge is possible by definition an omnipotent being can do it.
peace
Truth is correct? Does the truth not need to be certain to know it is true?
newton: By definition not if it is logically impossible for even omnipotent being to reveal something to a finite being so they can know it is true.
Divinely revealed knowledge may be is all we know, which seems to be the basis for the emphasis on faith to overcome doubt
Actually the omnipotent being would need omniscient as well, and only if it is logically possible.
But it does not take omnipotence to manipulate the human mind into the belief they know the truth, a healthy dose of LSD might suffice or some form indoctrination.
Just depends if God values free choice not coercion. Without free choice the concept of heaven and hell is tough to reconcile with a Just God.
Doritos for the mind:
TEST LATEX
Shazam! It works! Praise be.
Condolences to all who knew him. Richard Hoppe and I argued quite a bit over the last 15 years, but he was a scholar and gentleman who occasionally posted at TSZ and my website, creationevolutionuniversity.com
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2018/01/PT-contributor-Richard.html#disqus_thread
LATEX TEST
nailed it.
LATEX TEST
….
A-OK.
I don’t need to be certain that a particular thing is true in order to know it if that is what you are asking.
No, He would not have to be omniscient in order to reveal stuff to me. He would have to be omniscient and also perfectly just in order to insure that he did not reveal anything that was not factually correct.
If coercion is always inherently wrong then a perfectly holy and just could would never coerce.
I’m not sure what you mean by free choice here.
As a Calvinist I affirm that everyone has free choice it’s just that we inevitably choose the wrong things.
peace
LATEX Test
cleared for landing!
LATEX TEST
Go for it!