|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2023 2:32:44 GMT
An argument alone would never be good enough to prove the existence of something and structured logical arguments need to be both valid and sound. This why the Cosmological arguments don't work. The first premise can't be proven, though I think the first premise is reasonable to accept and the conclusion doesn't prove a God, it just proves a cause. You say an argument alone can't prove the existence of something, then you say the Cosmological argument proves the existence of a cause.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 16, 2023 11:56:33 GMT
“The Bible is hopelessly contradictory!” Maybe, but that needs to be backed up by arguments and interpretation is important. Again that is lazy on the part of the atheist. ...All done. The most blatant example is Ezekiel 4:12 where Yahweh directs one to bake using human excrement. A mere three verses later (4:15) Yahweh changes his mind and now directs the use of bovine excrement for baking.
How many professional football players are Christians. Despite the death penalty, they have no problem working on the Sabbath or eating ham for Easter.
How many more arguments do you need?
You call it "interpretation"; I call it "cherry picking".
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 16, 2023 12:03:14 GMT
The most blatant example is Ezekiel 4:12 where Yahweh directs one to bake using human excrement. A mere three verses later (4:15) Yahweh changes his mind and now directs the use of bovine excrement for baking.
How many professional football players are Christians. Despite the death penalty, they have no problem working on the Sabbath or eating ham for Easter.
How many more arguments do you need?
You call it "interpretation"; I call it "cherry picking".
You provided an example though. My point was just that someone needs to do more than just say the Bible is full of contradictions. I am not sure why you mentioned the football player though. That is just an example of Christians not following the Bible, that has nothing to do with contradictions in the Bible. I would call it cherry picking as well btw.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 16, 2023 18:47:12 GMT
The most blatant example is Ezekiel 4:12 where Yahweh directs one to bake using human excrement. A mere three verses later (4:15) Yahweh changes his mind and now directs the use of bovine excrement for baking.
How many professional football players are Christians. Despite the death penalty, they have no problem working on the Sabbath or eating ham for Easter.
How many more arguments do you need?
You call it "interpretation"; I call it "cherry picking".
You call these arguments? Cmon now.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 18, 2023 22:54:30 GMT
The most blatant example is Ezekiel 4:12 where Yahweh directs one to bake using human excrement. A mere three verses later (4:15) Yahweh changes his mind and now directs the use of bovine excrement for baking.
How many professional football players are Christians. Despite the death penalty, they have no problem working on the Sabbath or eating ham for Easter.
How many more arguments do you need?
You call it "interpretation"; I call it "cherry picking".
You call these arguments? Cmon now. Your sarcastic brush-off is being interpreted as a lame rationalization to evade a coherent response. On one hand, you have a creator who allegedly knows everything there is to know. He never changes (Malachi 3:6). Any know-it-all would never need to change their mind because they already know everything, including the future. Yet, in Ezekiel 4, God changes his mind. You have your choice of two contradictions (pick one): Either God is not all-knowing, or an all-knowing God changed his mind. And if God is all knowing, he knows that he put barrels of oil all over the middle-east. Rather than tell people to use cow dung for fuel, why not tell them where the oil is buried. And while we're at it, why did a perfect God create all those evil-doers that he had to kill with the great flood? And why do it in such horrid fashion? Why create a flood that takes three hundred seventy-one days to create and wane when you could recreate the whole universe in just seven days? And can you explain why he drowned innocent babies? Of course you can't. There's another contradiction. Of the millions of people in the world, only Noah and his family passed the goody-two-shoes test. Could you explain that? Didn't anyone else have a boat? "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Perhaps you can explain why God created poisonous snakes, bees that sting, and meter-maids that eat their young.
|
|
IceMan
New Member
Fluffing
@iceman
Posts: 20
Likes: 11
|
Post by IceMan on Dec 30, 2023 22:09:00 GMT
It's hard to have a rational debate against belief because you're usually arguing with stubbornness. You see this when debating flat-Earthers, who continually ignore evidence and arguments they dislike. Often they present something that they claim nobody has an answer to, even though they've repeatedly been given answers. They just don't like the answers so they reject them and act like nobody has answers. Their evidence to a flat Earth is usually memes that revolve around their inability to understand simple things, acting like their inability to understand must mean it's stupid rather than them being stupid. You can offer them suggestions of ways they can irrefutably prove to themselves that Earth is round and they just ignore it.
The principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence makes almost too much sense, unless it's inconvenient for you, in which case you pretend it's ridiculous. Want to make petty arguments like what counts as "extraordinary?" Fine. Reword it without that word. Claims require evidence. It still holds up. If you make a regular, non-extraordinary claim, you're still responsible for backing it up with evidence. If your cupcake came up missing, you can claim I ate it, but you need to back that up with evidence. Otherwise, there's no reason for anyone to believe it.
Burden of proof rests on those making claims. They don't need to be extraordinary claims. You are responsible for proving something true. We aren't responsible for disproving it.
This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. I can say he exists. Now, am I responsible for proving the existence of FSM or are you responsible for disproving the existence of FSM? Obviously it's the former. If I can't prove the existence of FSM, the logical course of action would be treating him is though he probably doesn't exist. Could he exist? Sure, but without compelling evidence there's no logical reason to treat him as real.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 30, 2023 23:35:44 GMT
You are responsible for proving something true. We aren't responsible for disproving it. The Scientific Method disagrees.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 31, 2023 14:51:17 GMT
I entirely agree. The alternative is to believe in things without end, with bottomless credulity. Not to mention that some absolute things claimed are not amenable to a definite disproof.
|
|