For anyone who thinks non-believers are going to hell

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If by basis you mean it is founded on polytheism, I'd say a decent argument could be made that way. If you mean it is polytheistic, I'd disagree (though the explanation for the Trinity is a pain in the ass). Sometimes I think the whole "fully human/fully God" thing was to test just how much BS someone could believe...

Interesting side-note : Did you ever notice how similar the Trinity is to some ideas of the Tripataka (maybe spelled that wrong) or the whole Hindu thing w/ Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma?

a reply to: scorpio84

hard to talk to someone who can't hold a conversation.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: scorpio84

hard to talk to someone who can't hold a conversation.

Well, at least you don't talk to yourself.

Let me reiterate your position on this subject for the crowd:

ServantoftheLamb's argument for why it is logical to believe in God:

His/Her Opening Premise: God exists and the universe is designed

-"God exists" is meant to be an axiom

Yes, excellent reasoning skills, Servant. Let me guess, all of your education came from Sunday School.

a reply to: scorpio84

That was not my argument. You took it out of context like you did pretty much everything I said to you.

I get what you are saying. However, consider that throught God's thought process our heart beats....

And yes, I agree that it does take complete trust that what you are reading is the true word of God.

Blind faith... Now thats trust.

2 Corinthians 5:7 KJV

7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.







reply to: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: scorpio84
First, I've been claiming for this entire time that I am agnostic - you'd know that if you read through my threads. There is a nuanced difference between the two terms, but they are technically the same if one accepts the atheist definition of themselves (which divides atheism into anti-theists and agnostic atheists).

Oh gawd another self indulgent thread from the forums latest theologian 'expert' who has to constantly redefine atheism.

There us no part of the definition that includes 'anti-theist', why do you keep doing this?

At least the poster you were replying to was a theist and had half an excuse as to why they were so incorrect.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lest anyone think I'm lying:

to justify this assumption one will always fall into circular reasoning. So in order to argue for God's existence I will use what is called a reductio ad absurdum. YOU WILL DO WELL TO REMEMBER THE FORM OF ARGUMENT I AM USING, IT WILL MAKE THE CONVERSATION GO MORE SMOOTH.

In order to do so I will have to define what is meant by God in the context of this argument. God here is defined as a transcendent mind that created the totality of existence.

Statement:
God exist and the universe is designed

Of course, I invite everyone to read your full argument and our ensuing debate here.

a reply to: Toseekthetruth

Or consider that our heart beats via signals sent from the brain...

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: scorpio84
First, I've been claiming for this entire time that I am agnostic - you'd know that if you read through my threads. There is a nuanced difference between the two terms, but they are technically the same if one accepts the atheist definition of themselves (which divides atheism into anti-theists and agnostic atheists).

Oh gawd another self indulgent thread from the forums latest theologian 'expert' who has to constantly redefine atheism.

There us no part of the definition that includes 'anti-theist', why do you keep doing this?

At least the poster you were replying to was a theist and had half an excuse as to why they were so incorrect.

Apparently you have nothing better to do than follow my threads and make asinine replies. I've already explained my position on atheism to you - agree if you want, disagree if you want. Either way, contribute something or sit on the side-lines.

a reply to: scorpio84

Then you have to consider your thoughts as chemical reactions popping back and forth between synapses. Chemical reactions don't have a truth value so why all these debates? You are just a bag of flesh fizzing around the planet dancing to it's DNA.

a reply to: scorpio84

Lol I love how you are incapable of understanding what I said there.....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you a pastor? You seem like a pastor that is upset he just got schooled in a religious debate.

Anytime you say "God exists" is an axiom and use it as a premise for an argument that tries to prove God's existence, you've screwed up your entire argument. How thick-skulled are you?

a reply to: scorpio84

It wasn't an axiom for God's existence. It was an axiom for the part about the universe being designed. I told you the phrase God exists was what the reductio ad absurdum was based around. I told you quite a few times but you ignored it. You have to result to insults because you don't actually have any idea how rational discourse actually works. I justified that axiom with a reductio ad absurdum that went completely over your head.

A brain that you would'nt have if it weren't for God.... a reply to: scorpio84

originally posted by: scorpio84
Apparently you have nothing better to do than follow my threads and make asinine replies.

You've flooded this board with your self indulgent threads, trust me, following you I am not, it's tricky avoiding this tripe.

You claim to be an expert theologian yet you constantly get definitions wrong and create your very own, that's all quite relevant and far from asinine.

I've already explained my position on atheism to you - agree if you want, disagree if you want. Either way, contribute something or sit on the side-lines.

Every time you decide to create a new definition I'm going to call you on it. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't consider yourself to be an 'expert'....

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: scorpio84

It wasn't an axiom for God's existence. It was an axiom for the part about the universe being designed. I told you the phrase God exists was what the reductio ad absurdum was based around. I told you quite a few times but you ignored it. You have to result to insults because you don't actually have any idea how rational discourse actually works. I justified that axiom with a reductio ad absurdum that went completely over your head.

Pardon me, it was confusing when you said:

God exist and the universe is designed, if the universe is designed then anything that exist in the universe functions in a particular way. In other words, because a design is made with a purpose and particular functions in mind we have good reason to believe that an observed instance in the past will tell us about an unobserved instance in the future.

So where is the reductio ad absurdum?

That comes into play in the axiom above.

Let's start the debate again? Join me at this thread

a reply to: scorpio84

So, here's a challenge - convince me that God is real and I will become a believer. If you cannot argue with decency, then act with the humility demanded by your religion and refrain from posting on this thread.

I do not believe anyone could convince you that the God of Abraham is real. You have studied theology intensely and probably had in depth studies of which the average person has never been exposed to. I do not subscribe to any religious doctrine/s nor belong to any organized religious philosophy but I do believe that Jesus was true and that He is the Son of God. Evidence and proof are brothers but have their places in theology. You can have much evidence without proof but all in all belief includes the spirit of understanding without proof. If it had proof it then would not warrant this discussion. It would sit upon the shelf as fact.

The only way proof can be established, in this case, would be not to bring God to you but to bring you to God. This entails a substance change and that change will happen eventually. After all the studies and lectures the substance change comes as the image ceases to function. What is left? There lies the debate and to many the solution. There are some that do not believe in a solution and there are some that do believe in a solution of an afterlife. That choice is theirs to make with some evidence and others with no evidence.

My choice is based upon what is presented to me mostly in literature but also in my travels in Britain and its Isle of Avalon. Avalon was the the key to my mind as well as others have their own keys. It was this land of mystical beauty that I found many traditions that brought much of the Hebrew and Greek bibles to enlighten my mind. But still I had to have the faith as is always the case. I could not bring this God of Jesus down to my level of thought. He had to bring me up to His level of thought. That was when I learned that it was not that I leaned upon my knowledge but that I leaned upon His knowledge. I truly do not believe that a book can show the way to God but I do believe that a book can help one to understand why they made the choice that they made. Don't you think that we put too much into what others say and eventually wind up believing them as gods?

a reply to: Seede

I'm sorry, I missed the reason for believing. Something about letting your imaginary friend think for you, was it?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Akragon

I imagine that if one convinced me that God was the only logical conclusion, I could believe. Doesn't have to be proven, per se. Anyhow, the post was to tell some bible thumpers a). we (I) don't care about their hell-threats and b). a better way to approach the issue if they're that worried about it.

In other words, you created this thread to thump your chest with how smart you imagine yourself to be?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Akragon

I imagine that if one convinced me that God was the only logical conclusion, I could believe. Doesn't have to be proven, per se. Anyhow, the post was to tell some bible thumpers a). we (I) don't care about their hell-threats and b). a better way to approach the issue if they're that worried about it.

In other words, you created this thread to thump your chest with how smart you imagine yourself to be?

No. I don't "imagine" myself to be smart.