Author Topic: On The Misuse Of The Term God.  (Read 15583 times)

Alien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21789
  • Formerly known as "Black Dwarf"
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #250 on: October 21, 2015, 09:59:08 AM »
Are you seriously suggesting, as jakswan seemed to be suggesting, that we could reasonably expect to have a DVD from the time of Abraham as evidence that Abraham existed?
Yes we could, if your god was real. It's you who asserts your god is real without evidence, not us.
You claim that I have not provided (sufficient) evidence. Who decides whether your claim is correct? You?
Quote

Quote
And on my "stupid 'if'", why is it stupid to say that Jesus is the Son of God?

That is not what I said is stupid in this instance. What is stupid is your construction

If A then B

Therefore B

which is obviously fallacious if you haven't established the truth of A.
Where have I claimed that?
Quote

Quote
Maybe it is, but I don't think so. If you want to take the mick, it's up to you. Are you saying that only stupid people come to that conclusion?

I'm taking the mick in retaliation for your micky taking. Your last few posts have been a mix of obviously fallacious logic, misrepresenting what others have said and deliberately ignoring context in order to avoid confronting arguments.
I have claimed that if Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to him saying that Abraham existed then that is sufficient for us to believe correctly that Abraham existed. How is that "fallacious logic"?
Apparently 99.9975% atheist because I believe in one out of 4000 believed in (an atheist on Facebook). Yes, check the maths as well.

Jack Knave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8717
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #251 on: October 21, 2015, 06:47:45 PM »
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Your last sentence says it all. If we can't possibly have any firm evidence that shows it is more than just a story we have to take it as such, regardless of whether it is fact or not. It starts to get ridiculous when people take things like this as being some kind of fact and then base their fundamental behaviour, morals and life choices, and so on, on these items.

Alien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21789
  • Formerly known as "Black Dwarf"
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #252 on: October 21, 2015, 07:02:49 PM »
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Your last sentence says it all. If we can't possibly have any firm evidence that shows it is more than just a story we have to take it as such, regardless of whether it is fact or not.
Of course we don't. If we can't reasonably expect any direct evidence and have none then we should say we have no evidence. Why your bias towards your own position?
Quote
It starts to get ridiculous when people take things like this as being some kind of fact and then base their fundamental behaviour, morals and life choices, and so on, on these items.
Unless the Son of God tells us that Abraham did exist.
Apparently 99.9975% atheist because I believe in one out of 4000 believed in (an atheist on Facebook). Yes, check the maths as well.

Jack Knave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8717
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #253 on: October 21, 2015, 07:53:59 PM »

The evidence for the account is non-existent.
Actually, that is incorrect. There is some evidence in that it seems to fit with our knowledge of that society, is an ancient account itself (as in it was written close enough to perhaps have authentic sources) and the Son of God is recorded as believing it.
Generalities, of fitting with what society was like then doesn't prove anything, as it doesn't prove a Hollywood film to be an account of fact if it correctly has how society was in its film.

Quote
Quote
All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter.
No, that is incorrect. Harry Potter was only intended as fiction. Even if the accounts of Abraham are incorrect, they were not intended as fiction. Keep up.

All that is besides the point, Alan.

Quote
Quote
I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.
Do you mean that I have accepted that I cannot prove the existence of God? Do you think I can prove to you that I exist?
Of course it is possible for you to prove to me that you exist, we could meet up, for example. We are conversing so there must be something behind all those posts from Alien.

But you can not prove that God exists, which is why you didn't answer me. And everything you propose about your faith etc. hinges on that explanation that can't ever be given.



Quote
Quote
Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.

An event can only be true for a given individual 
"True for an individual" is postmodernist claptrap. Something is either true, not true or partly true. "True for me" people need their brains tested.
What you are suggesting is "Something" that is outside the human framework that can experience events and judge them to true. Even if such an agent existed it wouldn't help you to make the same judgement if you hadn't observed that event yourself. All you would have would be an assertion from that "Something" and taking what It had said on trust.

Oh, by the way my brain is fine. 


Quote
Quote
if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.
Complete cobblers. You are saying here that you only know stuff to be true which you yourself have witnessed. Utter tosh. You don't live your life that way so please don't come up with such rubbish.
I do live my life that way, but as I can't know everything I am fully aware that there are things I have to take on trust and can't categorically assert that these are true. However, when it comes to how I live my life, and my fundamental position on my person position and morals, then living by what I know is even more of an imperative so I don't follow some totally unfounded ideological nonsense.

Your approach seems to be just pick anything that takes your fancy regardless of its basis in reality.

Quote
Quote
For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.
Largely incorrect. Firstly, Christians do use their brains and do question why the bible says stuff. It is part of ensuring we understand it correctly.
And on what basis, what criterion, do they question what is said in the Bible. That know how can only come from personal experience or what one's culture has inculcated into their lives.

Quote
Secondly, we don't just base our morality on a book, but rather on what the Son of God says.

Same difference. None of you actually know for sure if JC ever lived and walked on this planet.

Quote
If Jesus truly is the Son of God and the NT accounts of what he said and did are correct, then that is our authority.
Big IF!!! Again on what basis is all this known to be true?

Quote
We have not just picked up a book and thought "I'll base my life on this book even though I don't know why it says stuff". We are guided above all by a person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If he truly is that then we can trust him.
Talk about cobblers!!!

This implies you have actually met JC in the flesh and had a chat with him. Even if this insane notion was true on what basis would you judge what he said was actually true? You can't, it is as you say trust and trust is flawed because you don't know that what you have trusted in is true because you haven't 'seen' it personally for yourself. And of course, you haven't actually met JC, except only in your fanciful mind.

Jack Knave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8717
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #254 on: October 22, 2015, 07:29:32 PM »
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Your last sentence says it all. If we can't possibly have any firm evidence that shows it is more than just a story we have to take it as such, regardless of whether it is fact or not.
Of course we don't. If we can't reasonably expect any direct evidence and have none then we should say we have no evidence. Why your bias towards your own position??[/quote]
Because relative to our position at this point in history and our experience it is just a story. We can make no other judgement on it. Even if it was an event in history it makes no odds to us now and so because of this it is just a story to us. To us, here and now, its value to us is only as a story.


Quote
Quote
It starts to get ridiculous when people take things like this as being some kind of fact and then base their fundamental behaviour, morals and life choices, and so on, on these items.
Unless the Son of God tells us that Abraham did exist.
But Alan there you go again with these absurd assertions. Even if I met this Son of God of yours why would I believe or trust what he had to say? So is this Son of God of yours going to met us all and tell us, or is this some deluded fantasy of yours?

As this isn't going to happen this can't help you in your argument and it leaves all your Bible as a collection of stories relative to us today. 

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19831
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #255 on: October 22, 2015, 08:32:47 PM »

In the opinion of every rational person on the planet.
As defined by whom? You?
Try the OED.

Even the rational Christians would disagree with you. They prefer not to argue the historical evidence but they believe by faith.

Quote
Quote
You simply do not have the evidence.
In your opinion.
When one's opinion is backed up by the fact that none of you can find this alleged evidence, it becomes more than an opinion.

Quote
Quote
When you are asked to produce it, we get some nonsense about some characters in a story. If there was good evidence that Jesus is the son of God, I'd be a believer.
So you claim.
Yes I do claim. I'm open minded in that respect. However, I'm pretty confident that you'll never come up with any evidence and I'm pretty confident that, if there is a god, it's not the Christian one.
04W24W0W04100000W4 0000110W02000040100 0W00000000010100001 1W0011200010040040 000W1W3000000000000 0400000000000001004W
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may ap

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19831
Re: On The Misuse Of The Term God.
« Reply #256 on: October 22, 2015, 08:41:44 PM »
That is not what I said is stupid in this instance. What is stupid is your construction

If A then B

Therefore B

which is obviously fallacious if you haven't established the truth of A.
Where have I claimed that?

Reply #236 is a recent example.

Quote
I have claimed that if Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to him saying that Abraham existed then that is sufficient for us to believe correctly that Abraham existed. How is that "fallacious logic"?
Because any construction "If A then B",  carries no information if A is not known to be true. Furthermore, if A is known to be false, then anything may follow.

If the moon is made of green cheese then I am the Pope.

The above is a true statement. However, it is invalid logic to use it to infer that I am the Pope. All of your arguments that begin "if Jesus is the son of god..." are meaningless because you haven't established the truth of "Jesus is the son of God". Those arguments are just a waste of key strokes.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 09:39:52 PM by jeremyp »
04W24W0W04100000W4 0000110W02000040100 0W00000000010100001 1W0011200010040040 000W1W3000000000000 0400000000000001004W
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may ap