HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE

[afleitch]

Again, that's not the point at all.  I even told you that the quantity of the story that is true is unimportant.  Remember what I said about altering/exaggerating details in order to make a better story or point?

At least the basis of your pastor's story is true, unlike your... um... episode, back in 1992 or whenever it was.  Well, I'm sure something happened to you back then, but it sure as hell wasn't what you now describe it as being. 

BINGO!

You equate his story of battling a Vietnam chaplain to my story of conversion, even though his story doesn’t name God as an actor yet my story does name God as an actor.  Both of them are equal threats to you, because even though God is not mentioned as acting against the chaplain, God’s fingerprints are all over my pastor’s story, therefore you must discredited it, even though you can’t name a single detail which is unbelievable.

What is in bold, is what you have to prove exists before the rest can be believed. And only then do we accept deism as the starting point. Theism is another matter...

[Хahar 🤔]

I like how everybody completely missed the point of Xahar's point, which was simply Islamic orthodox teaching.

I had totally forgotten that I made a point!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What is in bold, is what you have to prove exists before the rest can be believed. And only then do we accept deism as the starting point. Theism is another matter...

I thought I had explained the fallacy of this argument before:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So, if God were provable, it would prove that the bible is wrong.  Therefore, you’re asking me to prove the bible correct by proving the bible is wrong.

It’s a dumb argument.  You would have seen through its transparency if you would have thought it though before you borrowed it.

[afleitch]

What is in bold, is what you have to prove exists before the rest can be believed. And only then do we accept deism as the starting point. Theism is another matter...

I thought I had explained the fallacy of this argument before:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So, if God were provable, it would prove that the bible is wrong.  Therefore, you’re asking me to prove the bible correct by proving the bible is wrong.

It’s a dumb argument.  You would have seen through its transparency if you would have thought it though before you borrowed it.

You can't use the bible to prove the existance of god. Intellectually, you simply cannot. The bible is the product of a belief that those who complied it held. You have to prove the credibility of the belief.

[John Dibble]

What is in bold, is what you have to prove exists before the rest can be believed. And only then do we accept deism as the starting point. Theism is another matter...

I thought I had explained the fallacy of this argument before:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So, if God were provable, it would prove that the bible is wrong.  Therefore, you’re asking me to prove the bible correct by proving the bible is wrong.

It’s a dumb argument.  You would have seen through its transparency if you would have thought it though before you borrowed it.

Yeah, the problem with your argument is that it shows the patent absurdity of these Biblical claims. You wouldn't apply this faith argument to anything else and you know it, but somehow you expect that it holds water when applied to your religious beliefs. It's ludicrous, and just because your Bible admits that the claims made therein can't be proven does not make it a fallacy to do the logical thing and ask for evidence. The real fallacy is yours, and it's called special pleading.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What is in bold, is what you have to prove exists before the rest can be believed. And only then do we accept deism as the starting point. Theism is another matter...

I thought I had explained the fallacy of this argument before:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So, if God were provable, it would prove that the bible is wrong.  Therefore, you’re asking me to prove the bible correct by proving the bible is wrong.

It’s a dumb argument.  You would have seen through its transparency if you would have thought it though before you borrowed it.

You can't use the bible to prove the existance of god. Intellectually, you simply cannot. The bible is the product of a belief that those who complied it held. You have to prove the credibility of the belief.

See if you can follow this:

I am NOT using the bible to prove the existence of God in this argument.  Rather I am pointing out that the bible itself says that God is not observable.  So, if God were observable, then the bible is flat out wrong.

Basically:
1)    The bible says “xyz is NOT possible”
2)   You’re saying, “Prove xyz IS possible, before I will believe what the bible says is true.”

I shouldn’t have to point out how purposely backward that is.  Also, you’re basically making an ASSUMPTION that if there were a God, he would be observable through empirical evidence.

[afleitch]

I am NOT using the bible to prove the existence of God in this argument.  Rather I am pointing out that the bible itself says that God is not observable.  So, if God were observable, then the bible is flat out wrong.

How convenient, for the bible to say 'oh and God isn't observable.' Think about that for a second.

Nevertheless let's take your point in that if God was observable the Bible would be wrong. You'll notice that I'm not claiming god is observable, because I don't think one exists. If you look, you won't find not because it is unobservable, but because it does not exist to be observed. So talking about something being observable or unobservable rests on whether or not it exists. You have to prove that it exists before you can discuss whether or not you can see it. So if you are not using the bible to prove the existance of god, what are you suing to prove it's existance?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You have to prove that it exists before you can discuss whether or not you can see it.

Yet, you won’t accept proof that God exists unless you can see God in some measurable aspect.  You’re talking yourself in circles. 

---

So if you are not using the bible to prove the existance of god, what are you suing to prove it's existance?

Christianity does not predicate itself on men proving the physical existence of God to other men.  The proof that is being shown to me, is shown to me by God himself, not by man.

The corner you have painted yourself into is that you have falsely assumed if God existed, then he would be visible through empirical evidence and therefore, based on your assumption, the lack of empirical evidence of his existence proves that God doesn’t exist.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yeah, the problem with your argument is that it shows the patent absurdity of these Biblical claims. You wouldn't apply this faith argument to anything else and you know it, but somehow you expect that it holds water when applied to your religious beliefs. It's ludicrous, and just because your Bible admits that the claims made therein can't be proven does not make it a fallacy to do the logical thing and ask for evidence. The real fallacy is yours, and it's called special pleading.

Of course I won’t apply a faith argument to the physical world – it’s physical.  But neither should you attempt to measure the spiritual using physical constraints.

Agnostics understand the fallacy of your argument, maybe they can explain it to you.

[afleitch]

Christianity does not predicate itself on men proving the physical existence of God to other men.  The proof that is being shown to me, is shown to me by God himself, not by man.

The corner you have painted yourself into is that you have falsely assumed if God existed, then he would be visible through empirical evidence and therefore, based on your assumption, the lack of empirical evidence of his existence proves that God doesn’t exist.

And you do not consider that to be legitimate? I'm afraid that the lack of empirical evidence for it's existance does go some way to prove that god does not exist. To wish for proof of something, especially something seemingly so important before believing in it is not a 'corner' i've painted myself into. It's a reasonable assumption to make.

What you have made is an assumption that is unreasonable, in that proof of your god is not required and indeed can never be found. Again, how convenient. However, I'm sure you will agree with me, lack of proof of another god is reasonable evidence for that god not existing. But not your god. Because it says that none is needed in the bible. Therefore you are using the bible to justify the existance of god.

You are therefore suspending enquiry. So now, not only do you believe that natural law can be suspended, you apply the same to enquiry - again in your favour. Other faiths do the exact same thing, it is not unique.

[afleitch]

Yeah, the problem with your argument is that it shows the patent absurdity of these Biblical claims. You wouldn't apply this faith argument to anything else and you know it, but somehow you expect that it holds water when applied to your religious beliefs. It's ludicrous, and just because your Bible admits that the claims made therein can't be proven does not make it a fallacy to do the logical thing and ask for evidence. The real fallacy is yours, and it's called special pleading.

Of course I won’t apply a faith argument to the physical world – it’s physical.  But neither should you attempt to measure the spiritual using physical constraints.

Agnostics understand the fallacy of your argument, maybe they can explain it to you.

First of all you are making the assumption that there is a spiritual realm. Secondly evidence for a spiritual realm has to be measured using physical constraints; using the body and the senses of the body as all thought and human experience is grounded in the physical. Without brain matter we cannot think, and we have no evidence to suggest that you can think without brain material. Thirdly, you have to prove that the spiritual realm, if it exists and as experienced by us is seperate from the physical world in the first place. What is perceived therefore to be a 'spiritual' experience by those who experience it is entirely within the confines of the material and the physical of our own brain.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Christianity does not predicate itself on men proving the physical existence of God to other men.  The proof that is being shown to me, is shown to me by God himself, not by man.

The corner you have painted yourself into is that you have falsely assumed if God existed, then he would be visible through empirical evidence and therefore, based on your assumption, the lack of empirical evidence of his existence proves that God doesn’t exist.

And you do not consider that to be legitimate?

No, neither do Agnostics, they understand the fallacy of your argument, maybe they can explain it to you.

[ilikeverin]

I like how everybody completely missed the point of Xahar's point, which was simply Islamic orthodox teaching.

I had totally forgotten that I made a point!

I think you should make it again, so we can all learn a Valuable Lesson (tm) about The Similarities That Unite Us (tm).

[John Dibble]

Yeah, the problem with your argument is that it shows the patent absurdity of these Biblical claims. You wouldn't apply this faith argument to anything else and you know it, but somehow you expect that it holds water when applied to your religious beliefs. It's ludicrous, and just because your Bible admits that the claims made therein can't be proven does not make it a fallacy to do the logical thing and ask for evidence. The real fallacy is yours, and it's called special pleading.

Of course I won’t apply a faith argument to the physical world – it’s physical.  But neither should you attempt to measure the spiritual using physical constraints.

This is still special pleading. If you haven't even managed to demonstrate that this spiritual world which is somehow separate from the physical world actually exists, then how do you even have an argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you so impotent that you need agnostics to explain it for you? As far as the type of agnostic you're talking about (yes, they come in more than one flavor) I find them to be intellectually lazy - to say something can't be proven when you haven't even proven that it can't be proven is nothing more than an assumption. Their premise is unproven, so to call my argument a fallacy based on an unproven premise is just plain dumb of you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you so impotent that you need agnostics to explain it for you? As far as the type of agnostic you're talking about (yes, they come in more than one flavor) I find them to be intellectually lazy - to say something can't be proven when you haven't even proven that it can't be proven is nothing more than an assumption. Their premise is unproven, so to call my argument a fallacy based on an unproven premise is just plain dumb of you.

Agnostics are lazy?  Then, PLEASE demonstrate to this board the superior diligence of your active intellect by explaining to us how you have proven it can be proven that there is nothing outside of this physical world.

Yo, Dibble, I am laughing at the superior intellect!

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you so impotent that you need agnostics to explain it for you? As far as the type of agnostic you're talking about (yes, they come in more than one flavor) I find them to be intellectually lazy - to say something can't be proven when you haven't even proven that it can't be proven is nothing more than an assumption. Their premise is unproven, so to call my argument a fallacy based on an unproven premise is just plain dumb of you.

Agnostics are lazy?  Then, PLEASE demonstrate to this board the superior diligence of your active intellect by explaining to us how you have proven it can be proven that there is nothing outside of this physical world.

Yo, Dibble, I am laughing at the superior intellect!

Again with the straw man arguments. I did not claim that there isn't anything outside the physical world. I would think that would be obvious, but you're either just unable to comprehend basic logic or you're just lying because you know you can't get by without it.

What I did claim is that there isn't any evidence for something outside of the physical world, and that even if there is there isn't any evidence that it can't be observed in a scientific manner. If you can't even give reliable evidence that it exists, how could you possibly know whether or not it can be observed scientifically?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again with the straw man arguments. I did not claim that there isn't anything outside the physical world. I would think that would be obvious, but you're either just unable to comprehend basic logic or you're just lying because you know you can't get by without it.

What I did claim is that there isn't any evidence for something outside of the physical world, and that even if there is there isn't any evidence that it can't be observed in a scientific manner.

well, that is a tad different than saying, “Because I have no physical evidence of God, therefore God doesn’t exist.”

---

If you can't even give reliable evidence that it exists, how could you possibly know whether or not it can be observed scientifically?

The only “reliable evidence” you’ll except is scientific.  Therefore, your statement is a contradiction.

[John Dibble]

Again with the straw man arguments. I did not claim that there isn't anything outside the physical world. I would think that would be obvious, but you're either just unable to comprehend basic logic or you're just lying because you know you can't get by without it.

What I did claim is that there isn't any evidence for something outside of the physical world, and that even if there is there isn't any evidence that it can't be observed in a scientific manner.

well, that is a tad different than saying, “Because I have no physical evidence of God, therefore God doesn’t exist.”

Which I never said, at least in the general sense of there possibly being something out there that I might consider a god. Something like that may exist, I simply won't believe in it until I'm given a good reason to do so. This is different than explicitly stating that such a thing can't possibly exist.

I will however state with a high degree of certainty that some claims of gods or other supernatural beings are probably false, but I don't think you'd disagree with that - after all you don't believe in Zeus either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only “reliable evidence” you’ll except is scientific.  Therefore, your statement is a contradiction.[/quote]

No, it is not a contradiction. I never claimed that this other world exists or that it couldn't be shown to exist scientifically. You on the other hand have claimed that it exists but for some reason can't be proven in any way whatsoever yet we should believe in it anyways for some reason. It's absurd and illogical, and the best you seem to be able to do is use strawman arguments and repeat the same thing over and over again as if that will make it true.

The word you're looking for is "accept" by the way, not except.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The word you're looking for is "accept" by the way, not except.

LOL!  I thought ^this^ was in retaliation for the following:

Actually you use a book written by a murdering, lying, stealing, greedy band of bronze age barbarians to justify your hatred against homosexuality.

And FYI, the book of Romans was written in the Iron Age, NOT the Bronze Age.

then I realized I posted my correction of you after you posted your correction of me.  hehe

[John Dibble]

The word you're looking for is "accept" by the way, not except.

LOL!  I thought ^this^ was in retaliation for the following:

Actually you use a book written by a murdering, lying, stealing, greedy band of bronze age barbarians to justify your hatred against homosexuality.

And FYI, the book of Romans was written in the Iron Age, NOT the Bronze Age.

then I realized I posted my correction of you after you posted your correction of me.  hehe

Naw, that was me just being a vocab nazi.

[xfrodobagginsx]

God doesn't hate gays.  He hates homosexuality.

[afleitch]

God doesn't hate gays.  He hates homosexuality.

I highly doubt if he existed he hates either since it's been prevailent in animals for several hundred million years.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

God doesn't hate gays.  He hates homosexuality.

How does God and hate end up in the same sentence?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How does God and hate end up in the same sentence?

because God put them in them in the same sentenceL

Psa 45:7 'You love righteousness and hate wickedness"

Pro 6:16 "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:..."

Dt 12:31 "they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates"

Dt 16:22 "for these the LORD your God hates"

Psa 5:5 "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong"

Psa 11:5 "The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates."

Mal 2:16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,"

Rom 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Heb 1:9 "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness"

Rev 2:6 "But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

How does God and hate end up in the same sentence?

because God put them in them in the same sentenceL

Psa 45:7 'You love righteousness and hate wickedness"

Pro 6:16 "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:..."

Dt 12:31 "they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates"

Dt 16:22 "for these the LORD your God hates"

Psa 5:5 "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong"

Psa 11:5 "The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates."

Mal 2:16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,"

Rom 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Heb 1:9 "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness"

Rev 2:6 "But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

But does God hate?