The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Well, we could always stop replying to his posts and discuss something that instead interests the majority of the participants in the thread.

That would certainly be a good recourse.

Ok, I'll leave then.

(clicks "General" max. 5 seconds after submitting this)

[Lost Memories]

Tell us the story, grampa Davincia.

I honestly don't know it.

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

Good times when paganism was easy to take apart, dismantle or integrate.

[Hakons]

Tell us the story, grampa Davincia.

I honestly don't know it.

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

We must find a way to repeat this, but against modern secular symbols. We must chop down the Washington monument.

[Northern Davincia]

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

We must find a way to repeat this, but against modern secular symbols. We must chop down the Washington monument.

Save the obelisk!

[Lord Dominator]

We must find a way to repeat this, but against modern secular symbols. We must chop down the Washington monument.

Save the obelisk!

Davincia is clearly an Egyptian pagan

[Aellex]

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

Charlemagne did it better because he proceeded to chop off the Germans venerating the tree after he was done burning it.

[Tarsonis]

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

We must find a way to repeat this, but against modern secular symbols. We must chop down the Washington monument.

Part of me thinks we should apply this method to the Kaaba

[Lower Nubia]

Tell us the story, grampa Davincia.

I honestly don't know it.

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

and everyone lived happily ever after.

[Angleter]

Tell us the story, grampa Davincia.

I honestly don't know it.

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

There's an even better story in the Life of St Martin, whereby St Martin goes to cut down a pagan tree and the local pagans dare him to stand right underneath where it leaned. So St Martin cuts down the tree and it topples towards him, at which point he makes the sign of the cross, and the tree stops in its tracks, swivels around, and lands right next to the pagans on the other side.

A later account said that the tree landed on the pagans, and that the survivors then converted en masse to Christianity.

[Northern Davincia]

Save the obelisk!

Davincia is clearly an Egyptian pagan

S-slander! I just think the oversaturation of sun gods is cool, that's all...
Praise Aten!

It all happened a long time ago, in the pagan land of Germany...
A noble saint chopped down the tree of Thor, and forever demonstrated the futility of the Norse gods.

There's an even better story in the Life of St Martin, whereby St Martin goes to cut down a pagan tree and the local pagans dare him to stand right underneath where it leaned. So St Martin cuts down the tree and it topples towards him, at which point he makes the sign of the cross, and the tree stops in its tracks, swivels around, and lands right next to the pagans on the other side.

A later account said that the tree landed on the pagans, and that the survivors then converted en masse to Christianity.

It puts new meaning into the phrase "Fear the Lord."

[Lord Dominator]

We must find a way to repeat this, but against modern secular symbols. We must chop down the Washington monument.

Part of me thinks we should apply this method to the Kaaba

That seems liable to backfire spectacularly

[Kowani]

Part of me thinks we should apply this method to the Kaaba

That seems liable to backfire spectacularly

Well, ISIS wants to destroy it already, so you got allies if you want them.

[Grenartia]

That is not a legitimate criterion to use. Plenty of hypothesized phenomena were thought to be impossible to test during the hypothesizer's lifetime.

But, going back to Einstein and relativity, let's examine gravitational waves. Their existence was doubted, even by Einstein, but they were heavily implied in the relativistic equations. He died 20 years before we even got indirect evidence, through examining pulsar mergers. It took another 4 decades, almost an entire century from relativity's first prediction of them, in order to directly observe them, and that required technology that quite frankly, wasn't even thought of when he published the first paper on relativity, much less actually existing when he died (lasers being another half-decade away when he died).

Einstein had reason to doubt gravitational waves, because it wasn't possible to examine them at the time, even though the math suggested their existence. Bruno did not have the luxury of mathematical support either.

The point is that plenty of other physicists did expect their existence, despite the lack of apparent possibility to detect them. As for Bruno, he had the logical support, which, at that time, was really all he needed.

Except it was, because his hypotheses were determined to be heretical. And he was executed for heresy.

Dismissing the Holy Trinity and believing in reincarnation ain't a hypothesis.

No, but rejecting geocentrism is, and it was equally heretical.

Also, why are you trying to justify his utterly barbaric execution? The man was a martyr for free thought.

The part where it didn't make any sense and as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said in this thread. And furthermore, there's no obvious application of the sentence fragment "that which was not created", to this discussion.

If I am incorrect on this point, and you have, indeed, made a post containing that fragment in a context that actually makes sense, I would like to see a link to it, however, not even the search bar has revealed such a post.

A. It's not my fault you didn't read the context of the discussion between me and New Haven before you interjected.
B. It's further not my fault that either by willful ignorance, or insufficient intellectual capacity, that you can't comprehend the cosmological argument that I have restated multiple times on this thread.

In fact, I did go back and read the context. Also, my interjection was to correct a mistake you made in your representation of the Big Bang (i.e., you stated that the scientific thinking is that everything came from nothing, when this is simply not the case).

I do comprehend your argument. Its not my fault that through willful ignorance, or insufficient intellectual capacity, you cannot comprehend why the Cosmological Argument is simply the God of the Gaps. The gap, in this case, being the lack of scientific explanation for what existed prior to the Big Bang. You then stated that nothing comes from nothing, to which I agreed, and applied your own logic to God.

>calling me intellectually dishonest
>literally refusing to even attempt to prove me wrong or concede the argument

Kden.

I've called you intellectually dishonest, because it is the most I'm allowed to say within the rules of the forum. The reason I've called you intelectuily dishonest is because of your continued God of the Gaps comments. I've explained twice now why it's not applicable to the Cosmological Argument, but you keep repeating it in asinine fashion as if it constitutes a a refutation, and not just an annoying and childish taunt.

You have not explained why it isn't applicable any amount of times, and certainly not in any way that makes sense.

The reason I'm not "proving you wrong" is because you haven't even attempted to make an argument. You just keep repeating "God of the Gaps" like a senile parrot.

Because you keep repeating the Cosmological Argument like a senile parrot.

If my questions are making you question your faith, then that is not my problem, though I would have expected better from somebody who makes a point of saying in their sig that they went to Yale Divinity School.

The only thing you're making me question is the merits of democracy.

You're making me question the merits of Yale Divinity School.

The cosomoligical argument does not explain the existence of God,

It certainly begs the question of how God came to exist.

You can identify what created the universe, but then you have to identify what created that, and then what created that, and so on and so on. No matter how far you walk it back eventually you'll have to get to that which was not created.

You have identified what created the universe. God. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, you now have to identify what created God, and what created what created God, and so on. The entire last sentence is a copout clearly intended to avoid infinite regression.

it's entirely predicated on the fact that God is eternal with out cause. It's the entire fucking basis of the argument

Which is a copout.

Then I’m thoroughly confused as to what’s going on, if I misrepresented your argument then I apologise.

Seems to be going around.

What happened is I explained the Cosmological argument. Gen interjected on a conversation claiming a "God of the Gaps fallacy."

Correction. You made a factual error about the Big Bang, which I attempted to correct. You then applied the Cosmological Argument to it, and THEN I claimed it was God of the Gaps.

I pointed out that this was incorrect

You provided no convincing arguments that my assertion was incorrect.

, as the Cosmological argument isn't concerned with explaining observable phenomena,

In fact, it IS concerned with observable phenomena, because its entire point is that unknown scientific phenomena (I.E., what created the primeval atom, what created what created the primeval atom, etc.) proves there must be a Creator. If that isn't God of the Gaps, then literally NOTHING is.

it's a logical deduction from reason concerning the nature of existence.

That, as you have applied it, ends in a copout.

They're not the same field of thought let alone the same question.

Only to one who doesn't bother to connect the loose ends.

Rather than engage they asininely replied with "nu uh yes it is" and pulled a further taunting tactic with the strike coding. At which point my annoyance that i had suppressed dealing with the summer anti-theists, came out full force.

I have done far better than simply "nu uh yest it is". I have backed my claim with logic. You simply kept repeating it like, in your own words, a senile parrot.

Also, I'm not even a fucking anti-theist. God forbid you actually encounter one, because you can't even seem to handle arguing with a theist!

1. Its not a rebuttal. Its a challenge.

2. I've explained why it doesn't make sense. If you think that my explanation is somehow lacking, then that's one thing, but I did explain.

3. That's precisely the question that is begged when one applies the "Cosmological Argument" to God Him/Her/Themself.

4. This does not at all remove God from the Cosmological Argument.

5. On what basis can you make that claim? It sounds like you pulled it straight out of the Pope's ass.

6. You must have missed the part of the discussion where Tarsonis explicitly stated this was not about proving the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but rather proving the need for a deity in general to exist.

7. Except, being "outside of time" doesn't close any gaps whatsoever, and in fact, arguably creates more.

8. I didn't. I read the whole thing, and none of it really applied to my statements. Likely because he, like you, presumably jumped in to this discussion without being familiar with its history.

9. How have I not addressed the arguments? What arguments apply to my statements that I have missed? I'm not making rhetorical questions here. I want actual instances of me doing these things you claim I'm doing.

10. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that the only thing being debated right now IS whether or not ANY God, in general, is logically required to exist.

11. Perhaps you should practice what you preach, sister.

All I see is you trying to get an answer you don’t want from someone who you’re not listening to very much. I am debating. I gave an answer, after having read back through the discussion, and I called the parts of your argument I found the most glaringly deficient. Given Tars has been explaining his answer, you clearly want a particular answer, something along the lines of, “There is no reason for a God to logically exist.”

You're assuming things about me now. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Because he hasn’t given you the answer you want, you tell him you’re disappointed him in

Because I expected a better show from him than this.

and presume he’s somehow questioning his faith over your non-responses and vague, general questions.

Again, I was simply going off of previous experience. I was wrong about that, and I am willing to admit that. However, it is disingenuous to characterize my responses as "non" and my questions as "vague" and "general".

And you will probably cut this paragraph apart as if that makes your responses look more meticulous.

I don't do it to make my responses look more meticulous, I do it to isolate specific claims and address them, so that there can be no mistake as to what I'm addressing.

Of course, if you actually want an answer, the basis for my response is because divinity in every religion is regarded as something beyond merely living. Something exists, in the world or around the world but not of it. Rather, above it, or below it.

You could have simply said that from the get-go instead of copypasting it from some Catholic source. I still don't see the particular reason why something being divine allegedly allows it to bypass the Cosmological Argument, however.

Maybe once you get through breaking this apart somehow, we can start over, and you can find some way to tell me as well how I’m losing my faith, because you’re making such devastating comments about my responses as, “Durr hurr you pulled that out of the pope’s butt.” Really?

Again, I said that because it read like something you lifted directly from some Catholic scribbling, which indicated a lack of willingness to think for yourself in this discussion. If I've made an incorrect determination regarding that, then I apologize. However, I call things as I see them.

I keep changing the term Cosmological Argument to God of the Gaps because from what I see, there is functionally no difference. Without dragging this into an abortion debate, I can fully articulate the differences between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. I have seen no such articulation from Tarsonis on the differences between CA and GG. Either there are no differences, or he is unwilling to articulate them. I doubt he is unable, given his claimed education.

Also, I never said "haha stupid professor". I simply stated that given his claimed education, I expected a better performance from him on this topic.

You said, “I expected more from a Yale professor.”

Actually, my precise words were "I would have expected better from somebody who makes a point of saying in their sig that they went to Yale Divinity School." I never claimed he was a professor.

I don’t think he needs to perform for you, he’s taking the time to answer your questions and to debate, as a good professor would do. And like a good professor, he has seen arguing with a person who doesn’t want answers is pointless and has moved forward.

I am also taking the time to debate. I also want answers. You simply think I don't want answers, because that makes it easier for you to dismiss my point.

Special pleading is only fallacious if there's not sufficient grounds for the exception.

Yes, but your reason that God is exempt from needing a creator is that otherwise it’s an infinite regress. That’s not sufficient grounds for exemption. “God is exempt because otherwise the argument falls apart.”

Precisely.

Yes, but your reason that God is exempt from needing a creator is that otherwise it’s an infinite regress. That’s not sufficient grounds for exemption. “God is exempt because otherwise the argument falls apart.”

Infinite egresss is impossible, so God necessarily exists without creation.

Both of those claims require much, much more supporting logic than you have provided thus far.

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

You did, multiple times.

I made the claim in the same way that seeing somebody with a broken leg (complete with a fucking bone sticking out of said leg), and exclaiming "You have a broken leg!" is breaking their leg. In other words merely pointed out the obvious.

The Cosmological argument doesn't necessitate and infinite regression, you were the one who argued in favor of an infinite regression.

The only way it doesn't necessitate infinite regression is when you use obvious copouts. Like many people, I do not buy into obvious copouts.

And God came from... ?

Edit: The universe could come directly or indirectly from an eternal cause (this doesn't mean that the eternal cause is God, as opposed to any naturalistic first cause)

The problem with a naturalistic first cause, as I pointed out earlier, is that if there was a naturalistic first cause, it doesn't explain many things. The problem with the Big Bang, for example, is that it simply shouldn't be physically possible, any singularity shouldn't be able to expand due to force of gravity holding it together.

Unlike Tarsonis, I'm not going to resort to copouts or anything like that. I'm going to tell you straight up that we in the physics community don't really know about anything that happened before the singularity expanded. All we know is that the evidence (both mathematical and physical) STRONGLY indicates that it happened. It should be noted, however, that any force that is more powerful than gravity, would be strong enough to overcome the force of gravity holding it together (this applies at all times, and is the reason that you and I aren't black holes, because of things like electromagnetism, and the other fundamental forces).

As for you, Nubia, I'll get to you when I get home from work.

[Lost Memories]

Grenartia, we're not going there again, all the answers to your objections were already provided in the previous 2-3 pages, go read them, and if you still don't get it, call it a day.

[Lord Dominator]

That seems liable to backfire spectacularly

Well, ISIS wants to destroy it already, so you got allies if you want them.

That wasn't my point

[Luminesa]

So in this page-long rant about how nobody understands your point, you still haven’t taken the time to explain your point. So I will assume you have none. If you think I somehow can’t think for myself because I follow an organized religion, I believe that says far more about how you view Catholics and other high-church Christians than anything. But it’s fine. I didn’t give you an answer you wanted, and so you decided to try some pathetic attack on my faith. It’s not like you’re actually debating with the rest of us, you’re just throwing a fit. So either give an actual argument, or perhaps start over and maybe give us something of value to talk about.

[Luminesa]

That seems liable to backfire spectacularly

Well, ISIS wants to destroy it already, so you got allies if you want them.

ISIS wants to destroy the Kaaba? What?

[Luminesa]

Grenartia, we're not going there again, all the answers to your objections were already provided in the previous 2-3 pages, go read them, and if you still don't get it, call it a day.

But the Christians are clearly unthinking and intellectually stupid sheep! They must be told so for another five pages!

[Lower Nubia]

Grenartia, we're not going there again, all the answers to your objections were already provided in the previous 2-3 pages, go read them, and if you still don't get it, call it a day.

But the Christians are clearly unthinking and intellectually stupid sheep! They must be told so for another five pages!

Baaa!

[Luminesa]

But the Christians are clearly unthinking and intellectually stupid sheep! They must be told so for another five pages!

Baaa!

Baaa!

#SheepPrideWorldwide

[Northern Davincia]

Baaa!

Baaa!

#SheepPrideWorldwide

My family once owned sheep. I have no idea why they've become an insult when they're so cute.

[Lower Nubia]

Baaa!

Baaa!

#SheepPrideWorldwide

Better to be a sheep than a goat, oh wait, sorry, baaa!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Gren, can you please split up your replies to people into multiple posts? I know the mods frown on double and triple posts, but it makes it a real pain to reply to just one or two little snippets.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Well, ISIS wants to destroy it already, so you got allies if you want them.

ISIS wants to destroy the Kaaba? What?

ISIS are extreme iconoclasts and see the Kaaba as an idol, so they want to destroy it, along with other ancient works of architecture.

[Salus Maior]

You're making me question the merits of Yale Divinity School.

Ffs, can you get anymore butthurt and arrogant?