Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In the novel Huckleberry Finn the writer identifies himself as the eponymous Mr. Finn, however there is considerable evidence that Mr. Finn was not the author of the book and that Mr. Finn is a fictitious person.

So what is your point? Can you prove that Paul pulled that stunt? What is your "considerable evidence" that Paul isn't the author of 13 epistles?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"Pronoun trouble!" -- Daffy Duck
I cannot speak for all atheists, only for myself. If by "reason" you mean a purpose imposed by a deity there is none since there is no evidence that said deity exists.
No.
The burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim. By definition the claim is that the null hypothesis is false, e.g., "time is not the same for all observers" -- Albert Einstein. The null hypothesis cannot be stated in the negative. To do so is the onus probandi fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

The null hypothesis, avoiding negatives, is "German society's morality remained the same as other nations." The argument given is the Nazi atrocities. These were the acts of Nazi leaders and not German society.
The social contract is based on the interests of the species as a whole, i.e., humanity, and not the interests of a "self" or an individual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlzCPxxp8Ys

Mr. Actor, sir, you have said that you don't believe the universe came into existence accidently. This clearly implies that you believe that the universe didn't happen by chance -- that there is intentionality behind the universe's existence. But intentionality further implies that something or someone acted with purpose in bringing the universe into existence. Can you tell us what that something or someone is?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Actor, sir, you have said that you don't believe the universe came into existence accidently. This clearly implies that you believe that the universe didn't happen by chance -- that there is intentionality behind the universe's existence. But intentionality further implies that something or someone acted with purpose in bringing the universe into existence. Can you tell us what that something or someone is?

Have you read #2746?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Have you read #2746?

Just answer the question. If the universe's existence is not accidental or fortuitous, what or who accounts for the intentionality or purpose behind its existence?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So what is your point?

That Huckleberry Finn did not write Huckleberry Finn. Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can you prove that Paul pulled that stunt? What is your "considerable evidence" that Paul isn't the author of 13 epistles?

Scholars are agreed that only 6 or 7 of the so-called Pauline Epistles were written by the same person. This is primarily based on textual analysis. Of the 6 or 7 we know only that they were written by the same author whose name may or may not have been Paul.

YouTube

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Just answer the question. If the universe's existence is not accidental or fortuitous, what or who accounts for the intentionality or purpose behind its existence?

If you want easy answers you've came to the wrong place. Read the post. Then get back to me.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... Paul saw a great light from heaven. This leads me to believe that ...

Paul was a schizophrenic.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Paul was a schizophrenic.

Right. And you're perfectly normal?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That Huckleberry Finn did not write Huckleberry Finn. Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn.
Scholars are agreed that only 6 or 7 of the so-called Pauline Epistles were written by the same person. This is primarily based on textual analysis. Of the 6 or 7 we know only that they were written by the same author whose name may or may not have been Paul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-vW_hgmvc

[All] scholars are not agreed. Not by a long shot!

[LemonSoupKid]

A lot of back and forth here. Actor, what are you trying to prove?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

If you want easy answers you've came to the wrong place. Read the post. Then get back to me.

I did and your post is perfect nonsense. If the universe were inherently eternal, there would be no Time, nor would it be subject to Change(s). We humans, as an integral part of the universe, would have absolutely no sense of Time. Time (succession of motion or instances) is antithetical to eternity. This is logically so and is also supported by scripture, as I have showed in the past in the Religious thread. Time and eternity, as one entity, cannot possibly co-exist at the same time and in the same sense. To posit otherwise violates the Laws of Non-Contradiction and Identity.

However, there is no violation of any law of logic with biblical theism, since the eternal God transcends all his creation. The universe is not God, nor is God the universe. In other words, God is not a tree, nor is a tree God, etc. God is not ONE with the universe, nor is the universe ONE with God.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If the universe were inherently eternal, there would be no Time, ...

Why not?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... nor would it be subject to Change(s).

Why not?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why not?
Why not?

How 'bout this for a wild and crazy guess: To be eternal IS to be timeless? Just the mere fact that we mortals order our lives by Time all the time should tell any thinking person that we mortals were not "begat" by or proceed from a timeless universe.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How 'bout this for a wild and crazy guess: To be eternal IS to be timeless? Just the mere fact that we mortals order our lives by Time all the time should tell any thinking person that we mortals were not "begat" by or proceed from a timeless universe.

Clear as mud!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Clear as mud!

Okay...let me help you out a little, Mr. Philosopher of Logic, -- look up the definition of "timeless".