Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

If you have then why are you afraid to cite exactly where you did? Or are you unable to cite the post because you never made such a post? Prove me wrong by citing the post.

My most recent post on the subject is where I demonstrated on the "Is Man Inherently Evil" thread how atheism is a self-defeating philosophy. Are you too lazy to look for it?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I place no credence in the beliefs of a man who, while being unable to tell me the winner of tomorrow's races, purports to inform me on what will happen to me after I die.

Which of tomorrow's races? All of then run in N.A.? Or just a few select tracks?

Also, I'm not telling you what will happen to you when you die. I'm telling you what the bible says will happen when you die. Learn the difference.

P.S.
Stay far, far away from analogies. An analogy to a skeptic's mind is like oil and water.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

My most recent post on the subject is where I demonstrated on the "Is Man Inherently Evil" thread how atheism is a self-defeating philosophy. Are you too lazy to look for it?

Boxcar

You will never find anyone surviving peer review without citing his sources. But I'll humor you.

As I've previously stated you make exactly six posts in the subject thread using the word "self-defeating." Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.

The first is #121

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Mr. Atheist, before getting on your soapbox attempting to preach "logic" to anyone, you should first understand that atheism is another self-defeating philosophy.

Boxcar

That can't be it. You don't demonstrate anything. You just make a statement.

#124

Originally Posted by boxcar

Prove it. Remember: For a philosophy or religion to be self-defeating, it must turn upon itself with a contradiction. Go for it.

Boxcar

Again no demonstration. Can't be it.

#125

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's correct! And you want to know why that is? Because only scripture is Truth. Therefore, all other systems of thought are lies, and this is why they are self-defeating in nature.

Boxcar

I don't think so.

#130

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're not arguing against my logic. You're arguing against God, who exists regardless of your self-defeating philosophy.

Boxcar

#132

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Rocket Scientist, where are you? Are you still trying to formulate a concise and coherent statement that shows us how biblical Christianity is a self-defeating belief system?

Boxcar

None of the above. That leaves #140

Originally Posted by boxcar

(emphasis mine)

I have explained many times what self-defeating means. In fact, it should be self-evident to all with an IQ number above the length of a shoe lace. For example, what does "defeat the purpose" mean? Or whenever we do something that is really dumb and is at "cross purposes" with one another?

The most poignant example AGAIN would be a statement like this:

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Assuming the one making the statement is serious and is absolutely sure that there is such no thing as absolute truth, then the statement obviously collapses upon itself because his proposition is self-contradictory. Just like athesim!

You claim: There is no God. But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him. Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory! And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense!.

Atheism, above all other philosophies, is the most absurd of all human philosophies. Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe. Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

It is no wonder that the psalmist called atheists fools! And it's also written:

Prov 1:22
22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love simplicity?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing,
And fools hate knowledge?
NASB

Now, Mr. Scientist, tell me how biblical Christianity is a self-defeating belief system in concise and coherent terms in a paragraph or two, as I have done now with Atheism and have done in the past with its kissing cousin Unlimited Agnosticism.. Remember: You must show how the belief system is inherently contradictory, which would make it self-defeating.

Talk about a Mission Impossible.... But I just know you will try to embark on a fool's errand.

Boxcar

This can't be it either, since I thoroughly debunked that one in #12843 of this thread.

Originally Posted by Actor

Maybe you have, maybe you have not. I've used the search engine for posts where you use the word "self-defeating" and gotten 127 hits. I don't have time to go through them all. Although you've used it quite often, I can find no post where you explain what it means. If it's all that important why not explain it one more time or just tell us which post number to look for?

It's not "self-evident." Rather it's the kind of phrase where the writer can make it mean whatever he wants it to mean. It's certainly not axiomatic.

Ok. So I'm dumber than a shoe lace. At least give me credit for pulling the wool over the eyes of those universities that gave me my degrees.

Whoa! Again using the search engine I can find no instance where I've said any such thing. The statement is counter to everything scientific.

As I stated in a previous post I make no such claim, so the rest of your argument falls flat.

That passage, as I've pointed out, has to be one of the world's oldest ad hominem arguments and as such is a fallacy. The psalmist had no argument, had run out of ideas, so he took refuge in attacking those who did not agree with him.

What is wrong with simplicity? It's the very core of science and mathematics. If you reject simplicity then you must reject Copernicus and retreat to Ptolemy whose model of the solar system demands an infinite number of epicycles. You have to reject Peano's five axioms from which most of, if not all of, modern mathematics can be derived.

Scientists love knowledge. It's the defining attribute of science. And peer review is not scoffing.

Why do you get a whole page and I get only "a paragraph of two?" If it took me 600 pages (the approximate length of Darwin's Origin of Species) would the length alone invalidate my argument?

I have already explained how Christianity is self-defeating. The very proponents of it admit it's self-defeating. It's number one premise is that, at the beginning, you must admit defeat and kiss God's ass.
What makes it impossible is that you make stupid statements. You don't understand the first thing about logic. It's one thing to respond to a reasonably well thought out argument with another well thought out argument. It's quite another thing to respond to "It rained on Saturday...therefore giraffe."

Your turn.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You will never find anyone surviving peer review without citing his sources. But I'll humor you.

As I've previously stated you make exactly six posts in the subject thread using the word "self-defeating." Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.

The first is #121
That can't be it. You don't demonstrate anything. You just make a statement.

#124
Again no demonstration. Can't be it.

#125
I don't think so.

#130


#132


None of the above. That leaves #140
This can't be it either, since I thoroughly debunked that one in #12843 of this thread.

Your turn.

Congratulations! You finally found 140. Took you so many words to do it, as well. You must love listening yourself.

And you never "debunked" my 140 in 12843 or anywhere else.

Also, you still don't read too swell. I never attributed "my absolute truth" example in 140 to you. I simply used it as an example of what a self-defeating statement is.

So, tell me, Mr. Scientist, are you omniscient? You know all that is there to know in this universe? Or would that be multiverses?

Boxcar

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Congratulations! You finally found 140.

I found 140 early in the game but, of course, if I had said so, then you would have said "No! Keep looking." Your reticence to cite your posts is just a stalling tactic. Of course you will deny that. I'll leave it for others to judge.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you never "debunked" my 140 in 12843 or anywhere else.

I pointed out the invalid assumptions in your argument. That's debunking. Let others judge.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, tell me, Mr. Scientist, are you omniscient? You know all that is there to know in this universe?

Of course not. No scientist would ever claim that. But you make such a claim. You claim that all you need to know is in the Bible.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Or would that be multiverses?

There is, as yet, no consensus among scientists on that point. We're working on it. I personally have not formed an opinion. Cosmology is not my field.

[hcap]

Box, your reasoning is faulty. Sometimes a chain of thought can be correct if it concludes we can not know the answer to a problem. First by the interior proofs within the problem itself, and second if we suspect the problem solver is incapable of deriving an answer.

For instance there are problems in math that ARE CONSIDERED DEAD ENDS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impossible_puzzles
List of impossible puzzles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_mathematics
List of unsolved problems in mathematics


And here is one that I spent a few months on in high school because MIT was offering a cash prize for it's solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection
Angle trisection

Angles may be trisected via a Neusis construction, but this uses tools outside the Greek framework of an unmarked straightedge and a compass.

Angle trisection is a classic problem of compass and straightedge constructions of ancient Greek mathematics. It concerns construction of an angle equal to one third of a given arbitrary angle, using only two tools: an unmarked straightedge, and a compass.

The problem as stated is generally impossible to solve, as shown by Pierre Wantzel (1837). Wantzel's proof relies on ideas from the field of Galois theory—in particular, trisection of an angle corresponds to the solution of a certain cubic equation, which is not possible using the given tools. Note that the fact that there is no way to trisect an angle in general with just a compass and a straightedge does not mean that there is no trisectible angle: for example, it is relatively straightforward to trisect a right angle (that is, to construct an angle of measure 30 degrees).

Maybe you can do the trisection? or Prove PI is a never ending number sequence. Maybe God can do the solutions in a jiff although he set up the rules of the game, and even God cannot decipher the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter rationally ( vs irrational )

It is not at all self-defeating to conclude certain things are not knowable not knowing everything about everything. Or for that matter not being able to see the moons of Saturn without an optical aide.

Our brains and perceptions as is are poor receptacles.

[Actor]

Boxcar's argument basically comes down to the following two paragraphs.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You claim: There is no God. But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him. Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory! And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense!.

Atheism, above all other philosophies, is the most absurd of all human philosophies. Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe. Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

Let's examine this sentence by sentence.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You claim: There is no God.

That is not my claim. My claim is that there is no evidence for God. I have never met an atheist who would place himself at 7 on Dawkin's scale. (See the thread Re: Religious thread: Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale)

Originally Posted by boxcar

But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him.

Invalid on two points. First, since your first sentence is an error, this one does not follow. Second, substitute Russel's Teapot for God. You cannot prove that a Teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter does not exist. But to then conclude that the Teapot must exist is an ad ignorantiam argument, i.e., an argument from ignorance. The same goes for God. The inability to prove He does not exist does not prove he does exist.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist.

Even if you state your argument differently the same response to the previous sentence still holds.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory!

But, as I pointed out in my response to your first sentence, I make no such claim, I do not insist, nor do many atheists.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense![/b].

Same response.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Atheism, above all other philosophies, is the most absurd of all human philosophies.

That's your theorem. Now prove it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe.

Hope has nothing to do with it. Being unable to conclusively prove the negative does not imply the positive is true. The realistic and scientific position is to accept that the question cannot be proven either way.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

And once again you conclude with an ad hominem attack. What else is new?

[hcap]

No question.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -

I was pointing out that are no answers to certain problems and an infinite amount of knowledge is not needed before we can conclude those answers are not knowable. So much for his definition of "self-defeating" One may know one does not know, without knowing all of which one does not know

Sounds like box is mindlessly repeating one of his apologist heros....Norman Geisler

I must add that by definition, the "mind" of God is not knowable by the mind of man, and anyone who proclaims he knows the mind of God is either a saint or a liar. But there are so many "tells" on this thread, certainly by now we can tell the difference between liars and saints

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Boxcar's argument basically comes down to the following two paragraphs.
Let's examine this sentence by sentence.
That is not my claim. My claim is that there is no evidence for God. I have never met an atheist who would place himself at 7 on Dawkin's scale. (See the thread Re: Religious thread: Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale)

Invalid on two points. First, since your first sentence is an error, this one does not follow. Second, substitute Russel's Teapot for God. You cannot prove that a Teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter does not exist. But to then conclude that the Teapot must exist is an ad ignorantiam argument, i.e., an argument from ignorance. The same goes for God. The inability to prove He does not exist does not prove he does exist.

Even if you state your argument differently the same response to the previous sentence still holds.

But, as I pointed out in my response to your first sentence, I make no such claim, I do not insist, nor do many atheists.

Same response.

That's your theorem. Now prove it.

Hope has nothing to do with it. Being unable to conclusively prove the negative does not imply the positive is true. The realistic and scientific position is to accept that the question cannot be proven either way.

And once again you conclude with an ad hominem attack. What else is new?

You are rapidly an insufferable bore. Another one like Hcap who writes so much and says so little and then wants to wrangle with words. You have claimed that you are an atheist! Have you not? Then let's look at the definition of what atheism is:

Main Entry:athe£ism
Pronunciation:**-th*-*i-z*m
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle French ath*isme, from ath*e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:1546

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So, whether you want to say that there is no evidence for God or no God, you are saying the same thing. You are an atheist who does not believe in the existence of God because you think there is no evidence for his existence. Again, my premise is solid to your self-defeating philosophy because I could just as easily ask: Have you searched the entire universe for the evidence? Have you searched every crook and nanny in the universe? Or are you certain that you haven't seen the evidence that is hidden in plain sight? Do you know with absolute certainty that no such evidence for God exists? If you don't, then your atheism is absurd by that admission because you would be admitting to ignorance of all that is in the universe. But if you say you do have knowledge of all that is in the universe, then you make yourself to be the very deity who you deny exists, since you would have to possess infinite knowledge of all that exists in the universe, including any evidence for God's existence. This kind of knowledge would make you something much more than a mere finite, fallible human being. This would make your atheism self-contradictory, i.e. a self-defeating philosophy.

Atheism is a philosophy for the naive who love simple-minded, expedient and inherently and necessarily contradictory answers to tough questions . This is why I quoted Prov 1:22. But then later you turned around and asked me what I had against simplicity, completely overlooking the context of the passage. (What else is new?)

First, Solomon, directed the question to the "NAIVE". So, tell me: How long have you been a fan of naivete? You should do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "naive".

Secondly, he went on to equate naive people with fools and how fools hate knowledge. (Recall the psalmist who called atheist fools!?)

Naive people are characterized by unaffected simplicity. Here's one example. A naive person could think that he's the world's smartest and most gifted shopper or consumer because he knows how to get the cheapest price on everything he buys. His thinking is purely one-dimensional, and he's oblivious to the fact that the cheapest price on goods or services often does not represent the best bang for the buck, i.e. the best value. Naive people often don't take the time or make the effort to gain meaningful knowledge on products that would give them insights or wisdom on how to shop for real value, instead of just the more simplistic "best price". Naive people are quite self-deceived.

So...there is nothing wrong with simplicity in and of itself; for simplicity can be very profound and can often offer the best solutions to problems -- but never at the expense of genuine knowledge.

So, again the bottom line, Mr. Naive, is that you cannot prove a negative. But on the other hand, you could try to prove to us that you have infinite knowledge of all that exists in the universe, in which case that would go a long way to giving some credence to your atheistic world view. But since you can't prove a negative nor will you be able to prove that you're an omniscient god, then Atheism reduces to a patently absurd, meaningless philosophy.

Ciao,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No question.

I was pointing out that are no answers to certain problems and an infinite amount of knowledge is not needed before we can conclude those answers are not knowable. So much for his definition of "self-defeating" One may know one does not know, without knowing all of which one does not know

But one knowing that he's ignorant of this, that or some other thing is not the warp 'n' woof of Unlimited Agnosticism. At the heart of Agnosticism is what you write below:

I must add that by definition, the "mind" of God is not knowable by the mind of man, and anyone who proclaims he knows the mind of God is either a saint or a liar. But there are so many "tells" on this thread, certainly by now we can tell the difference between liars and saints

Your statement above is self-defeating because it presupposes that you have knowledge of the mind of God which is the very thing you deny is possible. On the other hand, if you have no knowledge of the mind of God, then your statement is just as irrational because you speak solely out of your ignorance.

Also, it might surprise you that genuine, born again believers never make the claim that they discovered God or his mind. Biblical Christianity teaches that God, who created man in his image (including man's mind), graciously condescends to reveal himself to mankind -- to make himself known to man. This possibility is conveniently overlooked by Unlimited Agnostics.

But have no fear, Hcap, you are no more an agnostic than Humpty Dumpty is. You're a stone-cold atheist because God in your degenerate mind is merely a metaphor.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your statement above is self-defeating because it presupposes that you have knowledge of the mind of God which is the very thing you deny is possible. On the other hand, if you have no knowledge of the mind of God, then your statement is just as irrational because you speak solely out of your ignorance.

Biblical Christianity teaches that God, who created man in his image (including man's mind), graciously condescends to reveal himself to mankind -- to make himself known to man. This possibility is conveniently overlooked by Unlimited Agnostics.

I said by definition, the "mind" of God is not knowable. My statement does not require all knowledge of God to know how Abrahamic religions define God.

Your word game "self-defeating" is just that and nothing more. BTW, Reveling is in the eye of the beholder.

What is obvious however, is you are not privy to God's thinking process. You have revealed and demonstrated that over and over again in this thread.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You are rapidly an insufferable bore.

No one is forcing you to read my posts. BTW, you should proofread your posts.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have claimed that you are an atheist! Have you not?

At your urging, as a favor to you. More accurately I believe I said I did not object to the label.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then let's look at the definition of what atheism is:

Yes, let's.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Main Entry:athe£ism
Pronunciation:**-th*-*i-z*m
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle French ath*isme, from ath*e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:1546

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Good definition. I see nothing in it that says that an atheist must prove, or claim to be able to prove, that there is no God.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, whether you want to say that there is no evidence for God or no God, you are saying the same thing.

Wrong. If I sit on a jury and the prosecutor presents no evidence that the defendant is guilty then I will vote not-guilty. That does not mean I believe he is not-guilty.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You are an atheist who does not believe in the existence of God because you think there is no evidence for his existence. Again, my premise is solid to your self-defeating philosophy ...

Check your grammar.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... because I could just as easily ask: Have you searched the entire universe for the evidence? Have you searched every crook and nanny in the universe? Or are you certain that you haven't seen the evidence that is hidden in plain sight?

It might help if God wasn't hiding.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Do you know with absolute certainty that no such evidence for God exists? If you don't, then your atheism is absurd by that admission because you would be admitting to ignorance of all that is in the universe.

What part of ad ignorantiam don't you understand?

Originally Posted by boxcar

But if you say you do have knowledge of all that is in the universe ...

But I don't. End of story.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Atheism is a philosophy for the naive who love simple-minded, expedient and inherently and necessarily contradictory answers to tough questions . This is why I quoted Prov 1:22. But then later you turned around and asked me what I had against simplicity, completely overlooking the context of the passage.

What part of "scripture proves nothing" don't you understand. Didn't you read my post (hundreds of pages ago) that when you quote scripture, I stop reading.

Originally Posted by boxcar

First, Solomon, directed the question to the "NAIVE". So, tell me: How long have you been a fan of naivete? You should do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "naive".

Look up the definition of "gullible." They are synonyms.

Originally Posted by boxcar

(Recall the psalmist who called atheist fools!?)

World's oldest known ad hominem attack. I'd suggest you stop citing that passage because, when you do, you are admitting you have no real argument.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Naive people are characterized by unaffected simplicity. Here's one example. A naive person could think that he's the world's smartest and most gifted shopper or consumer because he knows how to get the cheapest price on everything he buys. His thinking is purely one-dimensional, and he's oblivious to the fact that the cheapest price on goods or services often does not represent the best bang for the buck, i.e. the best value. Naive people often don't take the time or make the effort to gain meaningful knowledge on products that would give them insights or wisdom on how to shop for real value, instead of just the more simplistic "best price". Naive people are quite self-deceived.

Perfect description of Christianity. Just replace "naive" with its synonym "gullible." You've provided an argument that Christianity is "self-defeating."

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...there is nothing wrong with simplicity in and of itself; for simplicity can be very profound and can often offer the best solutions to problems -- but never at the expense of genuine knowledge.

Can you give us an example of an instance where the more complex solution being correct while the simpler solution is not? Even the Bible is a "simpler solution" (assuming it's a solution at all). The Bible says "You don't have to think! Here's the answer!" The problem is that tens of thousands of denominations cannot agree on what the answer is.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, again the bottom line, Mr. Naive, is that you cannot prove a negative.

Actually, as I've pointed out before, that's not true. Hcap gave the example of trisection of an angle using Euclidean tools. Another is Fermat's Theorem, a negative which has been proven.


Here's the bottom line. Everything you've said can be flipped on its head and applied to religion. You claim that the non-existence of God cannot be proven except by an infinite search. But you cannot prove the existence of God without an infinite search. Even if you found God in a finite number of steps how would you know the search was over, that you had found God? Because he says so? How do you know he's not lying? Because he says so? How do you know you have not found an imposter? Perhaps the Devil? ("the devil hath power To assume a pleasing shape") Because he says so? How do you know there's not another god above him? Because he says so?

If God is omnipresent why do we have to search the universe for him?

Faced with the inability to logically determine whether God exists or not one is forced to, by some means, assign probabilities to the possibilities. (Make an odds line, if you will.) Dawkin's seven point scale does that. You are a 1. I'm a 6. Dawkins says he's a 6.5.

Regardless of whether God exists or not, one must decide how one behaves. To be sure, part of this involves morality and ethics, but statistical evidence shows that religious and non-religious people are equally moral and ethical.

How do you behave when you get sick? Do you go to a doctor or a faith healer? If a faith healer says "You are cured! Throw away your pills!" do you do it? Or do you keep taking your pills?

Here's the real bottom line. Has any atheist ever flown a plane into a building in the name of atheism? Has any atheist ever strapped a bomb onto his body and committed suicide in the name of atheism? Has any atheist army marched into a country thousands of miles away on a crusade in the name of atheism?

We may well be approaching the "last days," but not because some guy on a Mediterranean island ate some mushrooms, had hallucinations and wrote them down. No, it's going to be because (paraphrasing Mark Twain) two countries with nuclear weapons disagree on theology and take the matter to a higher court.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actor, you have been an awesome and needed addition to this thread. The perfect counter-balance. I look forward to your responses each and every time.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

At your urging, as a favor to you. More accurately I believe I said I did not object to the label.

Really? I forced you, eh? Did I twist your arm too far out of its socket? And, no, you proudly proclaimed your atheism and then blamed me for taking you down that dead end street -- when in fact, I simply brought you out of your closet.

Good definition. I see nothing in it that says that an atheist must prove, or claim to be able to prove, that there is no God.

But if you can't logically establish the validity to atheism then it's not a rational philosophical belief system. It would be more on par with you saying I don't believe in tooth fairies, which no rational adult does anyway -- and no rational adult would build a philosophy around "atoothfairies".

Wrong. If I sit on a jury and the prosecutor presents no evidence that the defendant is guilty then I will vote not-guilty. That does not mean I believe he is not-guilty.

Of course, you believe he's not guilty; and in the example you gave your belief would be rational since you would have no knowledge of any such evidence. And you have no knowledge because the prosecutor didn't present any evidence.

It might help if God wasn't hiding.

That is your assumption. But scripture says:

Acts 17:27
27 that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
NASB

What part of ad ignorantiam don't you understand?

And what part of Arguing from Ignorance, don't you understand? This is exactly what Hcap did when he boldly declared (with great certitude, I might add) that no one can know the mind of God -- that God's mind is unknowable. How would he KNOW that?

But I don't. End of story.

Then your belief system is irrational. End of story.

And since you say there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of God, then this presupposes that you searched the entire universe for such evidence. But to do that, you'd have to be omnipresent, which the possession of that attribute would imply you are the very thing that you deny exists, i.e. God! But again, since you won't claim that, then you're arguing from the dubious and dark position of Ignorance.

What part of "scripture proves nothing" don't you understand. Didn't you read my post (hundreds of pages ago) that when you quote scripture, I stop reading.

Of course, you do because fools hate knowledge (see Prov 1:21 again). This is why you embrace Ignorance so closely to your bosom.

Look up the definition of "gullible." They are synonyms.

Not in my dictionary, they aren't. But that is neither here or there. So answer the question: How long have you been a fan of naivete?

World's oldest known ad hominem attack. I'd suggest you stop citing that passage because, when you do, you are admitting you have no real argument.

I have plenty of positive reasons why I believe in God and his Christ, as have and do untold billions of other Christians throughout the ages. But the Psalmist is right. Only a fool would deny the existence of God and base that denial solely on the sinking sands of Ignorance.

Perfect description of Christianity. Just replace "naive" with its synonym "gullible." You've provided an argument that Christianity is "self-defeating."

See my remarks above. Also, Christians embrace and love KNOWLEDGE -- not ignorance. A Christian's faith [again] is a rational, sighted faith built on genuine knowledge -- as opposed to an irrational, blind faith grounded in Ignorance.

Can you give us an example of an instance where the more complex solution being correct while the simpler solution is not? Even the Bible is a "simpler solution" (assuming it's a solution at all). The Bible says "You don't have to think! Here's the answer!" The problem is that tens of thousands of denominations cannot agree on what the answer is.

The Christian Faith because it does not find it's ground in Ignorance the way your atheism does.

Prov 2:1-6
My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,
3 and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom,
and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
NIV

Actually, as I've pointed out before, that's not true. Hcap gave the example of trisection of an angle using Euclidean tools. Another is Fermat's Theorem, a negative which has been proven.

Well, then, what are you waiting for!? Don't delay any longer! Prove to us conclusively that God doesn't exist!

Here's the bottom line. Everything you've said can be flipped on its head and applied to religion. You claim that the non-existence of God cannot be proven except by an infinite search. But you cannot prove the existence of God without an infinite search. Even if you found God in a finite number of steps how would you know the search was over, that you had found God? Because he says so? How do you know he's not lying? Because he says so? How do you know you have not found an imposter? Perhaps the Devil? ("the devil hath power To assume a pleasing shape") Because he says so? How do you know there's not another god above him? Because he says so?

It might be applied to religion generically but not to biblical Christianity, specifically.

Also, I didn't have to perform an infinite search for God because He found me. Scripture prescribes how man can "find" God (although it is God who does the finding). Yes, in the beginning I cried out to him and told him that He would have to reveal himself to me -- that I would not seek Him by church-hopping. And besides, I told him...how would I know which church has it right? And I know He's real and His word is Truth because of my changed life and because he has never failed on any his promises and I have the Holy Spirit living within me. You see...I have found the "pearl of great price" and sold all I have to acquire it. All born again believers are the richest people on the planet because they, too, have found it and we treasure our possession more than life. Unlike atheists and other unbelievers, we know that our life doesn't consist of our temporal possessions.

And I know I have found God because I measure Him and my life against His Word. The devil is a liar and has no part with God. And I know how to "test the spirits" (1Jn 4:1), Mr. Actor.

If God is omnipresent why do we have to search the universe for him?[/quote]

We don't. But since you have refused to follow the biblically-prescribed approach (when we discussed your attitude problem), then I have to assume that you have searched the entire universe for him in order for atheism to be considered a rational belief system.

Faced with the inability to logically determine whether God exists or not one is forced to, by some means, assign probabilities to the possibilities. (Make an odds line, if you will.) Dawkin's seven point scale does that. You are a 1. I'm a 6. Dawkins says he's a 6.5.

Yeah...how good was Dawkins' price line at the track?

Regardless of whether God exists or not, one must decide how one behaves. To be sure, part of this involves morality and ethics, but statistical evidence shows that religious and non-religious people are equally moral and ethical.

Really? So science has developed an objective standard of morality upon which to conduct experiments or surveys? Pray tell: What is that objective standard? Who established it? When was it established? How was it established?

How do you behave when you get sick? Do you go to a doctor or a faith healer? If a faith healer says "You are cured! Throw away your pills!" do you do it? Or do you keep taking your pills?

Here's the real bottom line. Has any atheist ever flown a plane into a building in the name of atheism? Has any atheist ever strapped a bomb onto his body and committed suicide in the name of atheism? Has any atheist army marched into a country thousands of miles away on a crusade in the name of atheism?

We may well be approaching the "last days," but not because some guy on a Mediterranean island ate some mushrooms, had hallucinations and wrote them down. No, it's going to be because (paraphrasing Mark Twain) two countries with nuclear weapons disagree on theology and take the matter to a higher court.

So you think atheists are morally superior people to all religious people? Do you know what the first and foremost commandment in scripture is?

And what "higher court" would that be?

Boxcar
P.S. It is something that you and your kind do not do 24/7.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I said by definition, the "mind" of God is not knowable. My statement does not require all knowledge of God to know how Abrahamic religions define God.

Your word game "self-defeating" is just that and nothing more. BTW, Reveling is in the eye of the beholder.

What is obvious however, is you are not privy to God's thinking process. You have revealed and demonstrated that over and over again in this thread.

By what definition!?

Also, I did not say that you would require all knowledge of God. No one has that kind of knowledge. However, if you're going to claim that the mind of God is UNKNOWABLE, then such a statement logically presupposes that YOU must have some knowledge of God's mind in order to reach that conclusion. How else would YOU KNOW that God's mind is unknowable!?

But if you have that knowledge, then you just shot yourself in the foot since your premise collapses upon itself. Why? Because it's self-contradictory. But if you're going to disclaim having any knowledge of God's mind, then that would make your proposition irrational and insanely preposterous.

Boxcar
P.S. It would also make make your proposition self-defeating in nature.