Dishonest Apologetics

[Cinette]

Still using that capital G, though, hmmm?
If a deist is worse than an atheist (that’s pretty offensive to deists and atheists!), and Einstein and Sartre were deists, then I guess you’re probably going to drop them from your list of believers.

Yes, you are perfectly correct - capital G for God.

To a believer like myself atheism and deism are not desirable - whereas atheism is not a choice I would imagine (Faith is a gift) deism is willful - it is a decision. Acknowledging the existence of God (as I always have) and yet thinking that it is not important to worship Him, ignoring Him and relegating Him to the back of the mind (as I once did) THAT is terrible. Indifference is a terrible* terrible* thing.

If you look at love. To stop loving someone is sad for the other person but if you become indifferent to the other person it is a very hurtful thing I would imagine. Because you can still care for someone you once loved. In a divorce situation the other person would perhaps share parenthood. There is a child involved. If the one spouse turned away from the other totally, no longer caring, that would be tremendously hurtful. It would be a tragedy. It would still be very hurtful even if there were no child.

Now I don’t want to get involved in a drawn out argument about love. I have just stated it as an example.

As for Einstein and Sartre, I cited them because I came across statements made by them at the end of their lives. I cannot claim to know enough to be able to argue and swear that it is so, that they no longer adhered to their atheistic state. But then I believe that you also cannot know. We cannot know. All I can say is that there was hope and that for me is good. Their statements demonstrated that they were having a change of heart. That is my opinion.

Please Surfmeister, allow me to have my opinion and let us stop this toing and froing - I am not interested in pursuing this argument.

I am glad we had this exchange as I said above. Not let it rest.

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[Surfmeister]

Yes, you are perfectly correct - capital G for God.

To a believer like myself atheism and deism are not desirable - whereas atheism is not a choice I would imagine (Faith is a gift) deism is willful - it is a decision. Acknowledging the existence of God (as I always have) and yet thinking that it is not important to worship Him, ignoring Him and relegating Him to the back of the mind (as I once did) THAT is terrible. Indifference is a terrible* terrible* thing.

If you look at love. To stop loving someone is sad for the other person but if you become indifferent to the other person it is a very hurtful thing I would imagine. Because you can still care for someone you once loved. In a divorce situation the other person would perhaps share parenthood. There is a child involved. If the one spouse turned away from the other totally, no longer caring, that would be tremendously hurtful. It would be a tragedy. It would still be very hurtful even if there were no child.

Now I don’t want to get involved in a drawn out argument about love. I have just stated it as an example.

As for Einstein and Sartre, I cited them because I came across statements made by them at the end of their lives. I cannot claim to know enough to be able to argue and swear that it is so, that they no longer adhered to their atheistic state. But then I believe that you also cannot know. We cannot know. All I can say is that there was hope and that for me is good. Their statements demonstrated that they were having a change of heart. That is my opinion.

Please Surfmeister, allow me to have my opinion and let us stop this toing and froing - I am not interested in pursuing this argument.

I am glad we had this exchange as I said above. Not let it rest.

Thank you:thumbsup:

I will stop when you stop misrepresenting (dishonest apologetics). Einstein’s was NOT an ‘end of life’ conversion. His belief/non-belief was lifelong (after age 12).

 

[Cinette]

No, I don’t speak for the entire populaton.

It is just that, from my perspective, I cannot see the attraction to deism. You might like to enlighten me perhaps?

Blessings
Cinette

hi cinette…ummm…i dont think i can/want to “enlighten” anyone(no offense, i know that might sound rude)…the things that led to my belief are specific to myself, and as such, i am unable/unwilling to “project” them on another…in fact, the thought of trying to sway someone to my way of thinking is anathema…it’s a little too much like adventism and they beat that desire out of me when i was just a wee slip of a lad…lol…but i can say that i was never “attracted” to the way i feel…it is just what i believe…frederick

I think you are being honest.

However, there is one thing. When you have something that is very precious you want to share it. Especially something so important as Faith in God. However, it is important not to force your belief on others ever. The best thing to do is pray for others. What you can do is discourse with someone who is interested as our friend Atheist is. He seems fascinated with the subject and I can understand that. I always go back to my husband because he is my primary example. During the years when he was atheist and I was deist (yes I admit that now) we never talked about these things. Imagine that! When you fall in love you talk about everything under the sun. Actually I always say that when we met we began a conversation which has lasted to this day. In our home there is always discussion. And yet we left out the most important thing - God! Unbelievable!

Then something happened at the same time I returned to the Church. Actually I returned about a year before this “something” happened. There were tense moments and I would always resort to prayer. We worked opposite the Catholic Centre which had a chapel inside and there was Mass every day so it was accessible. My husband became fascinated with the effects of my prayers. We often worked Saturdays and he would look up and say “Isn’t it time for you to go to Mass?” (evening) These events seemed to be miraculous to him. Too many coincidences, too many little “miracles”. That really caught his attention. And I suppose when Gerald Schroeder came to town to promote his book my husband wanted to attend his talks… And that was the start of things for him… LOL!

Each person has a different story to tell. God reaches each person in a different way. There is no set formula.

It is fascinating. Faith is a mystery and I believe and accept the mystery of God.

 

[Surfmeister]

that, my friend, is where you are mistaken…lol…i dont believe in god as an event or force, but as a distinct creator with all the powers that would be in attendance for someone who could create a universe…THEN full stop…btw…i rarely capitalise, so whether i’m referring to the christian concept of god, the deist concept of god, or the pantheon of norse mythology, i simply wtite “god”…i hope this clears up any confusion……frederick

There are as many versions of god/God as their are believers in that god/God. Every believer has their own definition of what their god/God is and is capable of. A god with capabilities to create a universe could be a …computer? Apollo? A panel of superhuman heroes? You don’t know, I don’t know. We’re both without knowledge, really. Agnostic, in a sense.

 

[Cinette]

I will stop when you stop misrepresenting (dishonest apologetics)Is that right? Well I’m done with you. You do what you like:banghead: :knight2::crying: . Einstein’s was NOT an ‘end of life’ conversion. His belief/non-belief was lifelong. Suit yourself! :yawn::yawn:

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi! My Parish Priest in his homily shared that he witnessed 4 times the bleeding of the Eucharist. That Eucharist was tested by scientist and was confirmed to have human blood. Until this day the Eucharist is still bleeding. I never saw the Eucharist bleed but I trust the words of the Parish Priest. But I can see how God is using him as an instrument to transform the communities he had touched. I have several reasons for trusting him. When I was a young I saw a ghost, from that experience it reinforeced my belief that man is more than flesh.

I don’t know the other details of the bleeding Eucharist my Parish Priest witnessed so I am sharing similar miracles I found on the internet.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
dsanford.com/miraclehost.html

Peace to all.

Thanks for sharing those links. But I don’t see this as much evidence of a miracle. Just because people claimed it changed into the body and blood of Christ does not mean actually happened. Merely the fact that they have a piece of human flesh and a bit of blood does not show anything. However, if I was in your shoes, I would probably also trust my priest. But not everything that people claim is true actually is. There are some supernatural claims of other religions like Mormonism and Islam that neither of us believe in. For me to believe that a religion is right, I would need something that had no plausible natural explanation.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So why would you not rule out the possibility of a creator? What is it that makes you think that you cannot rule out the possibility of a creator?

Because we have no evidence either way.

I have mentioned this before but maybe you have not read it. I am not talking about qualities of this creator. I am simply arguing for a Creator. Period. Now you say that I need to provide evidence for how I describe Him. Well, how exactly have I described Him? I have not even given qualities to this Creator. He is simply source of creation as far as my discussion with you is concerned. You keep brining up the Christian God and I have to keep reminding you that the God we are discussing is simply Creator God. The attributes (whatever it maybe that I ascribe to Him) are for another thread.

I said this in an attempt to clarify what I meant by atheist. However, if you use the most basic deist definition of God, then I am an atheist in the sense that I lack a belief in God, not in the sense that I am confident that there is no God.

So you do not believe that the general accepted scientific belief that the universe started 14 billion years ago? But you said stated that it did in one of your earlier posts. As a matter of fact I think you said it started 13.7 million years ago but I think you must have meant billion.

Yes, if I said 13.7 million, I meant billion. I’m definitely not infallible.

I have repeatedly said that it depends what is meant by the term universe. In order to use the age of the universe as evidence of God, you need to define universe as the entire natural world (or something similar). I got into detail on the definitions in another post, so I won’t rehash it all here.

I am referring to my post that there is a 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion chance that the big bang given the conditions would have produced black holes rather than a universe conducive to life. Do you think that the general scientific concensus is against that finding by Penrose?

I think the scientific consensus is that we don’t know what the chances are. Attempts to estimate the odds, such as Penrose’s, rely on certain assumptions. The resulting estimate is only good as the initial assumptions. Even if each of his assumptions is probably right, that alone does not provide any evidence that our conditions are unlikely (a conclusion that depends only on 5 assumptions that each have a 75% chance of being right has less than a 25% chance of being true). So even if it is the best possible guess about the improbability of our universe, as long as there is a high margin of error, we cannot know whether out universe is as unlikely as Penrose says, or more like 1 in 2. If you could link me to the argument/study of Penrose’s that you find persuasive, I’ll look into whether he makes a good case for whether our universe is definitely that unlikely. There are scientists who disagree strongly with his assessment, and I don’t think there is a scientific consensus that our universe is definitely extremely unlikely.

By the way, I find it amusing that you use Penrose as an expert in one part of your argument, and then in another part of your argument you claim that it is well established that out universe is 14 billion years old, a view that Penrose himself disagrees with. His view is more like mine. He thinks there is a good chance that some infinite universe theory is correct. He once believed as you do that the universe was about 14 billion years old, but revised his opinion in light of recent research.

Note: This is my last post for this week but I will respond to your other posts next weekend if the thread is still open. Have to get back to my other project.

Don’t worry about it. Please take your time.

 

[Surfmeister]

Cinette:
I am not trying to ‘suit myself’. I’m trying to establish an accurate and impartial assessment of Einstein’s belief structure and why people wish to claim him as ‘one of their own’.
Why do YOU wish to?
(Of course, the quote I wish to reply to doesn’t appear in this message, because I am
A) a complete newbie
B) unable to wrap my head around this forum and the posting rules therein
C) demonic intervention
D) chance

 

[Sinner82]

Thanks for sharing those links. But I don’t see this as much evidence of a miracle. Just because people claimed it changed into the body and blood of Christ does not mean actually happened. Merely the fact that they have a piece of human flesh and a bit of blood does not show anything. However, if I was in your shoes, I would probably also trust my priest. But not everything that people claim is true actually is. There are some supernatural claims of other religions like Mormonism and Islam that neither of us believe in. For me to believe that a religion is right, I would need something that had no plausible natural explanation.

Your welcome! Perhaps it only shows that God love’s everybody and He is telling us that He is real. Peace.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Let us say that granted I misunderstood the Big Bang (although what I read said it almost exactly like that - the universe exploded from a “primeval atom” (exactly those words – primeval atom). But even discounting that, you still cannot get away from the fact that the universe is only 14 billion years old, at least that is what observable data tells us. Not speculation. Observable data.

Well obviously it wasn’t an actual atom; the universe was too dense and hot to form atoms until later. What it probably meant was that the universe was extremely small 14 billion years ago. You keep trying to make a rhetoric case for the finite beginning of the universe, rather than a logical or scientific one, but I have already shown why this doesn’t work. Let’s say we live in some ancient civilization, our people have only begun to write 200 years ago, and we don’t know what happened before that point. This would not be evidence that the universe was only 200 years old, yet by your logic it would be.

Okay so maybe what I have read got it entirely wrong, but it said that with the advances made via the Hubble telescope they were able to calculate the age of the universe to be around this give or take a few billion years. A few billion years or even trillion years still would not make the universe eternal. So even if the theories that make it older are true, older does not mean eternal. It still states a beginning. And if the universe is dying, then that is another case for it not be eternal.

It has to do again with which definition of universe is used. I know a trillion years is not eternal. These other theories are for an eternal universe. Under the eternal universe theories I have seen, the universe collapses in on itself at a certain point.

That is not an answer. I asked what observable data supports these theories?

Again, what I asked is what scientific data supports this, not what theories are consistent with the data. So what scientific data supports your claim that the universe could have easily been infinite?

I do not know what you are asking for. There are a number of different theories because we don’t yet have the data necessary to rule out any of them. You have picked one which has no data to support it and say that because none of the others have data to support them, yours must be correct. Data is not used to establish the possibility of theories; it is used to establish which are true. Based on the data we have, we build theories that are consistent with the data. Then when new data come in, we figure out which of these theories is true.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I am not trying to ‘suit myself’. I’m trying to establish an accurate and impartial assessment of Einstein’s belief structure and why people wish to claim him as ‘one of their own’.
Why do YOU wish to?
(Of course, the quote I wish to reply to doesn’t appear in this message, because I am
A) a complete newbie
B) unable to wrap my head around this forum and the posting rules therein
C) demonic intervention
D) chance

Instead of clicking Post Reply, click on the quote button in the bottom right corner of the message you want to quote. Then type your message below the text that starts out in the text box.

 

[Surfmeister]

Thanks, Evil. Is it here where I do the ‘wrap tags’ thing around the specific portion of the post I want to respond to?
It shouldn’t be this hard, and yet…

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thanks, Evil. Is it here where I do the ‘wrap tags’ thing around the specific portion of the post I want to respond to?
It shouldn’t be this hard, and yet…

No, if you look at the thread and see all the posts, you see that each post is in a box. In the top left it has their name and the time it was posted, and in the bottom right it has a Quote button. I hope that helps.

 

[wasmit]

Surf, if you want to do quote in quote, you have to do this:
(ignore the underscores, they are there so that the tags are shown, and not implemented)

[quote_]

God exists
[/quote_]
No he doesn’t
[/quote_]
Yes he does
[/quote_]
No he doesn’t
[/quote_]
Yes he does
[/quote_]
No he doesn’t

The above will display this:

God exists

No he doesn’t

Yes he does

No he doesn’t

Yes he does

No he doesn’t

 

[Surfmeister]

Surf, if you want to do quote in quote, you have to do this:
(ignore the underscores, they are there so that the tags are shown, and not implemented)

[quote_]

[quote_]

[quote_]

[quote_]

God exists
[/quote_]
No he doesn’t
[/quote_]
Yes he does
[/quote_]
No he doesn’t
[/quote_]
Yes he does
[/quote_]
No he doesn’t

The above will display this:

No he doesn’t

Oh, good g(G)od! What have I gotten myself into!
Spock! Help me…Spock!!

Somehow, I think these thingers will suit me just fine >>>>( " )
End of.
Thanks.
In over my head.

 

[Surfmeister]

Of course, the quote I wish to reply to doesn’t appear in this message, because I am
A) a complete newbie
B) unable to wrap my head around this forum and the posting rules therein
C) demonic intervention
D) chance

Testing

 

[Surfmeister]

By Jove!
I think I’ve got it!
Let the banners fly and the bells ring! Huzzah!
Please ignore…

 

[Surfmeister]

C) demonic intervention

 

[Surfmeister]

Surfmeister:
The trick to do this is as follows:
Ask a teenager. LOL! I’ll never be able to do this again on my own…enjoy!
(She’s actually mocking me as I type…the arrogance of youth!)

 

[joe370]

Atheist, you said:

My point was just that if she didn’t drink any olive oil, it would definitely be miraculous. If she had been subsisting on nothing but olive oil for a week, I’d still think it would be impossible to sweat 100% olive oil, but I’m no expert on the human body, so I’d want to do a little bit of research to confirm that it would be impossible in that case.

Please do…

But my big objection is that there’s no good evidence that it happened. I don’t believe stories merely because some other people believe them, because quite a lot of urban legends and supernatural stories are false. I’ve looked at a number of sites dealing with Garabandal, and have yet to find evidence for which there is no plausible natural explanation. If you have found any, I’d be really interested in seeing it.

**So, hundreds of Physicians and scientists (many of them being atheists) - confirming that this did in fact happen, is not good enough for you? Phew… This happened in the 1980’s and was caught on tape; people were there for the sole purpose of refuting it and they came away from it as believers. If you can’t find evidence in Garabandal, then it’s because you don’t want to see it. I think what you are saying is: I WASN’T THERE TO SEE IT, THEREFORE I DON’T BELIEVE IT, NOR DO i BELIEVE THE EYEWITNESSES? Is that correct? **

It’s impossible to prove something like that wrong. For example, no matter how much I researched Bigfoot, I could not disprove his existence. Even if I could show that all the evidence for his existence was unreliable, that would not prove that he doesn’t exist. This is why the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim.

**Bigfoot wasn’t witnessed by 1000’s of people over a 4 year period.
**

If Christianity rests on faith instead of evidence, why are you trying to use evidence to prove it?

**You want evidence…When you prove to me that the human body can secrete 100% olive oil of an unknown origin, then you will have piqued my interest. I could subsist on olive oil or coke or beer for 1 year and these liquids could never be secreted from my skin in their original state. If it could, I would bottle it and sell it. LOL…
**

Something cannot come from nothing on this planet because there is no absolute nothingness from which it can come.

**Agreed…So, nothingness is required for something to come from nothing?
**

Quantum particles do spontaneously appear (based on our best current science), but even when they appear in the vacuum of space, you can argue that they are appearing out of space-time.

**Where did the vacuum of space come from in this experiment? Humans inside the temporal universe (space and time) - made this experiment possible, so no, you cannot argue that they are appearing “out of space-time.” **

So saying something cannot come from nothing because it hasn’t on our planet is no better than saying that there can’t be any aliens because there aren’t any aliens on earth.

**In this case something did not come from nothing; without humans this would have been impossible. I never said: Something cannot come from nothing because it hasn’t on our planet; I said: Something cannot come from nothing --without a designer…without God! If your next question is: …then who created God? My answer is: I am a finite creature and do not have access to this infinite sphere --yet.
**

I assume you are referring to temporal infinity. If every finite number could be fully written down (given enough time), surely every infinite one must be able to be written down also, right?

**Yup, temporal infinity (space and time). Something outside of space and time created space and time! Logic dictates so! To say otherwise is to defy logic in every sense. Absolutely, If every finite number could be fully written down, (which of course is possible) --given enough time, surely every infinite one must be able to be written down also --by an infinite being!!! You have no faith in Christianity, but you have no problem believing that humans, given enough time, will be able to write down every infinite number. Talk about a faith based system! **

continued…