This is incorrect. To state that somebody is poisoning the well is that their opening statement is phrased in such a way that they announce the intention of discrediting their opposition's argument without considering it. I provided an example above.

On the other hand "muddying the waters" is different, and refers to being deliberately unclear and incoherent. When you assert where your opponent is unclear or incoherent, you must specify it very precisely, otherwise it is simply a naked assertion.

Yes, in the manner most conducive to rational discourse, which means remove your emotions from the table, do not prosetylize, and actually evaluate and respond to the arguments made by your opponent. You have not done this and your post constitutes a red herring divergence from this fact. THis does not seem a great deal to ask.

Refer to Section II of my above post. This does not constitute a response to arguments against the existence of God. It constitutes a begging the question fallacy: The very issue under discussion is whether God exists. Hence you cannot assume God exists in order to counter one of the points, because this is the very issue under consideration.

Again, begging the question. I do not believe these events actually occured. There is no evidence to support that they did. You cannot assume they did in order to prove the point under discussion, since this is the very issue under consideration. Again, you are presuming God exists in order to refute arguments that challenge the existence of God. You are reasoning in a circle.

This requires decoding.

This statement has nothing to do with to my arguments, and is irrelevant. If it was able to be deciphered, I might be able to make more constructive critcisms of it.

Philosophy is, broadly speaking, the gaining knowledge of the world and its nature by thinking and reasoning, as opposed, for example, to science, which does the same by empiricism and testing. Philosophy is a key source of human knowledge about the nature of the world and its existence, and provides a key methodological framework for a large number of human endeavours, from epistemology to ethics and everything in between. It helps us to understand where we came from, who we are, our nature, our minds, our external world, our being, the nature of the world we inhabit, and how we should act in this world, all by virtue of reasoned discourse. 

This is an assertion. Clarify. What "questions" and "answers" are you referring to?

That is because the words "product" and "application" are irrelevant, although I have listed applications of philosophical discourse above. I am not selling you a piece of merchandise. We are having a discourse on philosophy. The only thing that matters are knowledge claims and their rational evaluation. "Product" and "application" are "red herrings" because we are not discussing whether or not X has "application"! We are discussing whether or not it is a true representation of the world we inhabit. I've told you this numerous times. Surely it is easy to grasp by now? That is the nature of philosophy.

Keep the judgemental language out of it, please.

For the same reason that I could not explain to a small child how contour integrals in the electromagnetic field-flux equations derive calculabe scalar field qualities, or how the partial differentiation of a topological volume expression with respect to a single linear variable produce a calculable expression, or how the Notch signalling receptor is activated by proxy from the trans-Golgi network in specialized cells during differentiation. Answers to the nature of existence and the universe and arguments pertaining to these matters are not likely to be simple. On the contrary, proper appreciable understanding of a large number of independant fields of inquiry require large amounts of complex background knowledge, knowledge which I have taken the time to acquire. I presume some of this background knowledge on part of those I debate with because otherwise it would be difficult to get off the ground. On the other hand, if you wish for me to go through certain concepts, I would be happy to. I only require a direct and coherent question that I can answer, or a direct and coherent argument formed from premises and conclusions. In other words, substance is the key.

I haven't claimed to be a "teacher". I'm not trying to "teach" anything. I have presented certain arguments. You claim to not understand them, then you accuse me of incoherency when you haven't even asked me to perhaps clarify certain arguments or terms, which I would be happy to do so were it not for the fact that you incessantly avoid like the plague saying anything which is directly relevant to the discussion, such as an open question on the matter. 

Firstly, using Cap Locks does not add anything to your argument. Second, this analogy is irrelevant. Analogy will only take you so far, to understand complex concepts in detail, you must understand them without the analogy. This holds true for any discipline, not merely philosophy. I can tell you that a certain concept is "like" a familiar situation or concept, but that will not constitute a satisfying technical explanation. I would not be able to explain, for example, concepts such as line integrals or protein folding or ATPase pumps or synaptogenesis by virtue of merely analogy. If we are having a technical discussion about philosophy regarding the nature of the universe...expect complex terminology and ideas to crop up. If some of these are new, it is your responsibility to find out yourself. We call this research. Perhaps you have heard of it.

This sentence contains several contradictions and factual errors. Firstly, it is meaningless to assert that your opponents argument is too complex to be understood, and then assert that your opponent has no argument, as you have done. Secondly, I do not have a PhD in Philosophy. I am a science guy, first and foremost. I do have formal credentials in philosophy, but I earned much of my understanding in philosophy the real way: Self study. You see those eight arguments above? I formulated six of those eight before the age of 18, simply by reading books and educating myself. Of the various philosophers, the most highly recommended, in my opinion, and a key influence on my arguments, is Baruch de Spinoza, and his treatise Ethics, to give some background. Now, if I when I was a child could dedicate that kind of time and patience to contemplating the existence of God, surely you, as a mature adult, can do me a similar courtesy? 

JCGadfly,

Where to begin describes it for me as well.

I can't prove God to you. I wish I could. The Bible doesn't even try to (in my understanding) - it assumes; for example, it starts out "In the beginning God created ..." as I mentioned. My efforts to encourage you to believe in God are not from a bad motive in my opinion. I don't want anything from you. You're right however - I can't restrain the wind and I can't prove God to you.

You don't really believe Jesus even existed (from my memory of what you said) so the further discussion of that is probably pointless.

You did misunderstand what I meant by "destroying Death". Jesus came to deliver all who have been in bondage their whole life to the fear of death. When Death sucked the "Life" out of Jesus it met something new. Jesus had Life in Himself. Jesus had never sinned. Jesus was not under the curse "he that sins will die", because Jesus never sinned.

However, Jesus became sin for us, became a curse (cursed is everyone who dies on a tree) and thus paid the price for our sins by His death. Death could not hold Him. He took the gates of death posts and all and carried them to the top of Heaven. (This metaphor comes from Samson's action in Judges 16. Jesus is our Samson, our Deliverer).

The apostles don't seem to be good candidates to die for something they are not certain of. Jesus made sure they knew it was Him after He had come back to life. He went to extreem measures and invited them to see His wounds and make sure they knew He had bones and flesh.

As far as the same tired questions and your rebuttal, I'm not trying to say "accept that God has done it on blind faith". I'm saying make a serious and honest investigation of whether this is true.

Mephibosheth

Blind_Chance,

Jesus honored the Scriptures before and after His resurrection. On the road to Emmaus (end/Luke) He started in the Old Testament and showed them how they (Scriptures) had told of this mystery of salvation through His death. He honored the Scriptures always, quoted from them. Yes learn of God from the Bible.

As far as interpretation, it does lend itself to be misunderstood, misused, twisted. Anything good in life can be polluted - that doesn't mean that good is not good.

As far as who is the authority on interpretating Scripture - I wouldn't leave that to anybody other than yourself if I were you. It's too important. You should check it out yourself.

For me, it proves itself to me in every way. It resonates in my soul. It picks me up where I am and lifts and points me to where I see (through the eyes of faith) I want to go.

I do preach, but I am a carpenter.

I think if you read the book of Ecclesiastes we are led there in a search for what we are looking for in life - what deserves our whole heart, life energy, focus. Solomon had credentials to lead us in that search. It's efficient to let him do the research. The conclusion is: fear God and keep His commandments, this is the duty of man.

It's not efficient to spend all of life honeymooning with new ideas, earth pleasures, pursuing wealth, pursuing world wisdom. Accept Solomon's research and go with God. That's my advice. But sort it out yourself.

Mephibosheth (redeemed fool of fools)

Dulce et Decorum est Pro Dei mori (It is sweet and fitting to die)

Deludedgod,

I would compare the sweetness of that dying (Dulce et Decorum est Pro Dei morit ) to buying a home. If you can afford it - it can be a blessing. If you can't - it's a curse.

It's interesting you mention the mathematician. I went off to school to study math and become a math teacher. As you have observed I really resist putting Scriptures and beliefs in mathmatical terms.

I'm not criticizing your presented theory when I say that but I think a lot of Scripture has been misused that way when a verse or two has been plugged into a formula and solved for the desired answer. Verses have been taken out of context ad naseum (hey how do you like that - ad naseum - is that right?).

I wouldn't encourage believing in God or radical change of mind on that math basis - nor a legal basis, since you can't earn what I'm talking about either (as in earn your salvation). I would encourage radical deep heart bleeding change, repentance is the term on the basis of the grace of God. In other words the motive would be love of God. It would have to happen with the help of God - God would have to help you see the truth of the gospel, "open your eyes to the well of living water" is the metaphor I would use.

As I see the question it is a tragedy for you to miss out on the grace of God. Its simplicity is a problem, because I think you would want it to be infinitly hard - a general problem of man - for your glory. But salvation is totally God's glory. That's where you would have to give up your throne - humble yourself before God.

That probably all seems foreign and unthinkable to you - just like dipping in the Jordan 7 times seemed disgusting and unthinkable and "too easy" to Naaman (2 Kings 5). But what a tragedy for him to go home a leper and you a spiritual leper when the solution is so at hand and so simple. It's an enigma.

Mephibosheth

I really wish you could see what you're doing. 

You say you can't prove your God exists.

Yet you bring all these things that the Bible says Jesus did as proof that your God exists.   

You also bring up the old "The apostles wouldn't have died for a lie" argument (again as proof that your God exists).

You're busting your hump trying to do something you claim you can't do. 

Meph,

I'm sorry if you read what I'm writing as antagonism. I don't mean it that way.

I'm just trying to get you to stop contradicting yourself.

You say, "I can't prove my God exists but here's x,y, and z that proves my God exists."

I was where you are. I believed in God and thought nothing could change my mind. After a while I saw people claiming Christianity while behaving reprehensibly and got really confused. Then I read the Bible and discovered that the form of Christianity they beleived in (based on the writings of Paul) absolved them from any responsiblility and made their behavior acceptable.

I couldn't follow a God that lets his people be immoral (according to society) in order to sell his morality. Still can't.

Your inheritance analogy doesn't wash because I can't claim the benefits of Christianity until after I'm dead. I'd like to be able to live a good productive life now. That's something I couldn't do as a Christian. I was too busy sitting under the weight of hearing about how worthless I am without God and nothing I do could ever please him

I get enough of that crap from my evangelical Christian wife.

JCGadfly,

I'm sure I am a contradiction - somewhere on the scale. My impression of what I was doing was just using terms from my world to say what I meant - not as being able to prove it to you but to get across what I meant. I think I was anyway.

I think every man at some level is a hypocrite too. We may fail at higher or lower levels and a lot of things would have to be factored in to get a fair comparison (strictly my opinion here). I don't think a man could come up with a fair comparison. Our backgrounds are so different.

But I take it you were talking about a blatant hypocrite (s) that (my words) caused you to stumble and fall into what you now consider truth and I would consider shipwrecked faith.

JC, this paragraph really interests me as far as understanding exactly what happened and what you mean by "writings of Paul". I don't know if it's possible for you to be any more detailed - and I'm not interested in any intimate details, just that I'm baffled so anything you could do to unbaffle a little would be appreciated.

thanks,

Mephibosheth

I'll try.

Paul wrote in Romans 4:15 "And where there is no law, there is no transgression". Many christians have taken that to say that the 10 commandments no longer apply if you simply believe in Jesus according to how Paul taught. The church I attended was no exception. In same cases, Paul's writings supersede the words that their Christ allegedly said.

They could go and help out at an inner city church and talk about all the "panhandling <plural n-word deleted so I don't get static>" that attended. They could talk about the "Prince of Peace" and let American atrocities around the world slide because GW Bush "is such a godly man". I couldn't deal with that kind of falsehood or the Book that apparently condoned it.

The other major hypocrisy-condoning verse for me is 1 Corinthians 9:22-23 : " To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

For me, that's the verse that allows Ted Haggard to insist he's not a homosexual drug user while he smokes meth with the male prostitute he bought that night. It also allowed those good churchpeople I told you about to lie and cheat in the name of Jesus.

Put that with the "do what you want and then ask forgiveness (lather, rinse, repeat)" attitude that pervades Christianity and I can't deal with it. It flies in the face of what I and society see as right and wrong.

Easily misunderstood scripture is not exactly a selling point for a divinely inspired book, is it?

Or am I just misunderstanding it because I don't agree with your particular belief system? (sorry if that sounds snarky - i hear it an awful lot from other Christians).

Where did you get that I don't have faith? I don't have faith in your God Yahweh or his son Jesus who is also Yahweh, that much is true. I do have faith in humans to do things benefical to society (many times in spite of their religion). If I didn't I wouldn't stay married to the evangelical.

You are right about religious faith being a war thing. It certainly has caused a lot of them.

I never said that sin was OK'd by the Scripture. If you looked at what I wrote I said that Paul took away sin from the believer's vocabulary when he told them they didn't have to pay attention to the Law. If you want to claim "O, he meant ceremonial law or dietary law", feel free to insult Paul's (or the other writers who used his name) intelligence. He/They was/were smart enough to know how the words for "ceremonial" and "dietary" if he/they wanted to use them. He/they did create a religion and a theology, after all.

Copernicus was damn good - he believed in the heliocentric system. That's why the church wasn't happy with him. They liked the geocentric system of Ptolemy because it made them feel special and chosen of God. All Galileo and his telescope did was back up what Copernicus saw with the naked eye.

Be glad I saw this before DG - he might still shred you.

"Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;"

T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men"

Pretty lame.  I'm rather disheartened that someone who has spent a number of years longer in this life is so completely unable to answer our questions or even justify your own belief.

I am completely honest with my respect and gratitude.  I hold no ego when it comes to that.  I find you rather pathetic in this regard.  And find many people here of much younger existence in a much higher respect.

Why do you hold bullheaded ignorant blind faith in such esteem?  Surely you can not fault the 9/11 hijackers for sharing the exact same quality you cling to. 

Or does your hyprocasy extend that far?

What's so hard about Columbus scaring the natives with a lunar eclipse?  You sit under a similar appeal to fear if you go to church every Sunday.

Columbus - "Be nice to us or God will remove the moon from the sky"

Preacher - "Be nice to me and give me money (oh yeah, believe in God, too) or God will throw you in Hell."

Mix God in with folks who don't know better and it's a great scam.

You are conflating religious faith with faith based on past experiences.  I have faith that I will walk outside in 13 degree F weather and be cold because I and others have had similar experiences in 13 degree F weather. There have also been experiments done to gauge the effects of cold temperatures on human beings. Those past experiences are my evidence. Religious faith has no such evidence.

So I have to believe in God before I can read the Bible? Doesn't that make it hard to come to a saving knowledge? I always thought that your God saved people so they could believe in him.

You also forget that those folks I mentioned earlier do apply Scripture. They like the part where Paul says there is no sin because there is no law and they apply that. They don't like the part where Jesus says "Give to the poor"  and see that would risk their money so they go back to Paul and poof! that law no longer applies. They look at Micah's edict to "act justly and love mercy", realize that such a thing would keep them from taking advantage of people and they thank god Paul came when he did. That way they're allowed to screw people over because they're trying to reach people who screw others over.

Jesus spoke in parables to keep the average person from understanding. He said as much to his disciples. 

I have no problem putting faith (based on prior experience) in people. People are real. If you put faith in God and he lets you down, what do you do? If your like most Christians, you let him off the hook. It either wasn't his will or you didn't have enough faith, right? Wait, Jesus said believers only need faith the size of a mustard seed and you can move mountains...But Paul said that believers can only use their gifts in proportion to their faith...

I'd go on but my head is spinning. 

Unless they claim that the entire old testament is libel, they still have a problem. Because their god commanded these evil behaviors. The "hardness of heart" argument doesn't touch this point at all, nor does any later dispensation. The supposedly perfect god commanded rank immorality.

Amen to that.  

As Christianity and its representatives are responsible for much of my mental issues, it's hard for me to see where I "need" Jesus.

Questions are an escape from decision-making? What, then, is faith? How does claiming "God did it" and absolving yourself from the search for answers make you such a brave seeker? If I have a criticism for Christians and their faith, it's that they tend to use it as a substitute for reason. It gives them an excuse to stop thinking rather than start..

Isn't it difficult to have fellowhip with the invisible? Sorry if that comes off as insulting but it's really hard to have a relationship with someone you can't deal with in some sort of material way. That's why I had such a hard time with Christianity. I wanted to see Christ  but got stuck with Christians who liked to do whatever immoral/amoral thing they wanted and covered it with "I'm not perfect - just forgiven".

Why is it when you fight the fight of faith against ' the Prince of Darkness, the forces of evil, the powers of the air, demons', only people wind up dead? The invisible forces you battle against are unaffected.

Following Jesus isn't a walk in the park? That must be why the people calling themselves Christians follow Paul's teaching. They don't have to wory about living it, doing good, being helpful to others, all that bunk. 

Then again, doing what makes you feel good and giving it Jesus' stamp of approval is easier than you make it out to be. 

 Why not look at the hijackers? They had at least as much faith in their God as you have in yours (maybe more). They also practiced their faith as a war thing. Or do you not want to look at them because it's scary to see how close you are? That's understandable.

483. Who was the "Ungrateful Guest"?

This was the brand fixed by Philip of Macedon on a Macedonian soldier, who had been kindly entertained by a villager, and, when asked by the king what he could give him, requested the farm and cottage of his entertainer.

This could become the RRSQ motto

Mephibosheth  (pointing out history with hope for better days ahead)

Not sure if I am posting correctly but we shall see.  Just wanted to say Hi.  I agree with you that the proof of God is all around us!  But I am also fascinated that the Bible speaks of the Orion, Arcturus and Pleiades constellation. Also since God's word is written in the stars it is clear He created the stars.  Thought you might enjoy this:  See Job 9 and Job 38 

Job 9:9  Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the South.

The stars in Taurus present a brilliant sight to behold. There are at least, I believe, 141 stars besides two important groups of stars, which both form integral parts of the sign.

The brightest star (in the bull's eye) has a Chaldee name AlDebaran, and means the leader or governor. The star B which is at the tip of the left horn has an arabic name El Nath, meaning wounded or slain. Another prophetic intimation that this coming Lord should be first slain as a sacrifice!

Then there is the cluster of stars known as the Pleiades which means the congregation of the judge or ruler.  This occurs in Job 9:9, 38:31, 32, and Amos 5:8.

Amos 5:8  (seek him) that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning and maketh the day dark with night; that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD (is) his name.

Pleiades a brilliant cluster of stars seen in the shoulder of Taurus (the BUll). This constellation consists of several hundred stars, although the naked eye can usually see six or seven. Job declared GOD made Pleiades and Job 9:9 bound them in a cluster in Job 38:31  Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? 

Pleiades means the congregation of the judge.

It is a huge study but fascinating.  The book The Witness of the Stars by E. W. Bullinger is a good place to start if you are interested in this.

There are words in the stars?

Oh, there are words about stars in the bible. That's ... what you meant. I got all excited there for a second.

Kind of a letdown, bonnie.

JC,

Does it seem logical to you that skeptical group of disciples would be willing to die for the fact of Jesus' resurrection if they weren't absolutely certain it was true? 

Mephibosheth   (to those with faith no proof is necessary, to those without   faith no proof is enough)

If they were skeptical, they wouldn't be disciples.

You are also confusing the disciples of Jesus with the writers of the gospel. I believe them to be two separate groups. Why would the disciple wait 40 years after their leader died (and for all of Paul's works to be written) to write their first works about his life?

The writers used the names of the Apostles to lend their work credence (a common practice at that time).

So God offered Himself to Himself so He could allow His omnipotent self to change a rule He made?

Reminds me of my wife and her "sacrifices" for Lent. She gives up sugar and white flour - things we don't eat anyway.

She gives up nothing - God gave up nothing.

JCG,

My wife brings me coffee every morning at 5:30, then a refill.  She cooks out in the snow and ice if it's cook out night.  She changed the turn signal switch in her car, enjoyed it, borrowed a steering wheel puller and researched it on the internet.

She's organized, the house is neat, the clothes all jump back in the drawers and closet - and, she can cook!  She's a self starter, works out at the Y, knits baby sweaters for everybody we know that has a baby, looks great!, starts my car in the morning and clears the windshield, scoops the driveway, treasurer for the church, keeps my books, runs after materials, can fix about anything, computer tech - all because she is happy to! 

But God is light years better than that.  He made her.

Mephibosheth  (have a nice day all)

Will,

I didn't say I was experiencing a feeling - you read that into it.  The gospel is logical to me and there's nothing otherwise to admit. 

I know you think things are a certain way but that's your faith.  You have faith in your perspective. 

As far as the laws of physics being suspended - the One who made the laws can suspend them. 

It appears however that suspending laws of physics didn't produce faith in most.  It seemed to fail to produce faith throughout the Old Testament.  In the New Testament Jesus healed somebody and the response was, "how can we deal with this guy?"  You share their perspective.  I would refer you to Psalm 2 for heaven's response.  

The thing that produces faith is the love and grace of God in Jesus Christ.  That's different than laws - physics or otherwise.

Mephibosheth 

Will,

You did miss something.  When you experience your conscience telling you you did the right or wrong thing do you call it a "feeling"?  I don't.  The experience I am talking about is spiritual. 

The feelings and happenings of the day - good and bad - may be rippling or tossing waves on the surface but there is a current under that is peace, joy, security moving in a direction of hope.  The feelings on the surface are vaporous. 

It would be a tragic thing to try to run your life by feelings.  I'm a carpenter, and I tell you - you can't even cut boards by "feeling".  How could you run your life by feelings ?

You don't see (as you describe yourself as a critical rationalist) that you are putting your faith in yourself? 

You know there are natives in the jungle that you guys would probably make fun of for bowing down to their idols - but the tragedy here is that you guys are doing the same thing - to your own mind and ideas - but, even beyond that, you don't realize it.

You think a miracle would convert you, but the Scripture says otherwise.  In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus for instance, the rich man wanted to go back and warn his brothers.  God said, "they have Moses and the Prophets.  If they don't believe them, neither will they believe if one rises from the dead". 

Mephibosheth  (experiencing life in Christ, feeling the wind chill)

Yeah, the crazy train. Ordinarily, I'm as polite as I possibly can be on these boards, but you're absolutely out there.

"What about rational thought?"

"Oh, that's nothing compared to the majesty of Jesus."

The majesty of Jesus may give you fantastic spiritual experience, but it sure as physics didn't come up with the computer you're using to access these forums. You demonstrate how stagnant the mind of a fanatic can be, and it's chilling. By your reckoning, the most enlightened group of people could be found in the Dark Ages, when the only guide was biblical dogma, and people died of whatever plague was fashionable because they didn't know what a germ was.

This point has been collaboratively refuted:

Doesn't Everyone Need To Start Out With an Assumption?

Your argument undermines itself by definition, as shown.

EDIT: In addition to todangst, I had also written an extensive refutation of this argument being made by our theistic interlocutor and its philosophical absurdity. This has had to be withdrawn because it is undergoing extensive editing  (the references in the bibliography need to be re-tagged).