20 arguments for the existence of God

[dlamberth]

Then you see relativism because you believe they can both be right.

What's "right"? That's that mean?

John Hick's religious relativism is self refuting if you haven't caught onto that yet. Remember the Absolute vs. Relative thing you saw? Apply that to religion.

I'd like to know what you have to say about what happens when you apply it to God and being aware of His presence?

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

What's "right"? That's that mean?

I'd like to know what you have to say about what happens when you apply it to God and being aware of His presence?

.

I'm belieiving this is an attempt to obfuscate meaning.

I've already mentioned before the real problem behind your worldview is your starting presuppositions about religion.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hahaha... all of these have been debunked, especially the argument from design...that's just hillarious!

Thanks for demonstrating how that was done. Thats a sweeping generalization. Besides, we've already pointed out the difficulty of an Atheist making any claim about religion at all, and how its untenable.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yet, they ARE working together. The conflicts between those two superpowers seems to be over power and not culture. We aren't deciding between cultures. We even seem to be assimilating each others culture and are happy doing so. Is that what your meaning?

I'm just not seeing your example as Cultural Relativism I guess.

.

Eh, not so much.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm belieiving this is an attempt to obfuscate meaning.

I know, it may look like it. But when looking at different cultures...which is what we are looking at, it's an honest question. Which culture is "right"? Is there such I thing as a "right" culture? I don't think so.

Basically I'm trying to understand your use of the term "Cultural Relativism". I don't believe there is such a thing as Cultural Relativism and I'm not see your example as showing there is. But I could be wrong. So I'm trying to understand your meaning.

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I know, it may look like it. But when looking at different cultures...which is what we are looking at, it's an honest question. Which is culture is "right"? Is there such I thing as a "right" culture? I don't think so.

Basically I'm trying to understand your use of the term "Cultural Relativism". I don't believe there is such a thing as Cultural Relativism and I'm not see your example as showing there is. But I could be wrong. So I'm trying to understand your meaning.

.

As I'm seeing this, this is an obfuscation fallacy.

It may also be seen as "

[SIZE=+1]Equivocation[/SIZE]
The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different contexts and is assumed to have the same meaning in both contexts, when distinct meanings ought to be preferred. Two examples:

1. All bushes are green and leafy.
Therefore, George W. Bush is green and leafy.
​

1. Isaiah 44:6 says, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God [elohym] besides Me."
2. Psalm 82 implies there are many gods [elohym]. (Ye are gods...)
Therefore, Isaiah and Psalms contradict one another.
​

The former example should be obvious. But, the latter assumes that elohym conveys the same meaning in both passages. In reality, Isaiah 44:6 most likely refers to deity, whereas Psalm 82 either refers to angels or more likely the leadership of Israel. The Hebrew term elohym can refer to Yahweh, deity, or beings of power. Since many words in all languages have multiple meanings, anyone who wishes not to look like a fool should try to understand a word by understanding the context surrounding it. I mean come on, didn't we all learn this already in fifth grade? ;-)
Evolutionists often commit this fallacy: They discuss facts of evolution (= genetic changes or diversity within a species), which creationists do not deny, and conclude that they have proven evolution (= new species arising from old species or life arising from simple goo ["goo to you by the way of the zoo"]).
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#400

Basically, you're only here to play with words.

 

[dlamberth]

As I'm seeing this, this is an obfuscation fallacy.

You don't want to answer? Your talking about a right culture and with "Cultural Relativism" is unable to choose. Your words, not mine. So I'm trying to understand. What are you meaning when you say "right" in your argument against "Cultural Relativism"


.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You don't want to answer? Your talking about a right culture with and the "Cultural Relativism" is unable to choose that. Your words, not mine. So I'm trying to understand. What are you meaning when you say "right" in your argument against "Cultural Relativism"


.

You are equivocating still.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Cultural Relativism is not true. That is what I"m trying to say.

 

[dlamberth]

Basically, you're only here to play with words.

Basically, I think your saying things that are not true. And they are not true because your perspective is based upon premise. Not on what's going on inwardly. When you say something is not right when it comes to Cultural Relativism, what's that mean? With out looking, all you have is premise. So my question is based upon actually looking to see what's there.

At this point, I take your arguments that I've read against Relativism, especially when looking at God, as pretty much a bunch of bunk. You haven't convince me of anything. God is not a premise. And you seem to be treating Him as such. And that just will not work.

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Basically, I think your saying things that are not true. And they are not true because your perspective is based upon premise. Not on what's going on inwardly. When you say something is not right when it comes to Cultural Relativism, what's that mean? With out looking, all you have is premise. So my question is based upon actually looking to see what's there.

At this point, I take your arguments that I've read against Relativism, especially when looking at God, as pretty much a bunch of bunk. You haven't convince me of anything. God is not a premise. And you seem to be treating Him as such. And that just will not work.

.

Your statements are equally based upon premise.

You seem to advocate moral nihilism. To that I respond, is that right or wrong?

I advocate the absolute standards created by God. I need to be specific here for this purpose. The God of the Bible. Everything in it is right. Everything against it is wrong.

The point that you are missing...basically is the same point you're expressing in your claims. With Cultural Relativism, there are no right standards, making this right, but deducible to the 2nd law of noncontradiction is self refuting.

Statements correspond to reality. God can be expressed in statements, so do not fear. It is okay to speak of God in personal terms, instead of expressing him as something so far away we can not speak of him.

I ask you Dlamberth, do words have meaning?

 

[hamashiachagape]

I can not convince you of anything because you are not willing to get rid of your presuppositions, which are steeped, as we have already found out, in relativism. I can not change your will, that is between you and God. I've given you some excellent resource material from a Professor of Religion, in this case Alister McGrath, to refute Religious Relativism. You don't seem to want to follow the argument. Thats your choice. The information is there.

Let me rephrase the argument differently. Some cultures love their neighbors, some eat their neighbor. Which one do you think is right?
See here for further analysis - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p17.htm

 

[hamashiachagape]

Cultural relativism is the position that truth is determined based on what culture you live in. We have seen that culture does not determine the truth given the absurdity of the position as I've demonstrated above (two cultures can't agree, as above on morality).

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm - this refutes Moral relativism. The "right" that you keep referring to.

 

[Delphiki]

Hmm. Posting a definition of the word "equivocation" and then still not knowing what it means. My calculations are showing a high probability of this guy coming from the evolution fairytale forums. They love to through around the "e" word and have no idea what it means. lol

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hmm. Posting a definition of the word "equivocation" and then still not knowing what it means. My calculations are showing a high probability of this guy coming from the evolution fairytale forums. They love to through around the "e" word and have no idea what it means. lol

I find it interesting that its more the probability that Evolutionists don't understand what the "e" word means. I have tested out Creation Science arguments. On a Scientist.

Heres what I did. I took a friend who was raised in a very lax Christian setting, basically giving him freedom to believe either way. As you understand, I disagree with this loose position. However it gave him a degree to be able to choose.

He had a 4 year degree in Biology, and a doctorate in Pharmacology. He has been a Pharmacist for 5 years.

He does not study the Creation vs. Evolution debate. So I did a test on him. I showed him Creation Ministries International's website. Heres what we did. I showed him a topic that an article presented, and he answered it utilizing material that he had studied in college. To my amazement, the answers that he gave MIRRORED, thats right MIRRORED, the Creation Science claims. He then proceeded to utilize entropy to refute Evolution. Being he was a Pharmacologist, I thought it a very good idea to ask him about Penicillin and Penicillinase. He proceeded to discuss how there was absolutely no possible way that the Evolution explanation worked for this. Pretty much from the Information theory that the Creation Scientists utilize by Dr. Werner Gitt, only also adding that there was not enough time for Evolution to occur within the test subject under investigation.

I also gave him the definiition of Evolution as Evolutionists have been propagating it on the web. Get this now, you know what he told me?

"Actually, thats not what Evolution is." <gasp> Really why did he say? The changes were moving in the wrong direction.

Wait doesn't that mirror EXACTLY what Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says?

 

[dlamberth]

Let me rephrase the argument differently. Some cultures love their neighbors, some eat their neighbor. Which one do you think is right?

I'd be attracted to those who love their neighbors. As to which one is "right", what's that mean? What’s the gauge of what’s right and what’s not right that your using. Who is to say which society is right and which is wrong. To those who eat their neighbors, from their perspective, they are right. There is a lot more going on in a society than a simple dualistic question based upon a question of are they right or are they wrong.

A modern example is America itself who more than any other country since World War II has bombed more countries than all of the other countries combined. Does that act make America a wrong culture? Of course not. There are a lot of other things in the American culture that needs to be looked at.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Your statements are equally based upon premise.

In looking at the experience of the presence of God...premise just gets into the way. Premise is requred in Logic. But not in the awareness of God.

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'd be attracted to those who love their neighbors. As to which one is "right", what's that mean? What&#8217;s the gauge of what&#8217;s right and what&#8217;s not right that your using. Who is to say which society is right and which is wrong. To those who eat their neighbors, from their perspective, they are right. There is a lot more going on in a society than a simple dualistic question based upon a question of are they right or are they wrong.

A modern example is America itself who more than any other country since World War II has bombed more countries than all of the other countries combined. Does that act make America a wrong culture? Of course not. There are a lot of other things in the American culture that needs to be looked at.

.

What is is?

Its an ambiguity fallacy.

No, it would depend, we'd have to look at the reasons that America was bombing on a case by case scenario. The governmental system is a reflection of the society in question, and demonstrates what they believe morality. When two governmental systems collide, which happens often, it becomes a position that can not be reconciled which leads to its self destructive nature.

With cultural relativism, nobody is to say. With God, GOD is to say. And who would you be to stand against God?

 

[dlamberth]

What is is?

In this case, what is "right?". No one knows...your not saying. There's no way for anyone to know.

Unlike "is" the question of what is "right" requires an understanding to make a decision by. That's not being provided by you.

.

 

[dlamberth]

No, it would depend, we'd have to look at the reasons that America was bombing on a case by case scenario.

That's exactly what I'm saying. One would have to look "deeper" into the society than the outer shell that you have been looking at. Thank you for understanding finally.

.