Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

[Tom Sawyer]

See, now you are trying to make up your own definition for the word universe, when a perfectly good definition already exists.

I don't think that's the case. He's basically proposing a type of multiverse argument where God et al exist in their own place and our universe is a different place which he created separate from that. That seems like a perfectly fine definition of a universe.

It doesn't really answer the question of a first cause argument, since it just pushes the question back one level and leaves it unanswered, but it's not a particularly non-standard usage of the word "universe".

Sure. But to use that definition in the context of a discussion in which his correspondent has explicitly defined the word as meaning 'everything that exists', without explicitly providing his own definition, is an equivocation fallacy.

I am talking about 'everything that exists'; He wants to talk about a subset of that, and pretend that his argument is responsive to mine.

As I am talking explicitly about everything that exists, including any Gods that exist, and arguing that nothing that exists can be the cause of everything that exists, it is fucking stupid to then say 'but what if something exists in a separate category from the universe?' - it's impossible for that to be the case using my definition of 'universe'; and it's not addressing my argument at all if he is using a different definition of 'universe'.

In either case, it's not a rebuttal; Just some babbling that he hopes might sound like a rebuttal as long as he doesn't have to think too hard about it.

So, to sum up, it sounds to me like you’re saying

“We should use this definition”
“No, I’m using this other definition”
“Screw you, you’re going to make your argument using my definition”

 

[bilby]

Sure. But to use that definition in the context of a discussion in which his correspondent has explicitly defined the word as meaning 'everything that exists', without explicitly providing his own definition, is an equivocation fallacy.

I am talking about 'everything that exists'; He wants to talk about a subset of that, and pretend that his argument is responsive to mine.

As I am talking explicitly about everything that exists, including any Gods that exist, and arguing that nothing that exists can be the cause of everything that exists, it is fucking stupid to then say 'but what if something exists in a separate category from the universe?' - it's impossible for that to be the case using my definition of 'universe'; and it's not addressing my argument at all if he is using a different definition of 'universe'.

In either case, it's not a rebuttal; Just some babbling that he hopes might sound like a rebuttal as long as he doesn't have to think too hard about it.

So, to sum up, it sounds to me like you’re saying

“We should use this definition”
“No, I’m using this other definition”
“Screw you, you’re going to make your argument using my definition”

No, I am saying 'Here's an argument based on my definition' and Lion is saying 'but if we used a different definition, I could rebut the totally different argument that you would then be making, therefore your argument has no merit'.

So then I am repeating my argument with the equivocal phrase spelled out, and Lion is STILL trying to rebut the (totally different) argument he would rather I was making.

My argument doesn't require ANY use of the word 'universe', and I have repeatedly made it without using that word.

Yet Lion insists on discussing a completely different question.

My question is, how does adding a god or gods to the set 'everything that exists' help to explain the existence of that set?

If gods are not a part of that set, then they don't exist; If they are part of that set, they cannot pre-date it, and therefore cannot be its cause.

Discussion of subsets of 'everything that exists' doesn't achieve anything to help with this question.

It's perfectly OK to define 'universe' in a way that excludes gods, and to then declare that a god that existed need not be a part of the universe under that limited definition of 'universe'. But that wordgame in no way allows for the possibility of a god that exists, but which is not a part of the set 'everything that exists'. That's contradictory, and therefore logically unsound.

Using the word 'universe' to mean both things in a single argument is the equivocation fallacy, and Lion is apparently either to dim to realise that; Or hopes that everyone else is too dim to notice that he cheated.

 

[atrib]

So, to sum up, it sounds to me like you’re saying

“We should use this definition”
“No, I’m using this other definition”
“Screw you, you’re going to make your argument using my definition”

I was giving him a hard time because he commented that I could not read.

 

[Politesse]

I don't see how "I am that is" or however you prefer to translate יהוה‬ is any more consistent with a materialist view than an apophatic one; it is actually pretty vague. Whether God is a concept or an object, he is what he is. That is still true if God is an idea, or for that matter if God is nothing at all. Similarly, I could say, "I am what I am" (as Politesse) and that would be equally true whether there is a real human being who coextensively posts under the name Politesse, both halves of a cute gay couple borrowing the same account interchangeably using the name Politesse, an AI computer creating the persona of Politesse through Turing trickery, a subaetheric daemonic being calling the posts of Politesse into existence ex nihilo, or a mass hallucination on the part of the other posters on TF, the sentence would still be true. No matter which of those descriptions is truest, "Politesse" is on some level a fiction, whose connection to a material truth is always or should always be in doubt to some extent or another.

Exodus 33
²¹ And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
²² And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
²³ And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Exodus 24

⁹ Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
¹⁰ And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

Ah, closer! But one could easily have a vision of God without literally seeing God in material form. This description certainly does not sound like the throne of God that Ezekiel saw and wrote about later in the anthology, and neither sound like the version described in Revelation. Are they all seeing the same object?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Exodus 33;9-11
9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.
10 And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Contradicting 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Another din danged Bible contradiction!

And note, God can fit in the tabernacle. But God is bigger than a bread box.

 

[Rhea]

Exodus 33
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
[...]
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Another damned plot hole. Bad writing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't see how "I am that is" or however you prefer to translate יהוה‬ is any more consistent with a materialist view than an apophatic one; it is actually pretty vague. Whether God is a concept or an object, he is what he is. That is still true if God is an idea, or for that matter if God is nothing at all. Similarly, I could say, "I am what I am" (as Politesse) and that would be equally true whether there is a real human being who coextensively posts under the name Politesse, both halves of a cute gay couple borrowing the same account interchangeably using the name Politesse, an AI computer creating the persona of Politesse through Turing trickery, a subaetheric daemonic being calling the posts of Politesse into existence ex nihilo, or a mass hallucination on the part of the other posters on TF, the sentence would still be true. No matter which of those descriptions is truest, "Politesse" is on some level a fiction, whose connection to a material truth is always or should always be in doubt to some extent or another.

Exodus 33
²¹ And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
²² And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
²³ And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Exodus 24

⁹ Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
¹⁰ And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

Ah, closer! But one could easily have a vision of God without literally seeing God in material form. This description certainly does not sound like the throne of God that Ezekiel saw and wrote about later in the anthology, and neither sound like the version described in Revelation. Are they all seeing the same object?

They are manifesting the same bipolar/schizophrenic behavior. That much is certain.

 

[atrib]

I used to be an atheist ...

Show

and I am still an atheist.

 

[James Brown]

Good interview with Religion critic David Fitzgerald about Lee Strobel.

Strobel has cultivated a thoroughly bogus image that he happily encourages readers to embrace. His fan base is led to believe he was a diehard atheist who was converted by these interviews. In reality, he was a lapsed Lutheran who became a pastor at a mega-church. It wasn’t until over a decade later—and after writing three books in defense of evangelical Christianity—he had the idea to select a line-up of Evangelical academics who support his view and lob softball questions at them, all under the guise of a “tough skeptic...”

What Christians need to realize is that regardless of whether Christianity is true or not, what Strobel and his team of “experts” are peddling to them so successfully is not. It’s a constant stream of distortions and misinformation.For example, Strobel’s very first “expert,” Baptist preacher (and non-historian) Dr. Craig Bloomberg has since admitted that Strobel’s write-up of the interview was not verbatim but rather heavily paraphrased and full of what were, in Bloomberg’s view, “oversimplifications.” He said his initial impulse when he saw Strobel’s draft was to edit everything for accuracy, but in the end decided to correct only the worst problems (!). So right out of the gate, we have some serious credibility problems.

 

[Lion IRC]

WOW
So Blomberg himself was given the option to review and edit Strobel's draft manuscript of The Case For Christ to ensure Strobel wasn't mis-quoting or falsifying Blomberg anything?

AND he (Blomberg) actually DID correct and clarify certain things before the book went to print?

Gee. That makes it seem like Strobel really is interested in honest journalism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Dude, you already opened a thread for the purpose of whitewashing Strobel's backstory. Go ignore inconvenient facts there.

 

[skepticalbip]

WOW
So Blomberg himself was given the option to review and edit Strobel's draft manuscript of The Case For Christ to ensure Strobel wasn't mis-quoting or falsifying Blomberg anything?

AND he (Blomberg) actually DID correct and clarify certain things before the book went to print?

Gee. That makes it seem like Strobel really is interested in honest journalism.

Or, more likely, Strobel is interested in avoiding being sued for liable by Craig Bloomberg so let Bloomberg approve the 'quotes' from their interview he put in his book. And Bloomberg apparently did correct those 'quotes'. It is pretty much standard practice for any author. The other distortions and misinformation in the book, not quoting what others said, were apparently not open for Bloomberg's correction.

 

[James Brown]

in the end [Bloomberg] decided to correct only the worst problems

I wonder what the lesser problems were that Blomberg decided to not correct.