Yesterday there was a thread in which some user wanted Christians to 'prove' Jesus really resurrected. There were at least 5 contentions like this: >Bible writer wrote in proof, he the writer must be telling the truth
>Bible proves the bible hurr durr
This is one of the most misinformed, stupid contentions there is. The bible is 40 books and letters written by 66 different people, most of whom never met each other, on 3 different continents over the span of just over 1500 years. It is a collection of historical documents. There is no "bible writer." This is a getting-stoned-with-my-homies-talking-shit-on-god-tier contention. Even if you're an "atheist," at least try to have the sense to take your favorite atheist, bias-confirming propaganda with a grain of salt.
As for evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, these are good sources:
reasonablefaith.org
reasonablefaith.org
ntwrightpage.com
leaderu.com
answering-islam.org
pleaseconvinceme.com
reddit.com
>inb4 some idiot replies "ya but it's still wrong tho" without conceding that this contention is retarded or providing an alternative.
The best any real skeptic can seem to do is submit mere speculation, or cite inconsequential discrepancies between different accounts. Historical documents are expected to, and inevitably have, trivial discrepancies, which only lends to the bible being genuine, historical accounts of things that actually happened, as written by people with different perspectives.
Yesterday there was a thread in which some user wanted Christians to 'prove' Jesus really resurrected...
Other urls found in this thread:
skepticproject.com
en.wikipedia.org
tertullian.org
twitter.com
why do you even need to engage in the debate? just believe senpai, why do you need proof or debate about it?
→
Must have been sarcasm
Sentencing someone to hell for not believing in you is wrong, very wrong. There is no excuse for him allowing it to happen. If he is real, be is not worthy of my devotion, nor is he worthy of yours.
Have fun in hell.
It's a metaphor for his teachings. Also, Jesus was a mushroom.
You too.
Adding a period to the end of your interjection doesn't magically turn your reply into an argument.
rules are rules m8
sentencing someone to prison for shoplifting is wrong, if a man is starving to death he should be able to steal as much food as he wants with no repercussions even though the LAW says otherwise
The real redpill about Christianity - that none of you will want to accept - is that the Christ mythos is based on the Buddha story and that there are evidences in the Gospels proving it using geomatria etc.
Buddha, a historical person, preceded the legend of Jesus by at least 500 years, but at the time of the rise of Christianity the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism was in its peak popularity and its memes spreading all around. The writers of the Bible blended Jewish apocryphal wisdom with Buddha stuff to create Jesus.
Unfortunately, neither the message of Christianity nor Mahayana Buddhism is truly the teaching of the historical Gotama Buddha, so you all miss out on finding the way out of the matrix and actually get stuck even worse if you believe in (((Jesus))) as anything but an ideal of yourself.
GREAT pic! Bump
...
Very well put, though it will most likely get lost in a sea of 13 year old EdgeLords ironically liking Christianity.
a combination of the association and genetic fallacies. There seems to be quite a few google results "debunking" zeitgeist theory: skepticproject.com
and post hoc ergo propter hoc? Is there a more specific name for this stupid, fallacious reasoning? "These things are similar and this thing came before that thing therefore that thing is just a knockoff of this thing."
Jesus was a real man who was born, baptized, and crucified. We know this from secular historical facts. You just have to figure out if he was really resurrected and the son of God.
Buddhism and other Hindu derived religious are a laughable religion who's sole purpose is to justified the caste system.
>Sentencing someone to hell for not believing in you is wrong, very wrong
Unless by not believing, you open yourself up to spiritual iniquity. That is, suppose that the lack of belief carries with it a spiritual toll. Or suppose that we're all missing an integral part of our being which only God can fill. By denying Him, by closing your eyes and your heart to His existence, it's possible that you defile yourself. Serving lies instead of the Truth can be seen, then, as a form of cancer. And wouldn't you cut cancer out of your body?
Yep. God is the ultimate fascist.
Worship and serve him or suffer eternally. Why? Because he makes the rules.
You don't raise a child to be a servant, you raise them to be an independent adult. Christianity considers us all the property of God.
seem*
But he didn't just say "wrong;" he said "wrong, very wrong." Therefore your argument is invalid.
It's basically "Choose truth and life or falsity and death," and user's contention is "God is bad for allowing the the consequence of choosing falsity to be death." People who go to hell choose to go there.
I love any arguments that treat biblical texts as historical texts rather than necessarily of divine revelation. I haven't read through all of your links, but even the first one still resorts to the same circular arguments that you're mocking. To justify the credibility of God as a Christian God, the writer in the first link still cites the New Testament Book of Acts saying that God would prove Jesus' personal claims through resurrection. Even if I took Jesus' resurrection as historical fact, why does that mean that he is God's true judge? Because the New Testament says so? But it was written by people after Jesus had already been resurrected.
Also, I find that biblical historians sometimes like to latch on to the dearth of credible sources as a sign of its credibility. For example, Jesus' empty tomb was witnessed by a group of women, and no secular historical sources confirm this or a resurrection event, and this is supposed to increase the historical credibility because if the story were made up, why wouldn't they pretend someone more credible than a group of women had witnessed the empty tomb?
I am happy to accept the New Testament as historical record of Jesus' existence, but I'm not as ready to accept it as historical record of his resurrection. Resurrection is a literal miracle and is beyond what I would ordinarily consider possible. That's not to say that I would say for certain that it is impossible, but I personally would like better evidence of such an event than two thousand year old historically recorded hearsay. I would be far more receptive to Jesus' message if he deemed it appropriate to reveal himself now. I don't think I'm being unreasonably skeptical, so it would be nice if I didn't have to burn in hell for that.
No, the argument implied by his pic is what makes his reply an argument.
trying to prove it to himself
It's not a choice if it's coercion.
What do you mean "choose truth"? If god is real and there is reason to believe that, then fine, one choosing truth will be led to that belief. Where comes the part where his existence demands obedience and service? Even if divine punishment and hell is written into the laws of universe, that is god's own morality. An intelligent being comes to their own understanding of right and wrong. No matter how much you threaten them with torture, you don't overcome their ability and right to their own perspective. There is on objective morality, because a being always has to take the step of accepting or rejecting for themself.
Maybe if god wanted loyal slaves, he should have just made robots. Not conscious life.
A god judging people to hell is not them choosing to go there.
> Catholism
delete that inept shit m8
The Bibble might not have had one writer, but it certainly had a few editors.
You shouldn't confuse epistemic possibility for truth, or even probability. There's an infinite number of other possible motivations, such as correction of misconception or exposure of truth to the confused. Just assuming "You're only saying or doing that because of this.." is a circumstantial ad hominem.
"Cohercion" connotes coercing toward falsity, which, aside from being an implicit faulty syllogism, is obviously contradictory to a God who wants people to know the truth. You are implying that Christianity is a lie, are resentful of being condemned for doing so, and are then concluding that such condemnation somehow supports your position. It's a classic case of begging the question. You need to learn to see past your own butthurt, because it seems that's the only thing that will really be sending you to hell.
coercion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Where does that connote falsity? I specifically made the case that even if Christianity is true, it doesn't justify or compel worship.
How does truth mean service and subjugation?
I would say you need to learn to see what someone actually says instead of reinterpreting it to reinforce your bias.
Also stop misusing fallacies.
appeal to definition. Why would you imply connotations are necessarily apart of words' definitions? It should occur to you that you are grasping as straws. Search your butthurt; you know it to be true.
Tell me then, how is one supposed to use words if they can't use them for their meaning?
Search these posts, you know you haven't addressed any of my points.
As a side question, do you really think it's convincing to tell people "You know I'm right and everything you're saying just means you're too scared to admit it."
Those of us searching for truth can recognize the tactics of deceivers.
>Tell me then, how is one supposed to use words if they can't use them for their meaning?
red herring. I didn't say nor imply this.
I don't know if god is real or not, I do not care either way. Existence after death does not concern me in the slightest. I live for myself and the people I care for and know. I live for the past, future, and present as time is the one thing that keeps me in place.
You can believe what ever you want to believe and I will respect it. If God or any of his followers descends from Heaven, well then I would at least know its real. It would not drive me to worship him in anyway though.
strawman. deflection.
>Sentencing someone to hell for not believing in you is wrong, very wrong.
Since when are atheists doomed to burn in hell? From what I was taught, Christianity is a tolerant religion and God loves all people, including atheists.
>option one : go with g*d, accidentally fuck up somewhere in life due to the flawed human you are, end up tortured in hell
>option two : prove your allegiance to the devil, live an excellent earthly life, proceed to exist calmly in hell for the rest of your existence since you're on his side
gee, I really do wonder which option would a rational person go with
The strain of Christianity I grew up around always put it that the main qualification is accepting Jesus as your savior.
>People who go to hell choose to go there.
Except that so called "God" doesn't actually do anything, so the only way for people to learn about him is for Christians to teach people. Except Christians just so happen to be total retards when it comes to making convincing arguments, so most of the time the only people they can convince are their own children.
Religion is the moral equivalent of a CEO assassinating civilians who refuse to buy his salesmen's products.
So even morally being a good person your whole life, you will still go to hell because you didn't praise a man? Since I didn't praise a man and buy his propaganda I won't get into the place a he made for those that kiss his feet? We slaves now?
>a book that references itself...
must be supernatural!
>Talking with Christian friend
>"Dude Jesus proved so many prophecies true, it's crazy?"
>Really? That's actually kinda neat
>Do some research
>They're all prophecies in the Old Testament
That is stupid as fuck to be honest. Of course the writers of the new Testament wanted to provide biblical legitimacy to Christ, so why not take common, well known """prophecies""" and say he dun didem?
Seriously, I would have accepted prophecies laid out by Buddhists or Hindu's or something that doesn't just insist upon itself
>Search these posts, you know you haven't addressed any of my points.
As far as I can tell, you haven't made any points that aren't fallacious.
>As a side question, do you really think it's convincing to tell people "You know I'm right and everything you're saying just means you're too scared to admit it."
red herring. This wasn't said nor implied as an argument. It is understandable not to appreciate non-argument autistic screeching from someone who clearly is either butthurt, or lacks any ability to think logically. If anyone is deceiving anyone, it's you yourself.
>strawman
fallacy fallacy. Are you implying that your quote is not of OP? What is a deflection? I presume you mean purposeful non-addressing of your non-argument? The only thing that can be done about non-arguments, is for them to be cited as fallacious.
Yes but coercion doesn't imply you force someone to do something that is "untrue". That word does not have that connotation.
>As a side question, do you really think it's convincing to tell people "You know I'm right and everything you're saying just means you're too scared to admit it."
false equivocation. Accepting Jesus/God isn't necessarily equivalent to "buying a salesmen's products." Your assertion is self-assuming and begs the question. Obviously, the implications of accepting or denying truth taught by God, and accepting or denying God, are non-trivial, apparently to the point that if you choose to be a sneering, retarded atheist, and try to convince other people to follow down your ill-conceived path of nihilism, there are appropriate consequences.
>So even morally being a good person your whole life, you will still go to hell because you didn't praise a man?
No. It isn't possible to be morally good and reject God, or even to be morally good. "Moral goodness" necessitates an absense of evil. You are not absent of evil. And God isn't a man, nor was Jesus just a man.
Was this retarded contention not addressed in the OP? This is a false equivocation. The bible is many books...
It merely connotes untruthfulness, which is contradictory to a God who wants people to know Him and the truth.
>just believe
No one can possibly be this retarded.
Is there a difference between this and "Listen and believe"?
Please answer.
forgot to delete last quote, obviously. ignore it.
I'll bite, what points of mine are fallacious, and how are op's not?
>This wasn't said nor implied as an argument.
"You need to learn to see past your own butthurt, because it seems that's the only thing that will really be sending you to hell."
Yes, it's implied in most of what he's saying. I suppose you know that, because you're talking like him. He says right there, it's the truth and my arguments are just the symptom of being butthurt.
Real logical to ignore someone's arguments and tell them they're wrong because you've assumed you're right.
God's existence is evident to the point that one should and could 'just believe.' The arguments exist because atheists don't actually not believe God exists so much as they reject God and lie about it.
>I'll bite, what points of mine are fallacious, and how are op's not?
They were already pointed out. I believe at least one fallacy was cited for each of your posts.
>Yes, it's implied in most of what he's saying.
It's an aside after the actual argument. It's perfectly fair to presume someone's motivation after an argument's been made.
>He says right there, it's the truth and my arguments are just the symptom of being butthurt.
It does seem this way not just with you, but all atheists who seemingly purposely don't listen to reason, but only proceed to submit one non-argument after another.
>Real logical to ignore someone's arguments and tell them they're wrong because you've assumed you're right.
Citing fallacies pertaining to each of your arguments isn't ignoring them.
Simulation theory deism is objectively the most correct religion
>Life is a simulation of life, therefore life is only a simulation
is self-refuting; the conclusion necessitates there is no such thing as life of which there would be a simulation. Simulation theory is for faggots who don't understand the difference between information processing and understanding.
>What do you mean "choose truth"? If god is real and there is reason to believe that, then fine, one choosing truth will be led to that belief. Where comes the part where his existence demands obedience and service? Even if divine punishment and hell is written into the laws of universe, that is god's own morality. An intelligent being comes to their own understanding of right and wrong. No matter how much you threaten them with torture, you don't overcome their ability and right to their own perspective. There is on objective morality, because a being always has to take the step of accepting or rejecting for themself.
>Maybe if god wanted loyal slaves, he should have just made robots. Not conscious life.
>A god judging people to hell is not them choosing to go there.
Nope, he/you didn't address this. Instead he latched on to 'coercion' and insisted that meant I was saying it was deceit.
That is why just calling it appeal to definition doesn't work. So what if maybe someone could use it to connote deceit? I didn't use it that way, it was clear in context I didn't, and I even clarified I didn't.
>Search these posts, you know you haven't addressed any of my points.
>As a side question, do you really think it's convincing to tell people "You know I'm right and everything you're saying just means you're too scared to admit it."
Didn't answer this.
And neither of you are using red herring right.
But well done, because now here we are talking about the conversation and fallacies instead of the actual argument. Nice diversion.
>Nope, he/you didn't address this.
True, I didn't even read it, actually. Once I saw how off the first statement was, I ignored the rest of the post.
If it is possible to deny apparent truth, then truth requires choice. It is possible to deny apparent truth. Therefore truth requires choice.
>Where comes the part where his existence demands obedience and service?
It is simply the case that He wants us to live righteously. The "obedience and service" is nothing more than conforming to truth and rejecting falsity, e.g. sin.
>No matter how much you threaten them with torture, you don't overcome their ability and right to their own perspective.
Just because you believe there is inherent right to one's own perspective, doesn't mean consequence of that perspective isn't justified. If God were to condemn people for nothing but pure ignorance, then I might agree with you. However, people are condemned for explicitly rejecting God - not because of ignorance.
>>Maybe if god wanted loyal slaves, he should have just made robots. Not conscious life.
Clearly the implications of people choosing to accept God and repent from their sins is meaningful enough not to settle just for robots.
>>A god judging people to hell is not them choosing to go there.
This is merely a rejection of God's authority. If what God says is right is right and if what he says is wrong is wrong, then anyone choosing not to conform to that is choosing to go to hell. If God is the perfect being - creator of everything and perfectly good - it follows that what he says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong.
>Didn't answer this.
because it's a red herring and a straw man. Your quote is not the argument. I do agree that condescention may not be the best for convincing someone, but I prefer it over playing a mary-go-round game with someone who doesn't listen. It also only follows arguments. It is not condescention -as- an argument.
>And neither of you are using red herring right.
A red herring is anything irrelevant. It tends to be a broader term for more specific fallacies.
>But well done, because now here we are talking about the conversation and fallacies instead of the actual argument. Nice diversion.
>You've pointed out my fallacies therefore you are diverting/deflecting.
Come up with an actual argument, then.
gg
You've inspired a new argument from me against the problem of evil, lol. Thanks:
Rejection of God because of evil or hell is a rejection of His authority, and is thus a rejection of His existence. Therefore rejection of God because of evil or hell begs the question, because it presupposes the Christian God doesn't exist.
I'll work this out in numerical form with any necessary implicit premises and post...
>The arguments exist because atheists don't actually not believe God exists so much as they reject God and lie about it.
pretty much this
Best I can do without being bothered:
1. To accept God's authority is to accept all that exists or happens.
2. Evil and hell exist or happen.
3. To reject evil or hell is to reject God's authority.
4. God, by definition, has supreme authority.
5. To reject God's authority is to reject God.
6. If rejecting God because of evil or hell requires rejecting God, then the conclusion that God should be rejected is assumed by the premises.
7. Therefore rejecting God because of evil or hell begs the question.
8. Arguments that beg the question are invalid.
9. Therefore rejecting God because of evil or hell is not sound reasoning.
>Once I saw how off the first statement was, I ignored the rest of the post.
So basically, once you saw you didn't like it you felt you didn't have to address or think about it.
You continue to misuse fallacies, all the while being illogical. And you can't just call things you don't like strawmen and herrings. And then after even admitting you weren't considering arguments, you say you don't like to play games with people who won't listen. Sound like projection to you?
It takes evidence and logic to arrive at truth, rationality is laws of this. Ridiculous to proclaim to someone that something is just the truth, because all information gets filtered through these for someone to determine whether it is true. You can't bypass that.
If a god, then he surely knows this. He would know you can't just tell someone "it's the truth" because he made them smart enough to understand how reasoning works.
>Just because you believe there is inherent right to one's own perspective, doesn't mean consequence of that perspective isn't justified.
The thing is there is no skipping past perspective, without going in and hacking the brain.
If someone says "No thanks, god, you can keep your love, I'm just going to mind my own business" and they go live a nice life as a nice person, and then are condemned because god decides there is no goodness without him... that is basically political persecution.
>Just because you believe there is inherent right to one's own perspective, doesn't mean consequence of that perspective isn't justified...
Yeah, what you're saying is within the confine of my main argument. You haven't given a logical account why everyone must accept god's standards as right beyond his threat of torture.
I don't know why you keep conflating truth and rightness, as though you can't understand they're different concepts.
Finally, it doesn't follow that authority is justified. That's a new claim you're making. You should unpack the words right and good.
>As a side question
No. This is a conversation, not a five paragraph essay. Saying additional things doesn't detract from what else was said.
I was talking about the conversation, and you're going to call that irrelevant? Again, you seem to be fond of projection and distraction tactics.
I know you're probably trolling but I haven't minded.
>So basically, once you saw you didn't like it you felt you didn't have to address or think about it.
No, this is a false equivocation. Being off-put by invalid reasoning != only not liking it. Once I saw that your argument was invalid, it was reasonable to assume it's possible that you make a habit of posing invalid arguments, and thus is was reasonable not to care to read the rest of what you had to say, at that moment.
>You continue to misuse fallacies, all the while being illogical.
I simply don't. You continue to appeal to assertion - asserting over and over again that I'm wrong somehow, without supporting your assertions. I will now ignore the rest until the next quote.
>and they go live a nice life as a nice person, and then are condemned because god decides there is no goodness without him
This, again, presupposes God doesn't exist. If God exists, what He decides is truth, by definition, and thus anyone who rejects God cannot "live a nice life as a nice person" if this is supposed to be equivalent to "be a good person." Otherwise it's just a false equivocation. It does not matter if one is a "nice person" if they are evil. Being "nice" is entirely irrelevant to truth, and implying otherwise is really just an appeal to emotion and akin to libtard thinking.
>You haven't given a logical account why everyone must accept god's standards as right beyond his threat of torture.
Not to do so is to presuppose He doesn't exist or to accept hell as a consequence of their rejection. A non-existent God can't "threaten torture," so your contention is of no consequence.
>Finally, it doesn't follow that authority is justified. That's a new claim you're making.
If God is objectively right, then anything and everything He does is justified. If you're asserting that God isn't necessarily objectively right, to superimpose your own notions of what's right, is not an argument. Why are your notions of morality more correct than a God, if He exists?
>Saying additional things doesn't detract from what else was said.
What's your point?
>I was talking about the conversation, and you're going to call that irrelevant?
You were bitching about how the conversation is now about the conversation, and now you're pulling a 360 and accusing me of saying that?
>allofmywut.jpg
>Again, you seem to be fond of projection and distraction tactics.
Ugh, where and how?
You somehow this amazing ability to type a bunch of words and say absolutely nothing. Say something meaningful.
>I love any arguments that treat biblical texts as historical texts rather than necessarily of divine revelation.
some of them are meant to be read as historical texts, witness testimonies, like the gospels.
>no secular historical sources confirm this or a resurrection event
it would be tough to be secular if they believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ
non-christian historians do maintain Christ's followers actually believed they witnessed a resurrection though:
>Gerd Ludermann: "It may be taken has historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."
>Bart Ehrman: "We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that [...] he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead."
>Bart Ehrman: "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."
>Paula Fredriksen: "I know in their terms what they saw was the raised Jesus [...] I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know [...] as a historian that they must have seen something."
>No, the argument implied by his pic is what makes his reply an argument.
There is no argument implied by his pic. Obviously, that was the point.
>I love any arguments that treat biblical texts as historical texts rather than necessarily of divine revelation.
false dichotomy
>no secular historical sources confirm this or a resurrection event
Being that this is irrelevant, you're implying a false equivocation between "confirm this or a resurrection event happened" and "confirm evidence of this or a resurrection event happened." This is simply demonstrably false. kudos on lying to imply an ad hominem, though :^) The subtlety and deceit is almost impressive.
>If rejecting God because of evil or hell requires rejecting God, then the conclusion that God should be rejected is assumed by the premises.
This assumes you start by accepting god as default. I assume you have to first go through the filter of rationality to come to believe in him, and then to accept him as good and legitimate authority.
That is what I mean by inability to transcend perspective. A person comes onto this planet knowing nothing, learns through experience and evidence and logic, and uses that to make their beliefs.
It isn't that someone rejects god, but that they haven't first accepted it. Even if you believe there is a god, you would have to agree with his conception of good and with the other issues I mentioned of him having legitimate authority.
>God, by definition, has supreme authority.
And this is another thing you haven't defined well. You know these are pretty big philosophical issues to even decide on a conception of god and good and right and truth?
>This assumes you start by accepting god as default.
No, it doesn't. It is not a dichotomy. Agnosticism is possible.
>I assume you have to first go through the filter of rationality to come to believe in him, and then to accept him as good and legitimate authority.
Those are equivalent, by definition of "God."
>A person comes onto this planet knowing nothing
>It isn't that someone rejects god, but that they haven't first accepted it.
You're describing a state of mind, not making an argument. If "rejection" is equivalent to "non-acceptance," it still follows that rejecting God because He (remember He doesn't exist lol) allows evil and hell.
>Even if you believe there is a god, you would have to agree with his conception of good and with the other issues I mentioned of him having legitimate authority.
I adequately if not thoroughly refuted all of your submitted "issues."
>And this is another thing you haven't defined well. You know these are pretty big philosophical issues to even decide on a conception of god and good and right and truth?
Ugh, now you're appealing to vague definition? I mean the excepted, standard definition of "God" - which happens to be the Christian God in this forum. But of course, you already know that, don't you? You're simply trying to deny the Principle of Charity: en.wikipedia.org
Who's "diverting" or deflecting, now?
You, again, are saying almost absolutely nothing. You need to rewrite the program that compiles your auto-responses, or perhaps learn to think. Maybe this is why some Christians contend that people can only be shown God through love and not logic?
it still follows that rejecting God because He (remember He doesn't exist lol) allows evil and hell is unsound reasoning*
...and begs the question
>There is no "bible writer."
tertullian.org
Please try again, but thank you for playing.
>he said "Please try again, but thank you for playing" and posted a link that's either irrelevant or contradicts the well-known, undeniable fact that the bible has 40 authors.
Oh shit. Pack up, folks. It's over.
No, I can't read you're mind on what powers you ascribe to god, what omnipotence means to you, whether you think the universe is determinstic and predestined, etc. That was my point, there are a lot of assumptions and nuances that are not clear between us yet.
I've tried to put your argument into logic.
accept(godauthority)->(exists(x)->accept(x))
exists(hell)
-accept(hell)
|- -(exists(x)->accept(x))
|- -accept(godauthority)
-accept(godauthority)->-accept(god)
|- -accept(god)
This is how I see the nonacceptance:
disagree(hell)->-accept(hell)
You disagree with it for some reason or other, so you don't accept it. That gives the premise -accept(hell). Then what is concluded is just that you don't accept god.
I don't see how that begs the question. To reject god is the act of rejecting god, it doesn't require one to prereject him.
>No, I can't read you're mind on what powers you ascribe to god, what omnipotence means to you, whether you think the universe is determinstic and predestined, etc.
Irrelevant.
>That was my point, there are a lot of assumptions and nuances that are not clear between us yet.
Irrelevant.
What is "|-"? And I assume by "-" you mean a negation. I'll mull over this convolution and try to find your mistake and possibly write my argument in similar fashion.
>"|-"
It's entailed
Talking to christians is like trying to play chess against a pigeon.
Bumping a good OP
Now, before you can accept god, you have to believe in god and following that you have to accept his judgement/agree with it. With the way things are being as they should be, with him being good, and with him being legitmate authority over our lives. I see each of those four as a separate step.
Reasonable belief, acceptance of way things are, from that acceptance of his moral judgement, and then separately or possibly following depending on what his way is, one determines whether intelligent conscious minds with will should be obedient/subject to this god.
I translated your argument to words for ease of interpretation (One wonders why you didn't do this in the first place):
>if you accept God's authority, then (if God exists, then you accept Him)
>hell exists
>you don't accept hell
>then it is not the case that if God exists, then you accept Him
>then you don't accept God's authority
>if you don't accept God's authority, then you don't accept God
>then you don't accept God
This is wrong at premise 1. This is like two non sequiturs, and is not my argument. If God exists, it is not necessarily the case that you accept Him. If you accept God's authority, it is not necessarily the case that if God exists, you accept him.
Will write what argument is in similar fashion.
A pigeon.
Symbolic logic is meant to be clearer than normal language. You mistranslated the first premise into english.
It isn't (if god exists then you accept him) but rather (if something exists then you accept it). As you put it, accepting all that exists. So if you accept godauthority, then if something exists then you accept it.
Your being used to make money. Those churches charge dues. You got tricked into working for free. Your waisting your life
>ITT: Witless fucks whose only conception of spiritual justice is "Amoral free-for-all" or "Infinite eternal torture"
Millions of people who have had near-death experiences have reported the "Life Review," which is where you relive every shitty thing you've done through the experience of the people you've done it to. So if you stole a bar of candy as a kid, you'd experience the slight frustration of the store clerk as he noticed his ledgers didn't add up. You would not experience an infinity of torment for said crime because you forgot to apologize to Jesus for it.
There's also the Buddhist (and arguably Biblical) teaching that this world itself is Hell, and you are "tormented" by continually reincarnating in it. So either you become "Godly" enough to escape the cycle of worldly reincarnation, or you fix the problem by making the world itself less shit (The latter is the most redpilled and pro-NatSoc spiritual belief, you build a Thousand-Year Reich because you yourself will be reincarnating in it for all those thousand years).
If not God's authority, then not God
(If not God's authority, then not God) then not God's authority and not God.
This is your argument and apparently it's this simple. The conclusion begs the question and is a non sequitur.
>Symbolic logic is meant to be clearer than normal language.
To whom? 4channers? No, I don't think you think that. It's more likely you were trying to be convoluted or rhetorically intimidating.
>It isn't (if god exists then you accept him) but rather (if something exists then you accept it)
Obviously, this is still false and not my argument.
>As you put it, accepting all that exists.
Where did you get this nonsense? I did not say that.
>So if you accept godauthority, then if something exists then you accept it.
non sequitur. It doesn't follow that if one accepts God's authority, then they accept all things that exist. Why would you think this follows?
There are rules against cruel and usual punishment. The punishment needs to match the crime. Your god is unamerican
>To accept God's authority is to accept all that exists or happens.
Don't descend into farce. These are your words. If you accept God's authority, you accept all that exists.
If it exists, you accept it.
Thus accept(godauthority)->(exists(x)->accept(x))
Stop trying to play with pigeon, cutie.
Acceptance implies awareness. Thus if you accept God's authority, you accept all that exists, does not imply if it if it exists, you accept it. It implies if it exists and you're aware of it, you accept it.
What can I say, I guess I just like the challenge
Poker is a challenge. Dice is just luck.
Perhaps accept(godauthority)->(exists(x)^aware(exists(x))->accept(x))
I'll change the numbered argument accordingly for no confusion during future atheist beatdowns.
Depends on what you believe "damnation" is. I'm becoming more and more convinced that damnation is a state of mind, not a place with fire and brimstone. Damnation is a state a person gets in where they cannot ascend to a higher state of being and it's 100% self-inflicted.
With our human bodies in this life we cannot remember or even comprehend every wrong we've done yet people still try to run away. Imagine if you had perfect knowledge of everything. Many people will be crushed.
No purposeful* confusion and purposely not being charitable because you're an evil, butthurt atheist*