Do you do any of these things that are banned in the Bible?

[Aruntraveller]

I realise that you would rather that humanity was robotic without any opportunity to do its own thing, but we aren't.

Nothing to do with the beloved robots so often trundled out - metaphorically speaking - by the deity's defenders when faced with a question they can't answer.

It really is perfectly simple.

You presumably think that the deity in which you believe is powerful enough to magic a universe into being out of nothing and to perform parlour tricks such as enabling a virgin to give birth and corpses to come back to life; but when it comes to being able to get across its message to its human creation in an absolutely crystal-clear, transparent way which doesn't allow for ambiguity or error or any other kind of unclarity, its supposed powers suddenly desert it and we're left with a hodge-podge of differing translations, frequently mutually contradictory, in a multiplicity of human languages, made by fallible, information-limited humans who may have an agenda to advance.

Why is that, exactly, in your view? I know full well what my explanation is, but I'm asking you for yours.

the 'unanswered question' you refer to has been answered numerous times by a variety of posters here, including some who have no religious belief.

I haven't seen any such answer. Can you point to me to where this matter has been answered, please?

Shaker I refer you to a post I received when I asked for similar clarification (it'll save you time):

Quote from: Trentvoyager on August 10, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Could you point me to one?
If I had the time, I could probably find several, Trent, but I'm not minded to waste my time on such a process, just to satisfy your uncertainty over your posting record.

[Shaker]

Thank you trent 

[Hope]

On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.

And your evidence for these assertions is ...?  As a Christian, I would argue that the fact that you exist is sufficient evidence. 

[Leonard James]

On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.

And your evidence for these assertions is ...?  As a Christian, I would argue that the fact that you exist is sufficient evidence. 

I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". 

[Hope]

Thank you trent 

Shaker, you claimed that it was an 'unanswered point', so the burden of proof lies with you to show that it hasn't been answered.

[floo]

Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!

Phwoooaar.

Now, now dear, you will be needing a larger size in pants!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!

Phwoooaar.

Now, now dear, you will be needing a larger size in pants!

.....I'm not sure whether to respond to that with my Sid James laugh...........or my Len James laugh.

[Owlswing]

On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.

And your evidence for these assertions is ...?  As a Christian, I would argue that the fact that you exist is sufficient evidence. 

I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". 

Love it! Applause for LJ

[Leonard James]

Thank you trent 

Shaker, you claimed that it was an 'unanswered point', so the burden of proof lies with you to show that it hasn't been answered.

Good luck with that, Shakes! Finding non-existent answers, might even tax your ingenuity! 

[Hope]

I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". 

I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.  Or are you saying that the Crompton incandescent light bulb that is sitting on my desk alongside my keyboard is Crompton's doing and has no connection to Thomas Edison and Lewis Latimer?

[floo]

I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". 

I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.  Or are you saying that the Crompton incandescent light bulb that is sitting on my desk alongside my keyboard is Crompton's doing and has no connection to Thomas Edison and Lewis Latimer?

The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much!

[Shaker]

Thank you trent 

Shaker, you claimed that it was an 'unanswered point', so the burden of proof lies with you to show that it hasn't been answered.

I said I have seen no such answers, hence "unanswered."

You allege that it has been answered here by somebody, sometime. (In fact, according to you, "numerous times by a variety of posters," presumably making a link or two even easier to find).

I ask for a pointer as to who and where.

You dodge the question entirely just as you did with trent and come up with a feeble and contemptible excuse and even feebler and even more contemptible attempt at shifting the burden of proof onto me.

Who is amazed? Not this chappy.

[Shaker]

I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.

Well this is intellectual wankery on a variety of levels, isn't it?

You can demonstrate, with evidence, that parents create children.

Adding "God" into the process provides absolutely no information or explanation since it adds nothing of any explanatory power whatsoever. (I do mean real and actual explanatory power, not the pseudo version beloved of theists). There's no new, extra information or explanation after you've introduced the term than before. So it gets sliced up - or rather off - by Occam's Razor from the off.

The concept of God has no cogent and coherent definition, i.e. anything rigorous, anything beyond the permanently shifting sands of what this or that theist subjectively thinks his god is.

Last of all - I knew you wouldn't let us down with yet another deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance which you have taken so dearly and closely to heart.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.

Well this is intellectual wankery on a variety of levels, isn't it?

You can demonstrate, with evidence, that parents create children.

Adding "God" into the process provides absolutely no information or explanation since it adds nothing of any explanatory power whatsoever.(I do mean real and actual explanatory power, not the pseudo version beloved of theists). There's no new, extra information or explanation after you've introduced the term than before. So it gets sliced up - or rather off - by Occam's Razor from the off.

The concept of God has no cogent and coherent definition, i.e. anything rigorous, anything beyond the permanently shifting sands of what this or that theist subjectively thinks his god is.

Last of all - I knew you wouldn't let us down with yet another deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance which you have taken so dearly and closely to heart.

How do you get from ''sperm fertilises egg'' to ''god doesn't exist''?? Shaker.....now THAT sounds like intellectual wankery.

[Shaker]

How do you get from ''sperm fertilises egg'' to ''god doesn't exist''?? Shaker.....now THAT sounds like intellectual wankery.

It would have been, if that's what I had written.

But I didn't.

Try reading what's actually there on the screen in front of you instead of what you think is there.

[Nearly Sane]

How do you get from ''sperm fertilises egg'' to ''god doesn't exist''?? Shaker.....now THAT sounds like intellectual wankery.

It would have been, if that's what I had written.

But I didn't.

Try reading what's actually there on the screen in front of you instead of what you think is there.

Tsk, tsk, Vlad doesn't need to read what you have writtten, he simply jizzes all over a ouija board and makes up posts from the bespunked letters.

[Hope]

The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much!

Where do you get the idea that the deity played voyeur? To revisit my analogy of the light-bulb, Edison and Latimer wouldn't have seen the light-bulb being created, but without them it may well not have been created.

[Hope]

Well this is intellectual wankery on a variety of levels, isn't it?

You can demonstrate, with evidence, that parents create children.

One can also demonstrate that children can be created without any parents' sexual involvement.

Adding "God" into the process provides absolutely no information or explanation since it adds nothing of any explanatory power whatsoever.(I do mean real and actual explanatory power, not the pseudo version beloved of theists). There's no new, extra information or explanation after you've introduced the term than before. So it gets sliced up - or rather off - by Occam's Razor from the off.

Oddly enough, it does, Shaker.  It explains where humanity itself originated from.  I appreciate that you see an intentionless universe around you whereby evolution occurred with no purpose, so you simply see humanity and other forms of life developing accidentally.  I do not hold to that philosophy.

The concept of God has no cogent and coherent definition, i.e. anything rigorous, anything beyond the permanently shifting sands of what this or that theist subjectively thinks his god is.

Again, you make a huge generalisation which effectively invalidates your argument.  With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.  OK, some will believe that that 'means' is by means of special creation; others by a form of evolution; others still by other means.

Last of all - I knew you wouldn't let us down with yet another deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance which you have taken so dearly and closely to heart.

And I was pretty sure that you couldn't resist the deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance argument - so thanks for not failing to do so.  May I remind you that even the greatest scientific minds have no idea how humanity along with the rest of the life, the universe and everything originally came into being, so at best, your argument is no less from a "negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance" perspective.

[Hope]

I said I have seen no such answers, hence "unanswered."

Oh, I see.  I'm sorry that I have failed to understand your 'omniscience' whereby, if you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist.

[Leonard James]

I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". 

I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.  Or are you saying that the Crompton incandescent light bulb that is sitting on my desk alongside my keyboard is Crompton's doing and has no connection to Thomas Edison and Lewis Latimer?

The difference being, of course, that the all characters involved in the light bulb analogy are all well documented and proven to have existed, whereas there is zero evidence for the prime mover, "God", in your analogy.

Care to try again?

[Shaker]

One can also demonstrate that children can be created without any parents' sexual involvement.

Then do so.

I mean, obviously you won't, because you don't substantiate any of your assertions. Trent pointed that out a day or two ago, only to be told that you "weren't minded" to do it.

Gordon, Rhiannon and I are still dying to know what you think were or are the "good reasons" why homosexuality was "viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" on a thread which we know you've visited because you've subsequently posted on it.

Clearly, you're not in the assertion-substantiating business; but you can't say that you weren't given every chance.

Oddly enough, it does, Shaker.

No it doesn't.

It explains where humanity itself originated from.

This is precisely the pseudo-explanation beloved of theists that I was referring to. For an explanation actually to be an explanation, it has some explaining to do (as it were), not mere asserting. That God explains anything is an assertion, not an explanation. A good explanation - I mean, one that actually explains, not asserts - is like a chain where one link is joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another ... and so on, such that there's a consistent linkage, an interconnected series of steps between the beginning of the chain (the thing to be explained) and its end (the explanation). In your case, the chain has no first link, is invisible, intangible, can't be heard, can't be tasted, can't be smelt, in fact in every possible way is indistinguishable from a nonexistent chain ... genius 
 

I appreciate that you see an intentionless universe around you whereby evolution occurred with no purpose, so you simply see humanity and other forms of life developing accidentally.

Almost wholly correct but not quite. Life develops according to evolution by natural selection, which is only partially accidental.

I do not hold to that philosophy.

Yes, we know, but your reasons for holding to the philosophy that you do hold to are vacuous. Mine is the minimal, conservative position; as Daniel Harbour would put it, my worldview is the Spartan meritocracy whereas yours is the Baroque monarchy.

Again, you make a huge generalisation which effectively invalidates your argument.  With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.

This is merely a hand-waving pseudo-explanatory belief which no rational person need take seriously, as per my third response above.

OK, some will believe that that 'means' is by means of special creation

Which is evidence-free trash.

others by a form of evolution

Which is yet another example of tacking on a theistic pseudo-explanation which adds absolutely no information whatsoever to what is already reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence. A fifth wheel on the cart, in other words: it's there but it does nothing and is just dead weight. Adds nothing, explains nothing, says nothing, means nothing. At all.

May I remind you that even the greatest scientific minds have no idea how humanity along with the rest of the life, the universe and everything originally came into being, so at best, your argument is no less from a "negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance" perspective.

We know how humanity came into being; as for the rest - origin of life, origin of universe etc. - I'm making no positive statement about them so you can't claim that I'm deploying your dearly beloved negative proof fallacy. Where did I even mention the origins of life and the universe? Where did you see me do so? Do theists like you and Vlad go to a special theistic computer equipment shop down some dingy back alley somewhere and buy special theistic computer equipment which puts in extra words or sentences over and above what's written by the person at the other end, so that you reply to what appears on your screens and not what's actually written on mine? I have to assume so, because Vlad did it a little earlier and you've just done it now.

Making shit up, the hallmark of theism ever since theism.

And one more thing:

http://goo.gl/WgGyYU

 

[Andy]

With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.

When you look at this, do you begin to understand why it makes no odds to atheists (like me anyway) whether Jesus was resurrected or not when you're using it as evidence for a god?

[Hope]

With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.

When you look at this, do you begin to understand why it makes no odds to atheists (like me anyway) whether Jesus was resurrected or not when you're using it as evidence for a god?

No I don't, especially as I don't use the resurrection as evidence for a god.  If anything, my thought process is the other way round, as my post explained.

[Hope]

One can also demonstrate that children can be created without any parents' sexual involvement.

Then do so.

The most obvious is IVF, Shaker, something that I'm sure you have a fairly good understanding of.

Gordon, Rhiannon and I are still dying to know what you think were or are the "good reasons" why homosexuality was "viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" on a thread which we know you've visited because you've subsequently posted on it.

Not quite sure about you - but Gordon and Rhi have both been involved in threads where this issue has been covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board.   So bringing them on board as make-weights to your opinion doesn't really cut it.  However, I would suggest that you too have been involved in similar threads (if not exactly the same ones) bearing mind you've been a member of this board since 2011 (albeit not continually). 

This kind of pseudo-ignorance does you and your argument no favours.

Oddly enough, it does, Shaker.

No it doesn't.

It explains where humanity itself originated from.

This is precisely the pseudo-explanation beloved of theists that I was referring to. For an explanation actually to be an explanation, it has some explaining to do (as it were), not mere asserting. That God explains anything is an assertion, not an explanation. A good explanation - I mean, one that actually explains, not asserts - is like a chain where one link is joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another ... and so on, such that there's a consistent linkage, an interconnected series of steps between the beginning of the chain (the thing to be explained) and its end (the explanation). In your case, the chain has no first link, is invisible, intangible, can't be heard, can't be tasted, can't be smelt, in fact in every possible way is indistinguishable from a nonexistent chain ... genius 

I accept that you may believe that there is no 'first link' as you call it, but there are many who do not agree with you. 

Its worth pointing out that the 'explanations' that you and others here quite happily give for the existence of life and everything, and expect others to accept, fail on the very same point that  you are trying to convince me about.
 

Yes, we know, but your reasons for holding to the philosophy that you do hold to are vacuous. Mine is the minimal, conservative position; as Daniel Harbour would put it, my worldview is the Spartan meritocracy whereas yours is the Baroque monarchy.

If that is the case, why is your 'Spartan meritocracy' so complex and dependent on so many links that are only surmised?  Minimalist?  Nah.

others by a form of evolution

Which is yet another example of tacking on a theistic pseudo-explanation which adds absolutely no information whatsoever to what is already reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence.[/quote]So 'reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence' that it makes no judgement on purpose, suggesting that at the best, it is somewhat mechanistic.

We know how humanity came into being; ...

We may know how they came into being (there still seem to be a number of areas where details are debated), but then if you're happy with partial knowledge like that, I suppose that's a sufficient response.  There are others aspect of existence that your 'knowledge' signally fails to even address such as  'purpose'

... as for the rest - origin of life, origin of universe etc. - I'm making no positive statement about them so you can't claim that I'm deploying your dearly beloved negative proof fallacy. Where did I even mention the origins of life and the universe? Where did you see me do so? Do theists like you and Vlad go to a special theistic computer equipment shop down some dingy back alley somewhere and buy special theistic computer equipment which puts in extra words or sentences over and above what's written by the person at the other end, so that you reply to what appears on your screens and not what's actually written on mine?

Communication doesn't exist in a vacuum.  There are elements like context, and a 'speaker's' previous utterances which one has to take into account when seeking how to understand what others 'say', in whatever form that might be.

http://goo.gl/WgGyYU

Something you seem to be good at, Shaker.

[Shaker]

The most obvious is IVF, Shaker, something that I'm sure you have a fairly good understanding of.

So much so that I'm aware it's been in existence for less than forty years - are you suggesting IVF was the means by which Jesus was made?

Not quite sure about you - but Gordon and Rhi have both been involved in threads where this issue has been covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board. So bringing them on board as make-weights to your opinion doesn't really cut it.  However, I would suggest that you too have been involved in similar threads (if not exactly the same ones) bearing mind you've been a member of this board since 2011 (albeit not continually). 

This kind of pseudo-ignorance does you and your argument no favours.

I'm not "bringing them on board as make-weights to my opinion"; I'm reminding you that they have expressed an interest in seeing you state what you think are the "good reasons" that homosexuality "has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures," a statement which you made a few days ago on this thread (August 7th 2015 at 21:09:43, to be precise). Presumably neither Gordon nor Rhiannon feel that any prior involvement in such threads where the subject of homosexuality has been "covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board" obviates a request for clarification from you this time round. Here's Gordon at 21:57:16 on the same day:

What "good reasons"?

Here's me at 22:42:46:

What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
ETA: I see Gordon has asked the same question. I'm sure he'll be every bit as interested in a reply as I am.

and in response to my post here's Rhiannon the following day (August 8th) at 10:11:35am:

I am too.

They appear not to think that having engaged in threads previously (even "covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board" ones) means that you're off the hook as regards backing up your assertion - they want to know and so do I. Are you going to provide backing for this statement, or are you not?

I accept that you may believe that there is no 'first link' as you call it, but there are many who do not agree with you.

And their disagreement is entirely and utterly baseless.

Its worth pointing out that the 'explanations' that you and others here quite happily give for the existence of life and everything, and expect others to accept, fail on the very same point that you are trying to convince me about.

Which explanations are these?
 

If that is the case, why is your 'Spartan meritocracy' so complex

It isn't. We need to have a little chat about the meaning of the word Spartan, I think ...

and dependent on so many links that are only surmised?

Such as?

So 'reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence' that it makes no judgement on purpose, suggesting that at the best, it is somewhat mechanistic.

Right .... and your point is?

We may know how they came into being (there still seem to be a number of areas where details are debated), but then if you're happy with partial knowledge like that, I suppose that's a sufficient response.

Partial knowledge is better than no knowledge at all.

There are others aspect of existence that your 'knowledge' signally fails to even address such as  'purpose'

Purposes (sic) are proximate, transient and subjective.

Something you seem to be good at, Shaker.

What is?