Posts by EdenOne

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Perry, parroting pseudo-science from a website such as AmericanVision.org, with a "Dr. Joel McDurmon" quoting from an article from the notorious UK's Daily Mail that misrepresents by miles a serious study paper “Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief” within Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, won't help you in any way.

From his facebook page: Joel McDurmon, is the author of multiple books and hundreds of articles, and regularly serves as a lecturer and preacher.

You, like many theists, prefer "alternative facts" - kinda reminds me Trump administration. Dishonest, to say the least, more than pathethic or willfully ignorant.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.
Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.

In case you didn't notice, I wasn't challenging the logic of St. Anselm's axiom; I can even agree with its logic. What I said, and you wholly ignored it, is that it actually proves that the god of christianity is no god. Why? Because I can think of a being greater than the god of Christianity. Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature. Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria, thus making the god of christianity no god at all.

You can wiggle as you want, argueing about what qualities are "greater" - they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain? Again, you are crafting a god according to your wishes. Nothing new, mankind has been doing it for millenia. Your own logic defeats your reasoning.

Actually it would make much more sense if god was capable of evil. That would make much more sense with the world we live in.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Can god change his nature? Can he be evil? Does he give himself that choice? How do you know? Was he evil in the past? Has he regreted it?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Stability is greater than instability.

Flexibility is greater than inflexibility. Choice is greater than no choice. According to St. Anselm, your god is no god.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

That means you have crafted a god according to your wishes and needs. It also means you're avoiding the question.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

John Mann, you said some pages ago:

He's bound by His nature. He can't lie or be evil, for instance.

Then you adhere to Anselm's ontological axiom, according to which:

"[god is something] that than which nothing greater can be thought"

Well, here's the thing: I can think of a being that isn't bound by anything. That would be "god" in my mind. Doesn't matter if I like that idea or not, or if I believe it or not, that's the greatest being I can think of. Yet, as per your belief, the god of christianity is bound by his nature and the impossibility of doing evil. Therefore, since he isn't the greatest thing that can be thought, the god of christianity cannot be god.

That is, if we go by your flawed logic.

7

Need help finding a quote!

by EdenOne in

i need your help please.. i remember when the book "keep yourself in god's love" was published, there were instructions (published in a km ?

) to the publishers that the book should be the second book to study with bible students, that a publisher needed not wait to finish the book to be baptized, and that the appendix was of optional study.

can you help me find such quotes in english please?

EdenOne

FOUND IT!!

KM 2009 March

Thank you

7

Need help finding a quote!

by EdenOne in

i need your help please.. i remember when the book "keep yourself in god's love" was published, there were instructions (published in a km ?

) to the publishers that the book should be the second book to study with bible students, that a publisher needed not wait to finish the book to be baptized, and that the appendix was of optional study.

can you help me find such quotes in english please?

EdenOne

Again, if someone can scan page 1 and 2 of the KM 3/09, in english, I would be very grateful.

7

Need help finding a quote!

by EdenOne in

i need your help please.. i remember when the book "keep yourself in god's love" was published, there were instructions (published in a km ?

) to the publishers that the book should be the second book to study with bible students, that a publisher needed not wait to finish the book to be baptized, and that the appendix was of optional study.

can you help me find such quotes in english please?

EdenOne

The "Truth ..." book, a.k.a. 'The blue bomb' (1968) came before the "You Can Live Forever ..." (1982) book. After this came "Knowledge ..." (1995) as the main study book. Not sure "True Peace ..." was ever a second study book. It was for sure studied in the Congregation Book Study meeting back in the day, though.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

In my view, a god that doesn't clearly, universally and unequivocally reveals himself to the creatures he requests worship from, isn't worth wasting time with.

If a god is something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", then god should be the epitome of clarity, transparency and uncontroversial truth. None of the above applies to the purported god of christianity.