Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Agreed.
I am convinced that you are not.

Well now, there is no , , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Misunderstanding.
So?
So it is your opinion that I have a misunderstanding.
My view is that I do not and that , , ,

, , ,there is no misunderstanding within the following:

"I will continue to hold the following: as applied to
atheists when their talk and conversations are
about 1 - 6
And if their conversations are NOT about 6 -12, then
I do NOT call upon them to also include 13 and 14

And its all just that simple.
This is not complicated."___JAG

``

 

Jolly Penquin,
Thanks for your comments.
I put just put your quote up there in the thread at this link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...defense-regarding-the-problem-of-evil.573658/
Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense Regarding The Problem Of Evil.
Your post up there is on the topic of the Alvin Plantinga thread.
It might turn out that we can chat a little bit over there? And it might not?
If you do not chat with me, perhaps you can chat with others?
But either way, your comment will harmonize perfectly with the Alvin Plantinga thread
and with the Opening Post of that thread and make a contribution to it.
However if your subject "takes off" here in this thread , that's cool too.

JAG

 

No worries.

 

Swensson, have you considered that you and I both
could be insane?

. . .lol . . .

Best.

JAG

, , , and just not be aware that we are?

, , ,lol , , ,


``

 

Well, that's not the bit I claim you have misunderstood. It seems to me there is an authority on what is a misunderstanding, and that is the person who said whatever it was. In this case, we asked a bunch of atheists (who would be an authority on what atheists say).

 

I didn't say it was the same gravity. Indeed, I've asked you to detail what that difference in gravity is (because I think we disagree on it), but instead, you just repeat a bunch of stuff that I haven't objected to.

What is crazy about objecting to a suggestion? I could come up with numerous humorous examples of suggestions that would be based on incorrect information or otherwise be objectionable.

I agree that you have explained this 5 million times, which sort of surprises me, because I never had a problem with this bit, but you keep explaining this instead of what I'm actually questioning.

What do you think is the criteria for taking something you believe and put it in a post (or some other expression)? If you are making a point, what do you think good practice is for what supporting expressions to append?

 

I did, there are just a lot of posts to respond to. I still have 14 tabs of stuff that I haven't got around to responding to, and they seem to grow in number.

Thanks, you post interesting things, and follow up on them well.

 

Well, not at all. You didn't link the idea of being better at handling adversity to what we "ought" to be doing. The ought part, being central to the conclusion, was missing in the support.

So it seems the problem is that we oughtn't to believe arguments that are not sound and valid. I don't think that poses any problem for me.

Nope, the ought does not follow from the is (this is the famous is/ought gap). You have to provide a value judgement to derive an ought, and in this case, you left it out (and also, that value judgement seems to be the real weirdness of the "argument").

In addition, you have been playing fast and loose with "support". For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the support, but in this case, it is entirely possible that there are other aspects, like "unloved children tend to become unhappy" which you have not covered.

So at the end of the day, you have shown no problem with the concept of argument, you've just proven that they're not useful if you do them incorrectly.

Humans may decided to believe an argument or not believe an argument, but it is not imperative. If all of humanity forgot that 2+2=4, that wouldn't make 2+2=4 incorrect, you'd just have a bunch of people who wouldn't believe it. They'd be wrong, but that's not a problem with 2+2=4, that's a problem with those people.

Very vague. The majority of arguments appeal to some form of greater good, the question is what constitutes good and why.

 

"Very vague."__Swensson

It is the best I can do.

JAG Wrote:
What about the "greater good" motive?
On Christianity the self-sacrifice of God and the Lord Jesus
resulted in Eternal Life for trillions and trillions. I am a good
Postmillennialist and believe that the human race is in its
infancy and that human history can run for a million years
hence, thus allowing time for trillions and trillions of humans
to be born and salvaged."___JAG

Swensson Replied With:
"Very vague. The majority of arguments appeal to some form
of greater good, the question is what constitutes good and
why."__Swensson

JAG Replies:
Regarding Greater Good" , , ,
All is well that ends well. And on Christianity, all ends VERY well.

"And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling
place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be
his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will
wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning
or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
___Revelation 21:3-4

a} God will dwell with them
b} humans will be His people
c} God will wipe every tear from their eyes
d} there will be no more Death
e} no more mourning
f} no more crying
g} no more pain
h} the Old Order of things has passed away.

_____

So, Swensson, All Is Well That Ends Well.

There are no secular arguments that can demonstrate that
Christianity will end up being the greater good for the entire
human race --- but nonetheless Christianity will in fact do exactly
that. You can have Faith. You do have faith. Just think of all the
things you believe to be true -- that do not have the
certainty-level of :
P1 All men are mortal
P2 Swensson is a man
C Therefore Swensson is mortal

Faith is Faith.
You already believe John 3:16 in principle.
You just have what can be called secular faith
in a lot of stuff you cannot prove to be true.

For example you cannot know t that Plantinga is wrong.
And its reasonable to think that you do NOT agree with Plantinga.
See the bolded red below.

Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense Regarding The problem Of Evil has not been defeated.

Any human that claims he can know all that would be needed to know, in order to know
that God could not possibly have good reasons to create the world as it now is -- would
have to be Omniscient -- all knowing.
■ Swensson is not Omniscient.
■ Therefore Swensson can NOT know that Alvin Plantinga is incorrect.

Plantinga says:
■ God's Omnipotence does not mean He can do anything.
■ God cannot make a square circle.
■ God cannot make 2 + 2 = 7
■ God cannot give man a Free Will that allows man to choose good or evil
and at the same time prevent man from choosing evil.

I am only using Plantinga as an example of something you believe
or disbelieve by Faith.
I am NOT announcing your position on Plantinga.
I am only claiming that regardless of the position you take
on Plantinga --- that it is a Faith based position.
So?
So Faith is Faith , , and we are back to John 3:16.

JAG

PS
The bolded red up there would have a bearing on your views
regarding what atheists have to say about 1 -14

If Alvin Plantinga is correct and if Revelation 21:3-4 is correct
then God is Omnibenevolent.

But whichever position you take on that up there is, in principle,
a Faith-based position -- just as is John 3:16

``

 

Get to 'em when you can.
No hurry.
We gotta relax.
Life is to short , , ,

Y'welcome, and thank you too.
You also post interesting stuff and follow up well.

______

Swensson, FYI, here below is one of Christendom's
most popular Bible Verses.

Bible Verse For Today
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares
the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to
harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
___Jeremiah 29:11 NIV



``

 

But I have already declared that I do not care what
atheists say. And I really do not. And I do not mean
to be hostile at all, not toward you or toward them. I don't
care what they say because it does not matter what
they say. If they mention 1 -6, I am going to request
of them they they also observe 13 and mention 14.
Its merely a request and it can be described as my:
personal:
-- request
-- view
-- opinion
-- hope
-- desire
-- belief
-- suggestion
-- expectation
-- asking

And my Opening Post never went any further than asking,
In fact I used that exact word "ask" in my opening Post.

They can then do as I request or they can refuse to do as I request.
In the same way that you and I, or any person, can either say yes or
no, to a simple request. Allow me to demonstrate just how easy and
simple this whole thing actually is. Here we go:
Swensson, I ask you to now become a strong political Conservative.
I request this of you. Will you become a strong political Conservative
right now without waiting? Yes? or No?
Swensson, I request that the next time you eat a meal, that you bow
your head and ask the blessing. That you say out loud, "Heavenly
Father I thank you for this food that you have provided for me to eat.
Amen." Will you do as I ask you to do? Yes? or No?

, , lol , , ,

Whadda ya say? Yes? of No?

JAG

And remember if they do not mention 1 - 6, then I do NOT ask
that they observe 13 and mention 14.


``

 

You keep saying that you don't care, but I seem to recall that on several occasions, you take an explicit interest in how they act and what they post, including in the opening post. Either way, I think the real problem I have with your post is your point 13, and what it means to be consistent. I agree that you have to be logically consistent (and after asking a bunch of atheists, it seems that they are), but you're implying that there is some equivalent consistency to be had when it comes to presentation (i.e. not only what they believe, but what they see fit to post about, and where they do so) which so far has remained unexplained.

It seems to me you're proclaiming that this is easy by simply ignoring the complicated part that I'm asking about.

 

Speaking about atheists, I had an imaginary conversation with
Andy Atheist --- maybe you remember Old Andy.
Anyway Andy said this:
"No God exist. I know it and you know it. There is no God."__Andy Atheist

In my mind I thought the following:
JAG Thought:
{1} You can not demonstrate with Empirical evidence that God does not exist.
{2} If you could do that, you'd be a $ millionaire in just a few weeks.
{3} You would also win many secular awards and prizes.
{4} You would be on national television prime time constantly.
{5} You would be invited to be a guest on all the cable news channels.
(6) You would become the most famous man in all of human history.
(7} You would be the man that had, at last, eliminated Theism off the planet.
{7} Just think. You can eliminate:
Christianity
Islam
Judaism , , ,

, , ,off the planet once and for all , , ,
, , ,and all you have to do is just produce your evidence that there is no God.
I will be waiting for you to produce it. Let's see what you've got?

Wait , , ,

, , , but of course you are not really interested in {2} through {7} up there.
You're probably the only atheist on Earth that would NOT be interested in {2} through {7}.
You have the Empirical evidence that proves there is no God --- but you are
keeping it a secret -- perhaps in an old shoe box under your bed?

, , ,lol , , ,

Swensson,
All atheists do not say what Andy said.
Andy made the mistake of asserting that he KNEW there was no God.
Andy ought to have said, "I have not seen any evidence that convinced me that there is a God."
If Andy had said that, then Andy would not have to deal with {1} -- {11} up-post & down-post.
However , , ,
There are a large number of atheists on the Internet At Large that DO SAY in threads what Andy
said --- that they KNOW there is no God.

{8} Andy claimed to know that there is no God -- using KNOW like you KNOW 2 + 2 = 4.
{9} Andy has never personally inspected Andromeda and does not know that God is not there.
{10} Andy is not Omnipresent but Omnipresence is required to 2 + 2 = 4-KNOW there is no God.
{11} Andy is not Omniscient but Omniscience is required to 2 + 2 = 4-KNOW there is no God.

Swensson , , ,
What do you think about my {1} --- {11} ?
I am particularly interested in what you think about my 9, 10, and 11

Carefully consider my 9, 10, and 11
In order to 2 + 2 =4-KNOW that God is NOT in Andromeda you would have
to possess the ability to personally inspect every square inch of Andromeda.

Then if you did NOT find God in Andromeda, you would have to have full and
complete knowledge that God was NOT in some other part of the Universe , , ,

, , or that God was NOT invisible.

Swensson, please refute my 9,10,11 - - otherwise please become a Theist
today.

, , lol , ,

Best.

JAG


``

 

No, what Andy the atheist would of said is, the burden of proof lies with you Timmy the Theist, enjoy!

We can all ignore 9,10 and 11 just as we do for all spooks, goblins and ferries, now how you doing with your burden of proof Timmy?

 

I mean, I had an actual point, why not address that instead of going off on some tangent? This is why the threads go on rambling forever and grow out of proportion. If we stayed on track, we could have a decent shot at pinning down what the fundamental differences are between our ways of thinking at least.

Since you didn't follow up on the questions I actually asked, I have lost the direction of the thread. Thus, I'll just add little comments here and there, instead of pertaining to a particular argument.

So if you acknowledge that most atheists don't believe those things, why are you bringing them up? Do you intend to hold yourself to the same standard of defending outlandish minority beliefs on behalf of theism? I don't want to accuse you of changing the subject because you know that your views don't hold up against the more common view, but reasonable people could read that into your post.

I am "interested" in your new points 2 through 7, but I do not believe that they are true. Even if one were to come up with a bullet proof point, I have full confidence in people's ability to assume that there is some angle that they haven't thought of, and that actually they shouldn't change their ways. Especially people with a vested interest. For instance, you mentioned the argument of comparative religion "winning", yet it did nothing to change your views, so it seems to me it is simply incorrect that religions would disappear or that there would be any extreme fame or money involved.

I reckon the Andy Atheists of the world are an insignificant minority. I also believe there are many who aren't Andy Atheists, but who you assume are Andy Atheists because you, as established, haven't bothered to figure out what they believe. For example, the assertion that when a person uses the word know, they are "using KNOW like you KNOW 2 + 2 = 4" seems to be your assertion, it didn't come from them. I would say that I know that I have an onion in the fridge, but it would be incorrect to assert that I claim to know it like I know 2+2=4. But by all means, present me with an atheist that says what you say he says, so that I can ask him and check whether he actually believes it, or if you have made assumptions that just don't hold water.

Similarly, I think there are things you can know without being omniscient and omnipresent. For instance, if someone said there is a pink invisible unicorn, I don't have to search the Andromeda galaxy, it suffices for me to say that if it is pink, it is necessarily not invisible. Similarly, a benevolent god which fails to be benevolent is a self-contradition, and it doesn't require anyone to look in another galaxy. (In the case of an omnipresent God, we also don't have to look in Andromeda, because if he'd be any more present there than here, then he wouldn't be omnipresent, but I think that is not so important a point).

I do not think I am obliged to refute your new points 9 through 11 or become a theist. It seems to me that one could even accept your new points 9 through 11 and still maintain that claims of god have failed to be convincing, i.e. not become a theist.

 

Are you serious?
Do you really think I was being serious?
Do you have a sense of humor?
Do you ever laugh?
So how did you miss my , , ,lol , , , down there?
_____________________________________
JAG Wrote:
Swensson, please refute my 9,10,11 - - otherwise please become a Theist
today.

, , lol , ,

Best.

JAG
____________

Did you actually believe that I was seriously asking you to become a Theist?
I was NOT serious Swensson.
I's only joking with you.
My , , , lol , , , and my "please become a Theist today" ought to have been enough to
tell you I was joking around.

JAG

``

 

In the post I wrote to you I clearly and specifically told you the
following:
"{8} Andy claimed to know that there is no God -- using KNOW like you KNOW 2 + 2 = 4."___JAG

The point was , ,
a} "{8} Andy claimed to know that there is no God -- using KNOW like you KNOW 2 + 2 = 4."___JAG

Also , , ,
b} I think it would be as certain as 2 + 2 = 4

If you see the onion in your Fridge then you 2 + 2 = 4-KNOW it is in there.
If you doubt your own eyes and brain on the onion --- then you have no reason to believe it when your
own eyes and brain tells you that 2 + 2 = 4.

JAG

 

You did not seriously deal with my points.
You brushed them off with your "pink invisible unicorn" diversion.
By the way the "unicorn" thingy has been worn to a frazzle.

{8} Andy claimed to know that there is no God -- using KNOW like you KNOW 2 + 2 = 4.
{9} Andy has never personally inspected Andromeda and does not know that God is not there.
{10} Andy is not Omnipresent but Omnipresence is required to 2 + 2 = 4-KNOW there is no God.
{11} Andy is not Omniscient but Omniscience is required to 2 + 2 = 4-KNOW there is no God.


In order to 2 + 2 =4-KNOW that God is NOT in Andromeda you would have
to possess the ability to personally inspect every square inch of Andromeda.

Then if you did NOT find God in Andromeda, you would have to have full and
complete knowledge that God was NOT in some other part of the Universe , , ,

, , or that God was NOT invisible.

_________

In {8} I told you that Andy claimed to KNOW with certainty that there was no God.
In light of {8} it logically and compellingly follows that 9, 10,and 11 are true.

JAG

 

"I am 'interested' in your points 2 through 7, but I do not believe they are true"___Swensson

Heh heh, if Andy could successfully accomplish {1} , , , then {2} -- {8} would be his to enjoy.
And that should be obvious --- crystal clear and absolute certain.

{1} You can not demonstrate with Empirical evidence that God does not exist.
{2} If you could do that, you'd be a $ millionaire in just a few weeks.
{3} You would also win many secular awards and prizes.
{4} You would be on national television prime time constantly.
{5} You would be invited to be a guest on all the cable news channels.
(6) You would become the most famous man in all of human history.
(7} You would be the man that had, at last, eliminated Theism off the planet.
{8} Just think. You can eliminate:
Christianity
Islam
Judaism , , ,

, , ,off the planet once and for all , , ,
, , ,and all you have to do is just produce your evidence that there is no God.

_____________

Does it make you uncomfortable to know that {1) through {8} is the truth?

Millions of dollars and world fame awaits the atheist that can prove there
is no God and vanish , , ,
Christianity
Islam
Judaism , , ,
, , ,off the planet once and for all.

But they don't really want the $ millions of dollars and world fame.

Yeah right!

JAG


``

 

Its because I do not care.
If I hear 6 - 12, then I will request they observe 13 and include 14.
If I do not hear 6 -12, I will not request 13 and 14

Each person on the planet gets to decide what he
personally sees as consistent and inconsistent.

There is no such thing on this planet as:
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Consistent And Inconsistent.
So?
So you decide for yourself.
And I decide for myself.
Everybody does that.

Yeah but we do not agree on what that is.
Your inconsistency may be my consistency.
Your consistency may be my inconsistency.
Also , ,
Your logical may be my illogical.
My illogical may be your logical.
There is no such thing on the planet as , ,
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Logical Or Illogical.
By the way William Lane Craig is convinced that your beliefs are Illogical.
You are convinced that William Lane Craig's beliefs are Illogical.
Christendom's 2.3 billion are convinced that your beliefs are illogical.
You are convinced that Christendom's 2.3 billion's beliefs are illogical.

And clearly you and I do not agree on what is, or is not
consistent or inconsistent or on what is, or is not
logical.

I doubt that you and I agree on the color of Peanut Butter.
More importantly I do not believe that you and I would agree on
the color of an orange. Or a lemon.

I will be overjoyed to explain it to you , , again.

I don't care what they say because it does not matter what
they say. If they mention 1 -6, I am going to request
of them they they also observe 13 and mention 14.
Its merely a request and it can be described as my:
personal:
-- request
-- view
-- opinion
-- hope
-- desire
-- belief
-- suggestion
-- expectation
-- asking

And my Opening Post never went any further than asking,
In fact I used that exact word "ask" in my opening Post.

JAG

``

 

"there"__Swensson

"here"___Swensson

Humans are not capable of thoroughly searching
searching either "here" or "there."
God could be Omnipresent and be "there" and "here"
but humans are not capable of thoroughly searching
Andromeda or the sphere we call the Earth and the
Heavens. Regarding this sphere God by definition
would have the power to be in this sphere and
not be discoverable by man.

Remember that up there applies only to the atheist
that says I know with certainty there is no God.

By the way, if you are not aware that many atheists
on the Internet At large DO in fact say that they
KNOW with certainty that God does not exist,
then my view is that you are not well acquainted
with the Internet At Large. I had one tell me that today.
I have been told that dozens of times by Internet
atheists over the years.

JAG

``

 

From an objective point of view an atheist is on the same ground as theist.

From either perspective why would it matter if someone has an opposing belief? I can think of but one reason... a reason the the 1st A is designed in part to prohibit, but beyond that, why does it matter?

 

I "know" there is no God to the same extent and in the same way as I "know" there are no faeries or ghosts. If you take a strict enough definition of "know", you actually don't and can't know much of anything. You could be the only person typing on this board, with the rest of us bots. You could not even be on the internet at all, nor awake, not human. You could be a dolphin dreaming. You can't prove you aren't.

 

You have know Empirical evidence for the existence of your god and the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, through pages and pages of posts you avoid that burden as do all apologists.

William Lane Craig a liar for jesus (and another of your great men like Martin Luther the jew hater) has admitted that even if god was proven to exist he would still believe in god on FAITH (the most dishonest of all positions) So your 7 and 8 are contradicted by your own hero! Try again!

My favourite quote from the odious and morally bankrupt Liar for Jesus William lane Craig.

“So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
― William Lane Craig

Yes this fraud, this revolting human being believes the Israeli soldiers committing genocide suffered because they had to kill women and children, what a repulsive human he is!

Who could ever worship a god that orders the death of women and children?

 

As has been explained to you before and you chose to ignore and deflect Plantinga has to refute the god of the bible and the god that christians believe in. He redefines Omnipotents and ignores free will in heaven. How Christians avoid this cognitive dissonance by simultaneously believing in the Bible and trying to argue Plantinga's free will argument. Most amusing.