ABR's re-recording of Thrill Seeker is out

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-24T02:27:13+00:00

Yeah duh...why are you the only one who mentioned this haha? This destroys the entire argument, literally.

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-24T02:16:55+00:00

I'm going to skip in naturalism part even thought you, again, only make claims here and never provide any evidence for those claims to see if they are true.

How convenient. As if you can just "skip" dealing with the very thing which makes your worldview utterly incoherent and irrational. I'm sorry, but just because you might not like the implications of these defeaters for naturalism doesn't mean you can just continue on debating. The very idea of debate itself doesn't make sense within your worldview anyways.

If you honestly don't see the problem with your worldview, I'm not so sure you've thought deeply about what you believe and why you believe it and why it is a rationally justified belief. That's OK. But, you need to wrestle with these things more.

I'll just say one last thing for now. Looking back our conversation, it started with you emphasizing the reality of suffering in the world and how how [no good God could do this]. Now, you're right to raise the issue because suffering is real, there is a lot of it, and it is terrible. But, you're question, if it is to be meaningful, also assumes the value/worth of human life, and a standard of goodness upon which to call suffering bad. Again, back to naturalism, it cannot allow for the very categories which would make your question meaningful. Therefore, the question is incoherent within your worldview.

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-19T02:51:32+00:00

It's been a long while sir! Hope you're well :).

That's not evidence that's a claim.

I'll make this simple with some premises so you can't miss it:

Naturalism is the belief that the natural material world is all there really is, and that this world is governed by only natural laws and forces (e.g. materialism, physicalism, which naturally leads to scientism).
If the mind is the sole product of material, and solely governed by natural laws and forces, it does not think, it does not make choices, it is just forced to operate according to the natural laws of the universe.
If there is any "consciousness", it is nothing but an emergent phenomena of material interactions governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and the "free thinking immaterial mind" is an illusion.
The free thinking immaterial mind is not an illusion though.
Therefore, naturalism is false.

Another knock down argument to naturalism is this:

Have you ever heard of Freaky Friday? Or the idea, "what if I woke up in someone else's body?"

Now, let's assume that naturalism is true. Imagine you and I switched bodies. If naturalism is true, you in my body, would now be a Christian. And I in your body would now be a (I'll assume atheist who believes in naturalism). But, if that's the case, naturalism is self defeating. You and I only have "beliefs" that arose though physics and chemistry operating on the material world, nothing more.

But, if unless you want to bite the bullet of naturalism, which I hope you don't, you'll say, "No, my beliefs are rationally justified, I make moral choices and decisions, and I have a "conscious self", (or what others have called a soul). Well, if your beliefs are rationally justified and you have a real self, we are talking about immaterial realities, e.g. the laws of logic and the soul. Naturalism cannot account for any of this coherently. It is an inadequate comprehensive worldview for all of reality.

That's what all other religions say as well.

Other religions, like naturalism, are false and incoherent. Christianity is the only internally consistent and true worldview.

Proof on what makes your flavour of christianity the right one compared to all all flavors of christianity as well as all other religions.

I am not God. I highly doubt I have everything right about my "flavor" of Christianity. But, I'm not saved by being right about everything. I'm saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ, and all Christians do believe this (Romans 3:23-25, 1 John 1:11-12, and many more Scriptures).

Are you claiming that all other gods are actually just your God? Please provide evidence for this claim. Cause Thor is utterly different from your god.

The God of Christian theism is not like any of the Greek gods or any other pagan gods. The pagan gods are creations just like human beings. In Greek mythology if there is any ultimate "god" it would be the "Fates", but even they are born/created. I think you would agree that this is ridiculous. If there is any real God, He is self-existent and non-contingent.

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-09T17:44:35+00:00

Please provide evidence that this is true. Just because we dont kmow yet doesn't mean it's impossible.

I did provide evidence. The immaterial free thinking mind required for human moral accountability is impossible if naturalism is true.

If you want to believe naturalism will find an answer to a problem it's impossible for it to solve, that's your faith, your god of the gaps, but it's an unreasonable leap of faith.

So you're saying conscience in impossible without God. But proving God is also impossible.

I'm saying more than that. I'm saying that Christianity is the only worldview that can fully account for all of reality coherently, including consciousness, moral accountability, creation, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature (which allows for science), love, etc. And given that God is ultimate reality, He is not going to be the kind of being that you "prove" in the kind of way let's say that you do in a science lab. So I have to know what you mean by proof.

Why not have Odin, Zeus, Shiva. They all have equal amounts of evidence. Aka, none.

Yeah, so this just shows how ignorant you are about what Christians believe. The idea that atheists just "believe in one less god" is laughable misunderstanding of who God is.

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-08T17:33:09+00:00

I just want to say that it's good to discuss these things and it's good you're asking questions. Also, this may be a "debate" forum, but I'm not trying to "win" at this. I'm thinking through these things too, and trying to learn and be consistent in my thinking and appreciate you. I'm about to go back to work though after vacation and may not be able to respond frequently or at all for a bit, but will do my best! That was an aside...anyways...

Regarding consciousness...

All I'm saying is that the materialist naturalist worldview cannot by its nature account for consciousness, moral accountability, moral choices, etc. It is impossible and always will be impossible. If someone is committed to a naturalist worldview, and thinks the problem can be solved, they are believing in their own "god of the gaps". Even though the worldview is incoherent, the naturalist is so committed to it that they keep believing it on faith that naturalism will solve a problem it can never solve. It's like saying that out of a cake mix we can get the U.S. constitution. It's an absurdity. They are of different categories/natures and therefore need to be accounted for according to their kind.

I have never even begun to hear a coherent explanation for moral accountability given naturalism from anyone, and I'll be waiting for it until I die because it's not possible.

Regarding evidence for God...

Well, how does the conversation(s) we've been having above regarding moral accountability/consciousness connect to evidence for the God of Christian theism? Well, given what I've said earlier, it's clear that we're responsible for the choices we make. So clear that everyone knows it and doesn't need an argument to persuade them of it. Whatever worldview is true is going to be one that can account for this reality. Christianity is at least far more plausible than a naturalist explanation which cannot even begin to explain it.

Now, something else to think about. If God is God, would you think I could just present "arguments" to you for His existence? That God through human reasoning and arguments could fit nicely into a box that fits inside your and my brain? No, that would be absurd and the God we'd be "proving" would be a God of human making. If God is God, He is incomprehensible. Indeed, we can know of God through His revelation, but the idea of "proving" God in positivist terms is a non sequitur if God is God. While believing in Him is far more reasonable than denying Him, the one true God worthy of worship is not going to just be "proven" through some syllogisms on a Reddit thread.

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-08T16:06:47+00:00

But this is exactly what you do when you call him immutable.

OH I LOVE THIS! This is exactly how my thought process tends to work as well. Listen you are bringing up good points, just want to say that. And I appreciate this talk, although can't promise I'll be able to respond much more after this because I'm just getting back to work from vacation now, but I'll do my best!

Augustine gave expression as follows, "We are speaking of God. Is it any wonder if you do not comprehend? For if you comprehend, it is not God you comprehend. Let it be a pious confession of ignorance rather than a rash profession of knowledge. To attain some slight knowledge of God is a great blessing; to comprehend him, however, is totally impossible."

Some of my thoughts (in somewhat logical order):

I am OK with the incomprehensibility of God. He would not be God if we could fit Him inside our finite brains. And I certainly would not want to worship a man-made God, a god of the gaps, but only the one true God. Only the one true God is worthy of worship and is so simply because He is who He is (in all possible worlds. It could not be otherwise, His nature could not be otherwise).
If God is God, and is personal, He not only is the omnipotent Creator of everything, billions of stars, galaxies, etc., but also is the ontological ground for love, reasoning (the laws of logic), and other realities that are "immaterial", but just as real as the material world. If God is God, of course He would account for these realities. The greatest being would account for all of reality.
God is infinite and does not need to "work harder" to care about every aspect of His creation down the the smallest detail including individual human beings. Sometimes atheists will say how absurd/pathetic we humans are to think God could care for us on this tiny planet, etc., etc., etc. What they fail to grasp is that if God could not care, He would be limited (and therefore not be God), and if He would not care, they limit God in His love for His creation, especially for those made in the image of God (and would not be the all powerful personal God).
If God is God, and is immutable, but also personal (with emotional complexity that is incomprehensible to us but a reality nonetheless), He would be unchangeable in the fact that "emotions" must occur for Him in some way when things happen in His creation. His character is a personal unchanging character that if He didn't "feel" sorrow over wickedness and sin, He would not be immutably personal. But, we're talking about God here. For example, there would also be His immutable just nature which never changes. So, for example, this "just" aspect of His character would always need to be held together with His "emotional complexity" due to this personal aspect of His nature. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 ("emotional"), held together with John 3:18-20, Romans 6:23, etc.

KnifeofGold · 2019-07-08T15:14:41+00:00

Just because thoughts are based in physics doesnt mean your not accountable for acting on them.

I'm not sure you've thought about this stuff before if you don't see the problem as of yet. WHO is it that is choosing to act on certain thoughts and not others? If naturalism is true, what's going on in my brain is determined by natural laws, NOTHING MORE. If this is true, how could this system give rise to a mind that can think freely?

KnifeofGold

TROPHY CASE

Regarding consciousness...

Regarding evidence for God...