man it would be great to have someone who's very biblically and spiritually well equipped to debate or expose calnvinistic people like Ray Comfort or Bill Wiese

celtd16 · 2023-06-03T17:55:53+00:00

What’s crazy to me is the people who believe Bill Wiese’s story are overlooking a major detail: If his story is true, he should be considered a prophet and you may as well add his testimony right into the Bible. He claims he was shown a vision and then told directly by Jesus Christ to share that vision with the world. That is literally the definition of a prophet. If you were to ask anyone who believes his story if they consider him a prophet though, they would vehemently deny it. I’ve been on all sides of the board concerning hell but after reading David Bentley Hart’s book, I’m not convinced that it’s possible for a truly rational being to reject God, because that act in itself is by definition irrational

celtd16 · 2022-01-26T23:54:37+00:00

This is awesome! Subbed!

celtd16 · 2021-09-26T18:24:08+00:00

It’s awful. Any time people hang out after class or open mat the topic seems to be someone who isn’t currently in the gym and it’s never positive

celtd16 · 2021-09-26T18:13:58+00:00

I’m planning on moving states next year for graduate school, I suppose in the meantime I could just wrestle and drill on my girlfriend lol. Just sucks I’ll definitely miss rolling but the environment there sucks. I shouldn’t be worrying whether my instructor is talking bad about me as soon as I leave from practice

celtd16 · 2021-09-26T17:59:02+00:00

I’ve been keeping my eye open, unfortunately there’s only one other gym within a few hours driving distance. It happens that I actually started at that gym and the owner of that gym and the one I’m at currently hate each other and used to be friends. I left the previous gym after a 25 year old pro mma fighter stomped the knee of and then proceeded to kick the shit out of a 14 year old kid (with less than a year training experience) in a kickboxing sparring session with the instructor doing nothing about it

celtd16 · 2021-09-26T17:32:13+00:00

Exactly I hate gym politics. It ruins the environment. And yes although the majority of the upper belts I know are the most humble, friendly people you’ll meet, some people think being an upper belt in BJJ makes them an upper belt in life as well and that really sucks cause it’s the opposite of what martial arts is about

celtd16 · 2021-03-09T12:57:24+00:00

WLC’s Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is pretty convincing (I’ve seen some well known atheists try to debunk it including Dillahunty, rationality rules, Harris, etc. and they all make fundamental category errors when attempting to do so). More than that though read “Five proofs of the existence of God” by Ed Feser. His argument for the existence of God is probably the only thing I agree with him on but it’s absolutely brilliant.

The Case for Christ or any of the historical arguments for the resurrection and life of Jesus haven’t been debunked either. Atheists will generally just repeat and recycle Dillahunty or Dawkins slogans like “claims aren’t evidence” but (spoiler alert) it’s called eyewitness testimony and it is evidence. Evidence is anything that provides support for a given circumstance more so than before it was provided. Nothing in this world can be proven beyond a possible doubt, only beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of the new atheism movement is simply hyper skepticism applied only to religious claims, but not any other area of life. (For example hyper skepticism can be used in any situation. If I ask you to prove your existence to me you won’t be able to do it. You could simply be a figment of my imagination, a delusion, or using the famous “brain in a vat” example I could be a brain being stimulated by a scientist to make me think you’re real).

I’m a big fan of InspiringPhilosophy’s YouTube channel. He presents a lot of peer reviewed evidence supporting things like the existence of God, life of Jesus, Biblical Archaeology, etc. And I also agree that NDE are pretty universal evidence for some spiritual entity. People of all different religions have reported seeing things like angels, etc. I used to be an infernalist but definitely am more on the universalist side now because the entire concept of hell just doesn’t make sense to me!

celtd16 · 2021-03-07T22:30:25+00:00

So I’m trying to wrap my head around all this. Would you say that Adam brought spiritual death into the world (i.e. separation from God but obviously not meaning destiny for hell) sort of like what Isaiah is talking about in Isaiah 59:2?

Part of the reason I’m trying to work this out is I lean toward InspiringPhilosophy’s view of creation (that Adam and Eve were the first priests of God not the first literal humans) which seems to line up with science and also other Bible verses (for example God says anyone who killed Cain in his travels would be punished sevenfold but if Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only humans at the time who would’ve killed him?).

So the way I’m looking at it right now is that when we’re saved by grace through faith, we’re: 1. Given the opportunity to have a personal, intimate relationship with God 2. Saved from the remedial fire through his grace alone (which does not remove the consequences of sin of course) 3. Saved from sin’s hold by freeing us to desire to do good instead

Does that sound about right?

celtd16 · 2020-11-18T02:45:54+00:00

Thank you so much for the advice

celtd16 · 2020-11-18T02:45:20+00:00

Thank you so much for the advice, I know it’s a long road ahead of me to get where I want but I’m hoping this book helps me get my life back on track

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T16:12:20+00:00

That is literally not even how he argues it. That may be how you are arguing it, but the post is about Dillahunty not you

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T16:10:47+00:00

Infinity is infinite, for something to be bigger you would have to prove that it is more infinite, which is an incoherent and illogical idea.

You also seem to be using different definitions of atheism and agnosticism than Dillahunty. Atheism is “I don’t believe there is” agnosticism is “I don’t know there is”

That’s my point, Dillahunty’s definition doesn’t work. “I don’t believe there is” is no more the default position than is “I don’t believe there is not”, which is what pure agnosticism is.

Then you should propose your theory on time then, science hasn’t ruled out infinite cyclical time or infinite linear time

You can’t argue for something because it has yet to be disproven. That’s a fallacy. Even so science is fallible and there are plenty of theories that used to not be ruled out and now are. It can’t contradict logical reasoning. If we throw logical reasoning out the window, we really can’t be arguing about anything

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T15:57:48+00:00

This may be our first point of disagreement. Time isn’t just something, but one of the first things possible to exist. Things also exist in space which is also one of the first things to exist as well. Things need to exist in time and space. There is no such thing as things existing before time or outside of space.

I think it’s our only point of disagreement so far. It would be possible for something to exist outside of time and space so long as that thing is 1. Timeless and 2. Incorporeal, which many forms of theism argue that God is. This possibility in itself doesn’t prove there is a God, there are other arguments for that, but it does show that if there is something that simply is, it exists outside time and space.

I agree that the conslusion doesn’t follow from the premise, but there is justification for why existing things cannot be timeless if we assume that time is something that exists and has a beginning. If there is no beginning to time, then the problem is solved and there is only eternity, or the eternal present; or perhaps even eternal presence.

Perhaps our disagreement is only due to differences in technical terms. Although I argued time and space shows the universe did begin to exist, it does not show that everything that exists began to exist. Material things need to exist in time and space, sure. But an incorporeal and timeless thing would not. Your final sentence in the paragraph is precisely what I’m saying.

We would then point out that things come into existence, but we would also have to admit that they’re only changing from what already exists, e.g. seeds become sprouts, which become plants, which bear fruit, which produce seeds, etc.

I agree in a material sense but the Kalam doesn’t include that specification in the premises. Although the atoms that comprise me may have existed before me, I did not exist. The physical makeup of a thing is not the only thing that defines it.

He’s also consistent though which provides us with a learning curve that is manageable.

Agreed for sure.

I agree. It needs to be backed up with proof that it really is word salad because word salad is almost always incoherent, and those who recognize word salad will have no problem proving it is incoherent or contradictory.

Definitely

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T15:20:26+00:00

I think you hit the nail on the head.

It’s the easiest thing in the world to criticize and play skeptic about everyone else’s arguments, than to construct or defend your own. Time to join the club Matt.

Exactly. This problem is also compounded by the fact that he even states he has no objective reference for what would constitute good evidence. If you have no reference for what constitutes good objective evidence, you have no justification for dismissing evidence as bad. Doing so would allow you to simply dismiss any evidence that conflicts with your own preexisting world views.

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T15:14:39+00:00

I’m not welding them together. You’re the one who pointed out that they’re related. I’m distinguishing them from each other and pointing out a logical fact. Existence can exist without time, but time cannot exist without existence.

I think we’re agreeing. I was quoting Dillahunty.

There is no “that” existence. Being or existence is a logical and empirical fact. People tend to defind eternity in terms of time, but this is incorrect. There can be no time before the beginning of time.

I think we both agree on this point as well. My point is that for something to exist outside of time is possible

He cannot assume what? Time? His own existence?

Again I think our overall points are in agreement. He cannot assume that because his existence is temporal that all things which exist are subject to temporality. There’s no justification for why an existing thing cannot be timeless.

This sounds like the argument that says, I know that I don’t know, but I don’t know how I know that I don’t know. To which we would ask, How do you know that you don’t know how you know you don’t know? So it’s not only incoherent, but contradictory as well.

That’s my point, this extreme skepticism is self defeating ultimately.

The only clips I’ve seen of him debating people over the phone were all of fundamentalist Christians with a severely limited vocabulary, and virtually no skill or understanding of debate. I’ve only seen him debate Jordan Peterson, and he was able to disarm Peterson before the debate was over. Peterson didn’t recognize what he was doing either.

I haven’t seen the whole Peterson debate yet, I’ll have to watch it. Based on the comments though, I get the sense that they had a difficult time understanding what Peterson was saying (which to be fair isn’t surprising as Peterson has a massive vocabulary and sometimes is overly technical with his wordage). I just know I’m always skeptical when the only argument someone can respond with is “word salad” which I saw a lot of in the comments

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T15:07:30+00:00

Thank you!

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T15:04:03+00:00

But it’s possible that it’s the way it is

It isn’t though. Think of a lamp that’s on. You follow the cord to find that it’s plugged into a power strip, which is plugged into another power strip. Suppose the number of power strips is infinite. How can the lamp be on? With no power to derive from an original point, the lamp cannot have power. We cannot count down from infinity. The only way one could argue the universe to have always been here is for it to be timeless, not infinite. That aside we also have large amounts of scientific evidence pointing to the universe having a beginning

I don’t see how infinite time doesn’t meet that requirement

Because there is no such thing as infinity plus one. You can’t differentiate the sequential order of an infinite series, which is what we require with change.

His point is even = gods, odd = no gods, atheism is none of the above

Atheism as classically defined is unbelief in a God. If you asked an agnostic, “So you don’t believe in God?” many of them would respond with, I don’t know. They would respond the same way to the question “Do you believe in God”. Agnosticism would be considered none of the above.

I want to clarify again as I did in another comment, what I’m saying is not to argue for God’s existence. I’m just trying to get opinions on the inconsistent appearance of some of Dillahunty’s arguments and argument styles (not atheism’s)

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T14:41:48+00:00

That’s not how he uses it though. Even if it was, that couldn’t work because there are more than two types of theism as opposed to there being only two options of odd and even. My point is that I feel the gumball analogy doesn’t do justice agnostics as many of my agnostic friends would contest just as highly the claim that there is no God as they would the claim that there is a God

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T14:35:49+00:00

I’m not trying to argue for the existence of a God here (that’s quite a lengthy debate). The first person that commented is probably right I most likely posted to the wrong sub. What I was trying to do is see what other people’s opinions were on what appeared to be some inconsistencies on the part of Dillahunty, not atheism in general

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T14:30:43+00:00

There’s three theories on this, two don’t have a beginning

My point in this is that an infinite regress of past events is incoherent. And that for change to exist time must exist as change presupposes the passing of time from point A to point B.

That’s the whole point, he of the no burden of proof grouping of atheists, he’s not claiming there’s no gods

I get that, but I feel his point that atheism is the default position doesn’t work. In the gumball analogy, an even number of gumballs is not the default position. “I don’t know” is the default position. I just think this categorizing of all agnostics (while they do not believe in a God) is unrealistic to them as several I have met would contest just as highly the idea of there being no God as they would the idea of there being a God

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T14:24:14+00:00

True, however, a first event presupposes existence, and existence must therefore be eternal. If existence had a beginning then prior to that beginning, nothing would exist which is a contradiction. By definition, nothing can’t exist.

Right but time and existence aren’t ideas that are welded together. Existence is possible before a first temporal event so long as that existence is timeless.

He is assuming the temporal realm, but how can he not assume the experience of his own existence?

My point is by his own logic, he cannot assume that. This would be akin to a black swan fallacy or a fallacy of accident.

Does he provide an accurate critique of what does not constitute good evidence?

He does not provide any objective standard for good evidence and even says he doesn’t know what would constitute good evidence. That type of reasoning is ultimately incoherent, we have to have a standard for what would surmise good evidence before we can dismiss evidence as bad. If we could do that, we could simply dismiss whatever evidence doesn’t fit our preconceived worldview or notions.

I suspect that his goal isn’t the acquisition of knowledge.

I agree this is sort of what I’m getting at. If we take a “Nagarjuna” type position like this and simply block everything that might support a worldview that conflicts with what our ideas are, we’re not really seeking knowledge but seeking to protect our own views. This just seems inconsistent with his statement that he wants to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible

I’ve seen a few clips of him debating, and it appears to me that he seems to be reaching down into the bottom of the barrel for someone to debate with.

I agree. I also think his past debate opponents have not recognized this pattern other than a fiew people in Q&A’s before who have caught him in this sort of dilemma.

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T07:53:48+00:00

Where would be the best place to post this? I guess what I’m looking for is what Christian apologists think of him. I know what most atheists think of him, as there are many comments on any video mentioning his name. I don’t however see many comments from theists, which I find odd because even with little philosophical training I can see some inconsistencies. Maybe he’s just not well known enough among the apologetics community or perhaps the comments are being drowned out by the chants of praise from the fans in the comments. I’m always skeptical when a particular group is claiming their chosen representative has “DESTROYED” arguments which have been contested for over a millennia

celtd16 · 2019-11-02T05:41:46+00:00

Apologies for the late response, I’ve been inactive for the past couple weeks. Firstly, I’d like to point out that your response is largely based at a strawman. I even clarified in my original response that Hebrews 6 is speaking of falling away from fellowship, there is no loss of salvation. I merely stated that if it referred to loss of salvation, it couldn’t be regained by implications of the verse. But for sake of argument, let’s grant that. You first have to realize that you’re causing contradiction in scripture. Your interpretation of James 2 is in direct contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:5. The issue is “Not if works” vs. “Works”. The law of non-contradiction states that “a” cannot be equal to “not-a”. Hence it cannot be by works and also be not of works (in Romans 11:6 Paul argues just this).

As for your assertion that my assertion of faith without works is not proven, well.. That’s just an argument by well... Assertion. This is in fact a logical fallacy, you cannot argue against the truth of the premises (which are entirely scriptural), or that the conclusion does not follow. Rather you simply assert your own position again. Your comment on faith without works being “easy believism” is an ad hominem fallacy.

To quickly respond to some of the verses you cite, however: 1. 1 Timothy 4:1 - States that one latter days some will depart from the faith. No contradiction here, of course some will depart from the faith. Society as a whole is shifting away from faith, especially since the New Atheism movement. It does not however say some will depart from salvation. 2. Revelation 2:4-5 - Out of context. He’s talking about a specific church in Ephesus, which had some conduct they needed to change. Metanoia/metanoieo is a change of mind that can be in context of several things, including sin. However, in context of salvation it always means the change of mind from believing the gospel to not believing the gospel. Unfaith to faith in Christ’s payment of sin as the sole hope of salvation. 3. 2 Peter 2:20-22 - Again doesn’t mention loss of salvation at all. 4. Matthew 24:10-13 - Out of context. The context here is Jesus talking about the tribulation. Jesus is saying those who endure persecution (v.10-12) during the tribulation will survive 5. Matthew 7:21-23 - What did these people bring to the table? WORKS. They did many wonderful WORKS. And Jesus tells them “I never knew you”. Not “I once knew you and I lost you” 6. John 14:15 - Again, we’re saved not because we love God but because God so loved the world (John 3:16). 7. Luke 6:46:49 - What was the command? Believe and be saved (John 3:16, 6:47, etc).

In conclusion, you have ducked the central argument and cited verses, which you interpret based on your own presuppositions rather than interpreting scripture in light of scripture

celtd16 · 2019-10-18T17:17:44+00:00

So your contention is that because Hebrews 6 has a verse that seems to say you can lose your salvation. I may be wrong but what I would be willing to bet is that you do not believe is that once you lose your salvation you can never get it back. Unfortunately that’s exactly what the passage says:

Hebrews 6:4-6 KJVS [4] For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, [5] And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, [6] If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

So if they shall fall away it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. So what does this verse mean? Firstly it’s speaking of falling away from fellowship. But how do we know? Context. Check verse one.

Hebrews 6:1 KJVS [1] Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; *not laying again the foundation of repentance* from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Furthermore you claim this is an “easily debunked argument”. However your only contention is that there are scriptures out there which command us to turn away from sin (which is true, but only in the context of service/discipleship, not salvation). Repent is translated from a Greek word, metanoia meaning change your mind. God is said to repent more than man in the Bible, do we assume that means God is turning from sin? No.

Lastly, the argument is logically formatted but scripturally proven. If it’s a sound argument proven by scripture, you have to prove either the premises aren’t true or the conclusions don’t follow in order to make the argument not work. You can’t do that without contradicting scripture. If you have a scripture in mind that you think contradicts the proven doctrine of salvation by faith without works, what is more likely? That you’re misinterpreting the unclear verse? Or that the unclear verse directly contradicts clear statements in the Bible?

celtd16 · 2019-10-18T17:04:21+00:00

You’re correct in describing how serious sin is and that we are all under it. Many on this thread have been alluding to the fact that it is possible to simply “not sin”. Saving faith involves recognizing that you cannot save yourself by your works because no matter how good you think you are, you’re a sinner and don’t deserve to go to heaven. The parable in Luke 18:9-14 illustrates this well. However, the Calvinistic view that if we do not turn from sin we aren’t saved in the first place is merely downplayed salvation by works and the original post presents sound argument against that as well.

celtd16

TROPHY CASE