Page 15 of 17

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:35 pm
by Kenny
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:00 pm
Ken: Not quite, an atheist can recognize what YOU (or even somebody else) call God may exist, but the atheist doesn't call it God.
You just made my point - that people can - and many do - KNOW that God exists, but they refuse to call Him God, or recognize Him as THEIR God. But such a person is NOT an atheist.
C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
by Philip
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
by Kenny
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:
I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:36 am
by Nicki
Kenny wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:
I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.
I don't think you're using common sense here (or perhaps you're being disingenuous). What do people in western countries generally mean when they refer to God? Not the sun, anything else in nature, anything man-made or any deceased human, but an invisible supreme being who created everything else.

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:10 am
by RickD
Nicki wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:
I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.
I don't think you're using common sense here (or perhaps you're being disingenuous). What do people in western countries generally mean when they refer to God? Not the sun, anything else in nature, anything man-made or any deceased human, but an invisible supreme being who created everything else.
Exactly!
:clap:

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:08 pm
by Kenny
Nicki wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:
I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.
I don't think you're using common sense here (or perhaps you're being disingenuous). What do people in western countries generally mean when they refer to God? Not the sun, anything else in nature, anything man-made or any deceased human, but an invisible supreme being who created everything else.
My originals response was to someone who was describing what an atheist is. Atheism does not only apply to the God of Christianity, it applies to the God of ALL religions, including those I mentioned. That’s why I responded the way I did. Since then a lot of other people chimed in and it became more about their God rather than all the others. If you want to know why I believe the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, we can discuss that but that is another conversation.

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:58 pm
by RickD
Kenny wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:08 pm
Nicki wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:
I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.
I don't think you're using common sense here (or perhaps you're being disingenuous). What do people in western countries generally mean when they refer to God? Not the sun, anything else in nature, anything man-made or any deceased human, but an invisible supreme being who created everything else.
My originals response was to someone who was describing what an atheist is. Atheism does not only apply to the God of Christianity, it applies to the God of ALL religions, including those I mentioned. That’s why I responded the way I did. Since then a lot of other people chimed in and it became more about their God rather than all the others. If you want to know why I believe the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, we can discuss that but that is another conversation.
Another typical "Kenny sidestep" of the actual issue.

:shakehead:

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:11 pm
by bippy123
Kenny wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:08 pm
Nicki wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm
Ken: C'mon Phil! Remember the scenario I gave about Halle Selassie? There are people who worship the Sun, Nature, I believe there was a story in your Bible about people worshiping a Golden Calf! Of course these things exist, but even you would agree they are not God. You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming atheist means rejection of what Christians call God, as opposed to the various things various people call God.
NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.
Philip: So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers:
I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.
I don't think you're using common sense here (or perhaps you're being disingenuous). What do people in western countries generally mean when they refer to God? Not the sun, anything else in nature, anything man-made or any deceased human, but an invisible supreme being who created everything else.
My originals response was to someone who was describing what an atheist is. Atheism does not only apply to the God of Christianity, it applies to the God of ALL religions, including those I mentioned. That’s why I responded the way I did. Since then a lot of other people chimed in and it became more about their God rather than all the others. If you want to know why I believe the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, we can discuss that but that is another conversation.
Kenny would you say that your atheism is based on a foundation of science , reason and logic as opposed to bias and emotion ?

You see Kenny when I approach atheists like I do on YouTube I never start with their unbelief in a God .

I start by exposing how they have a bias even against the ancillary evidence that would make belief in God more reasonable then not .

For instance I would start here on you by asking this question .

Kenny what is your view on near death experiences ?

Is it the concesnsus view of NDE experts that ndes are highly suggestive of consciousness in some way we don’t fully understand seems to survive physical life , hence a soul of some sort and an afterlife ?

Or

Do the NDE experts lean towards ndes being hallucinations caused by the dying brain ?

This is how I gauge whether an atheist’s atheism is based on bias and emotion rather then science logic or reason .

So what’s your answer Kenny ??????

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:03 pm
by Kenny
Kenny wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:08 pm
Nicki wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:37 pm
Philip wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:48 pm


NO, Ken - did you not notice I emphasized my reference point by underlining the below? Of course other things and people have existed that people have believed to be a deity - but that wasn't my reference point.

I wasn't responding to the 3 points you made concerning the Christian perspective, I was responding in reference to the claim that Atheism is restricted to the claim of God's non-existence.
I don't think you're using common sense here (or perhaps you're being disingenuous). What do people in western countries generally mean when they refer to God? Not the sun, anything else in nature, anything man-made or any deceased human, but an invisible supreme being who created everything else.
My originals response was to someone who was describing what an atheist is. Atheism does not only apply to the God of Christianity, it applies to the God of ALL religions, including those I mentioned. That’s why I responded the way I did. Since then a lot of other people chimed in and it became more about their God rather than all the others. If you want to know why I believe the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, we can discuss that but that is another conversation.
bippy123 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:11 pm
Kenny would you say that your atheism is based on a foundation of science , reason and logic as opposed to bias and emotion ?
I wouldn't say science has anything to do with it, It’s about what makes sense to me; what I find reasonable and logical.
bippy123 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:11 pm
You see Kenny when I approach atheists like I do on YouTube I never start with their unbelief in a God .
I start by exposing how they have a bias even against the ancillary evidence that would make belief in God more reasonable then not .
For instance I would start here on you by asking this question .
Kenny what is your view on near death experiences ?
I know very little about near death experiences, but whatever it is, I assume there must be a logical and material explanation.
bippy123 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:11 pm
Is it the concesnsus view of NDE experts that ndes are highly suggestive of consciousness in some way we don’t fully understand seems to survive physical life , hence a soul of some sort and an afterlife ?
Or
Do the NDE experts lean towards ndes being hallucinations caused by the dying brain ?
I would pick door #2 because it doesn’t involve spirits and souls, and stuff I don’t believe in.
bippy123 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:11 pm
This is how I gauge whether an atheist’s atheism is based on bias and emotion rather then science logic or reason .
So what’s your answer Kenny ??????
I would pick what I see as logical and reasonable

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
by bippy123
Kenny so if the science is valid and it doesn’t agree with your version of common sense and logic then it isn’t valid ?
You’ve already made up your mind without looking at the evidence .
This is an argument from bias and emotion not one from logic as you put it .

Then you claim that you know little about ndes but then you assume that there must be a material explanation and that’s the only one that is logical . That’s putting the cart before the horse .

But still that doesn’t even answer my original question.

I asked what was the consensus view of NDE researchers .
Dr Parnia who is the top NDE researcher in the world now believes that the soul self le psyche is separate from the body but still believe that it’s a subtle material substance that’s scientifically studyable .

There are Christian naturalists and Christian materialists.

Now you chose door no 2 even though it is the massively minority view of NDE researchers . Why ??? Because it doesn’t involve things you assume don’t exist .

This isn’t a rational or logical view but an emotional view . Now why don’t you tell us the emotional problem you have with This ?

How can you pick what seems reasonable and logical if you already have a built in bias without even knowing what the evidence is ???

Kenny you already have in built biases and your not even open to new evidences .

Kenny your atheism is built upon pure emotion .
Now the question Kenny is why do you not like God ??

This is the real issue Kenny because the rest of your answers do t make rational or
Logical sense as you’ve already made up your mind from an apriori point of view .

Kenny can people who are born blind have any dreams involving visual imagery ???

There have been scientific studies on this and the answer is no they can’t ???

And this has been confirmed in study after study

Yet when people who are born blind have an NDE suddenly they can see .

Kenny it sounds to me that you are hoping and wishing that God doesn’t exists

The important question here is why ???

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:22 am
by bippy123
Kenny I didn’t change the subject from God to ndes to prove ndes to you . I brought the NDE argument to you to show you how your atheism is based on emotion not reason and truth seeking .

Kenny why not open up to us dude .
You’ve been at it for years my friend
Let go of what’s inside and share it with us man

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
by Kenny
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
Kenny so if the science is valid and it doesn’t agree with your version of common sense and logic then it isn’t valid ?
Correct. You see, science is not for me what the Bible is for you. I recognize scientists could be and have been wrong countless times in the past
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
You’ve already made up your mind without looking at the evidence .
No; I would have to study the evidence before determining they were wrong.
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
This is an argument from bias and emotion not one from logic as you put it .
No; if it doesn't make sense to me, it would be illogical to blindly accept science because someone calls it science.
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
Then you claim that you know little about ndes but then you assume that there must be a material explanation and that’s the only one that is logical . That’s putting the cart before the horse .
No; putting the cart before the horse would be to assume NDE;'s include spirits before I'm even convinced there is even such a thing as spirits.
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
But still that doesn’t even answer my original question.

I asked what was the consensus view of NDE researchers .
Dr Parnia who is the top NDE researcher in the world now believes that the soul self le psyche is separate from the body but still believe that it’s a subtle material substance that’s scientifically studyable .
It appears you know a lot about NDE's, I don't. I know nothing about them mostly because I have no interest in them, so I have no idea about NDE researchers.
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
There are Christian naturalists and Christian materialists.

Now you chose door no 2 even though it is the massively minority view of NDE researchers . Why ??? Because it doesn’t involve things you assume don’t exist .
Yes.
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
This isn’t a rational or logical view but an emotional view . Now why don’t you tell us the emotional problem you have with This ?
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you. Again; it would be illogical for me to assume something I know nothing about, something I have not studied involves the spiritual world when I don't even believe in the spiritual world. That would be like me not knowing anything about plants and assuming there are tiny fairies holding up each blade of grass rather than a natural explanation; when I don't even believe in fairies. If I am forced to give an explanation about something I know nothing about, the explanation will have to be in the context of what I believe to be real
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:19 am
Kenny can people who are born blind have any dreams involving visual imagery ???

There have been scientific studies on this and the answer is no they can’t ???

And this has been confirmed in study after study

Yet when people who are born blind have an NDE suddenly they can see .

Kenny it sounds to me that you are hoping and wishing that God doesn’t exists

The important question here is why ???
If you want a reasonable response from me, you are going to have to pick a topic I know something about. What blind people dream about is another topic I know nothing about

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:31 am
by Kenny
bippy123 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:22 am
Kenny I didn’t change the subject from God to ndes to prove ndes to you . I brought the NDE argument to you to show you how your atheism is based on emotion not reason and truth seeking .

Kenny why not open up to us dude .
You’ve been at it for years my friend
Let go of what’s inside and share it with us man
NDE's have nothing to do with why I am atheist.

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm
by Byblos
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you.
And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm
by Kenny
Byblos wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you.
And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:
Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.