Are The Claims Of Christianity Valid?

[WinePusher]

Hitchens 1
Hitchens 2
Dennett 1

This thread is a spin off of a thread in the "Members Only Chat." There's alot of stuff in these videos, and I only watched the Hitchens videos. But here are some questions based off the videos:

1) The Hitchens 2 video deals with miracles. Hitchens repeats David Hume's Argument aganist miracles. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

[Furrowed Brow]

Sorry Winepusher I will try and circle around to your questions. Re Hitchens 2 ..did we watch thes same clip? Hitchens is actually banging on about the immorality of Christianity. There are two thrusts of the argument with which it seems Hitchens is attempting to prick the Christian self conglatory bubble I think.

THRUST 1 " It Is Immoral To Promote The Suspension Of The Laws Of Nature In Our Favour To The Young And Ignorant.

Which is more probable that physics or the laws of nature be suspended (by the way in my favour) or that I am under a misapprehension. Everyone has to ask themselves that question.

Thats if they saw it themselves.

If they take it as a report issued through...filtered through...dozens of other non eye witnesses and corrupt texts down the years; then I think that anyone who says the resurrection is an historic fact is advertising a willingness to believe in absolutely anything.

But Christianity says the law can be suspended...and in your favour too if you make the right prayers and propitiations and sacrifices. There can be a virgin that can conceive, a dead body can walk again, your leprosy can be cured, the blind can see....nonsense, it is not moral to lie to children, it is not moral to lie to ignorant uneducated people and tell them that if only they will believe nonsense, they can be saved. It is immoral.

- Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens is saying that a belief in the suspension of the laws of nature is a failure to check yourself. He is saying that Christianity promotes this failure to ask a simple self checking question. He is saying that it is immoral for Christianity to promote not just there are miracles but these miracles work in our favour.

THRUST 2- The Punishment Of The Dead

The totalitarian concept of the afterlife. The idea...the hideous idea that doesnt even occur in in the New Testament [sic]..excuse me...doesnt occur even in the violent, rape and genocide filled books of the Jewish Bible. There is no punishment of the dead. When God has destroyed your tribe and had your virgins and your children murdered in front of you and your flocks and herds scattered and you also fall down to a bronze sword...hes done with you. The earth can enclose over you that is it. You tangled with the wrong tribe, the one he favoured.

Not until gentle Jesus meek and mild are you told that if you dont make the right propitiations you can depart into everlasting fire. One of the most wicked ideas ever preached and one that has ruined the lives and peace of mind of many many children. Preached to them by child hating old men and women in the name of this ghastly cult which we met here to discuss tonight. " Christopher Hitchens

Here I can also feel Hitchens want to give Chrisitianity a shake to wake it up "look at what you are saying people this ain't nice, it ain't moral....it's wicked!" A point maybe some liberal Chrisitans tacitly recognise and feel uncomfortable with, so that hell forthem becomes "eternal separation from God" or some such.

[JehovahsWitness]

1) [...]. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

#1 yes, *violations* of natural order or law are possible because whatever caused the universe was obviously outside that universe and therefore not subject to natural (or physical) law.

#2 Morals are highly subjective and not a "science" each individual decides what he or she feels is "moral", therefore a common basis cannot be established and any debate simply opinion.

[Goat]

1) [...]. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

#1 yes, *violations* of natural order or law are possible because whatever caused the universe was obviously outside that universe and therefore not subject to natural (or physical) law.

Other than unsupported claims, and religious promotional material, please provide some objective evidence of '*violations*' of 'natural order' or law are possible.

Please show that something that is 'outside' the universe is not subject to natural or physical law. Let's see the evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

some objective evidence of '*violations*' of 'natural order' or law are possible.

The same *evidence* upon which one claims *violations*' of 'natural order' or law are IMpossible.

Please show that something that is 'outside' the universe is not subject to natural or physical law.

Are you suggesting natural law would govern what is unnatural or non-physical? If so, what is your evidence for this assumption?

It is entirely circular to demand for physical evidence for that for which physical evidence cannot not exist. Beyond the point of singularity even science has to revert o logical conclusion. It is the height of ignorance to attempt to discuss origins in the absence of logic when logic is all we have.

LOGIC


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Since our universe is finite the laws that govern it cannot be infinite.

Since the universe is finite whatever "caused" it (First Cause) had to exist when the universe itself (and the laws the govern it) did not exist.

If that First cause existed when the phyicality of our universe did not it, by definition was not SUBJECT to the physical law.

Prove there is a first cause? There has to be a cause since the universe exists (and is finite -- has a beginning).


http://www.facethefacts.co.za/?p=2152

[Clownboat]

some objective evidence of '*violations*' of 'natural order' or law are possible.

The same *evidence* upon which one claims *violations*' of 'natural order' or law are IMpossible.

Please show that something that is 'outside' the universe is not subject to natural or physical law.

Are you suggesting natural law would govern what is unnatural or non-physical? If so, what is your evidence for this assumption?

It is entirely circular to demand for physical evidence for that for which physical evidence cannot not exist. Beyond the point of singularity even science has to revert o logical conclusion. It is the height of ignorance to attempt to discuss origins in the absence of logic when logic is all we have.

LOGIC


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Since our universe is finite the laws that govern it cannot be infinite.

Since the universe is finite whatever "caused" it (First Cause) had to exist when the universe itself (and the laws the govern it) did not exist.

If that First cause existed when the phyicality of our universe did not it, by definition was not SUBJECT to the physical law.

Prove there is a first cause? There has to be a cause since the universe exists (and is finite -- has a beginning).


http://www.facethefacts.co.za/?p=2152

If you want to say there was a cause to the universe, I say, "go ahead, we cannot prove that true or not".

If you want to put a name, personality and assign traits to that cause, well now you are being illogical.

[JehovahsWitness]

If you want to put a name, personality and assign traits to that cause, well now you are being illogical.

Since we can make no assumptions about first cause (except that it must exist for a finite universe), it is illogical to make any statement as to what it CANNOT be, and/or to exclude any possibility in the absence of verifiable evidence to back such exclusions.

It is therefore illogical to state that name, personality and traits CANNOT be a feature of first cause. The possibilities are logically limitless since we are discussing something that by definition is infinite.

In the light of the above it is YOUR statement that is illogical.

[Goat]

some objective evidence of '*violations*' of 'natural order' or law are possible.

The same *evidence* upon which one claims *violations*' of 'natural order' or law are IMpossible.

The evidence that 'violations of natural law' are not possible is the fact that there is not valid evidence of any violations of natural law besides unsupported claims', so there is a high confidence that 'natural law' is not able to be violated.

Do you have any evidence for 'natural law' being violated?

Please show that something that is 'outside' the universe is not subject to natural or physical law.

Are you suggesting natural law would govern what is unnatural or non-physical? If so, what is your evidence for this assumption?

I was asking you to support your claim. if you are unable to support your claim, then you should withdraw your claim. In this subforum, you have to supply evidence for your claims. It appears your ' support' for your claims is the logical fallacy of 'shifting to the burden of proof'

It is entirely circular to demand for physical evidence for that for which physical evidence cannot not exist. Beyond the point of singularity even science has to revert o logical conclusion. It is the height of ignorance to attempt to discuss origins in the absence of logic when logic is all we have.

Then, you admit that you can not know that you are speaking the truth. Let's see your 'logic', rather than your unsupported claim. What are your primary assumptions, and how can you demonstrate your primary assumptions and your conclusions are different that 'making things up as you go along'

LOGIC


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Since our universe is finite the laws that govern it cannot be infinite.

The form is valid, but are the two premises accurate? Is the conclusion SOUND??

Can you show that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'?
can you show that the 'BIg bang' means the universe 'began to exist' rather than 'The universe changed form'??

Can you show that there is anything that is actually 'infinite'?

Since the universe is finite whatever "caused" it (First Cause) had to exist when the universe itself (and the laws the govern it) did not exist.

If that First cause existed when the phyicality of our universe did not it, by definition was not SUBJECT to the physical law.

Prove there is a first cause? There has to be a cause since the universe exists (and is finite -- has a beginning).

Assuming that there is a 'FIrst cause' .. something that is ASSUMED' and not proven... because you have to assume that everything that begins to exist has a cause, something that is not demonstrative (see virtual particles and hawking radiation)..., you also have to assume that the singularity that the universe developed from 'began to exist'..

Then, the theist is making a leap of logic to define this first cause (that they can not show even exists) to be God.. The first cause argument for god assumes that the 'First Cause ' is a supernatural eternal entity, and it assuming that it is intelligent, and 'outside of natural law' , which is not shown by that logic.

All and all, the ontological argument for the existence of God is one big epic failure.


http://www.facethefacts.co.za/?p=2152[/quote]

[Clownboat]

If you want to put a name, personality and assign traits to that cause, well now you are being illogical.

Since we can make no assumptions about first cause (except that it must exist for a finite universe), it is illogical to make any statement as to what it CANNOT be, and/or to exclude any possibility in the absence of verifiable evidence to back such exclusions.

It is therefore illogical to state that name, personality and traits CANNOT be a feature of first cause. The possibilities are logically limitless since we are discussing something that by definition is infinite.

In the light of the above it is YOUR statement that is illogical.

So, you start out by saying we can make no assumptions about the first cause, except for the assumption that it exists. So, we can make assumptions?

Then you accuse me of making statements of what this first cause cannot be. Strike two. I never claimed anything that this first cause could not be. I said that since the first cause is unknown, it is illogical to assign it known traits, since there is no way to know if those traits apply or not. THAT is what makes it illogical, not that any number of made up assumptions "could" be right, which is what it sounds you are saying. Since the first cause could have been some kind of cosmic fart, it is logical to assign stinky to this first cause since it could be? No, it is not.

How do you logically assign personality traits to something unknown? You have already made the illogical assumption that this unknown cause of the universe (assuming there is one) has a personality (or could have one). Bare in mind, I am not claiming that this first cause does not have a personality, because maybe it does, but if so, we do not know it.

[flitzerbiest]

All and all, the ontological argument for the existence of God is one big epic failure.

I agree, but this is the cosmological argument, not the ontological.