Christian VS Atheist (Open Debate) who has the TRUTH!!!

[DoveSpirit05]

Hi All,

I challenge any atheist to come and debate me on what truth really is. This is not for ego I want to reason with you and have a fruitful discussion. How do you know what u know? what is ur epistemology? How can u account for truth without God? where do you get ur ethics from without God?

 

[shnarkle]

Hi All,

I challenge any atheist to come and debate me on what truth really is. This is not for ego I want to reason with you and have a fruitful discussion. How do you know what u know? what is ur epistemology? How can u account for truth without God? where do you get ur ethics from without God?

I'm not an atheist, nor do I presume to speak for them, but given that no one has taken the bait, I'll propose a response to your question.

I would assume that there is such a thing as truth. If one were to say that there is no such thing as the truth, then they have just contradicted themselves by making a truth claim. Therefore it stands to reason that we can make truth claims based simply using logic, argumentation, debate, etc.

I don't quite understand the question on how one knows what they know. The reason I don't understand is that when I think of knowing, I think of this in terms of intellectual or rational knowledge which can only be known through the intellect. There are some who would claim other types of knowledge, but I wouldn't call that knowledge as much as things like experience, awareness, etc.

Another question would be how can we know the world around us? And the answer to that question is somewhat the same. We can only rationally or intellectually know the world around us by the intellect. This doesn't actually allow us to connect directly to the world. It only serves as a derivative to reality.

One can become aware of reality, but this can never be through the intellect as it only creates an additional mediator to reality. The bible talks of a mediator between man and God which is the closest thing to what I'm talking about. There can be no additional mediators without creating further separation from reality.

Most people today get their ethics from their culture. We have a social contract, and people who violate that contract and are caught, suffer the consequences. We're taught the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Ultimately, these terms don't mean much to a lot of people. Too many people really have no comprehension of why they should do what they do. They just do the "right" thing in order to be accepted by society.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

I'm not an atheist, nor do I presume to speak for them, but given that no one has taken the bait, I'll propose a response to your question.

I would assume that there is such a thing as truth. If one were to say that there is no such thing as the truth, then they have just contradicted themselves by making a truth claim. Therefore it stands to reason that we can make truth claims based simply using logic, argumentation, debate, etc.

I don't quite understand the question on how one knows what they know. The reason I don't understand is that when I think of knowing, I think of this in terms of intellectual or rational knowledge which can only be known through the intellect. There are some who would claim other types of knowledge, but I wouldn't call that knowledge as much as things like experience, awareness, etc.

Another question would be how can we know the world around us? And the answer to that question is somewhat the same. We can only rationally or intellectually know the world around us by the intellect. This doesn't actually allow us to connect directly to the world. It only serves as a derivative to reality.

One can become aware of reality, but this can never be through the intellect as it only creates an additional mediator to reality. The bible talks of a mediator between man and God which is the closest thing to what I'm talking about. There can be no additional mediators without creating further separation from reality.

Most people today get their ethics from their culture. We have a social contract, and people who violate that contract and are caught, suffer the consequences. We're taught the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Ultimately, these terms don't mean much to a lot of people. Too many people really have no comprehension of why they should do what they do. They just do the "right" thing in order to be accepted by society.

ok, I agree with the 1st sentence, rational and intellect are 2 separate things tho! my question is ones epistemology? how they know wat they know and what methods are they using 2 obtain information? as to ethics I can address dat afterwards but firstly wat is ur method?

 

[shnarkle]

ok, I agree with the 1st sentence, rational and intellect are 2 separate things tho! my question is ones epistemology? how they know wat they know and what methods are they using 2 obtain information? as to ethics I can address dat afterwards but firstly wat is ur method?

A rationale is a tool of the intellect. The intellect is the faculty of reasoning. It can be rational or irrational, but it can never be non-rational. So I know or have rational knowledge by these reasoning faculties. That's one way to know.

Then there are all the other senses as well. All of these are what we use to mediate reality.

Then there is what we are aware of apart from the intellect or the other senses.
Awareness that isn't filtered through the intellect or the other senses is direct and immediate.

That is reality

That is truth.

 

[Stranger]

A rationale is a tool of the intellect. The intellect is the faculty of reasoning. It can be rational or irrational, but it can never be non-rational. So I know or have rational knowledge by these reasoning faculties. That's one way to know.

Then there are all the other senses as well. All of these are what we use to mediate reality.

Then there is what we are aware of apart from the intellect or the other senses.
Awareness that isn't filtered through the intellect or the other senses is direct and immediate.

That is reality

That is truth.

But you don't have the Spirit of Christ. That is a reality.

Stranger

 

[DoveSpirit05]

A rationale is a tool of the intellect. The intellect is the faculty of reasoning. It can be rational or irrational, but it can never be non-rational. So I know or have rational knowledge by these reasoning faculties. That's one way to know.

Then there are all the other senses as well. All of these are what we use to mediate reality.

Then there is what we are aware of apart from the intellect or the other senses.
Awareness that isn't filtered through the intellect or the other senses is direct and immediate.

That is reality

That is truth.

ok ill give u dat I just checked the meaning!! I fort it came from logic, ok where does ur logic come from? i'm assuming u believe u have logic right, are u an atheist BTW?

 

[shnarkle]

ok ill give u dat I just checked the meaning!! I fort it came from logic, ok where does ur logic come from? i'm assuming u believe u have logic right, are u an atheist BTW?

Logic comes from the word "logos" which means "word". Words come from thoughts, ideas. Again, we're dealing with our reasoning or intellectual capacities which reflect reality.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

Logic comes from the word "logos" which means "word". Words come from thoughts, ideas. Again, we're dealing with our reasoning or intellectual capacities which reflect reality.

Nah my friend ur partly right, logic is how we reason, how we make sense of things, logos is a greek word which means " word uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea" as in jesus, when he came forth from the father!

 

[shnarkle]

Nah my friend ur partly right, logic is how we reason, how we make sense of things, logos is a greek word which means " word uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea" as in jesus, when he came forth from the father!

A distinction with no effective difference. Are you going to advance your argument, or just repeat what's already been posted?

Logic: From Old French logike, from Latin logica, from Ancient Greek λογική (logikḗ, “logic”), from feminine of λογικός (logikós, “of or pertaining to speech or reason or reasoning, rational, reasonable”), from λόγος (lógos, “speech, reason”) .

 

[DoveSpirit05]

listern man I didn't want 2 get into dis one up men ship, I gave the greek translation from the greek lexicon, if u wanna go against it dats fine, but lets not get side tracked. can u answer my original question. where does logic come from?

 

[shnarkle]

listern man I didn't want 2 get into dis one up men ship, I gave the greek translation from the greek lexicon, if u wanna go against it dats fine, but lets not get side tracked. can u answer my original question. where does logic come from?

Logic comes from our capacity to reason, to engage in abstract thought.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

ok, how du know ur reasoning is valid?? i'm asking these things coz i'm building up 2 my main question.

 

[shnarkle]

ok, how du know ur reasoning is valid?? i'm asking these things coz i'm building up 2 my main question.

Why don't you just save us all a whole lot of time and just present your argument instead of playing 20 questions?

If you check out my first few posts, you should be able to see that I've already answered your questions.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

its a valid question man or can't u answer it?

 

[shnarkle]

its a valid question man or can't u answer it?

As I said before, I already addressed this question. Here it is again for your edification:

I would assume that there is such a thing as truth. If one were to say that there is no such thing as the truth, then they have just contradicted themselves by making a truth claim. Therefore it stands to reason that we can make truth claims based simply using logic, argumentation, debate, etc.

I don't quite understand the question on how one knows what they know. The reason I don't understand is that when I think of knowing, I think of this in terms of intellectual or rational knowledge which can only be known through the intellect. There are some who would claim other types of knowledge, but I wouldn't call that knowledge as much as things like experience, awareness, etc.

Another question would be how can we know the world around us? And the answer to that question is somewhat the same. We can only rationally or intellectually know the world around us by the intellect. This doesn't actually allow us to connect directly to the world. It only serves as a derivative to reality.

One can become aware of reality, but this can never be through the intellect as it only creates an additional mediator to reality. The bible talks of a mediator between man and God which is the closest thing to what I'm talking about. There can be no additional mediators without creating further separation from reality.

Most people today get their ethics from their culture. We have a social contract, and people who violate that contract and are caught, suffer the consequences. We're taught the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Ultimately, these terms don't mean much to a lot of people. Too many people really have no comprehension of why they should do what they do. They just do the "right" thing in order to be accepted by society..Awareness that isn't filtered through the intellect or the other senses is direct and immediate.

That is reality

That is the truth..

Paul refers to this as "Christ". He points out that there can be no other mediator between humanity and transcendence.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

Yeah but ur not defining it properly, I know he's the (logos) but how do u know in ur mind dat he is? let me put it another way! wat do u use 2 make sense of ur surroundings, how du receive information?

 

[shnarkle]

Yeah but ur not defining it properly,

It doesn't really matter due to the fact that "the word" is not the definition or meaning. The "image" is not what it represents, but the representation.

I know he's the (logos) but how do u know in ur mind dat he is?

There's only one way to know in one's mind, and that is through the intellect, or the faculty of reason itself. This is self evident. More importantly, as I've already pointed out repeatedly, it is derived, and therefore unnecessary for validation. It cannot be used for validation without introducing error.

let me put it another way! wat do u use 2 make sense of ur surroundings, how du receive information?

The same way everyone else does through the intellect; the faculty of understanding. Again, you're just wasting time. Present your point. Play devil's advocate, and present some atheist's argument so you can knock it down if it makes you feel better. Just get on with it.

 

[Stranger]

It doesn't really matter due to the fact that "the word" is not the definition or meaning. The "image" is not what it represents, but the representation.



There's only one way to know in one's mind, and that is through the intellect, or the faculty of reason itself. This is self evident. More importantly, as I've already pointed out repeatedly, it is derived, and therefore unnecessary for validation. It cannot be used for validation without introducing error.



The same way everyone else does through the intellect; the faculty of understanding. Again, you're just wasting time. Present your point. Play devil's advocate, and present some atheist's argument so you can knock it down if it makes you feel better. Just get on with it.

As I said in post #(5), you don't have the Spirit of Christ.

The Christian has knowledge through the Spirit. We have the mind of Christ.

When you say 'intellect' all you are addressing is mans 'mind'. The Christian has introduced into their mind the things of the Spirit.

Because you are not Christian, you are left just to your faulty intellect.

Stranger

 

[DoveSpirit05]

It doesn't really matter due to the fact that "the word" is not the definition or meaning. The "image" is not what it represents, but the representation.



There's only one way to know in one's mind, and that is through the intellect, or the faculty of reason itself. This is self evident. More importantly, as I've already pointed out repeatedly, it is derived, and therefore unnecessary for validation. It cannot be used for validation without introducing error.



The same way everyone else does through the intellect; the faculty of understanding. Again, you're just wasting time. Present your point. Play devil's advocate, and present some atheist's argument so you can knock it down if it makes you feel better. Just get on with it.

is dat "true" what u just said??

 

[shnarkle]

is dat "true" what u just said??

What are you talking about?

Never mind. Make a point, or prepared to be "ignore"'d forever.