NationStates Jolt Archive

...and how it proves that humans are indeed sinners that need salvation from Christ:

In many of the religion debate threads, I often hear this: x is scientifically proven with empirical evidence - that is, solid evidence that doesn't change with who is studying them. Okay. Great. But why do we put so much faith in the evidence that nature provides us? Why are we so sure that the leaves outside are green, but we aren't sure if your best friend will keep up his/her promise to meet you at the mall later this afternoon?

It all boils down to one reason: humans are generally untrustworthy? But why are humans untrustworthy and evidence from nature more reliable? BINGO! Because humans are sinners. We lie, we cheat, we presume, we guess, we forget, we deliberately ignore etc. but nature doesn't. Because nature doesn't think. Nature doesn't scheme.

Ah....Ain't I smart? Shut up. You don't need to prove that with an IQ test. ;)

We lie, we cheat, we presume, we guess, we forget, we deliberately ignore etc. but nature doesn't. Because nature doesn't think. Nature doesn't scheme.

Yeah? and why do I need salvation again? I fail to see how you've proved anything.

We lie, we cheat, we presume, we guess, we forget, we deliberately ignore etc

Yup,because that's the way God made us(love that excuse)

Yeah? and why do I need salvation again? I fail to see how you've proved anything.

I should follow up.

Everybody knows we can't trust humans. Even you know, because you put your faith in the empirical evidence that is, or that seems, everlasting. Humans can't be trusted because humans are sinners. Therefore, humans need salvation because humans are sinners.

You don't need to agree. But do you see the logic?

You logic is valid, but the soundness of your logic is shit.

You are essentially going:

If the grass is green,then humans are sinners.
The grass is green.
Therefore, humans are sinners.

Obviously what you go spouting off about is slightly more complicated but in principle is the same.

Your logic is faulty.

We lie, we cheat, we presume, we guess, we forget, we deliberately ignore etc. does not imply humans are sinners without presupposing that sin exists and has the definition listed. At which point, it becomes a tautology

I should follow up.

Everybody knows we can't trust humans. Even you know, because you put your faith in the empirical evidence that is, or that seems, everlasting. Humans can't be trusted because humans are sinners. Therefore, humans need salvation because humans are sinners.

You don't need to agree. But do you see the logic?

does that mean we shouldn't trust you?

Here's another arguement:all humans are incapable of doing wrong.allow me to explain,have you ever done something,something you knew to be the wrong thing to do and that would not serve any greater good,yet you did it anyway.i think it's safe to assume the answer is no.that is because if you thought it was wrong and served no greater good you wouldn't have done it.thus from each persons personal perspective none of us have ever done anything wrong.

That comes either from Dianetics,or Scientology.and i am neither a dianetisist(sp?) or a scientologist.

Nyeh...it's too late at night. I'll come back in the morning. Heh.

You logic is valid, but the soundness of your logic is shit.

You are essentially going:

If the grass is green,then humans are sinners.
The grass is green.
Therefore, humans are sinners.

Obviously what you go spouting off about is slightly more complicated but in principle is the same.

Yes, but is the green you see the same green that I see? Perhaps what you consider green I think of as blue, because all of our lives we have been told that blue is green or green is blue without knowing it becuase we see the opposite.
Dont know where that came from :P

Yes, but is the green you see the same green that I see? Perhaps what you consider green I think of as blue, because all of our lives we have been told that blue is green or green is blue without knowing it becuase we see the opposite.
Dont know where that came from :P

Let me guess, there is no spoon?

Yes, but is the green you see the same green that I see? Perhaps what you consider green I think of as blue, because all of our lives we have been told that blue is green or green is blue without knowing it becuase we see the opposite.
Dont know where that came from :P
All validity is is the proper structuring of an argument. Whether or not the argument is sound is a different matter entirely.

Let me guess, there is no spoon?

It's more of a spork(a spoon/fork hybrid)

Why are we so sure that the leaves outside are green, but we aren't sure if your best friend will keep up his/her promise to meet you at the mall later this afternoon?

It all boils down to one reason: humans are generally untrustworthy? But why are humans untrustworthy and evidence from nature more reliable? BINGO! Because humans are sinners.

Another fault in your logic is here.
You say:
"you cannot predict human behavior" therefore "humans are untrustworthy" therefore "humans are sinners".

The error is that the conclusion from "you cannot predict human behavior" is that we are a highly complex system and that makes us difficult to predict.

Humans do wrong things, sure. And we would probably benefit from Christ's salvation - if he existed and if he was able to offer us salvation. Both rather big 'ifs', I think everyone will agree.

Even if we are the supposed "sinners" that you clame we are, who necessarilly says that it would be Jesus that would save us? Why not Vishnu, Allah, or even Buddha?

...and how it proves that humans are indeed sinners that need salvation from Christ:

In many of the religion debate threads, I often hear this: x is scientifically proven with empirical evidence - that is, solid evidence that doesn't change with who is studying them. Okay. Great. But why do we put so much faith in the evidence that nature provides us? Why are we so sure that the leaves outside are green, but we aren't sure if your best friend will keep up his/her promise to meet you at the mall later this afternoon?

It all boils down to one reason: humans are generally untrustworthy? But why are humans untrustworthy and evidence from nature more reliable? BINGO! Because humans are sinners. We lie, we cheat, we presume, we guess, we forget, we deliberately ignore etc. but nature doesn't. Because nature doesn't think. Nature doesn't scheme.

Ah....Ain't I smart? Shut up. You don't need to prove that with an IQ test. ;)
The major flaw I find is this:
You presuppose the existance of the Christian God, and the truth of Christianity, within the attempt to prove it.

Nothing in your argument proved the truth of the Bible, and your argument hinges on that in the final bit. Without that, all it would say is "Humans are unpredictable, and this is bad."