1. **This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality ** What exactly do you mean by this. are you saying that what we believe to be God's morality is actually our own subjective idea of what God's morality is? I just want to be sure.
2. WHen you use the term "moral" in "moral compass", what do you mean? Are you using "moral" in terms of "Good" or "Bad", i.e. determining something (an action) as "good" or "bad"?
a) When we judge things as "moral", we are in essence measuring them against a "standard" by which we then judge it as "good" or "bad". So the heart of your debate is basically asking "Should the Bible be used to judge actions as "good" or "bad"?". Or put another way, you are asking "Is the Bible a "good" standard to judge actions against or is it a "bad" standard?" Which begs the question, what is the standard against which you would be judging the Bible as "good" or "bad" when it comes to being a "moral compass" (standard)?
3. When judging the Bible's morailty (good or bad), what will you be measuring or comparing to as a standard, to determine if a specific passage is moral or not (i.e. good or bad)?
I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that when an arguer (an atheist, devil's advocate, etc) uses the 4 O's (Omniscient, Omni-present, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent) to counter the existence of God, it's usually from a flawed understanding of those terms from a Christian perspective. Often, when debating/arguing the existence of God or rationality of faith, this is often lobbed as an argument against God, faith, the Bible, etc. When trying to counter, it becomes daunting because each of these of those Big O items in and of itself is worthy as a stand-alone debate, which is what I'm attempting to do with this debate (omnipotent).
I'd like to debate the other 3 individually at some point.....
The Omnipotent Paradox (Can God make a stone he can not lift) is silly and illogical.
It (the Paradox) violates the law of non-contradiction (tipping my hat to Aristotle). The law of non-contradiction states that things that are logically contradictory cannot exist and are, in fact, absurd. For example a “square circle” cannot exist because in order for a square to be a square it must not be a circle, and vice versa. There are some things God can not do BECAUSE he is Omnipotent.
You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
Put another way, a rock, by definition, is an object made of matter and of a finite size. In order for such a stone/rock to be too heavy for an Infinite Being, it would need to be of infinite size. But the very definition (dare I say it, YOUR definition) of a stone rules out this possibility. Here's a fun little hypothetical:
Atheist: "God, if you're so powerful, I want you to make a Triangle with only 2 sides. If you can't, then that proves you're not All-Powerful"
God: "Ok. First, let's make sure we are on the same page. What exactly is a triangle?"
Atheist: "You're God! You should know that already. But allow me to enlighten you. A triangle is an enclosed shape consisting of 3 sides and 3 angles that are each less than 90 degrees."
God: "Ok. So your own definition of a triangle is a shape with 3 sides, but yet want me to make one with 2 sides? So if I make shape that has 2 sides and I present it to you and say it's a triangle, would you agree?"
Atheist: <awkward silence> "Um.......No"
God: "Why not"
Atheist: "Because....I ...um....defined the triangle to be 3 sides".
All, the Omnipotent Paradox proves is that the Atheist has a misunderstanding of what "Omnipotent" means, at least from a Christian standpoint.
Nah. I"m not too familiar with the songs from other countries, probably not appropriate for my biased-ass to vote. Here's some more. I'll admit these may not necessarily be "patriotic" in the traditional sense., but hell, you can't deny they make you want to hoist the flag!
Damn Yankees - Don't Tread on Me
Springsteen - Born in the USA
John Cougar Mellencamp - R-O-C-K in the USA
James Brown - Living in America......you can't help but think of Rocky duking it out with Drago when this one comes on!
The solution doesn't need to be throw the girls into an existing organization for boys.
1. Why not create an organization that offers the same perks/advantages for girls that the BSA offers?
2. Slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before Troops are Co-Ed. Bookmark this page that way you can refer back to it when it comes to fruitiion in the future.
3. Refer back to point 1. Why not start an organization that offers these same skills for girls?
Boys need an avenue/forum where they can just do things on their own without the presence of girls.
Why take this away from the boys -- why not foster/develop these skills and advantages for girls OUTSIDE of BSA?
Or put another way, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The absence of evidence for X proves, at best, two things and two things only: (1) you have no evidence for X, or (2) you just don't see the evidence. It doesn't prove that X exists, nor does it prove that X doesn't exist.
Food for thought - what if people are just unable to "see" the evidence that is before them? Maybe the evidence is "there", but folks are unable to see it or recognize it as such?
Here's an analogy. Not a strawman, mind you, but an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine two guys are out in the forest. One guy, let's call him Natty Bumppo, is a seasoned hunter.....he's been tracking animals all his life. He knows the forest in and out. Another guy, let's call him Duncan Heyward, has never set foot in a forest and doesn't know the first thing about hunting or tracking animals, etc.
Now suppose these guys are walking through the forest. Natty says to Duncan "Someone else has been walking in this forest." Duncan on the other hand says "You're crazy, no one has been here." Natty replies "Dude, the evidence is right there....there! don't you see it?!?" (he is able to see the signs of another human, such as bent twigs, etc). Duncan on the other hand says "Nope. I don't see it. I dont' see it at all."
Humans for whatever reason (inability, immaturity, obstinance) may just not be able to see or recognize the evidence that is presented before us.
I would also agree that my "modest proposal" is unrealistic...as I said, I said in jest (sorta). But I would also counter that just because a tax might be easy to implement is not good enough reason to implement it.
Well, "evil" in simple terms, is basically a determination of whether or not something is "good" or "bad", "moral" or "immoral", "right" or "wrong", "just" or "unjust". That which tends towards the "bad", "immoral" or "unjust" could be considered "evil". The question of evil ultimately boils down to this: How does one determine if an action is "evil"? To do so, one has to compare that action against something else and determination it's level of "goodness" (or "evilness", if you will). That "something" can be considered a standard against which other things are measured. That standard could be anything: a set of laws enacted by the State, a person's viewpoint, religious beliefs, a government document (such as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution), a political platform, etc. All actions, whether impacting the Collective (Society) or the Individual or both can be judged in this manner.
And since we are talking about definitions, your definition of "socialism" is quite narrow as well. "Socialism" is more than just the redistribution of wealth and income. The "redistribution of wealth and income" is but one facet of socialism. Socialism also encompasses the collective ownership of the means of production as well.
Regarding your comment about the Declaration and the Constitution, point taken. I do realize that some folks consider these documents to now be irrelevant. Of course, that begs the questions-- why are they are irrelevant? Is it because they conflict with what a person wants or believes? And according to what standard (the "something" I mentioned above against which things are measured) do yo use to determine if something is Good or Evil?
Sorry-- I have to disagree with your use of the word "Strawman" to counter my comments lol.
I'm not distorting or exaggerating your argument-- i'm simply using your definition of the word "Evil" to highlight the fact that the mere way you choose to define "evil" ("harmful to society") leaves it very hard for anyone to accept your debate to challenge you, based on the definition they are accepting as part of the debate. I'm not saying that because this type of thinking can lead to other atrocities it now proves that redistribution of wealth/income is evil. In no way am I making that claim. I'm simply illustrating the point that your choice of definitions puts society above the individual. I'll go out on a limb and say that idea runs counter to what this country was founded upon (see the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution et al))
If it makes you feel better, I'll tell Mr. Straw Man to take a seat and we can strike the last paragraph from my argument. So now, I'll repeat:
An action, A, can benefit society, but also be harmful to the individual. Because it is harmful to the individual, it could be considered Evil. But because you've defined Evil as only harmful to society, you would argue that it is not Evil. And because your opponent, by accepting the debate, accepts your definition of evil, it would be hard for them to argue against you.
I eat and enjoy my junk food, but I also exercise regularly (run at least 4 times a week, play basketball 3 times a week). As a result, I am not obese-- i'm in great shape-- i'm one of those guys that can eat whatever I want, including junk food, and still maintain a healthy weight (it's a curse, I know). I should not be penalized (i.e. taxed) simply because others can't do the same......
Allow me to borrow a pen from Jonathan Swift and submit my own "modest proposal". If the intent is to curb or stop obesity, then how about we just tax those that are obese, rather than tax everyone who partakes of said junk food? This would provide a clear incentive to those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle. The tax could be proportionate to the individual's um,....proportions......your % tax could be tied to something like BMI, or something like that....
Right off the bat, you've set up your opponent to lose by how you've defined "Evil" . You define evil as only being "harmful to society". Your definition doesn't consider the individual, it only considers the society.
An action, A, can benefit society, but also be harmful to the individual. Because it is harmful to the individual, it could be considered Evil. But because you've defined Evil as only harmful to society, you would argue that it is not Evil. And because your opponent, by accepting the debate, accepts your definition of evil, it would be hard for them to argue against you.
If one believes that the good of society always outweighs the individual, then it follows that any action is good, as long as it benefits society, regardless of the impact on the individual. That action can be anything: (a) the redistribution of wealth/income, (b) forced labor, or (c) the killing of innocent people because they may be perceived as a "burden" or "detrimental" to society. This is a very dangerous and frightening notion.
First, I've only read the first round of arguments.
Your first point (1) is not really a "reason". Or at least I had trouble understanding how the point is a reason to implement a JF Tax. It is simply stating that implementing a JF tax would not impact the poor as much-- this is not really a reason.
Your second point (2) does seem to be a reason put forth by you. However, I would counter that you're making an assumption that the JF Tax would decrease the income tax. You don't know this- it's an assumption. For all we know, Congress' voracious appetite for money would not decrease and thus the "need" for the income tax would still be there.
**Oh my, I have already addressed this in my post #53 **
Um, actually, no. no you didn't lol. I just re-read your post #53 and you provided comments, but you didn't answer the question. All you did was asked other questions.
hey sorry-- your posts/comments ar etoo long winded. lol
Sorry-- Jesus does not say "follow the OT". Supply that verse where he says that.
Do you believe that God’s plan for us was to live in paradise worry-free in complete harmony with all creation but evil invaded God’s plan and through man’s complicity with that evil we turned from God and lost paradise?
YOu asked a specific question-- have I ever had a garage sale or bake sale to help the Church pay for stuff like that. Simple answer is "no". I've never had a garage sale or bake sale lol
You are modifying your questions after I answer them. YOu asked if I would leave the church if one of my kids were raped by a priest. No. After I answer you act is if I would be all chummy-chummy with the priest and shake his hand after Mass, etc. No, I never said I would do that. I would attend a different Catholic Church then the criminal priest. I would also be a loud voice demanding the Bishop and Local authorities hold this priest accountable. But no, I would not leave the Church.
You can insult all you want, doesn't bother me. Just to clarify, my questions are simple "Yes" or "No" questions. lol. You don't need to convolute the issue by throwing in a whole bunch of other stuff. Just answer the questions as "yes" or "no" if you are able.
4. Have you ever held a garage or bake sale in your community to help your Catholic Church raise money to pay off its dept to society for your disgusting pedophile priests buggering innocent scared and screaming children? Nope.
5. Would you leave your ungodly pagan Church if one of your innocent children were violently raped by your priest, whereas this child has this disgusting memory for life? Nope. Why not? Because I don't blame the Church for the action of the priest. Plus I thoroughly understand SPiritual warfare. I understand that I am a member of the one true Church. And Satan's plan is for me to leave this Church, and Satan is active every day trying to get me (us) to disavow and leave the Church. THe life of Catholic Christian is filled with struggle and suffering, just as Christ's life was. There is going to be suffering...unimaginable suffering. But, what Christ promises is that if we perceive and never leave Him, we will be rewarded.
Next question: Do you believe that God’s plan for us was to live in paradise worry-free in complete harmony with all creation but evil invaded God’s plan and through man’s complicity with that evil we turned from God and lost paradise?
TIT FOR TAT:
1. Why do you continue to support the on going pedophile priest problem within your pagan Catholic Church by being a continued member?
I believe in Spiritual Warfare. Since Catholicism is the one true Church, then it makes perfect sense that Satan would attack the priests. Satan's plan is for us to stray and leave the Church. Why are you doing Satan's bidding? lol
2. How can you continue in being a Catholic when it is on record that your church COVERED UP pedophile priests raping screaming innocent children for decades upon decades? WWJD? The Church is made up of human members capable of making mistakes and sins, some of them grave. Hell, the first Pope, Peter, even betrayed Christ. By the way, all the priests I know dont' do those things.
3. Are you proud that your church has paid out 4 BILLION, and counting, of the members hard earned money as reparations to the children and families because of pedophile priests sexual abuse of innocent children? I'm not proud of the Sexual scandal within the Church. But again, the Church has had scandal since day 1. And yet, it persists, as Christ promised. He said He would not let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church. Rest assured, the Catholic Church will weather this current scandal, and will remain standing, as it is build upon solid rock, as Christ promised.
I'm going to ask you some questions, and just answer the questions as asked, no need to provide superfluous answers, insults etc lol. Insults don't bother me, but I find when someone throws a lot of insults it's usually because they can't defend their position and have no other recourse. So if you can't answer the question, just say so-- I won't hold it against ya (and humility can be quite good for the soul ;-) )
Question #1: Do you believe in God and that he created everything out of nothing for no other reason other than the fact that he loves us?
Hey Let me knwo when you want to debate. Seems like you're a broken saying the same thing oer and over again. Its apparent you have no understanding of the Catholic faith. I'd be happy to educate you and inform you.
An organization may have some bad members, but that doesn't mean the whole organization is bad. A thieving bank teller doesn't mean the entire Bank is bad, does it? Nope.
Eh, the words you quote seem to be your words, not Jesus'. lol. nice try though. Valiant effort.
You've yet to answer the question how you can be confident YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. You haven't, because you can't. That's the bottom line. And because you have no ground to stand on, you hurl insults.
Your interpretation of the Bible is different from mine, and both ours are different from the guy down the street, and all of our interpretations are different from the Lady walking door to door.
SO the question remains-- who's interpretation is correct, and how can you be so sure?
1. The Bible is collection of books with the books written by various human authors, for different audiences at different points in history.
2. As such, you can't reach passage or book of the Bible the same way (i.e. literally). THat would be like reading MLK's LEtter from a Birmingham Jail and Aesop's Fables in exactly the same.
3. Thus, the onus is on you to show that your interpretation of the passages of the Bible are the correct interpretation.
Numbers 23:19 - your version of this passage is vastly different from what I read. What version are you using? Is this your own wording?
Proverbs 30: 5 - yep God's word is flawless. That doesn't necessarily mean/imply that a specific law written for the Jews some 2000+ years ago is still applied today.
Hebrews 4:13 - again what version ar eyou reading? I couldn't find anything near to the wording you use. Is this your own wording?
James 1:22 - um yea. This just means to don't pay lip service but also let your deeds show you are a Christian. You however make the leap of everything must be taken literally.
Matthew 4:4 - yep. in no way this mean the OT laws are applicable
Luke 11:28 - yep. in no way this mean the OT laws are applicable
Since you do like to take the bible literally, I'm assuming then you will agree that I am blessed. After all Jesus does say that those who are insulted on account of His name are blessed and that their reward will be great in Heaven (see Luke chapter 6). So thank you. THANK YOU! keep the insults a-comin'! :)
Food for thought (and I admit I didn't read the full report), but is there any explanation for the reported decline in undocumented immigrants? Is it increased resources (i.e. more agents, etc). If so, then perhaps a wall would lessen our dependence on "human" security measures along the border? in other words, perhaps if there is a wall, between points A and B, then that will mean won't necessarily need as many agents stationed between A and B?
Seems I struck a nerve lol. Sounds like your itching for a debate :)
eh, while horrific and evil, the homosexual problem within the priesthood is not the first scandal within the Church. Hell, some of Jesus' first disciples and apostles coudn't accept His teachings, they betrayed Him, abandoned Him, etc.To act as if the current horrific scandal is the first time Jesus' followers did terrible things is to actually be ignorant to the Church and it's history. I'm Catholic-- not because of the priests, the bishops or the Popes, but because of Jesus.
I am not, and did not re-write the Bible as you claim in your comment (nice try though). This conversation is actually getting quite fun. If you can do me this favor:
- what verse/passage of the Bible does Jesus specifically say in his sermon on the mount that the OT is to be followed at all times?
- while we are at it, what version of the Bible are you referencing, and how are you so sure your version is the authoritative version? A simple sentence like "I didn't say you stole the money" can have a multitude of interpretations based on what words you emphasize. Imagine how a group of books like the Bible can be misconstrued if folks do not interpret it correctly. The question for you is: how do YOU know that YOU are interpreting specific passages from the Bible correctly? I've had arguments where people claim to have read MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and say things like "this is exactly what is meant when MLK said this". I'm like-- how do you know? Same applies to the Bible.
- You take one law from the OT and make the claim that applies to all men in all times for all eternity-- but no where in the Bible does the Bible ever say that. The Bible never says the laws are to be applied to everyone everywhere all the time. Saying it's "flawless" is not the same. Nice try though
Whether I'm a Christian or not is im-material to the debate. And actually, I do not like to argue points from a Christian/Biblical perspective, unless it's a theological discussion-- those arguments/points get nowhere with someone who an atheist. I can say "Well the Bible says this: ________" and the atheist will say "But I don't believe in your Bible, so there!"
Incidentally, the reference to the Mosaic/Levitica/Exodusl laws are sometimes mis-used. People refer to those specific laws, like the ones in Leviticus and Exodus, and seem to point and say "SEE! THOSE LAWS STILL APPLY!" Not necessarily, just because God commanded certain laws to a certain people at a certain point in history doesn't necessarily mean that those laws still apply to people today-- one must look at context, the rest of the Bible and, just as important, what the Church teaches.
I would argue that the "Stone Too Heavy to Lift" paradox is not mathematical-- it's actually illogical. It also depends on how one defines "omnipotence", does it not? If you define "omnipotence" to include also having the ability to do the illogical, or the logically impossible, (such as creating a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, a married bachelor, a one-ended stick, etc etc) then I would agree your version of "omnipotence" is impossible. But I would (and I'm willing to guess most Christian theologians wouldn't either) not define "omnipotence" as being able to do the logically impossible (i.e. the illogical).
The "stone too heavy to lift" paradox is often used to "dis-prove" the existence of God, or at least God's Omnipotence. But I would argue that the paradox is illogical and doesn't make sense. The paradox is basically asking "Can a being of Unlimited Power produce something to limit him", but it's Unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. One can say (argue) that there are some things an Unlimited Being can't do precisely because it's Unlimited (i.e. omnipotent).
I'll admit, the "stone too heavy to lift" scenario is fun thought experiment, much like the "Can an all-powerful God create a square circle? Or a married bachelor? Or a one-ended stick? Or a triangle with 2 sides?" A being with unlimited power would have to create a rock that is infinite in size. But a rock, by definition, is finite. It just "doesn't make sense".
I'll close by adding this. I've heard someone respond to the "stone too heavy to lift" question this way:
An Omnipotent Being could indeed create anything it wants, including a stone of infinite size, and the Omnipotent Being would also be able to lift it.
Alright, back from a long weekend. So you admit that some people may not recognize or acknowledge, for whatever reason, any evidence that is presented (regardless of topic). My assumption is that you are not immune from this as well-- in other words, there could be a topic out there, that for whatever reason, you may not acknowledge or recognize any evidence presented, correct?
So let's just say hypothetically I would present some evidence (regardless of topic), there is a very real possibility you could say "Nope, that is not evidence. YOu haven't presented evidence yet", even though the evidence is before you, correct? There is a very real possibility that that could happen, correct?
**Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.**
Again, that begs the question- what if you are unable to see the evidence or unable to recognize it. If you are unable to, then how can you make the claim I haven't presented any? I'm playing Devils' Advocate here.
Are you so sure you can recognize the evidence of XYZ's existence if it was presented before you? How can you be so sure you would or can. I could present A, B, and C as evidence, but you could be blind to it and say "nope, that's not evidence. You haven't presented any evidence yet that proves XYZ exists."
XYZ could be anything....God....sugar in coffee...an honest lawyer.
** Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion? **
The definition I added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." was the result of a quick (very quick!) Google search on the word "religion". It's actually the first thing that Google displayed when I searched "religion". I guess it's Google Dictionary, for lack of a better term?
Merriam-Webster offers a very similar definition as well: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith:
I agree it is oddly free-wheeling, and really underscores how words and definitions can be changed (don't get me started on the whole "gender" definition).
"You're commiting the false analogy fallacy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Just because the guy in your analogy has proof that the coffee is sweet, doesn't mean that theists have proof that God exists."
Um, no. No i'm not. I'm not saying that all. Give me a moment.... ** sifts through notes and comments, just to confirm **. Nope, not saying that all. In no way at all do I say or imply because X (proof that the coffee is sweet) then Y (theists have proof that God exists). I'm not even sure how you made that leap.
AGain, what I meant to illustrate with that ANALOGY was an example of how people, when presented with evidence, can still be blind to it. They may not see it or they may refuse to see it. Perhaps they are so obstinate in their ways or thinking that they are unable. Perhaps they have such a strong philosophical objection to something that they don't see it.
Sticking with the sugar discussion-- Your response was funny I admit. But it was also revealing-- seems like you are distracting from the real topic (Did I put sugar in your coffee or not) by throwing in other issues
- taking issue with someone drinking your coffee
- taking issue with the spelling of the word sugar (or was it Sugar?)
anyway, that was fun.
I agree with you though-- the discussion (sugar in coffee) is comparable to the God debate. My point of it all was to illustrate how people can be presented with all sorts of evidence, no matter what the topic (sugar in coffee, is Lebron a better player, should the Spurs have kept Kawhi, does God exist), but still be blind to it or refuse to see it (perhaps because of a philosophical objection to it).
For the record, it's not MY analogy. lol. Mr. Oragami was the one that brought it up when he wrote:
"Atheism is an observation. This coffee has no sugar that I can see or taste or observe. Now maybe my senses are dull or my instruments insufficient but if you want me to believe that you put sugar in this coffee the burden of proof is now yours. This planet has no creator that I can see or taste or observe. If you want me to believe this planet has a creator the burden of proof is now yours. A lack of evidence of something can’t be, by definition, also best at that something."
Depends on how you define "religion". While historically, "religion" has meant a belief in a God or gods, newer definitions have added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
The "sugar in my coffee" is interesting. What that (and the God debate) ultimately comes down to is this: can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Dude, the sugar was put in. Can't you taste it? The coffee is so sweet, it's so obvious."
Anti-sugar Guy: "Nope. Sorry, my taste buds don't work. I simply can't taste it. And if I can't taste it, I'm not going to believe it."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have an empty sugar packet right here."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Sorry. That doesn't necessarily mean the sugar went into the coffee."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have witnesses who are willing to give their life as a testament to the fact that I put Sugar in the coffee."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Doesn't prove a thing. Those folks may just be crazy."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But again, I have people who are saying that the coffee is sweet."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Sorry. Doesn't necessarily mean the coffee as sugar in it. For all I know the sweetness could have been cause by honey or molasses and not sugar. Or perhaps, the chemicals in the coffee organized in such a random way so as to effect the taste of the coffee."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Ok. Help me out here. I've shown you evidence that many would consider obvious that would lead one to believe I put sugar in the coffee-- but you refuse to believe it. What sort of evidence do you want to see that would convince you that I put sugar in the coffee?"
I think that is the question that boils down for the atheist-- what sort of evidence (i.e. proof) would be "acceptable" for them to "believe" in a God?
Religion - how would you define religion? What do you mean by religion.
"Best" - how would you define the terms "good", "better", and "best" (this is very important, as these are descriptors used to measure something comparatively against something else, often a "standard")
**Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.**
My response:
1. So? Just because God knows what you are going to say, doesn't mean there is no point. Again, talking with God is meant to help the person, not God. Sometimes when one goes through a difficult time, your friend or family is there for you-- they listen to you. They may already know what you are going through, but they are there for you to listen. When one talks with them, it's helpful. It's the same with God.
2. Ahhhhh, how do you know that. Perhaps God responds, but perhaps one just doesn't recognize or hear Him talking (see what Elijah says about that!).
Prayer is not about changing God, it's about changing us.
What is prayer? Prayer is simply conversation with God. Some people choose to use this conversation as only an opportunity to ask for things.
God, like any good parent, wants his children to come to Him and talk to him, but often, not only when they need something.
I'm pretty sure you don't just talk to folks when you need things, right? It's funny. I have kids. They all talk with me. One child however seems to only come to me when he wants something-- "Dad, I need the car. Dad, I want some new shoes. Dad, I need some money to go out. Dad, I want to download the latest update for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six" People have observed this and have said "Wow....he seems kinda selfish." (in my mind I think, my God-- he is just like me when I was his age!"
Prayer is not just about asking for thing, it's about conversing with God. If all we do is ask God for things, we are taking a pretty selfish role in the relationship.
It all comes down to the classic prayer we should pray to God, which Jesus repeated as shown in the Bible: "Not my will, but YOUR will be done".
Your argument on "omnibenevolence" pre-supposes or assumes a very critical point-- that man sees things/events as an infinite or omniscient God sees them. I always tell people that's pretty much the height of arrogance-- to claim to see/perceive events/things as God sees them.
A person can see an event and think "that is TERRIBLE! HORRIFIC! THE WORST! EVIL!", but the person is seeing it from their limited, perhaps im-mature perspective. Have you ever taken a young child to go get a shot at the doctor (I've had to do that many times)? They'll scream and kick and yell and sometimes say things like "NO! PLEASE DON'T! I DON'T WANT A SHOT! IT'S THE WORST! t", etc. as if it's the end of the world. But the young child simply is unable to see it due to his perspective and im-maturity.
I'm sure folks will yell "STRAWMAN!" and argue that "taking a child to get a shot" doesn't compare to the "killing that occurs in the OT". The point is, just because YOU think something is Good or BAd doesn't necessarily mean God views it that way. What is good/bad in YOUR eyes, may not be so in God's eyes, or may have a higher purpose.
True, a lot of people pray to God to get things. But God isn't a magical Genie arising out of bottle to grant people their wishes.
Again, the point of talking to God is for our benefit. I'm sure you've had moments in your life that were very difficult, and talking about it with someone helped you. You probably didn't get anything materialistically out of it, but simply talking it about helped out. That's how it is with talking to God.
Prayer.-- what's the point of praying to God if he already knows about everything?
Prayer is not just about asking God what you want or need, it's about being a relationship and having a conversation with God, and aligning ourselves accordingly. IT's not about changing God and having wave a "magic wand" and give us what we want, it's about changing us.
Yep. Catholics/Christians believe God is omnipotent, but omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean God going against His nature. I would counter by saying the Christian definition of "omni-potent" does not mean being able to do the "logically impossible" And since you (we) are using the Bible, I would ask you to clarify how you assert that the Bible implies/says that God can do the "logically impossible"?
The Christian Bible does not define or imply "Omnipotence" as being able to do the the "logically impossible".
The "can an omnipotent being create a stone to heavy to lift" argument is pretty much self-refuting and illogical. The critic who uses this argument is using an illogical argument, instead of a logical one, to prove God doesn't exist. Again, it's analogous (not a straw-man, analogous) to the "I define a triangle as having 3 sides, so make me a triangle with 4 sides" challenge. Some other fun Omnipotent Paradoxes: can God create a one-ended stick? Can God beat himself up in a fist-fight? Can God make married bachelors? Can God create square circles? Can God make a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time? Can God make a unicycle with 2 wheels? It's nonsense.
There are simply things God can not do BECAUSE He is omnipotent. This question is basically a clever way of saying "Can a Being of unlimited power produce something to limit Him?" But, His unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being can not create limits for himself.
Funny....the Pharisees tried trapping Jesus with a paradoxical challenge when they asked him about if they should pay taxes to the Romans....see how he gets out of that ;-)
I'd be interested in debating. Can you clarify:
1. **This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality ** What exactly do you mean by this. are you saying that what we believe to be God's morality is actually our own subjective idea of what God's morality is? I just want to be sure.
2. WHen you use the term "moral" in "moral compass", what do you mean? Are you using "moral" in terms of "Good" or "Bad", i.e. determining something (an action) as "good" or "bad"?
a) When we judge things as "moral", we are in essence measuring them against a "standard" by which we then judge it as "good" or "bad". So the heart of your debate is basically asking "Should the Bible be used to judge actions as "good" or "bad"?". Or put another way, you are asking "Is the Bible a "good" standard to judge actions against or is it a "bad" standard?" Which begs the question, what is the standard against which you would be judging the Bible as "good" or "bad" when it comes to being a "moral compass" (standard)?
3. When judging the Bible's morailty (good or bad), what will you be measuring or comparing to as a standard, to determine if a specific passage is moral or not (i.e. good or bad)?
I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that when an arguer (an atheist, devil's advocate, etc) uses the 4 O's (Omniscient, Omni-present, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent) to counter the existence of God, it's usually from a flawed understanding of those terms from a Christian perspective. Often, when debating/arguing the existence of God or rationality of faith, this is often lobbed as an argument against God, faith, the Bible, etc. When trying to counter, it becomes daunting because each of these of those Big O items in and of itself is worthy as a stand-alone debate, which is what I'm attempting to do with this debate (omnipotent).
I'd like to debate the other 3 individually at some point.....
The Omnipotent Paradox (Can God make a stone he can not lift) is silly and illogical.
It (the Paradox) violates the law of non-contradiction (tipping my hat to Aristotle). The law of non-contradiction states that things that are logically contradictory cannot exist and are, in fact, absurd. For example a “square circle” cannot exist because in order for a square to be a square it must not be a circle, and vice versa. There are some things God can not do BECAUSE he is Omnipotent.
You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
Put another way, a rock, by definition, is an object made of matter and of a finite size. In order for such a stone/rock to be too heavy for an Infinite Being, it would need to be of infinite size. But the very definition (dare I say it, YOUR definition) of a stone rules out this possibility. Here's a fun little hypothetical:
Atheist: "God, if you're so powerful, I want you to make a Triangle with only 2 sides. If you can't, then that proves you're not All-Powerful"
God: "Ok. First, let's make sure we are on the same page. What exactly is a triangle?"
Atheist: "You're God! You should know that already. But allow me to enlighten you. A triangle is an enclosed shape consisting of 3 sides and 3 angles that are each less than 90 degrees."
God: "Ok. So your own definition of a triangle is a shape with 3 sides, but yet want me to make one with 2 sides? So if I make shape that has 2 sides and I present it to you and say it's a triangle, would you agree?"
Atheist: <awkward silence> "Um.......No"
God: "Why not"
Atheist: "Because....I ...um....defined the triangle to be 3 sides".
All, the Omnipotent Paradox proves is that the Atheist has a misunderstanding of what "Omnipotent" means, at least from a Christian standpoint.
Nah. I"m not too familiar with the songs from other countries, probably not appropriate for my biased-ass to vote. Here's some more. I'll admit these may not necessarily be "patriotic" in the traditional sense., but hell, you can't deny they make you want to hoist the flag!
Damn Yankees - Don't Tread on Me
Springsteen - Born in the USA
John Cougar Mellencamp - R-O-C-K in the USA
James Brown - Living in America......you can't help but think of Rocky duking it out with Drago when this one comes on!
For your listenin' enjoyment:
Toby Keith - Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue
Extreme - Get the Funk Out
Johnny Cash - Ragged Old Flag
Kate Smith - God Bless America
And my personal favorite of all time:
Jimi Hendrix - Star-Spangled Banner
The solution doesn't need to be throw the girls into an existing organization for boys.
1. Why not create an organization that offers the same perks/advantages for girls that the BSA offers?
2. Slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before Troops are Co-Ed. Bookmark this page that way you can refer back to it when it comes to fruitiion in the future.
3. Refer back to point 1. Why not start an organization that offers these same skills for girls?
Boys need an avenue/forum where they can just do things on their own without the presence of girls.
Why take this away from the boys -- why not foster/develop these skills and advantages for girls OUTSIDE of BSA?
Or put another way, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The absence of evidence for X proves, at best, two things and two things only: (1) you have no evidence for X, or (2) you just don't see the evidence. It doesn't prove that X exists, nor does it prove that X doesn't exist.
Food for thought - what if people are just unable to "see" the evidence that is before them? Maybe the evidence is "there", but folks are unable to see it or recognize it as such?
Here's an analogy. Not a strawman, mind you, but an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine two guys are out in the forest. One guy, let's call him Natty Bumppo, is a seasoned hunter.....he's been tracking animals all his life. He knows the forest in and out. Another guy, let's call him Duncan Heyward, has never set foot in a forest and doesn't know the first thing about hunting or tracking animals, etc.
Now suppose these guys are walking through the forest. Natty says to Duncan "Someone else has been walking in this forest." Duncan on the other hand says "You're crazy, no one has been here." Natty replies "Dude, the evidence is right there....there! don't you see it?!?" (he is able to see the signs of another human, such as bent twigs, etc). Duncan on the other hand says "Nope. I don't see it. I dont' see it at all."
Humans for whatever reason (inability, immaturity, obstinance) may just not be able to see or recognize the evidence that is presented before us.
1.) Lack of direct evidence to support the existence of God.
DOesn't this assume, though, that the entity (you can call it "God") is subject to the scientific method?
If I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that make me the Anti-Pasta?
I would also agree that my "modest proposal" is unrealistic...as I said, I said in jest (sorta). But I would also counter that just because a tax might be easy to implement is not good enough reason to implement it.
Well, "evil" in simple terms, is basically a determination of whether or not something is "good" or "bad", "moral" or "immoral", "right" or "wrong", "just" or "unjust". That which tends towards the "bad", "immoral" or "unjust" could be considered "evil". The question of evil ultimately boils down to this: How does one determine if an action is "evil"? To do so, one has to compare that action against something else and determination it's level of "goodness" (or "evilness", if you will). That "something" can be considered a standard against which other things are measured. That standard could be anything: a set of laws enacted by the State, a person's viewpoint, religious beliefs, a government document (such as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution), a political platform, etc. All actions, whether impacting the Collective (Society) or the Individual or both can be judged in this manner.
And since we are talking about definitions, your definition of "socialism" is quite narrow as well. "Socialism" is more than just the redistribution of wealth and income. The "redistribution of wealth and income" is but one facet of socialism. Socialism also encompasses the collective ownership of the means of production as well.
Regarding your comment about the Declaration and the Constitution, point taken. I do realize that some folks consider these documents to now be irrelevant. Of course, that begs the questions-- why are they are irrelevant? Is it because they conflict with what a person wants or believes? And according to what standard (the "something" I mentioned above against which things are measured) do yo use to determine if something is Good or Evil?
Sorry-- I have to disagree with your use of the word "Strawman" to counter my comments lol.
I'm not distorting or exaggerating your argument-- i'm simply using your definition of the word "Evil" to highlight the fact that the mere way you choose to define "evil" ("harmful to society") leaves it very hard for anyone to accept your debate to challenge you, based on the definition they are accepting as part of the debate. I'm not saying that because this type of thinking can lead to other atrocities it now proves that redistribution of wealth/income is evil. In no way am I making that claim. I'm simply illustrating the point that your choice of definitions puts society above the individual. I'll go out on a limb and say that idea runs counter to what this country was founded upon (see the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution et al))
If it makes you feel better, I'll tell Mr. Straw Man to take a seat and we can strike the last paragraph from my argument. So now, I'll repeat:
An action, A, can benefit society, but also be harmful to the individual. Because it is harmful to the individual, it could be considered Evil. But because you've defined Evil as only harmful to society, you would argue that it is not Evil. And because your opponent, by accepting the debate, accepts your definition of evil, it would be hard for them to argue against you.
I eat and enjoy my junk food, but I also exercise regularly (run at least 4 times a week, play basketball 3 times a week). As a result, I am not obese-- i'm in great shape-- i'm one of those guys that can eat whatever I want, including junk food, and still maintain a healthy weight (it's a curse, I know). I should not be penalized (i.e. taxed) simply because others can't do the same......
Allow me to borrow a pen from Jonathan Swift and submit my own "modest proposal". If the intent is to curb or stop obesity, then how about we just tax those that are obese, rather than tax everyone who partakes of said junk food? This would provide a clear incentive to those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle. The tax could be proportionate to the individual's um,....proportions......your % tax could be tied to something like BMI, or something like that....
I say all this in jest....well....sorta....
Right off the bat, you've set up your opponent to lose by how you've defined "Evil" . You define evil as only being "harmful to society". Your definition doesn't consider the individual, it only considers the society.
An action, A, can benefit society, but also be harmful to the individual. Because it is harmful to the individual, it could be considered Evil. But because you've defined Evil as only harmful to society, you would argue that it is not Evil. And because your opponent, by accepting the debate, accepts your definition of evil, it would be hard for them to argue against you.
If one believes that the good of society always outweighs the individual, then it follows that any action is good, as long as it benefits society, regardless of the impact on the individual. That action can be anything: (a) the redistribution of wealth/income, (b) forced labor, or (c) the killing of innocent people because they may be perceived as a "burden" or "detrimental" to society. This is a very dangerous and frightening notion.
First, I've only read the first round of arguments.
Your first point (1) is not really a "reason". Or at least I had trouble understanding how the point is a reason to implement a JF Tax. It is simply stating that implementing a JF tax would not impact the poor as much-- this is not really a reason.
Your second point (2) does seem to be a reason put forth by you. However, I would counter that you're making an assumption that the JF Tax would decrease the income tax. You don't know this- it's an assumption. For all we know, Congress' voracious appetite for money would not decrease and thus the "need" for the income tax would still be there.
**Oh my, I have already addressed this in my post #53 **
Um, actually, no. no you didn't lol. I just re-read your post #53 and you provided comments, but you didn't answer the question. All you did was asked other questions.
hey sorry-- your posts/comments ar etoo long winded. lol
Sorry-- Jesus does not say "follow the OT". Supply that verse where he says that.
Do you believe that God’s plan for us was to live in paradise worry-free in complete harmony with all creation but evil invaded God’s plan and through man’s complicity with that evil we turned from God and lost paradise?
YOu asked a specific question-- have I ever had a garage sale or bake sale to help the Church pay for stuff like that. Simple answer is "no". I've never had a garage sale or bake sale lol
You are modifying your questions after I answer them. YOu asked if I would leave the church if one of my kids were raped by a priest. No. After I answer you act is if I would be all chummy-chummy with the priest and shake his hand after Mass, etc. No, I never said I would do that. I would attend a different Catholic Church then the criminal priest. I would also be a loud voice demanding the Bishop and Local authorities hold this priest accountable. But no, I would not leave the Church.
Thanks for playin'
You can insult all you want, doesn't bother me. Just to clarify, my questions are simple "Yes" or "No" questions. lol. You don't need to convolute the issue by throwing in a whole bunch of other stuff. Just answer the questions as "yes" or "no" if you are able.
4. Have you ever held a garage or bake sale in your community to help your Catholic Church raise money to pay off its dept to society for your disgusting pedophile priests buggering innocent scared and screaming children? Nope.
5. Would you leave your ungodly pagan Church if one of your innocent children were violently raped by your priest, whereas this child has this disgusting memory for life? Nope. Why not? Because I don't blame the Church for the action of the priest. Plus I thoroughly understand SPiritual warfare. I understand that I am a member of the one true Church. And Satan's plan is for me to leave this Church, and Satan is active every day trying to get me (us) to disavow and leave the Church. THe life of Catholic Christian is filled with struggle and suffering, just as Christ's life was. There is going to be suffering...unimaginable suffering. But, what Christ promises is that if we perceive and never leave Him, we will be rewarded.
Next question: Do you believe that God’s plan for us was to live in paradise worry-free in complete harmony with all creation but evil invaded God’s plan and through man’s complicity with that evil we turned from God and lost paradise?
TIT FOR TAT:
1. Why do you continue to support the on going pedophile priest problem within your pagan Catholic Church by being a continued member?
I believe in Spiritual Warfare. Since Catholicism is the one true Church, then it makes perfect sense that Satan would attack the priests. Satan's plan is for us to stray and leave the Church. Why are you doing Satan's bidding? lol
2. How can you continue in being a Catholic when it is on record that your church COVERED UP pedophile priests raping screaming innocent children for decades upon decades? WWJD? The Church is made up of human members capable of making mistakes and sins, some of them grave. Hell, the first Pope, Peter, even betrayed Christ. By the way, all the priests I know dont' do those things.
3. Are you proud that your church has paid out 4 BILLION, and counting, of the members hard earned money as reparations to the children and families because of pedophile priests sexual abuse of innocent children? I'm not proud of the Sexual scandal within the Church. But again, the Church has had scandal since day 1. And yet, it persists, as Christ promised. He said He would not let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church. Rest assured, the Catholic Church will weather this current scandal, and will remain standing, as it is build upon solid rock, as Christ promised.
I'm going to ask you some questions, and just answer the questions as asked, no need to provide superfluous answers, insults etc lol. Insults don't bother me, but I find when someone throws a lot of insults it's usually because they can't defend their position and have no other recourse. So if you can't answer the question, just say so-- I won't hold it against ya (and humility can be quite good for the soul ;-) )
Question #1: Do you believe in God and that he created everything out of nothing for no other reason other than the fact that he loves us?
Hey Let me knwo when you want to debate. Seems like you're a broken saying the same thing oer and over again. Its apparent you have no understanding of the Catholic faith. I'd be happy to educate you and inform you.
An organization may have some bad members, but that doesn't mean the whole organization is bad. A thieving bank teller doesn't mean the entire Bank is bad, does it? Nope.
Eh, the words you quote seem to be your words, not Jesus'. lol. nice try though. Valiant effort.
You've yet to answer the question how you can be confident YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. You haven't, because you can't. That's the bottom line. And because you have no ground to stand on, you hurl insults.
Your interpretation of the Bible is different from mine, and both ours are different from the guy down the street, and all of our interpretations are different from the Lady walking door to door.
SO the question remains-- who's interpretation is correct, and how can you be so sure?
You fail to understand a few key points:
1. The Bible is collection of books with the books written by various human authors, for different audiences at different points in history.
2. As such, you can't reach passage or book of the Bible the same way (i.e. literally). THat would be like reading MLK's LEtter from a Birmingham Jail and Aesop's Fables in exactly the same.
3. Thus, the onus is on you to show that your interpretation of the passages of the Bible are the correct interpretation.
Numbers 23:19 - your version of this passage is vastly different from what I read. What version are you using? Is this your own wording?
Proverbs 30: 5 - yep God's word is flawless. That doesn't necessarily mean/imply that a specific law written for the Jews some 2000+ years ago is still applied today.
Hebrews 4:13 - again what version ar eyou reading? I couldn't find anything near to the wording you use. Is this your own wording?
James 1:22 - um yea. This just means to don't pay lip service but also let your deeds show you are a Christian. You however make the leap of everything must be taken literally.
Matthew 4:4 - yep. in no way this mean the OT laws are applicable
Luke 11:28 - yep. in no way this mean the OT laws are applicable
Since you do like to take the bible literally, I'm assuming then you will agree that I am blessed. After all Jesus does say that those who are insulted on account of His name are blessed and that their reward will be great in Heaven (see Luke chapter 6). So thank you. THANK YOU! keep the insults a-comin'! :)
Food for thought (and I admit I didn't read the full report), but is there any explanation for the reported decline in undocumented immigrants? Is it increased resources (i.e. more agents, etc). If so, then perhaps a wall would lessen our dependence on "human" security measures along the border? in other words, perhaps if there is a wall, between points A and B, then that will mean won't necessarily need as many agents stationed between A and B?
Seems I struck a nerve lol. Sounds like your itching for a debate :)
eh, while horrific and evil, the homosexual problem within the priesthood is not the first scandal within the Church. Hell, some of Jesus' first disciples and apostles coudn't accept His teachings, they betrayed Him, abandoned Him, etc.To act as if the current horrific scandal is the first time Jesus' followers did terrible things is to actually be ignorant to the Church and it's history. I'm Catholic-- not because of the priests, the bishops or the Popes, but because of Jesus.
I am not, and did not re-write the Bible as you claim in your comment (nice try though). This conversation is actually getting quite fun. If you can do me this favor:
- what verse/passage of the Bible does Jesus specifically say in his sermon on the mount that the OT is to be followed at all times?
- while we are at it, what version of the Bible are you referencing, and how are you so sure your version is the authoritative version? A simple sentence like "I didn't say you stole the money" can have a multitude of interpretations based on what words you emphasize. Imagine how a group of books like the Bible can be misconstrued if folks do not interpret it correctly. The question for you is: how do YOU know that YOU are interpreting specific passages from the Bible correctly? I've had arguments where people claim to have read MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and say things like "this is exactly what is meant when MLK said this". I'm like-- how do you know? Same applies to the Bible.
- You take one law from the OT and make the claim that applies to all men in all times for all eternity-- but no where in the Bible does the Bible ever say that. The Bible never says the laws are to be applied to everyone everywhere all the time. Saying it's "flawless" is not the same. Nice try though
Whether I'm a Christian or not is im-material to the debate. And actually, I do not like to argue points from a Christian/Biblical perspective, unless it's a theological discussion-- those arguments/points get nowhere with someone who an atheist. I can say "Well the Bible says this: ________" and the atheist will say "But I don't believe in your Bible, so there!"
Incidentally, the reference to the Mosaic/Levitica/Exodusl laws are sometimes mis-used. People refer to those specific laws, like the ones in Leviticus and Exodus, and seem to point and say "SEE! THOSE LAWS STILL APPLY!" Not necessarily, just because God commanded certain laws to a certain people at a certain point in history doesn't necessarily mean that those laws still apply to people today-- one must look at context, the rest of the Bible and, just as important, what the Church teaches.
Stupid question-- but what are "quote bricks"?
I would argue that the "Stone Too Heavy to Lift" paradox is not mathematical-- it's actually illogical. It also depends on how one defines "omnipotence", does it not? If you define "omnipotence" to include also having the ability to do the illogical, or the logically impossible, (such as creating a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, a married bachelor, a one-ended stick, etc etc) then I would agree your version of "omnipotence" is impossible. But I would (and I'm willing to guess most Christian theologians wouldn't either) not define "omnipotence" as being able to do the logically impossible (i.e. the illogical).
The "stone too heavy to lift" paradox is often used to "dis-prove" the existence of God, or at least God's Omnipotence. But I would argue that the paradox is illogical and doesn't make sense. The paradox is basically asking "Can a being of Unlimited Power produce something to limit him", but it's Unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. One can say (argue) that there are some things an Unlimited Being can't do precisely because it's Unlimited (i.e. omnipotent).
I'll admit, the "stone too heavy to lift" scenario is fun thought experiment, much like the "Can an all-powerful God create a square circle? Or a married bachelor? Or a one-ended stick? Or a triangle with 2 sides?" A being with unlimited power would have to create a rock that is infinite in size. But a rock, by definition, is finite. It just "doesn't make sense".
I'll close by adding this. I've heard someone respond to the "stone too heavy to lift" question this way:
An Omnipotent Being could indeed create anything it wants, including a stone of infinite size, and the Omnipotent Being would also be able to lift it.
** "But evidence =/= proof". **
If I may dig a little deeper, what exactly is "proof"....or how would you define "proof"?
Alright, back from a long weekend. So you admit that some people may not recognize or acknowledge, for whatever reason, any evidence that is presented (regardless of topic). My assumption is that you are not immune from this as well-- in other words, there could be a topic out there, that for whatever reason, you may not acknowledge or recognize any evidence presented, correct?
So let's just say hypothetically I would present some evidence (regardless of topic), there is a very real possibility you could say "Nope, that is not evidence. YOu haven't presented evidence yet", even though the evidence is before you, correct? There is a very real possibility that that could happen, correct?
** Hey, would you like to have another debate on the same topic? **
I thought that that's what we are doing? just kidding. Sure, why not.
**Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.**
Again, that begs the question- what if you are unable to see the evidence or unable to recognize it. If you are unable to, then how can you make the claim I haven't presented any? I'm playing Devils' Advocate here.
Are you so sure you can recognize the evidence of XYZ's existence if it was presented before you? How can you be so sure you would or can. I could present A, B, and C as evidence, but you could be blind to it and say "nope, that's not evidence. You haven't presented any evidence yet that proves XYZ exists."
XYZ could be anything....God....sugar in coffee...an honest lawyer.
** To determine if the person is able to recognize evidence, you must first provide some evidence. You haven't.**
That begs the question, if you are unable to recognize the evidence, how can you make the claim that I haven't presented any?
** Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion? **
The definition I added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." was the result of a quick (very quick!) Google search on the word "religion". It's actually the first thing that Google displayed when I searched "religion". I guess it's Google Dictionary, for lack of a better term?
Merriam-Webster offers a very similar definition as well: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
I agree it is oddly free-wheeling, and really underscores how words and definitions can be changed (don't get me started on the whole "gender" definition).
"You're commiting the false analogy fallacy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Just because the guy in your analogy has proof that the coffee is sweet, doesn't mean that theists have proof that God exists."
Um, no. No i'm not. I'm not saying that all. Give me a moment.... ** sifts through notes and comments, just to confirm **. Nope, not saying that all. In no way at all do I say or imply because X (proof that the coffee is sweet) then Y (theists have proof that God exists). I'm not even sure how you made that leap.
AGain, what I meant to illustrate with that ANALOGY was an example of how people, when presented with evidence, can still be blind to it. They may not see it or they may refuse to see it. Perhaps they are so obstinate in their ways or thinking that they are unable. Perhaps they have such a strong philosophical objection to something that they don't see it.
Sticking with the sugar discussion-- Your response was funny I admit. But it was also revealing-- seems like you are distracting from the real topic (Did I put sugar in your coffee or not) by throwing in other issues
- taking issue with someone drinking your coffee
- taking issue with the spelling of the word sugar (or was it Sugar?)
anyway, that was fun.
I agree with you though-- the discussion (sugar in coffee) is comparable to the God debate. My point of it all was to illustrate how people can be presented with all sorts of evidence, no matter what the topic (sugar in coffee, is Lebron a better player, should the Spurs have kept Kawhi, does God exist), but still be blind to it or refuse to see it (perhaps because of a philosophical objection to it).
For the record, it's not MY analogy. lol. Mr. Oragami was the one that brought it up when he wrote:
"Atheism is an observation. This coffee has no sugar that I can see or taste or observe. Now maybe my senses are dull or my instruments insufficient but if you want me to believe that you put sugar in this coffee the burden of proof is now yours. This planet has no creator that I can see or taste or observe. If you want me to believe this planet has a creator the burden of proof is now yours. A lack of evidence of something can’t be, by definition, also best at that something."
I just took it and ran with it. :)
Ah ok. You mentioned "recording, video, etc" as examples of proof, which is why I asked. So do you require experiments as proof?
I guess, the heart of my question is this: what would be "acceptable proof" for you to say "Ok, I believe God exists?"
Quick question:
Why do you require evidence such as a recording or video in order to believe it exists?
Depends on how you define "religion". While historically, "religion" has meant a belief in a God or gods, newer definitions have added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
The "sugar in my coffee" is interesting. What that (and the God debate) ultimately comes down to is this: can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Dude, the sugar was put in. Can't you taste it? The coffee is so sweet, it's so obvious."
Anti-sugar Guy: "Nope. Sorry, my taste buds don't work. I simply can't taste it. And if I can't taste it, I'm not going to believe it."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have an empty sugar packet right here."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Sorry. That doesn't necessarily mean the sugar went into the coffee."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have witnesses who are willing to give their life as a testament to the fact that I put Sugar in the coffee."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Doesn't prove a thing. Those folks may just be crazy."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But again, I have people who are saying that the coffee is sweet."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Sorry. Doesn't necessarily mean the coffee as sugar in it. For all I know the sweetness could have been cause by honey or molasses and not sugar. Or perhaps, the chemicals in the coffee organized in such a random way so as to effect the taste of the coffee."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Ok. Help me out here. I've shown you evidence that many would consider obvious that would lead one to believe I put sugar in the coffee-- but you refuse to believe it. What sort of evidence do you want to see that would convince you that I put sugar in the coffee?"
I think that is the question that boils down for the atheist-- what sort of evidence (i.e. proof) would be "acceptable" for them to "believe" in a God?
Some basic definitions are needed:
Religion - how would you define religion? What do you mean by religion.
"Best" - how would you define the terms "good", "better", and "best" (this is very important, as these are descriptors used to measure something comparatively against something else, often a "standard")
Thanks. I like to have things "dumbed down" for me. lol. Wish we'd just good ol' fashined terms like "For" and "Against".
**Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.**
My response:
1. So? Just because God knows what you are going to say, doesn't mean there is no point. Again, talking with God is meant to help the person, not God. Sometimes when one goes through a difficult time, your friend or family is there for you-- they listen to you. They may already know what you are going through, but they are there for you to listen. When one talks with them, it's helpful. It's the same with God.
2. Ahhhhh, how do you know that. Perhaps God responds, but perhaps one just doesn't recognize or hear Him talking (see what Elijah says about that!).
Prayer is not about changing God, it's about changing us.
What is prayer? Prayer is simply conversation with God. Some people choose to use this conversation as only an opportunity to ask for things.
God, like any good parent, wants his children to come to Him and talk to him, but often, not only when they need something.
I'm pretty sure you don't just talk to folks when you need things, right? It's funny. I have kids. They all talk with me. One child however seems to only come to me when he wants something-- "Dad, I need the car. Dad, I want some new shoes. Dad, I need some money to go out. Dad, I want to download the latest update for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six" People have observed this and have said "Wow....he seems kinda selfish." (in my mind I think, my God-- he is just like me when I was his age!"
Prayer is not just about asking for thing, it's about conversing with God. If all we do is ask God for things, we are taking a pretty selfish role in the relationship.
It all comes down to the classic prayer we should pray to God, which Jesus repeated as shown in the Bible: "Not my will, but YOUR will be done".
Omnibenevolence.
Your argument on "omnibenevolence" pre-supposes or assumes a very critical point-- that man sees things/events as an infinite or omniscient God sees them. I always tell people that's pretty much the height of arrogance-- to claim to see/perceive events/things as God sees them.
A person can see an event and think "that is TERRIBLE! HORRIFIC! THE WORST! EVIL!", but the person is seeing it from their limited, perhaps im-mature perspective. Have you ever taken a young child to go get a shot at the doctor (I've had to do that many times)? They'll scream and kick and yell and sometimes say things like "NO! PLEASE DON'T! I DON'T WANT A SHOT! IT'S THE WORST! t", etc. as if it's the end of the world. But the young child simply is unable to see it due to his perspective and im-maturity.
I'm sure folks will yell "STRAWMAN!" and argue that "taking a child to get a shot" doesn't compare to the "killing that occurs in the OT". The point is, just because YOU think something is Good or BAd doesn't necessarily mean God views it that way. What is good/bad in YOUR eyes, may not be so in God's eyes, or may have a higher purpose.
True, a lot of people pray to God to get things. But God isn't a magical Genie arising out of bottle to grant people their wishes.
Again, the point of talking to God is for our benefit. I'm sure you've had moments in your life that were very difficult, and talking about it with someone helped you. You probably didn't get anything materialistically out of it, but simply talking it about helped out. That's how it is with talking to God.
Prayer.-- what's the point of praying to God if he already knows about everything?
Prayer is not just about asking God what you want or need, it's about being a relationship and having a conversation with God, and aligning ourselves accordingly. IT's not about changing God and having wave a "magic wand" and give us what we want, it's about changing us.
Yep. Catholics/Christians believe God is omnipotent, but omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean God going against His nature. I would counter by saying the Christian definition of "omni-potent" does not mean being able to do the "logically impossible" And since you (we) are using the Bible, I would ask you to clarify how you assert that the Bible implies/says that God can do the "logically impossible"?
The Christian Bible does not define or imply "Omnipotence" as being able to do the the "logically impossible".
The "can an omnipotent being create a stone to heavy to lift" argument is pretty much self-refuting and illogical. The critic who uses this argument is using an illogical argument, instead of a logical one, to prove God doesn't exist. Again, it's analogous (not a straw-man, analogous) to the "I define a triangle as having 3 sides, so make me a triangle with 4 sides" challenge. Some other fun Omnipotent Paradoxes: can God create a one-ended stick? Can God beat himself up in a fist-fight? Can God make married bachelors? Can God create square circles? Can God make a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time? Can God make a unicycle with 2 wheels? It's nonsense.
There are simply things God can not do BECAUSE He is omnipotent. This question is basically a clever way of saying "Can a Being of unlimited power produce something to limit Him?" But, His unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being can not create limits for himself.
Funny....the Pharisees tried trapping Jesus with a paradoxical challenge when they asked him about if they should pay taxes to the Romans....see how he gets out of that ;-)