Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
why do we commit evil acts
Who is we? What is evil? Please don't use subjective language without first establishing well defined (preferably mutually acceptable) axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A feeling is a physiological response to something.And a moral, is a label we apply to something.Moral labels vary relative to how, where and when we acquired information and associated responses.Carnivore v Vegan/Vegetarian is an obvious example.
I don't suppose I disagree with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The way to interpret the Bible is to seek guidance from the Holy Spirit.
This is nonsensical unless you can somehow demonstrate some "holy spirit". I am unaware of any sufficient evidence of such a proposition. If you cannot demonstrate a "holy spirit" outside of fiction then it is immaterial to our interpretation of the bible. Since your argument of the Yahweh's moral character hinges on this "holy spirit" I think we will be unable to continue discussing it until you either demonstrate it or agree to an alternative method which is actually demonstrably efficacious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we do everything for good reasons
Who is we? What is good? Please don't use subjective language without first establishing well defined (preferably mutually acceptable) axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
One can't solve a mystery if one does not start at the proper starting place.
The proper starting place is skepticism. The understanding that we do not know and we should investigate. Do you believe that there is a diamond the size of my head at the core of Neptune? Can you say yes or no before we can investigate?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then why do religious people still suffer the throes of human passions? I'm sorry but your demonstrably incorrect. We need only observe humans themselves.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Will anything happen in the year AD Infinity?
This is not AD infinity it is AD 2020. See the problem is that whether time is infinite or not and I remain unconvinced of either proposition, we have clearly reached this year. Either time passes or it doesn't and if time pases then specific times can be reached. AD infinity is immaterial to the conversation.
If time and the universe didn't have a cause, then that would be something from nothing, which is a positive claim that you need to support if you're going to claim it.
That is true. I am not however making that positive claim. I am simply rejecting your position. This in no way necessitates taking the opposite position. My actual position and I want to make this perfectly clear is that we do not know if time is or is not infinite. It would appear based upon our best cosmology that gravity is tied to time so it would seem that without a physical universe there would be no time but our math breaks down at a point during the event that we colloquially refer to as the big bang.
We would have to have evidence that it actually is outside of time. Simply saying "It must be outside of time because my argument falls apart if it isn't" would absolutely be special pleading, but that isn't what I'm saying.
Excellent. Then you may proceed with the presentation of your evidence.
"Seem to be" based on what? You're simply slipping your conclusion into your premise here.
Apparently we must now define "exists" for the purposes of this conversation. Apparently our axioms concerning this are not in line. Please present your preferred definition.
I could only characterize nothing in the context of this discussion by what it doesn't have. Nothing would be the complete absence of matter, space, time, energy, and everything else.
How could a nothing as you describe it exist? It doesn't exist by definition. We do not charactersize things by the characteristics they lack as a general rule but rather by the characteristics they do have. What characteristics does a nothing have that identifies it as a nothing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Moral intuition is a feeling. It is our emotional response to what we subjectively consider to be right or wrong. It's that sick feeling you get in your gut when you think you have done something wrong or when you see someone else get hurt.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
If you were immortal and you sat down to wait for a finite amount of time to pass, it would eventually pass, no matter how long it took.
If you choose any point on an infinite timeline, say for example the big bang, and waited for another point, say the heat death of the universe, then you would have a finite set within an infinite set. You seem to be arguing that infinite time, which I am not actually arguing must or even could be the case, would prevent time from passing completely. Time would still pass in an infinite timeline there just would always be more to go. It would not prevent events from taking place.
That would imply that I'm arguing something can't come from nothing simply because that's never happened before. I'm arguing that something can't come from nothing because it's logically absurd. Nothing has no causal power. If you want to claim that something can come from nothing, the burden of proof is on you.
I am not claiming something can come from nothing I am saying that it is a black swan fallacy to say that everything must have a cause. Please try to keep up. In fact I don't even know what you mean when you say nothing. You don't seem to be using the word in the way cosmologists use it for example, which is a vacuum which is actually something. Can you define the characteristics of this proposed nothing?
A timeless entity does not have problems with infinite amounts of time, and I provided evidence that God is timeless. That isn't special pleading.
If it is not special pleading then why could we not propose literally any cause and simply say it was "outside of time". Like say a singularity which would then expand into time and space as a result of purely naturalistic forces unguided by any mind. Also in order for something to exist as we understand it it must have space to exist in and time to exist during. Those would seem to be prerequisites for existence. Can you demonstrate anything that exists outside of time and space or only hypothesize about some god(s) who by default are the only thing(s) that could (the very definition of special pleading)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That's very true, it doesn't buy happiness. It also shows that often we don't really know what gives us happiness.Did you ever have anything good happen in your life?
Immaterial to the discussion.
If a nation faces an unprovoked attack from another nation, and the attacked nation is forced to defend themselves, is the attacked nation immoral for engaging in the immoral act of war?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. We have really strayed from the point at the point where you bring up self defense however since according to the bible the Yahweh is invincible and so by definition unable to perform an act of self defense.
You've made posts that seemed leave open the possibility of Yahweh existing.
That is how entertaining a hypothetical situation works.
How do I know? Like anything else, study, and draw a conclusion. What I don't do is assume I understand a verse at first glance for the same reason I don't assume I can navigate a rocket without training.
Poor analogy. A rocket works how a rocket works. The controls work in the same way for everyone regardless of belief. Conversely even very serious theologians disagree about how to interpret scriptures. This is not only a Christian problem by the way. Seemingly every religion has separate denominations and infighting about the meaning of their holy book.
One of the problems is that people have different ideas as to what is contradictory, or unethical in terms of scripture.
I agree. So how do we resolve the issue? It would seem that there is no cut and dry method for interpreting the bible and even if the apparent contradictions in the book itself could be resolved the contradictions in interpretation would still be a serious problem.
As far as contradictions, lists are literally made of all the alleged contradictions (whether the list piler believes they all are or not). One of the alleged contradictions on any exhaustive list will probably include the mule and the colt mentioned in the Gospels, where a witness claims one animal, the other including the colt making two. Do you think there's a contradiction in the two separate testimonies?
An apparent one but that is to be expected in a book written over several hundred years (at least) based on oral tradition written by multiple authors and then poorly translated into English.
If you take issue with ownership, then you have to be against indentured servitude, because for those 7 years, the servant is owned.
I have already said that I am unconvinced that it is moral to keep indentured servants. Nevertheless this is simply muddying the waters as we (I presume) agree that owning a person as property in perpetuity is a far greater miscarriage of justice and owning people in perpetuity is what the rules laid out in leviticus are concerned with. Any discussion of indentured servitude is therefore besides the point when discussing the laws concerning ownership of peopleas property's outlined in leviticus.
No. Totally different.Blaming God for knowing your thoughts is like blaming you for seeing a traffic accident that was right in front of you. You're not a peeping Tom for witnessing a traffic accident, are you?
This is actually a solid argument. If I were forced somehow to look in a window against my will I would not be morally culpable in the same way as a peeping tom. The naked lady on the other side of the window would still ne justified however in feeling as though she had been violated and if some being could read my mind and know my secret thoughts so would I. So I guess thos one is a wash. It may not be specifically immoral but it sure is creepy.
It really depends. The guy who thought about it may have given the idea to the one who actually does it. They may have prompted the attack. They may even be more hateful. They also may have paid the guy who did it.The problem is that we can't always see whatever contribution we may actually have for incidences we assume on someone else. A horrible thought, but words we have said to others may have caused serious mental problems. That time we called someone "fat", not thinking much of it might be one of the contributing factors as to why they're contemplating suicide. Do you think that's far-fetched?
All besides the point when dealing with pur secret unshared thoughts. That is where your argument really falls down. Unless I choose to share my thoughts and do not act on them then they have no effect on anyone but me.
The acts of a heinous crime originated from the mind.
If there is no god certainly. If however there is an omnipotent invisible bully to harden Pharoah's heart or command the genocide of the hittites and philistines then it could originate there as well.
God creating evil (which He didn't do).
Did the Yahweh not create the devil? Is the devil not the source of all evil? If there is another source did the Yahweh not also create that? I sense some more victim blaming on the way to attempt to vindicate the Yahweh though I hope I'm wrong.
Yes. How is child leukemia an integral part of His plan? Or, what exactly do you mean?
According to the bible all things are a part of the Yahweh's plan and childhood leukemia is one of the things. So by the way was the supposed fall of man.
So far it looks like you're concerned about something that hasn't even happened.
Are you seriously arguing that gays and women have not suffered religious persecution? Are you further arguing that at least according to the bible sabbath stick gatherers were not to be stoned to death? Or perhaps your argument is that stoning a man to death for religious reasons is not religious persecution?
If you don't mind me asking, for the purpose of relevant discussion, are you American?
I don't see how it is pertinent.
To hopefully shed light on the whole OT laws and how they apply to the NT era, and modern times, and why certain laws in the OT don't necessarily apply in the same way as the NT, or today
Speculation unless there is a specific verse that makes this distinction and I am unaware of any such passage. That makes all your following points rather besides the point.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I agree that we have no government capable of contending with human passions. The second half of the quote is completely unnecessary. After all religion and morality don't have such a great track record for contending with human passions either. You could as easily say that human passions would seem to be beyond the ability of humans to contend with. They are simply uncontrollable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have already provided the logic to it
No. You have not. What you have done isake bald assertions and muddied the waters by confusing prescriptive and descriptive language. Unless you have something to say other than "I'm right and your wrong" then I won't bother responding any further in this discussion. I just don't see any point and as castin has already pointed out we are not getting anywhere and that does not make for entertaining discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have already provided evidence
"God is the perfect moral standard" is the claim not the evidence. If you would only share the methodology you have used in making this determination then we could clear all this up very quickly.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Excellent. Then proceed with your demonstration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you consider life good?
I consider it better than the alternative. I also believe life free of cancer is better than the alternative. I do not know that life as a trillionair would necessarily be better than the alternative however. You can't buy happiness after all.
You mean bombing Hiroshima is excusable because the powers that be weren't omnipotent?
When did I say it was excusable at all for any reason? When did I say any warfare of any kind was excusable? That war is an undeniable part of human history does not make it moral.
If the verses in question are contradictory, how do you know which is right?
That is my question to you. I do not think that anything in a fictional story is necessarily right or wrong beyond the context of the fiction in question.
But the text in question is referring specifically to the slave market which was rampant during that time period and region. I'm having a hard time believing you're actually arguing against that.
I am not arguing that the bible doesn't make opposite views depending on the verses you choose to focus on. If the verse in question is actually an injunction against slavery rather than simply against kidnapping it doesn't change the moral dictates concerning the owning of people as property set forth in leviticus it just gives abolitionists and slave owners both a verse to quote to show that the bible "supports" their position (owning people is the focus of my argument and I don't care if you want to call it slavery or not. You could call it super happy and fully justified people owning time it is still wrong in my estimation which stems mostly from my not wanting to be owned by anyone and the excercise of human empathy)
So the creator is at fault for knowing your thoughts?
Only in as much as a peeping tom is at fault for peeking through a window.
Where is the convicting someone for an act they have not actually committed come from?
Thinking is not acting. If someone were to think about punching you in the face and then someone else actually did it which one would you think more deserving of punishment? Conversly if someone fantasizes about adultery (coveting his neighbors wife) the Yahweh offers equal punishment (eternal torment) as someone who actually does commit adultery.
Where do you think most (actually all) acts of heinous crimes come from?
According to the bible all things come from god. Care to argue that this is not true?
I'm sorry, but I need some reference point for this. What specific comment(s) did I make that makes you draw this conclusion? As an example, I'm not aware of ever suggesting avictim is responsible for the abuse they endure. Usually I can at least see where someone misunderstood me. But this seems way out in left field. I feel like I'm being accused of violent aggression for trying to tackle the quarterback.
Ah yes let me clarify. I mean the Yahweh is an abuser for making child leukemia an integral part of his plan. If you require further clarification please just ask.
Out of curiosity, why do you focus so much on a book you think is fictional?Before I became a believer, I had no interest in the Bible, and I wouldn't be here talking about it. I also had no bitterness though.
Again I am unconcerned with the actions of a being I consider to be fictional unless it informs the real world morality of human beings that might then visit equally terrible punishments on other humans. If religion did not cause humans to harm, mistreat or strip freedoms from other humans I would be completely unconcerned. I am not bitter by the way just concerned with the possible consequences of believing in religious dogma that promotes mistreatment of any given humans (say the LGBT community, women and people who pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Your talking about moral intuition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
you have a problem in making sense of existence without first presupposing God.
One does not solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. As far as I can tell we both have the same problem. You are just less comfortable admitting that you do not have any real answers. It is ok not to know where the cosmos came from or how life started. It really is. We do not need an absolute answer in order to lead functional and purposeful lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I mean this is the font of all morality and goodness according to you, and the first act in the whole myth is him promising to hold all generations accountable for one person's crime, that he KNEW that person would commit when he made him. How's that moral? And before you go with the whole "you have kids, i'm sure you knew you'd have to discipline them" counter, I wouldn't hold my great grandchildren accountable for something their parent did. Much less the great grandchildren of my great grandchildren.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You seemed to imply that the action of dropping a bomb on Hiroshima involved an unnecessary form of retribution. You specifically referred to the melting of faces which seemed to suggest the immorality of the retribution was based on the severe consequences of the H-bomb itself. Which of course lead me to inquire as to a less severe method you might have in mind. Do you think there was a way to accomplish the same goal by using a method that didn't melt the face?
Not without the cooperation of all parties involved including the Japanese. Then again I am not an omnipotent god. One would hope that an omnipotent god could achieve any goal without violence or suffering as a result. That said war is not a morally desirable thing to undertake.
Very simple. I don't. I am fully aware that the bible is a self contradictory mess. If anything you need to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two passages if you want me to take anything contained therein seriously.
You don't think selling a man involves slavery?This is quintessential slave trade talk. This the chattel slavery Ludo and yourself are trying to pin on scripture.It's funny how I do give a scriptural example of chattel slavery, and it gets rejected as kidnapping for ransom.
Funnily enough I did not use the word slavery. I instead specified the actual moral standard of buying selling and owning people as property. If you define that as slavery then you should take it up with leviticus. Nevertheless kidnapping is not the same as buying selling and owning people. While being sold as property is one possible consequence of kidnapping it is far from the only one and kidnapping is hardly the only way to achieve a situation in which people are bought sold and owned as property.
But they're not private to God. The law of God is love. If someone loves someone, they're not going to sexually fantasize over them. That's the convience of pornography. People we don't know, and don't feel any accountability to.Now I admit, I probably used way too mild of an example when referring to someone unashamedly fantasizing over your spouse. For instance, swingers are people who wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Probably would be happy about it. But, I could use a more sensitive example (which I won't do) where there's no question you would have a huge problem with your friends unashamed fantasies. You would get away from that person as soon as you could.
I do not care if they are private from some god(s) they should be. What you are describing is a gross violation of privacy (also immoral) and regardless of the example you use I am unwilling to convict someone for an act they have not actually committed. Fantasy is as fantasy does but fantasy is separate from reality.
That part is up to you. Cancer is a product of human violation. You may not agree with that penalty, but not everyone agrees on the death penalty, public caning, etc.
Claiming that the victim is actually responsible for the abuse they endure is an abominable thing to do. It enables abusers and perpetuates the cycle of abuse. You asked me what crime would make striking someone with cancer a moral thing to do and I said there us no such crime. Apparently you disagree so I ask you. What crime did a ten year old child with bone cancer commit that makes it morally correct to consign them to a slow painful death you and I could hardly imagine? Maybe they fantasized about your spouse? You seem to be unreasonably sure that that is an immoral thing to fantasize about.
I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.Yes, I certainly recognize that.Are you concerned about it?
I am unconcerned with the actions of a being I consider to be fictional unless ot informs the real world morality of human beings that might then visit equally terrible punishments on other humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm sorry, but my question was what would you suggest as an alternative
What does my ability or inability to suggest some alternative have to do with the moral correctness of what actually was undertaken?
Actually I wasn't trying to conflate the two. At the time, I wasn't sure you were making that distinction. This is the verse I thought you were referring to.2 “If you buy a **Hebrew servant**, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.The 7 year clause was provided for voluntary service due to being in poverty. Are you thinking that's forced servitude? Do you think they had a slave market?
This is not what I was referring to. This is a standard that ONLY APPLIES TO HEBREWS. This is the standard I am actually referring to.
Leviticus 25: 44-46
"Both thy bondman and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shalt be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. But over your bretheren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."
"Both thy bondman and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shalt be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. But over your bretheren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."
Buy them, they shall be your possession, they shall be your bondsmen forever.
Was I somehow unclear or were you purposefully ignoring what I was actually saying?
Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.
Kidnapping and buying and owning are separate issues. Please stop falsely conflating the issues.
Maybe I should ask, what exactly (particularly in the bible) do you mean by thought crime?
I mean convicting someone for their private beliefs and desires. Like coveting or not believing in a particular proposition.
Who would you consider non-innocent (guilty) enough to deserve cancer?
I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.
Yahweh's plan is for salvation for those willing to receive it.How could it be false when I'm conveying the plan as stated in the bible?
You do recognize the difference between willing to acquiesce to some plan and belief in a plan do you not? Simply not believing there is a plan is sufficient to convict the nonbelievers to eternal torment regardless of their willingness to acquiesce to said plan, at least according to the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The scientific method is not a claim in and of itself and no modern scientific theory explains or claims to explain the origins of the universe or the origins of life. Whatever anyone else might claim I am not claiming to have the answers or that science has or can provide them. What I will claim with confidence is that historically speaking any time something was believed to have a supernatural explanation and we then became able to investigate further the answer has never once been anything supernatural. Instead all such investigations lead to naturalistic explanations without exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
How could it be evil if it may have saved many more lives?
How could it be evil to harvest a healthy person's organs for transplants to the sick if it may have saved more lives? Because it is.
As long as I can afford to take care of my own family after being released from 7 year servitude,
Again this standard applies only to hebrews. Non hebrews were property for life. Please stop trying to conflate the two separate standards. Also it says nothing in leviticus about not being able to buy any person whatever not just theive's and debtors.
Would you kiss a serial killer if he were cute?
This is a huge jump. What does this have to do with thought crime? Serial murder is an actual crime.
Not sure what you're getting at. But yes, God does have the power to give someone cancer.
And conversely to prevent it and yet innocent people still get cancer.
Yahweh's plan is for salvation for those willing to receive it.
My belief in the Yahweh is divorced from any such willingness and would need to be discussed separately and yet disbelief according to the bible is enough to convict me. Your statement is demonstrably false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you're of the opinion that we should have been passive,
I am not necessarily. You seem to think that the lesser of two evils is not evil. I simply disagree. In any case melting the faces of innocent civilians may have been overdoing it just a tad, no?
The position of the owner is take care of their servants.
Does that mean you would be willing to be one my property? To have mr beat you so long as you don't die? To have your family remain my property even if I did deign to free you?
Under what circumstances would you kiss your friend for admitting to unashamedly fantasize over your spouse?
If he was cute. I mean there would need to be other mitigating factors as well but at the very least that he was cute.
Cancer is a non-contagious disease. You can't give someone Cancer.
I could expose you to dangerous substances. Or you could expose yourself to them. I mean if it meant getting stronger. In any case don't you believe that the Yahweh can give people cancer? Is that beyond an omnipotent being? I am unimpressed with any god(s) who are ostensibly less powerful than asbestos.
Life results in death. Some people die of Cancer at an older age than some who die of natural causes. Disease is a result of our life's conditions.
If the bible is to be believed life's conditions are a result of the Yahweh's perfect and unalterable plan.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The same thing that is wrong with rational wiki. They have a vested interest which may skew their information. I will agree not to use sources that are specifically antitheistic if you agree not to use sources that are specifically theistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do not assume your conclusion support it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. At the point where you admit that we cannot determine the moral standards of the Yahweh you have abdicated any argument for or against the Yahweh's moral standard.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So you don't accept my source and I don't accept yours. The only rational thing to do is to simply dismiss both for the purposes of this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we dont
Everything you say after this is by necessity an argument from ignorance. If we cannot determine the morality of an entity then we cannot make claims about the morality of an entity. This includes the Yahweh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You did not answer my question. How do we determine if the entity is morally perfect or not?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Rule number one of the internet. You can find opposite opinions on every conceivable subject
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Let us say there is an entity that would like to be considered as the perfect standard for morality. How would we determine the morality of this being to determine that it was or was not a perfectly moral being? Would it be by observing that entities actions and moral pronouncements? If not what other method do you suggest?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You have not. You have only made the bald assertion that it is so. Now unless you have anything to add I am prepared to dismiss your bald assertion.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
There is a distinct difference between my argument and Zeno's paradox.
We are still dealing with a mathematical infinite. You seem to be siting a difference with no real distinction.
It doesn't prevent us from being on a point on the timeline.
Why could this not be any point on the timeline? You are essentially arguing that time cannot pass at all on an infinite timeline.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Black swan fallacy.
Causing the universe is an action, so it does have to be an acting agent. Furthermore, it has to choose to cause the universe, or else the universe would never be caused. Thus, it must be thinking as well.
Causing an arc of electricity is an action so a lightning storm does have to be a thinking agent. Do you see the flaw in this argument?
I'm not sure whether you mean that it couldn't be recognized as a God or that it couldn't be recognized as the God
Let me clarify. I mean any god(s) of any kind.
Agreed, but you didn't ask me to provide an argument for my preferred God. You asked me to provide evidence that a god(s) is real "to say nothing of your particular flavor of theism".
That is true but unless you are prepared to abandon any argument for christianity specifically then it is pertinent. Are you prepared to forego any such future argument?
That one's easy. Since the God I'm arguing for must necessarily have caused time as well, this God must be timeless, i.e. time doesn't apply to him. Thus, there are no problems with an infinite amount of time so far as God is concerned.
Perhaps once you have addressed my other points we can go down this particular rabbit hole of special pleading but until my points are addressed this is rather besides the point.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Something else also occurs to me. If god had existed for an infinite amount of time and if your argument holds water then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before he made the universe and so an infinite amount of time before the present day therefore believing in god in no way solves this seeming logical problem.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
This sounds similar to Zeno's paradox. If you throw an object at my head before it can reach my head it must travel half the distance to my head. It must then travel from the halfway point to my head but first it must travel half of that distance. Because it must always travel half the distance between any given point and my head and because any distance can be halved the object can never reach me. The object will however in real life eventually collide with my noggin. Let us say that the universe had existed forever. That does not prevent us from being at any particular point on its infinite timeline including this one.
Let us for the sake of argument however say that it did have a beginning. That does not in and of itself necessitate a cause. And even if we accepted that there was a cause nothing is saying that this cause was a thinking acting agent(s). Even if it was some thinking acting agent(s) nothing is saying that the thinking acting agent(s) could be recognized at some god(s). Even if it was some god(s) there is nothing saying that it was your preferred god. If I am prepared to grant far more than your argument actually warrants we arrive at best at deism not christianity.
Would you care to reform your argument with this in mind?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I think the best evidence is simply the existence of the universe. Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the universe cannot have existed forever.
Since our best mathematics break down before the planc time I have no choice but to reject your first premise as unsupportable. Indeed the laws of physics may simply not apply. The truth is that the origin of the universe (if it has one) is most probably beyond human epistemology.
Would you care to reform your argument with this in mind?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you have any way of backing up this bald assertion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
what points?
That in order to judge a beings moral character I have no choice but to assess that beings actions and statements. Do you have some other method for doing so to propose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't agree with that assumption. Do you know how many people are starving in this world? Are you capable of doing anything? Yes. You could donate all of your time - and give away much more of your money than you do now. If you can do something but don't - does that make you culpable? And the answer is no.
Unless the Yahweh can throw all of his efforts and resources into the problem and never have a hope of solving the problem then this is a false equivalent and if that is the case I am unimpressed with his omnipotence.
God vindicated Job because he cared for Job. Satan however is not omniscient - and neither are humans. None of this was for God's sake. Satan's opinion is important because many people in the world have the same opinion. And God used this to demonstrate that Satan's position and many people were also wrong. I think it reveals the actions of a GOD who has a much bigger picture in mind than just Job and Satan. And a God who has a plan. And brings it to pass. I am not sure why you think this reveals a lack of power.
Why does Satan's opinion matter? Why does any human's opinion matter? Is the Yahweh not the final arbiter of Job's fate and the final judge of his actions? If he cannot do that without some convoluted test which includes boils, abject poverty and the death of his children then I am unimpressed with his omniscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then perhaps respond to my points or failing that just a recap of your argument to date?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
religious traditions werent in place in the 20's, its cycles
What are you even talking about?
The United states is by no means a Christian country- Thomas Jefferson
And if your argument is not that the country itself was religious you can't really expect me to believe that Christians stopped being Christians during the time period you are referring to.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
By determining which God is real and seeing what He tells us about Himself.
How have you determined that any god(s) are or could be real to say nothing of your particular flavor of theism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So you are no longer interested in arguing your position?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the backbone of the long boom was the religious traditions
There was religion before the long boom. If religion was the backbone why did is all of history not simply one long boom? I'm not sure your logic follows?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Assuming some god(s) exist, which you have not demonstrated, how have you determined what any god(s) do or do not know?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
So you think it is morally correct to convict people of thought crime. I'm afraid I cannot agree. Punishing people for their beliefs (something that is beyond their control) is in my opinion morally reprehensible.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
prosperity is helped by religion, what about the long boom?
How have you ruled put advances in agriculture, engineering, computers and medicine for this phenomenon? That is right about the time period you are talking about.
Created: