(November 11, 2020 at 10:46 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

---

(November 11, 2020 at 10:01 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: “If this is your God, he’s not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he’s so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He’s a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being.” (Gene Roddenberry) 

If God demanded worship every seven days, then He would receive worship every seven days. And besides, the fourth commandment doesn't even say that, which makes the quote particularly stupid. Can't even get it right!

God makes no mistakes. Zero.

“You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.  You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,  but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.  You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.  Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:3-11)

That sounds to me pretty much like an arrogant, insecure God demanding weekly worship. I find Roddenberry's statement spot on. If God doesn't make mistakes, why did he create imperfect beings who behaved exactly the way he knowingly designed them to?

The god making no mistakes part is rich. Sure, fine, whatever. People do. If magic book has mistakes in it, it's on account of people, not gods.

Is a god a jealous bitch, liable to slash your tires or boil a bunny if you look sideways at another god? Obviously the people of the world have had no trouble imagining as much, and I suppose theres no reason that it couldn't be - but if that idea is in error, it won't be in error on account of anything a god ever did.

(November 12, 2020 at 12:16 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 12, 2020 at 12:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You realize the point of my arguing by assertion was to illustrate the valuelessness of that form of discourse, right? If you grasped that you might have felt educated instead of mocked. Although now that I think on it, it may sounded insulting because your original phrasing was presented in such an insulting and denigrating fashion.

And it's not my standard, it's the Bible's.

There was nothing in the post you mocked that was deliberately insulting or denigrating, as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong. What I know, however, is that people on this forum are constantly insulting and denigrating Christians for having views that question popular scientific theories, and are relentlessly mocked, so I have no problem whatsoever in being "brutally" honest here.

You took offense because you disagree, and I tell you that your disagreement isn't actually with me, but with God.

Give me a break on the whole assertion thing. Every argument on here begins as an assertion. I've made assertions backed up with logic and/or Scriptures (necessary for religious discussions), you've simply mocked me.

If you think this was a polite response to my comment; it's pretty obvious trying to have a polite conversation with you is a waste of time (emphasis added for clarity):

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Some cosmological theories posit that the universe had no ultimate beginning, it's always been around in some form. The math works and it doesn't violate what we know of physics. What we can get our minds around doesn't seem to have much bearing on what actually is.
MilesAbbott81 Wrote:
This is just a bunch of garbage. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no reason for anything at all to exist without God as an explanation. Nothing has no reason to do anything, can't create anything, can't exist as anything other than nothing. To posit that the universe, which has no will or awareness, could ever exist on its own is patently ridiculous. God makes sense because He is supernatural and truly unbound by physics or math or whatever other form of science you wish to call upon. He is the only rational explanation for the existence of the universe, and anyone who claims otherwise is in denial or totally deluded.

It is no surprise that theists who view god as good also view their own words and actions toward non-believers as good.

(November 12, 2020 at 12:19 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 12, 2020 at 12:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Like Vishnu, his followers claim he's real and all they have to back it up are scriptures and anecdotes. Who cares about his law if he's not real in the first place? His (or his writers) supposed laws can stand or fall on their own merits, like anyone else's. Not all theistic religions can be true in their theology because they often contradict each other, but they CAN all be false.

Well, since we're in the "Christian" section of this forum, perhaps it would make sense for you to discuss the Christian God and not Vishnu.

If you don't believe in His existence and have no interest in discussing even His theoretical existence, then maybe you should relegate your participation to other forums.

I'm pretty sure this forum is open to analogies, even if you aren't. I am literally discussing his hypothetical existence before your very eyes.

(November 12, 2020 at 1:48 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 12, 2020 at 12:29 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: 1) Of course.

(November 12, 2020 at 1:11 pm)Angrboda Wrote: So, in other words, you think it's moral to hurt someone for doing something that they couldn't have avoided doing?

No, not in other words. You're deliberately removing a crucial part of my argument.

It is moral to hold someone responsible for an evil act they have committed. The rest of what you wrote is just an excuse. Just because God made us evil doesn't mean we're blameless. We're evil. We can't change what we are, and that much isn't our fault, but just because we were made evil doesn't mean we shouldn't be held responsible for our evil acts. How else are we supposed to understand the gravity of sin?

And you'll say that doesn't make sense, and on its own I could somewhat agree with you, but you must take context into account. It isn't as simple as you would like to paint it. God is raising up children to be made in His image, that is, knowing good from evil. The only way to know good from evil is to experience evil for ourselves. That entails necessarily committing evil acts and suffering the consequences thereof.

If God had created us as evil, with there being no purpose to that evil except freedom to commit it, then that would've been evil of Him because the evil would've existed for its own sake, and not to accomplish good. God uses evil for good, therefore subjecting us to evil is a moral act, despite the suffering it entails.

So, let me see if I get this. You believe that people who aren't to blame are not blameless? I'm pretty sure that's what blameless means. What exactly are they being blamed for? It sounds an awful lot like blaming someone for being black or having brown hair. Is it right to punish someone for being black?

And you're right, I wasn't aware of your greater context. So in other words, if someone uses bad to do good, that would be moral, correct? Let's try this out. Let's say there are 6 people in an emergency room, one of whom can be easily fixed, but the other five will need an organ transplant which will not be available. If I kill the one guy for his organs so that the other 5 can live, then I've done bad to accomplish a greater good. So that would be moral to you, killing the one guy?

(November 12, 2020 at 1:48 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 12, 2020 at 12:29 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: 2) Well, I've staked my life on being right about God, so if I'm wrong, then I will pay for it with my life.

(November 12, 2020 at 1:11 pm)Angrboda Wrote: That's admirable.  But it doesn't answer the question.  Entertain it as a hypothesis, let's assume that you're wrong for the moment -- what are you doing in your life that would eventually lead to you discovering that fact?

It's not admirable. I've done nothing worthy of praise whatsoever. God has had mercy on me because He chose to, not because I chose it or earned it. Nothing admirable about that at all, except on His part.

To answer the rest of this, the Lord would have to forsake me. He would have to abandon me in some way I couldn't possibly explain. Give me cancer, for instance, or put me through some terrible and debilitating accident. Short of taking my life or giving me over to sin, those are the only options (well, that may not be true. There can be terrible spiritual consequences as well that I won't get into here). So far, the Lord hasn't forsaken me in any way that I can make that conclusion with any certainty. I've suffered, but my suffering has been deserved and needed, and the damage not permanent, so far as I can tell anyway.

Well, that would be all well and good if we can depend upon your information about God, but you're forgetting the first premise here. In this exercise we're assuming that you are wrong in one or more of your particulars about God. That's the assumption. And you need to show how you would figure that out to be the case. You can't depend upon any of your specific beliefs about God as it's possible that very belief that you are depending on may be one of the things that you are wrong about. So the above would be reliable if your knowledge of God were reliable. But that's not the question. The question is how would you discover you are wrong about God, if in fact you are wrong in one or more particulars. In that case, your answer is of no use.

Try again. How would you discover that you are wrong?

(November 12, 2020 at 7:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(November 12, 2020 at 6:36 pm)Sal Wrote: I try, implicit bias/beliefs notwithstanding, to have exactly zero (0) unfalsifiable beliefs, 

I am curious then, is the assertion "All beliefs should be falsifiable" falsifiable or not? If so, can you prove that falsifiability is a necessary condition for the truth of a particular belief. Can't we have, for instance, a true but unfalsifiable belief ?

You can have a true but unfalsifiable belief; you just don't have any way to test it. Falsifiability is not a necessary condition for a particular belief to be true; Some people have an opinion that avoiding beliefs that can't be tested will increase the odds that the beliefs that they do hold will be correct; other people are certain that their unfalsifiable beliefs can't possibly be wrong.

Empiricism is a very effective way to support or criticize an assertion; if your belief is unfalsifiable, you can't have evidential support for or against it. If your belief is unfalsifiable, there is nothing in nature or logic that could be true that would show the belief to be false; it's really not in the realm of rational discourse. But that does not mean it isn't true.

(November 13, 2020 at 7:48 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: That sounds to me pretty much like an arrogant, insecure God demanding weekly worship. I find Roddenberry's statement spot on. If God doesn't make mistakes, why did he create imperfect beings who behaved exactly the way he knowingly designed them to?

The Sabbath is not about worshiping God, but about resting, in Him, from your labor. It's a gift from Him to us, not a demand for arbitrary worship. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Quite clear.

So clear to the one interpreting it how he sees fit while ignoring more valid interpretations.

(November 13, 2020 at 11:02 am)Angrboda Wrote: So, let me see if I get this.  You believe that people who aren't to blame are not blameless?  I'm pretty sure that's what blameless means.  What exactly are they being blamed for?  It sounds an awful lot like blaming someone for being black or having brown hair.  Is it right to punish someone for being black?

Just because you're made to be evil doesn't mean you're blameless, because you're evil. Why is this so difficult to understand? When you do evil acts, you are guilty of committing evil acts, regardless of your nature. You have sinned, whether you had any say in the matter or not doesn't change that fact.

It's not the same thing as punishing someone for some physical characteristic, because physical characteristics don't commit evil acts. They're not even in the same ballpark, so your analogy is ridiculous.

(November 13, 2020 at 11:02 am)Angrboda Wrote: And you're right, I wasn't aware of your greater context.  So in other words, if someone uses bad to do good, that would be moral, correct?  Let's try this out.  Let's say there are 6 people in an emergency room, one of whom can be easily fixed, but the other five will need an organ transplant which will not be available.  If I kill the one guy for his organs so that the other 5 can live, then I've done bad to accomplish a greater good.  So that would be moral to you, killing the one guy?

Again, you distill a complex reality into some worthless imaginary scenario that has no true similarity. Nothing in that scenario takes any nuance into account.

For instance, who says any of them deserve to live? Who says saving any of them is a good thing to do? Maybe they deserve to suffer and die. After all, none of them are innocent, because everyone is evil. So what you view as a potentially good thing may be an evil thing, because man is making the determination and not God.

Saints don't act of their own accord, at least they're not supposed to. As I mentioned to Happy Skeptic, perhaps his prayer to save his nephew wasn't heard because the child needed to die, say to punish the child's parents. It might seem like a good thing to pray for the child, but failing to take God's persepective into account or acting according to His will is likely not going to result in a positive outcome.

People think that charity is good. Is it, at least all the time? There are many places in the world that are so dependent on corporate charity that, if it's ever withdrawn, will end up starving to death or at least struggling mightily. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

(November 13, 2020 at 11:02 am)Angrboda Wrote: Well, that would be all well and good if we can depend upon your information about God, but you're forgetting the first premise here.  In this exercise we're assuming that you are wrong in one or more of your particulars about God.  That's the assumption.  And you need to show how you would figure that out to be the case.  You can't depend upon any of your specific beliefs about God as it's possible that very belief that you are depending on may be one of the things that you are wrong about.  So the above would be reliable if your knowledge of God were reliable.  But that's not the question.  The question is how would you discover you are wrong about God, if in fact you are wrong in one or more particulars.  In that case, your answer is of no use.

Try again.  How would you discover that you are wrong?

I don't understand your problem with my answer. My answers are based on truths evident from Scripture. For instance, God makes clear that He doesn't put certain diseases on His people: “If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His eyes, and pay attention to His commands, and keep all His statutes, then I will not bring on you any of the diseases I inflicted on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.” (Exodus 15:26)

Therefore, if I get some terminal illness, then clearly I can conclude that I'm not a true Christian. If you're asking me to disprove the Scriptures, and somehow objectively prove to you that They are wrong, how could I possibly do that? There is no way to know the heart of another person, so any possible experiment would be inherently flawed.

Short of some amazingly obvious newfound evidence, there isn't going to be any way to prove anyone wrong. But perhaps I misunderstand your question.