(September 19, 2013 at 3:16 pm)John V Wrote: I've already noted that the Bible's claim is circular and so cannot be evaluated.

Then the claim can be dismissed as nonsensical, yes?

(September 19, 2013 at 3:16 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm still waiting for the answer to what criteria we should use to judge god's perfection. If the bible claims he is perfect, his actions should demonstrate that, yet what counts for an imperfection in humans is not an imperfection for god. So, how do we determine if the bible's claim is true?

I've already noted that the Bible's claim is circular and so cannot be evaluated.

Nice semantic trick there. "evaluated".

Let me fix that last sentence for you.

"I've already noted that the Bible's claim is circular and s cannot be proven by me the claimant".

I do agree with the "circular" part though, because the entire book is self serving.

The reason we call the bible "circular" is because we did evaluate it. You merely swallowed it. Huge difference.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:16 pm)John V Wrote: I've already noted that the Bible's claim is circular and so cannot be evaluated.

Atheism's claim is non-existent so can't be refuted. It's your job to unleash all the compelling evidence that hasn't so far appeared.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Zone Wrote: You're the one who has to present the proof because we aren't the ones making any claims here you are.

Heck, if you guys aren't claiming that god is immoral or imperfect, I guess we're done.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:22 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Zone Wrote: You're the one who has to present the proof because we aren't the ones making any claims here you are.

Heck, if you guys aren't claiming that god is immoral or imperfect, I guess we're done.

Who said that? I do think the fictional character as written in that comic book is both immoral and imperfect. Not because it is a real god, but it is a broken concept that doesn't wash upon scrutiny.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Then the claim can be dismissed as nonsensical, yes?

A circular claim isn't necessarily nonsensical. It's unsupported. You can accept it or reject it as you like. That's why I don't bring perfection into debates - I actually know what the Biblical claims are, and there's not much to discuss about them.

These folks here were definitely evaluating a character in a storybook, one in which you believe, but it's kinda like arguing over whether Luke Skywalker should or should not have cut off the Wampa's arm in Episode V.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Who said that?

Zone. I've heard of good cop/bad cop before, but this is the first time I've seen dumb cop/dumber cop.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Then the claim can be dismissed as nonsensical, yes?

A circular claim isn't necessarily nonsensical. It's unsupported. You can accept it or reject it as you like. That's why I don't bring perfection into debates - I actually know what the Biblical claims are, and there's not much to discuss about them.

A circular claim is supported...by itself. We call this 'nonsense'.

(September 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 1:01 pm)max-greece Wrote: We have established logically that God is not perfect.

Uh, Sparky, could you quit speaking for me?

Should be: you have asserted that God is not perfect by judging him according to rules set for sinful man. I've repeatedly pointed out this apples-and-oranges mistake.

No - we did establish it clearly - you just don't/won't get it.

That's fine - be happy - hell - think yourself a winner if you like. Makes no odds to me.