The Problem with Christians

[athrock]

Ya, just tell me where I'm wrong if my analogy is bad. 

Special pleading is defined as Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Since we are not God and He is, I have provided adequate justification for the exemption.

Because you haven't established that god even exists, let alone be able to tell us what rules he's made or has to follow. Your comparing things we know exist with something we have no knowledge of, your just making up god to fit your analogies.

That wasn't really the point anyway, the point was special pleading.

Agreed. This discussion assumes that point for the sake of argument.

However, if God does exist, then I think it is reasonable to say that justification for the exemption exists; consequently, there is no special pleading.

If God does not exist, then we should have a very different discussion!

[pocaracas]

I've been doing some cutting edge research. I have finally discovered what it means to be "outside of time". This opens up the possibility of God, after all.

Viewer discretion is advised: not everyone will be able to handle this:

---

http://youtu.be/BU7zMB5BWkw

---

LOL


I know what "outside of time and space" means.
It's exactly the same as Harry Potter - Harry does not exist on this planet, on this universe. He remains ageless, so time does not pass through him. You can "visit" him at any time you want and he's the age you want him to be (depending on which book you pick up )
Same thing for Darth Vader, Shrek, Superman, Sleeping beauty, Thor, Zeus, Ra.... Yahweh.
They all exist beyond time and space!
As concepts, as characters in fiction.
Some represent the evil in humanity, some represent the good, some represent the struggle to live in a society...

The christian god has the benefit of mainly representing the good in humanity and that draws people in.

[Mr.wizard]

Because you haven't established that god even exists, let alone be able to tell us what rules he's made or has to follow. Your comparing things we know exist with something we have no knowledge of, your just making up god to fit your analogies.

That wasn't really the point anyway, the point was special pleading.

Agreed. This discussion assumes that point for the sake of argument.

However, if God does exist, then I think it is reasonable to say that justification for the exemption exists; consequently, there is no special pleading.

If God does not exist, then we should have a very different discussion!

Well until you have proven God and his attributes, special pleading still applies. Because until you have proof, you are asserting that there is something that doesn't have to play by the same rules as everything else.

[LadyForCamus]

Unfortunately, this is a failed analogy at its core.  In fact, I will venture to say that no analogy can be logically applied to God.  By theist's own definition God exists outside of time and space, therefore we cannot compare anything in this world to him, nor can we compare him to anything which is bound by the laws of this world.  Ya know...because he isn't real.

Can you prove this? You know...prove a negative?

And btw...how are miracles not a direct violation of human free will?

How does parting the Red Sea violate anyone's free will? Or leaving an image on the Shroud of Turin?

These are signs of God's action, but people still reject them. No one is forced to believe because of miracles.

Lol, what? That was snark, Athrock. My point is, you don't (logically) get to make 101 supernatural assertions about God in one breath, and then in the same breath try to compare him to a humanoid, physical world scenario, and expect the analogy to hold.

The Red Sea? (Or "sea of reeds" depending on your interpretation, ofc.) Okay...I didn't realize I was talking to a literalist here...

:: face palm ::

Do you know what I have learned from this thread? That theists are capable of rationalizing ANYTHING when it comes to God. No matter how ridiculous.

[abaris]

How does parting the Red Sea violate anyone's free will? Or leaving an image on the Shroud of Turin?

These are signs of God's action, but people still reject them. No one is forced to believe because of miracles.

Parting the Red Sea? Just legend. Just legend from a single book, sold to be true to the religious. No Egyptian records, no missing pharao, no nothing. Please don't try to justify that. A pharao drowning with his whole army wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Not with Egyptians.

Shroud of Turin. Not even officially recognized by the church. Just the usual, if you want to think it's genuine, be our guest. Not even they display your certainty.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm still waiting for an answer for why God created restraints and obstacles for life.   Also, an answer to Esq.'s question as to how you guys can consider complexity evidence of design when complexity, according to you, is not evidence that your God was designed.

God is not complex. He is simple with no component parts.

I have seen this concept explained by both Catholic and Evangelical authors. Here is one:

Is God Simple?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/attributes-of-god

You answered the question with yet another claim: "a divine mind is startlingly simple". Another assertion wrapped in a larger assertion; (both without evidence) offered as an explanation for a contradiction caused by your first assertion. Thanks for clearing all that up for me, lol. So...the idea is to just keep asserting things until all the logical inconsistencies have excuses? Wonderful...

[robvalue]

OK, I've been thinking about this "design" business. I can think of three distinct ways an intelligence could be involved in the "creation" of humans.

I will demonstrate each one by an analogy.

1) Initial setup: I fashion a series of connected pipes, and then I released a load of marbles into them. I step back, and take no further part.

2) Influence within continuity: As above, except I am allow to gently tilt the pipes so as to guide the movement of the marbles.

3) Influence without continuity: As above, except I'm also allowed to reach in to take marbles out, put them somewhere else in another pipe, remove them altogether or introduce new marbles.

Which of these three most closely represents what you guys think about the "design" aspect of life? You may well all have different answers.

[LadyForCamus]

Ya, special pleading, we get it, It doesn't matter how many bad analogies you use, it's still special pleading.

Ya, just tell me where I'm wrong if my analogy is bad. 

Special pleading is defined as Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Since we are not God and He is, I have provided adequate justification for the exemption.

If you want to call "God is God" adequate justification, be my guest.

[LadyForCamus]

I've been doing some cutting edge research. I have finally discovered what it means to be "outside of time". This opens up the possibility of God, after all.

Viewer discretion is advised: not everyone will be able to handle this:

---

http://youtu.be/BU7zMB5BWkw

---

LOL. Rob is GOD! I knew it! :: worship ::

[LadyForCamus]

How does parting the Red Sea violate anyone's free will? Or leaving an image on the Shroud of Turin?

These are signs of God's action, but people still reject them. No one is forced to believe because of miracles.

How is "hardening Pharo's heart" about ten or so times NOT violating free will? You don't get to just pick and choose the stories that work.