(February 14, 2014 at 12:55 am)Rational AKD Wrote: you will find your answer here.Ah yes, more of "when the Bible says... it really means..." apologetics. Always good fun. Even if true, it means the translators were inept which means that Yahweh allowed his Word to be mangled by incompetent humans. So much for omnipotence.
...When the text says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means that God would permit or allow Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.
In this case, the context is supportive of my interpretation and not theirs, since Yahweh made it clear why he was "hardening" or "allowing the heart to harden". He wanted to demonstrate his terrible power to the Hebrews so they would know he was lord. That couldn't be done if the Egyptian king would just say, "OK, go on and go".
Additionally, my argument did not rely exclusively on this part of the story of Exodus. The New Testament, for example, has many more passages that supports the idea of predetermination than choice. The concept of "free will", which even if Biblically sound is a dubious defense of Yahweh's omnibenevolence, enjoys little support in scripture.
Neither is "free will" logically consistent with an omnipotent, omniscient god with a plan. If Yahweh has a plan and unlimited power to implement it, we can't have free will because everything will have been predetermined, including our choices and actions.
Quote:which is why I clearly defined it in the Purpose portion of my post.Right, you defined what you mean when you say "God". I'm just pointing out that it's not everyone's definition.
Quote:I showed this is not true in objection 2.Maybe your spurious logic is moving so fast that I missed it.
"Yahweh is defined as omnipotent. Such a being is possible. So since he's omnipotent, he must exist because if he didn't exist, than he wouldn't be omnipotent, would he?"
Looking again as I write this, you're right, it isn't circular, it's a complete non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow at all. I can underscore the logical problem with a few other examples:
"The cyclops is defined as a giant with one eye. Such a being is possible. Since he has one eye, he must exist because if he didn't exist, he wouldn't have any eyes, would he?"
"The unicorn is defined as having one horn. Such a being is possible. Since it has one horn, it must exist because if it didn't exist, it wouldn't have any horns, would it?"
You see, we can imagine all kinds of mythical beings. We can define them as having certain traits. But we can't then skip to the conclusion that they must exist because these hypothetical creatures have these traits and they could exist.
The specific problem with your logic, if you need me to spell it out, is this step:
Quote:b. if it is possible God exists, then God exists.
Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it is. This is the part of your argument that doesn't follow.
I keep repeating, is this the best you can do? If so, here's my video on the pre-failure of apologetics:
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
