Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[LostLocke]

Physical nature and nature of personality.... two completely different things.

Humans, like all other living things can not change their physical nature, (we can't decide to grow wings, or have 3 stomachs, or breath under water), but we can and do change our nature of personality all the time.

Are you saying god is completely incapable of changing his personality?

[davidMC1982]

The nature of God cannot change...

How do you know? His personality undergoes a fundamental change between old and new testament so your bible suggests otherwise.

Of course, your argument is built upon a weak foundation of assumptions starting with "God exists". You then not only assume to speak for God, you assume to know everything there is to know about him. He's all-powerful, all-knowing, good, the arbiter of moral values, incapable of suspending the laws of logic but capable of performing miracles, capable of creating the universe, apparently incapable of changing his mind.... etc etc etc.

If you could show us something more than "the bible says" and "personal experience(s)" you might, just might, have the basis of an argument.

[Esquilax]

The nature of God cannot change and to say that omnipotence somehow suspends the laws of logic is silly.

Omnipotence literally means "can do anything." Just calling the problems this raises in a being possessing an attribute of omnipotence doesn't mean that the person pointing out that problem is being silly, it means that the supposed god is silly at a conceptual level. You're laying the blame at the wrong feet here.

[SteveII]

The nature of God cannot change...

How do you know? His personality undergoes a fundamental change between old and new testament so your bible suggests otherwise.

Of course, your argument is built upon a weak foundation of assumptions starting with "God exists". You then not only assume to speak for God, you assume to know everything there is to know about him. He's all-powerful, all-knowing, good, the arbiter of moral values, incapable of suspending the laws of logic but capable of performing miracles, capable of creating the universe, apparently incapable of changing his mind.... etc etc etc.

If you could show us something more than "the bible says" and "personal experience(s)" you might, just might, have the basis of an argument.

God's personality does not change between the Old and New Testament. Please provide examples.

I have not used the Bible nor personal experiences in any of my arguments.

---

Some of you were right to criticize my formation of the moral argument. If should have been formed like this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. If naturalism is true and God does not exist, then our morals are a product of evolution. Evolution cannot provide for us a set of values that are true for all times. With naturalism, at some point in the past, basic survival would be at odds with many of our morals today (killing, harming others, personal freedoms, equality, taking care of the elderly, etc.). So, naturalism gives us relative values.

2. Most of us believe that objective values do exist. It is right/good to take care of one's parents into their old age and realize even 100,000 years ago it would still have been the right thing to do and 100,000 years in the future, it will still be the right thing to do. Killing young children has been and will forever be morally wrong. We all intrinsically know when something is just plain wrong--even if a million people are doing it.

3. Since naturalism cannot provide for objective moral values, some other source must exist. God is the most plausible source.

The slaughter of the Canaanites has been brought up as an argument against God being a source of moral values. If you are really interested in the Christian perspective on this, read this article: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter...canaanites.

---

The nature of God cannot change and to say that omnipotence somehow suspends the laws of logic is silly.

Omnipotence literally means "can do anything." Just calling the problems this raises in a being possessing an attribute of omnipotence doesn't mean that the person pointing out that problem is being silly, it means that the supposed god is silly at a conceptual level. You're laying the blame at the wrong feet here.

I guess the question is: does the word "anything" included logical impossibilities. Is a four-sided triangle a thing that can be actualized? I would argue that a four-sided triangle is not a thing and does not fall into the category of "anything".

[Welsh cake]

"People changing" doesn't change their nature.

Ditch the word "nature" from now on please. You're invoking too many synonyms at once, thereby making the label's definition vague and useless. We refuse to play counterproductive semantic games that hinder a discussion.

Kindly use the terms 'personality' and 'ontology' from now on.

Can a person's personality change? Yes.
Can a person's ontology change? By definition, no. There's a limit. Significant and irreversible changes to their physical state can, and sadly, do occur within reality, would mean they would not be a living human being that one could identify as, a "person". So for the sake of dichotomy we have to say, no.

You're the type of believer who thinks god is immutable, correct? Even some Christians can appreciate their deity did change by shedding his divinity and becoming human. You know, Jesus Christ? Your so-called savior remember?

Theologians argue that if god changes it must change for the better or the worse. Which is asinine and silly. Change by itself, does not necessarily invoke nor imply benign or malignant results. You all need to look up the word "change" and stop playing around with it as you do with "nature".

Worse still, you believe a change that makes no positive or negative difference, is not a change.

[SteveII]

"People changing" doesn't change their nature.

Ditch the word "nature" from now on please. You're invoking too many synonyms at once, thereby making the label's definition vague and useless. We refuse to play counterproductive semantic games that hinder a discussion.

Kindly use the terms 'personality' and 'ontology' from now on.

Can a person's personality change? Yes.
Can a person's ontology change? By definition, no. There's a limit. Significant and irreversible changes to their physical state can, and sadly, do occur within reality, would mean they would not be a living human being that one could identify as, a "person". So for the sake of dichotomy we have to say, no.

You're the type of believer who thinks god is immutable, correct? Even some Christians can appreciate their deity did change by shedding his divinity and becoming human. You know, Jesus Christ? Your so-called savior remember?

Theologians argue that if god changes it must change for the better or the worse. Which is asinine and silly. Change by itself, does not necessarily invoke nor imply benign or malignant results. You all need to look up the word "change" and stop playing around with it as you do with "nature".

Worse still, you believe a change that makes no positive or negative difference, is not a change.

Thank you for the suggestion on a better word.

I think most Christians believe Jesus did not shed his divinity.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

All gods are imaginary. Superstitious twits give them whatever characteristics their favorite deities have. Not one god of any kind has ever done anything godly since the first con man invented it so that he could gain power and control over his dumber buddies. Even the Bible says that.

[SteveII]

All gods are imaginary. Superstitious twits give them whatever characteristics their favorite deities have. Not one god of any kind has ever done anything godly since the first con man invented it so that he could gain power and control over his dumber buddies. Even the Bible says that.

So you believe in God?

[Crossless2.0]

All gods are imaginary. Superstitious twits give them whatever characteristics their favorite deities have. Not one god of any kind has ever done anything godly since the first con man invented it so that he could gain power and control over his dumber buddies. Even the Bible says that.

So you believe in God?

[Mudhammam]

God's personality does not change between the Old and New Testament. Please provide examples.

Apart from the whole "bless thine enemies" and "turn the other cheek" bits, you could probably argue that God becomes intolerably worse in the New Testament. I mean, in the Old, sure he drowned babies and slaughtered entire cities, but at least those sufferings appear to have been extinguished at the grave. Not so in the New Testament. There God gives us all the joyous news that eternity is filled with ghastly horrors!

1. If naturalism is true and God does not exist, then our morals are a product of evolution.

Yes.

Evolution cannot provide for us a set of values that are true for all times.

Huh? Well in that case, neither does theism. Oh wait, you mean you still believe in the morality of stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and blasphemers? Nor should we be granted the knowledge of a "set of values that are true for all times" as that would imply we are omniscient, full of infinite wisdom for every situation at all times. Clearly, that's not how history works.

That being said, an objective basis for morality has always existed to the extent that we have had any capacity to self-reflect on the desirability of pleasure, pain, well-being, and suffering.

With naturalism, at some point in the past, basic survival would be at odds with many of our morals today (killing, harming others, personal freedoms, equality, taking care of the elderly, etc.). So, naturalism gives us relative values.

LOL. Yes, and incest in your view is also permissible when the only people on earth available to keep the human population going are your mother and sisters. Then, according to your God, bang the fuck of 'em! But you don't think that's okay now, right? I guess your morals are relative too.

2. Most of us believe that objective values do exist. It is right/good to take care of one's parents into their old age and realize even 100,000 years ago it would still have been the right thing to do and 100,000 years in the future, it will still be the right thing to do. Killing young children has been and will forever be morally wrong. We all intrinsically know when something is just plain wrong--even if a million people are doing it.

The best reason you can come up with for not raping and killing children is that God instructs you not to do so? Where do you think this "intrinsic" knowledge comes from? Natural selection is perfectly adequate to explain it.

3. Since naturalism cannot provide for objective moral values, some other source must exist. God is the most plausible source.

The slaughter of the Canaanites has been brought up as an argument against God being a source of moral values. If you are really interested in the Christian perspective on this, read this article: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter...canaanites.

Oh please. And the children even got free passes to heaven!