Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
What wold convince me? What a stupid question. God sitting here telling me about God in a way that I could distinguish from insanity would convince me. Simple and easy.
What a stupid response.
You have no way in principle to distinguish God from insanity, and, in fact, the MANY striking revelations and miracles that people have experienced are utterly dismissed by people just like you.
For example, when I tell the story of a very striking healing I personally saw with my own eyes, a healing in immediate response to prayer, I am told by many on this site that the story is not to be believed, that I am mistaken in some way, or that there IS some naturalistic account for it (despite the fact that none is offered).
So, tell me exactly how this God would make it indubitable to you that the revelation was veridical! What exactly would the experience be like and include that would "convince" you?
Anything you come up with, I will explain to you why you ought not to believe it as "God," and I will give you an alternate account, just as atheists have been doing to "explain away" all supernatural phenomena. So, take a stab at it, and let's see how far you get.
I put it to you that you are not nearly as "open" as you suggest, and that, in fact, you have no principled way to get what you claim you need. Hence, as suggested, unreasonable.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
They are reasonable.
Uhh... sorry, but MOST of the "atheist types" that roam these threads are decidedly unreasonable! The straw-man attacks, drive-by shootings, and flaming are far below the standard of reasonableness!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
I tell you that there is a Zeus and an Apollo. You tell me I'm wrong because you know that there is one true God. You don't bother to tell me how you know this or why the other guys who really do think there is a Zeus and Apollo are wrong. You just say that you know it.
The fact that people have been superstitious and mistaken in all sorts of claims does not indicate that there are no true claims on the subject.
Furthermore, I have made no such statements as you suggest. I have NEVER said: "I just know it." Sorry, but you've got me confused with somebody else.
I think it's pretty clear on these threads that I'm the guy that will go to painful lengths to explain my thinking on these subjects. I'm about as far from a "just know it" sort of person you can get!
If you want to talk about how (easy it is) to distinguish between the Biblical God and the many other false gods people have dreamed up, I'll be happy to get into that discussion. We can start with just the moral implications for divine-command theories of ethics in which polytheism has devastating difficulties that are not shared by monotheism. And the philosophical differences go on and on and on.
To assert that there is no good way to distinguish among various "superstitious" claims about gods and the claims made in the Bible is simply ignorant of the philosophical literature on science, religion, and ethics. That fact that YOU can't see a difference does not mean that striking and defensible differences do not exist.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
What would convince YOU that you are wrong in disbelieving? If the answer is "nothing," then you CANNOT be reasoned with, and you are thus, by definition, unreasonable.
Weak!
I have no "reason" to believe it, just like I have no reason to believe in a teapot orbitting the sun between Mars and Jupiter, or in a Dragon in my garage:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
So, for me, I only need a reason... Like this:
JUST ONE EVIDENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL! Just one!
(Note - Text written by people who didn't even know Jesus, written 2,000 years ago is weaker than eye-witness testimony of televangelists healing people on their show.)
Or... People believe in the power of prayer, that a God will act on their behalf if prayed to. This would easily be statistically detectable, as people prayed for would have better survival rates from diseases, or what ever else is prayed for. Yet, NUMEROUS studies, even funded by the Church have yielded no statistically significant result.
So... There is proof positive that there is no power in prayer, other than making people feel like they have some control over things they really don't, yet people STILL pray, confidently believing that their prayers will be answerred. That is unreasonable. And I'll bet you pray, huh? And believe that God will answer your prayers, huh? How about a lucky horseshoe, or rabbit's foot?
Now... Let's actually test you faith in prayer here:
Since your God is all powerfull, and he answers prayers... If you had a disease like cancer, would you pray for him to cure it, or go to a doctor? I'm sure you would probably do both, but who do you really have faith in that can best cure you? If you had to chose only one, would you choose the oncologist or prayer?
As to who is open mindended and reasonable, and who is not...
(Note... If you are unfamiliar with the Branch Davidians you should read up on it first, here's a great source of information:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Dividian)
Imagine for a moment that David Koresh, whom we all know was killed allong with many of his followers in Waco, TX when his compound burned, reappeared and claimed to be resurrected, which is proof of his claim to be the Messiah.
He was willing to prove this by submitting to DNA tests, to prove that it really was him, and that he had in fact been resurected from the dead.
To move through this quickly, we will state that the entire process of DNA verification has been thorough and transparent. (i.e. Previous DNA samples from him and his family prove a valid standard, DNA confirmation of his burnt corpse, and present DNA, transparent and perfect chain of custody of samples, perfect lab practices to preclude contaminations, and all this has even been tripple verified at 2 other labs independantly, who collected their own samples, etc... Hell, for good measure he even turned the Sparklets water to wine in the labs, simply by touching the bottle on the cooler, as we'll say he has a sense of humor.)
And any other tests asked of him, he performed and passed.
Now... My point is, that I do NOT currently believe in the supernatural, because there is absolutely no 'evidence' of it... But that I would be forced to believe that he has been resurected, despite my 'strong belief' that it would be impossible, as I would now see overwhelming evidence that it is possible, and in fact has happened. I would believe it, and would reconsider my atheism. So I am open minded enough to consider any evidence, and let it lead me where it takes me, despite my present views.
How about the 'faithfull'... Would they believe it ??? Would they believe that something that's prophecised in their 'faith', and that actually comes with overwhelming proof, is true in the form of David Koresh ??? Would they put all their faith in David Koresh, and believe him to be their Messiah ???
If not, then why not ??? It has been prophecised, it even comes with proof--proof that cannot be explained away, or even reasonably doubted. Would it be because it doesn't fit with what they want to happen--their hopes ??? For those who forsake him, David even asks them directly, "What would it take for you to believe I am the Messiah?" Would they believe it if he provided that proof as well ???
Now, given the above, please answer the question I posed in it ???
How about the 'faithfull'... Would they believe it ??? Would they believe that something that's prophecised in their 'faith', and that actually comes with overwhelming proof, is true in the form of David Koresh ??? Would they put all their faith in David Koresh, and believe him to be their Messiah ???
See, I'd have to believe it, but would you ???
Point is, I am more open minded that you 'think you are', as I am guided by the evidence... You are guided by your desire to maintain your faith, and that desire influences what you see as reality.
Now... I've taken the time to reply in detail to you, and answer your question turned back on me, so now your turn:
What would convince you that you are wrong?
See... Confidence in one's beliefs should be directly poroprtional to the evidence that supports it. Unfortunately, with many of the faithful, it is inversely proportional, in that they confidently believe "in" things that have zero evidence, and disbelieve in things that have mountains of evidence. (E.g., Evolution, Big Bang, Religious History vs Myth and Tradition)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
And for the record... as an atheist type and a hard core mental speculator, I would never let my kid stick his hand in a fan by way of teaching him a lesson.
If our purpose on this earth is to learn lessons, those lessons are exquisitely painful to the point of absurdity.
Better perhaps to create a universe in which lessons are unnecessary?
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
Do the claims of Christianity violate reason?
Yes:
Virgin birth (That belief comes from a mistranlation of the Hebrew into Koine Greek, BTW)
Resurrection
Walking on water
For starters.
Here's a couple questions for you:
1. What were Jesus' last words?
2. Did Jesus ride into town on an ass, OR, an ass AND a foal? (I.e. 2 animals)
3. Did mortal man have to wipe the ass of God, and disciple him, when Jesus was an infant and toddler?
4. Does God have a penis, or even an anus? How about eyes? What does he/she/it use them for?
5. Why do you believe we have an eternal soul? Specifically, why?
And this one takes a bit of thinking:
6. Why is life after death different than life before birth, if the sould is eternal? You do know the definition of 'eternal' right?
Now... Since the faithful are all to often predictable, I predict that you will ignore and/or dismiss every question I've asked you, in this and my previous reply.
Let's see if I'm right.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
I think it's pretty clear on these threads that I'm the guy that will go to painful lengths to explain my thinking on these subjects. Prove it... Answer my 1st question:
What would convince you that you are wrong?
See, you and I disbelieve in all the same Gods, past and present, except I disbelieve in one more than you...
Problem is, you cannot think outside your own box of dogma to realize it.
Oh, and atheists (those who do not believe in a God) aren't so bad...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
[quote}Better perhaps to create a universe in which lessons are unnecessary?[/quote]
Uhh... EXACTLY! Indeed, exactly what Christianity claims was the case.
But, that pesky free will and all....
Downhill from there.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
What a stupid response.
You have no way in principle to distinguish God from insanity, and, in fact, the MANY striking revelations and miracles that people have experienced are utterly dismissed by people just like you.
For example, when I tell the story of a very striking healing I personally saw with my own eyes, a healing in immediate response to prayer, I am told by many on this site that the story is not to be believed, that I am mistaken in some way, or that there IS some naturalistic account for it (despite the fact that none is offered).
So, tell me exactly how this God would make it indubitable to you that the revelation was veridical! What exactly would the experience be like and include that would "convince" you?
Anything you come up with, I will explain to you why you ought not to believe it as "God," and I will give you an alternate account, just as atheists have been doing to "explain away" all supernatural phenomena. So, take a stab at it, and let's see how far you get.
I put it to you that you are not nearly as "open" as you suggest, and that, in fact, you have no principled way to get what you claim you need. Hence, as suggested, unreasonable. No mad... It is a strong reply. Direct, and to the point... No waving of the hand. "Evidence of God [and/or the supernatural]", easy enough. Remember now... Back in the day, God loved to throw his weight around, with people living in fish, global floods and arks, burning cities, unicorns, dragons, resurrections, virgin births, etc... Now, nothing.
You believe there is some:
"...just as atheists have been doing to "explain away" all supernatural phenomena..."
Please share with us some of "all the supernatural phenomena" that you believe exists, or even just some examples... This should be entertaining.
And I see that you are being a hipochrite here, in that you like my words, "what would convince you...", but only as it suits you when you can use it against someone else.
But it looks like dispite you saying that you "go through painstaking...", you don't, as you have as yet to answer even attempt to address a single point or quetsion i have raised. NOT ONE!
Ignore... Deny... Wave the hand... Turn it around on them... That's all you've done. Because that's all you can do. You MUST keep your beleief seperate from your skeptical reasonable mind, else there is conflict. You CANNOT as yourself those questions. You don't even apply the same skepticism you would at buying a used car to your belief system.
Perhaps you thought that at least Jesus's last words, or what he "rode into town on" would be low hanging fruit, until you actually looked in the book, and saw that it wasn't gonna be that easy... Oh, don't you just hate contradictions in the scripture?
As I said, if the answer is "nothing" then how can you are unreasonable, so how can you be reasoned with... Which is what many are trying to do yere... Reason with you and your breatheren.
PS... Yea, I know, my spelling and typing, sux. Hey, you can dismiss what I have to say because of that.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
paul roehl -- "Better perhaps to create a universe in which lessons are unnecessary?"
Already being done in your local climbing gyms .......
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Prove it... Answer my 1st question:
What would convince you that you are wrong?
No, you're not off the hook quite that easy. You make much of "no evidence," but that's ridiculous on many levels.
There is tons of evidence in the natural world; the issue is how that evidence is interpreted! That's a whole other discussion, but it's an outlandish claim to say that there is "no evidence" in the natural world.
Second, you have as much evidence of God's existence as you have of the existence of, say, Myanmar. (I assume you haven't been there; if you have, just pick another country that you haven't visited.) What direct evidence do you have of Myanmar's existence? What you have is the witness of others.
Don't appeal to satellites and so forth. The fact that you can point down to an overhead picture and say, "There it is" is meaningless. You have exactly NO reason to think that that spot on an overhead map IS Myanmar.
Furthermore, you hear wildly conflicting accounts of what's actually going on over in Myanmar! Again, interpretation plays a huge role, and in this case you're interpreting merely eye-witness accounts of what the story is.
There are also modern and credible eyewitness accounts of full-on miracles. I've witnessed my sister's severed tongue healed in an instant in answer to prayer. (That's almost as good as "God" sitting down with you to say: "I'm it.") But, of course, you will have all sorts of responses to try to undermine what I saw with my own two eyes. Sorry, that dog won't hunt!
I could go on and on. The fact is that you accept eyewitness accounts about all sorts of things for which you have no direct evidence. And most of what we take to be "real" cannot be replicated in a lab.
So, don't pretend like the burden of proof is on the shoulders of Christians. If anything it is the reverse. Even the most rabid atheist of probably all time, Richard Dawkins, says: "Biology is the study of complex organisms that appear to have been designed for a purpose but that in fact were not." Even Dawkins recognizes that the obvious evidence and millennia of natural intuition point to a designer God. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those denying the obvious!
Finally, you don't escape your responsibility so easily because you yourself tried to come up with an example of what it would take to convince you. Of course it was pure crap, and when called on it being pure crap you instantly tried to slip out of my more pressing questions on the point. But the FACT remains that you have NO account of what it would take to convince you, and "orbiting teacups" is such a bad analogy that I'm surprised that ANYBODY would attempt to publicly float it!
If you think that in the face of quotes like Dawkins' you can call the OBVIOUS evidences of design akin to some fictional orbiting teacup, then don't expect me or any other reasonable person to call YOU reasonable!
Modern biology is ABOUT accounting for how things CAN work like they do in the absence of a designer, and, contrary to what most biologists try to claim, their interpretation of the evidence is sorely lacking. Regardless of that, the fact remains that the burden of proof is for biologists to give us an error-theory of how our intuitions could be SO screwed up, when even the most rabid among them admits that living organisms APPEAR to be "designed for a purpose."
No, you're just hand waving now.
I, by contrast, can easily answer your challenge:
My particular world view would be devastated to find that there was primitive (or advanced, for that matter) life on some other planet. That's one thing that would be a huge problem for me! Now, I don't mean inferential accounts of little "fossilized vesicles" or some such garbage. I mean actual life. Find me some actual life on another planet, and my view is in serious trouble... possibly even a flat-out falsification!
Another thing that could do it would be for scientists to create actual life in the laboratory. Again, I'm not talking about some amino acids that almost immediately deteriorate because it's impossible to so carefully control the conditions for stability. (Ironically, the atmosphere needed for producing the amino acids in the first place is NOT the atmosphere needed to keep them stable. So, what early life theorists are presently confronted with is a model where the reducing atmosphere needed to produce the amino acids almost instantly changed to an atmosphere like we presently have. No even slightly workable model is in the offing.) So, go from raw chemicals in a test tube to living, replicating cells, and you've got me.
Those are just two examples, and there are many more.
So, ante up. I'm ready to hear what it would take to convince you, and don't punt this time.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Direct, and to the point... No waving of the hand. "Evidence of God [and/or the supernatural]", easy enough.
So, let me be clear. You're really that easy? So, if something like the healing of my sister's tongue happened in front of you, in answer to prayer, that would be enough to convince you?
And, btw, that's exactly the sort of supernatural evidence I'm talking about. Sure, there are lots of crackpot accounts out there (not nearly as magnificent as the claim of cold fusion), but that doesn't mean that there are not many entirely credible accounts of miracles.
And the fact that you can't reproduce miracles in a laboratory setting should be self-evident. Miracles are, by definition, unusual "rips" in the typical causal fabric. If they could be reproduced on command, they would not be miracles. But I still await a naturalistic account of what I saw with my own eyes. A quantum event? Bah!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I wouldn't change the way the universe is with all its pain and destruction, it is what it is.
It is religion both eastern and western that seeks a tender escape from the pain life offers; this is not the concern of the atheist.
Im just pointing out the absurdity of believing that supernatural powers cursed a world because of the actions of human beings. The Christian God is no less a monster than what is demonstrated in his creation!
If God is, try to know what he is; his name is written in the violence and horror of nature as well its beauty and love. If God is he must be responsible for this universe.
It's impossible for God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent?
How can there be free will and omnescience?
It only takes a little mental speculation to understand this.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
Wow, such passion here. Unfortunately so much of what is discussed is unknowable so it comes down to belief, faith, or some visceral acceptance of a God. Some would like to believe in God but have difficulty with some of the teachings or precepts of organized religion. Others can’t wrap their head around a God that would allow the level of pain, suffering, injustice, or tragedy that transpires daily. Little will change those opinions because those filters are the foundations upon which we view life.
Some demand full-proof logical explanation or evidence of God’s existence, but many things lack logic; such as the relationships we have with our spouses or mates. Some are hurt deeply from tragedy and feel bitter and injustice (why them?) I have my own version/ explanation for this but before I do I’d like to address the free-will/ God’s omniscience issue.
My personal view is that God does not know what we (humans) will do next. We are his ‘children’ and He created this earth to allow us to grow, develop, and make choices like we do for our own children. He does not control all events; otherwise we are all puppets in his play. I don’t think there is a pre-determined ending for any of us.
His lack of control on the future is found in the story of Noah. He was so disgusted with man that He was willing to hit the reset button but was persuaded by Noah to allow a few believers to survive. Believe the story or not, the point is a truly omniscient God with a plan would have gotten the whole human thing correctly to begin with and not have to start over.
To me this is evidence that we have free will, that we don’t have puppet strings, that we make choices and the future is of our making. That is why tragedies are allowed to occur. Without pain we would not know pleasure. Without suffering we would not know bliss. Without death we would not know life.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
You may have free will but you don't have an omniscient deity... which begs the question who created your God?
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
His wife created Him of course, who else?
The dilemna surrounding Free Will is centuries old. I stole this from the web:
"In the Christian philosophical tradition a central question regarding freedom of the will was this: is virtue within the power of the individual or completely dependent on the power of God? St. Augustine, although he argued that God's foreknowledge of human actions (a consequence of his omniscience) did not cause them, did hold that God's omnipotent providence implied predestination: man was wholly dependent on divine grace.
St. Thomas Aquinas maintained the freedom of man's will in spite of divine omnipotence, holding that God's omnipotence meant he could do all things possible or consistent with his goodness and reason, which did not include the predetermination of human will.
William of Occam affirmed free will but claimed it impossible for any human to comprehend how it is compatible with God's foreknowledge and omniscience, which cannot be distinguished from his role as prime mover and original cause.
Martin Luther and John Calvin both followed Augustine's doctrine of predestination, but later Protestant writers disputed their position. Advocates of free will have usually begun with the overwhelming testimony of common practice and common sense: people do believe they in some way determine their actions, and hold each other accountable for them."
I still think God allows us free will while maintaining the ability to change things at will (such as Noah's Ark). Why does he allow bad things to happen? I go back to contrasts and choices we make as outlined in the previous posts.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Bad things,
Good things
Are only seen in relation to the material body.
Since you all think you're the body, that's the first defect and mistake.
Just like you think you're a climber or you're a Christian, a Mohammedan, a Catholic, a Hindu, and so on.
You're probably so attached to your Toyota and think your dead after you crashed your truck .....
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
Second, you have as much evidence of God's existence as you have of the existence of, say, Myanmar. (I assume you haven't been there; if you have, just pick another country that you haven't visited.) What direct evidence do you have of Myanmar's existence? What you have is the witness of others. Nope... See, if I chose to I could go there, and verify it's existance. Same goes for what's going on over there... I could, if I chose, go verify it for myself.
That's how science, and generally reasonable beliefs, work... They are repeatable and transparent.
As I said, confidence inb a believe should be directly proportional to the evidence. Yours isn't even disproportionally proportinal, it is INVERSELY proportional.
You believe with "all your heart", and that is at the expense of "all your head".
There are also modern and credible eyewitness accounts of full-on miracles. I've witnessed my sister's severed tongue healed in an instant in answer to prayer. (That's almost as good as "God" sitting down with you to say: "I'm it.") But, of course, you will have all sorts of responses to try to undermine what I saw with my own two eyes. Sorry, that dog won't hunt! Pure and utter bullsh#t, whether you believe it or not. If that happened, it would be documented in medical journals all over the world, as well as trumpeted by every appologist the world over.
Bull shit!
And most of what we take to be "real" cannot be replicated in a lab. Really? Like what? You know why we trust science? Because it works, dummy. From the plane you fly in, to the computer you're using to spread your drivel, to the antibiotics and vaccines that keep you healthy.
Finally, you don't escape your responsibility so easily because you yourself tried to come up with an example of what it would take to convince you. Of course it was pure crap, and when called on it being pure crap you instantly tried to slip out of my more pressing questions on the point. But the FACT remains that you have NO account of what it would take to convince you, and "orbiting teacups" is such a bad analogy that I'm surprised that ANYBODY would attempt to publicly float it! Nope... It's pretty sound, you just can't address it, so you try to dismiss it... You say my example is impossible, yet you believe just that... That a man was killed and vame back to life... Only difference is, your "proof" is a 2,000 year old text, and in mine, I have your text, AND physical evidence that is repeatable.
And the "Teacup"... That's Russell's Teacup. Do you know who Bertrand Russell is? It's not me that's trying to "float it". (You need to get out of your box more often.)
More importantly, from the above quote:
...and when called on it being pure crap you instantly tried to slip out of my more pressing questions on the point... How could I do this? Are you making this up as you are going along? This was your first reply to me after my example, that you asked for? So HOW could you call me on somehting before I post it? You really do live in your own little world, huh?
Modern biology is ABOUT accounting for how things CAN work... Nope... It's about how things DO work. in fact we understand it enough to make antibiotics and vaccines, AND... See below.
My particular world view would be devastated to find that there was primitive (or advanced, for that matter) life on some other planet. That's one thing that would be a huge problem for me! Now, I don't mean inferential accounts of little "fossilized vesicles" or some such garbage. I mean actual life. Find me some actual life on another planet, and my view is in serious trouble... possibly even a flat-out falsification! Good! I think you are young enough that you will see this in your lifetime, perhaps on Europa.
Another thing that could do it would be for scientists to create actual life in the laboratory. Again, I'm not talking about some amino acids that almost immediately deteriorate because it's impossible to so carefully control the conditions for stability. (Ironically, the atmosphere needed for producing the amino acids in the first place is NOT the atmosphere needed to keep them stable. So, what early life theorists are presently confronted with is a model where the reducing atmosphere needed to produce the amino acids almost instantly changed to an atmosphere like we presently have. No even slightly workable model is in the offing.) So, go from raw chemicals in a test tube to living, replicating cells, and you've got me. You mean like this?
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html
It meats much of your criteria... This isn't just an amino acid... It is a new species, capable of self replication, created by man. Hey, like I said above, we understand biology as it DOES happen, enough to even exploit it, and now to even create a new species.
Also amino acids need no atmosphere like we have here on Earth at present, as the atmosphere was very differeent here on Earth when life started... In fact, they were even discovered on a comet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet-found.html
You need to read up before you stick your foot in your mouth.
So... Given the above... Are you just gonna move the goal post now? There is one new species on this planet, that God did not create... We did.
How 'bout the rest of my questions, and taking a better stab at the one you are trying to dismiss here?
C'mon now... Just quote my questions, and address them point by point, like I am doing for you. It's called "discourse".
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
So, let me be clear. You're really that easy? So, if something like the healing of my sister's tongue happened in front of you, in answer to prayer, that would be enough to convince you? Yes!
And, btw, that's exactly the sort of supernatural evidence I'm talking about. Sure, there are lots of crackpot accounts out there (not nearly as magnificent as the claim of cold fusion), but that doesn't mean that there are not many entirely credible accounts of miracles. If you believe that, YOU are a DELUDED.
And the fact that you can't reproduce miracles in a laboratory setting should be self-evident. Miracles are, by definition, unusual "rips" in the typical causal fabric. If they could be reproduced on command, they would not be miracles. But I still await a naturalistic account of what I saw with my own eyes. A quantum event? Bah! Why not? YOU produced it "on command", as you prayed and he made it happen right? Perhaps you were a little kid when this happened?
Another simple question... Do you believe the Earth and Universe are older than 10,000 years old?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
It's impossible for God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent?
How can there be free will and omnescience?
It only takes a little mental speculation to understand this.
Care to let us in on your "little mental speculation" that seems to have eclipsed people that make a living thinking about such things?
It's easy to SAY that you "understand this," but actually demonstrating it is a whole different ball game. DEMONSTRATE how free will is eliminated by omniscience. Otherwise, you're just talkin, and "speculating," as you say, is all you've got.
Regarding you statements about the horror in the universe, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, it's a ridiculous straw-man argument to blame it all on Adam and Eve! Humans have been carefully building causal chains of evil for millennia. If you keep "evil" and "bad" apart, which they properly are, then you've got human responsibility for the evil in this world; and God happily takes responsibility for the "bad," which is little more to us than: "I don't like it." Well, tough.
Paul, I don't see you even trying to really engage with these issues. You want to take the most superficial approach and cling to your comfortable assertions. But your assertions are NOT philosophically sustainable.
Whatever else you want to say about Christians, you have not yet demonstrated the right to claim that we're all ignorant or stupid. So far in this discussion, you seem unwilling to engage at the level it takes to do anything but straw-man the Christian world view. Well, more power to you, but any intellectually sophisticated Christian will find your responses feeble.
Far from being the "sword in the heart of Christianity," as you assert, you have not yet even formulated the problem of evil in a threatening way.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!