|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2013 : 10:10:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I assume you believe that life appeared on this planet through natural means; however, you have no proof... |
This is a misleading manner of phrasing things. We don't have "proof" in the logical sense of absolute certainty, but there is "proof" in the legal sense of a preponderance of evidence. Everything points to life being a naturally occurring, spontaneous chemical reaction. And it isn't the case that scientists have no idea how life could have first occurred. The problem is that there are too many plausible mechanisms, and further testing and research is needed to prune down the potential candidates.
Compare this with the god hypothesis. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that a magic man was involved at any point in the process. Theism not a defensible belief. It's a leap of faith which denies the evidence or ignores it.
So you're just following god's arbitrary rules, then.
|
No. I found this definition of arbitrary:
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
I do not think gods laws are whimsical or created by impulsiveness.
|
When looking up words, you have to ensure there isn't more than one definition. Context usually provides clues to how it is being used. For instance, if you had merely glanced down a line to the second definition of "arbitrary," you would see that it also means "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."
That is the sense the word was used. And accurately, I might add. God's laws are subjective and come down to his individual preferences. They are arbitrary.
If you wish to engage in honest debate, you must be more careful not to misrepresent your opponents' arguments. If you are unclear in what sense a person is using a word, ask them.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/20/2013 16:01:02 |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2013 : 10:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
The bible does not say exactly why it was sufficient or a sacrifice. The bible does say that it was a sacrifice and was sufficient punishment for sins. |
Do you care about the how or why, or is "it just is" sufficient for you? |
Sure, but it seems illogical to me that we can understand everything god does. The bible tells us how to be free from sin and Gods wrath. It is not a self help book, instruction manual on life or an exhaustive technical presentation of how god works everything. If we had to know how everything worked in our lives we would be very unproductive. |
Sort of like science: nobody really knows why F=ma, or why the fundamental constants have the values they do, we just know they do.| I assume you believe that life appeared on this planet through natural means; however, you have no proof but that is what you think happened. If this is not the case let me know. |
This is, so far, the best and most reasonable explanation. It is where the evidence points; and, since there is a preponderance of evidence, it is the explanation most of us accept.So you're just following god's arbitrary rules, then.
|
No. I found this definition of arbitrary:
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
I do not think gods laws are whimsical or created by impulsiveness. |
So you feel your god's laws are created by necessity, reason, and principle? How do the apparent contradictions work with your claim of a reasonable origin? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2013 : 13:45:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Sure, but it seems illogical to me that we can understand everything god does. The bible tells us how to be free from sin and Gods wrath. It is not a self help book, instruction manual on life or an exhaustive technical presentation of how god works everything. If we had to know how everything worked in our lives we would be very unproductive. |
I'm not talking about trivialities, here. God demanded a blood sacrifice (of himself) in order to offer salvation (from himself).
Why would an allegedly all-compassionate, all-loving, all-powerful deity even consider a blood sacrifice for any reason?| I assume you believe that life appeared on this planet through natural means; however, you have no proof but that is what you think happened. If this is not the case let me know. |
Since there is no compelling evidence of the existence of anything supernatural, life must have arisen through natural means. There simply is no other option.
However, an all-powerful god has tons of options, by definition.So you're just following god's arbitrary rules, then.
|
No. I found this definition of arbitrary:
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
I do not think gods laws are whimsical or created by impulsiveness. |
How did he come up with them, then? Or are you just guessing?
The rules certainly seem arbitrary to me. What's the problem with wearing clothes spun from two different fibers? Why is there a sabbath? Why not cook lamb in its mother's milk? What's wrong with ham? Why are murder, theft and lying in the "top ten," but not rape, arson or extortion? Why is death an appropriate punishment for rebellious children? None of these things make sense, and so sure appear arbitrary. And the sudden shift away from the reams of rules to one simple one for salvation sure seems impulsive.
But the point is that you're following god's rules simply because they're the ones he laid out, and not because you understand and agree with the reasons you should follow such rules, because the Bible doesn't go into that much detail. You don't know why god considers something to be "good," you're forced to assume that it's good merely because a book says he says so.
If really-real Jesus appeared to the world tomorrow, and said, "at ihavereturned.com, you will all find a list of babies who must be annointed and then killed, but each of you may kill no more than one of them, and those who do will ensure their salvation. Sorry that this part of my teachings didn't get transcribed before all my disciples died, but this has been part of My Plan forever. Too many of you now are false prophets, steering the righteous in the wrong direction, so this single 'good work' is necessary for the weak-of-faith to be exposed so the truly saved can lead the way Home," you'd be forced to find a kid to slaughter, wouldn't you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2013 : 13:50:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
When looking up words, you have to ensure there isn't more than one definition. Context usually provides clues to how it is being used. For instance, if you had merely glanced down a line to the second definition of "arbitrarily," you would see that it also means "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."
That is the sense the word was used. |
Hehehehe. I failed to go back and review the context of my own argument. It's been so long since this thread was active.| And accurately, I might add. God's laws are subjective and come down to his individual preferences. |
And necessarily so, since Convinced rejects the idea that god is merely a messenger of what's "good." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2013 : 15:59:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And necessarily so, since Convinced rejects the idea that god is merely a messenger of what's "good."
|
Essentially an admission that objective morality doesn't exist.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2013 : 21:13:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
And necessarily so, since Convinced rejects the idea that god is merely a messenger of what's "good."
|
Essentially an admission that objective morality doesn't exist.
|
I would suspect one would see the "god if and only if good" argument, which has traditionally been the strategy for dodging the Euthyphro dilemma, that the good is good because god said so (and therefore arbitrary) or that the good is good intrinsically (and therefore god isn't in charge in some sense). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/20/2013 21:16:36 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2013 : 07:48:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
When looking up words, you have to ensure there isn't more than one definition. Context usually provides clues to how it is being used. For instance, if you had merely glanced down a line to the second definition of "arbitrary," you would see that it also means "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."
That is the sense the word was used. And accurately, I might add. God's laws are subjective and come down to his individual preferences. They are arbitrary.
If you wish to engage in honest debate, you must be more careful not to misrepresent your opponents' arguments. If you are unclear in what sense a person is using a word, ask them. |
I am more inclined to agree with this definition. Although it does seem to fall short. I think of it as more that God just is these things rather than God weighs different options and then comes to a conclusion for us to follow. There is no other option for god to decide. But I can agree that this definition fits enough of about how I see how God decides things.
I did not mean to be dishonest, sorry for my mistake. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2013 : 07:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
So you feel your god's laws are created by necessity, reason, and principle? How do the apparent contradictions work with your claim of a reasonable origin? |
The question is how you view the contradictions. I have been down this road before and the contradictions in the bible can be explained; however, some are more persuasive than others. There are still some that I cannot explain to my satisfaction. In the end, I have never had a conversation with anyone that the only reason they did not believe was because of the contradictions, that if only the contradictions were solved then they would believe. So the contradictions are not why people do not believe and kind of a moot point in my opinion. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2013 : 08:21:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
How did he come up with them, then? Or are you just guessing?
The rules certainly seem arbitrary to me. What's the problem with wearing clothes spun from two different fibers? Why is there a sabbath? Why not cook lamb in its mother's milk? What's wrong with ham? Why are murder, theft and lying in the "top ten," but not rape, arson or extortion? Why is death an appropriate punishment for rebellious children? None of these things make sense, and so sure appear arbitrary. And the sudden shift away from the reams of rules to one simple one for salvation sure seems impulsive. |
The plan of salvation has always been through Jesus.
| But the point is that you're following god's rules simply because they're the ones he laid out, and not because you understand and agree with the reasons you should follow such rules, because the Bible doesn't go into that much detail. You don't know why god considers something to be "good," you're forced to assume that it's good merely because a book says he says so. |
Yes. There are many things in the bible I don't agree with but that does not mean god does not consider them good.
If really-real Jesus appeared to the world tomorrow, and said, "at ihavereturned.com, you will all find a list of babies who must be annointed and then killed, but each of you may kill no more than one of them, and those who do will ensure their salvation. Sorry that this part of my teachings didn't get transcribed before all my disciples died, but this has been part of My Plan forever. Too many of you now are false prophets, steering the righteous in the wrong direction, so this single 'good work' is necessary for the weak-of-faith to be exposed so the truly saved can lead the way Home," you'd be forced to find a kid to slaughter, wouldn't you?
|
No. That is a false gospel. You are introducing works that have never been in gods plan. The bible itself says if anything does not agree with gods word then it should be rejected. (1 Jn 4:1).
I do get what you are asking. If Jesus came to me, proved who he was and asked me to kill one of my daughters and could prove that it lines up with scripture then the right thing to do would be to obey him. However, I do not think I would. I could not do that. It would be just one more thing Jesus has asked me to do that I don't for various reasons. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2013 : 17:43:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Boron10
So you feel your god's laws are created by necessity, reason, and principle? How do the apparent contradictions work with your claim of a reasonable origin? |
The question is how you view the contradictions. I have been down this road before and the contradictions in the bible can be explained; however, some are more persuasive than others. There are still some that I cannot explain to my satisfaction. In the end, I have never had a conversation with anyone that the only reason they did not believe was because of the contradictions, that if only the contradictions were solved then they would believe. So the contradictions are not why people do not believe and kind of a moot point in my opinion.
|
I don't know why people don't believe, but I would imagine because they don't think it's true. These contradictions are some of the things that at least persuade me that it's not true. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2013 : 17:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
So you feel your god's laws are created by necessity, reason, and principle? How do the apparent contradictions work with your claim of a reasonable origin? |
Suppose the argument is that the good is inherently bound up with god in the sense that this god is bound by logical necessity to do things that are within its nature, and these things make up exactly the good.
And then, this god's inability to do bad would be no more a threat to its omnipotence than its inability to create a rock so hard it can't lift it. This god is itself the standard of moral value.
I don't know how to answer that argument given its premises, if one is to accept the existence of an omnipotent god (which I think is entirely unjustified). But if one were to accept this existence, I don't see why they can't build the rest without contradiction. (Though I suppose if I were to assume the existence of some being satisfying any properties I choose, I could probably build any conclusion I like.) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/23/2013 17:57:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2013 : 05:38:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
The plan of salvation has always been through Jesus. |
Then why the 613 Commandments in the first place?| Yes. There are many things in the bible I don't agree with but that does not mean god does not consider them good. |
So that alleviates you from having to make moral decisions.| No. That is a false gospel. You are introducing works that have never been in gods plan. The bible itself says if anything does not agree with gods word then it should be rejected. (1 Jn 4:1). |
But if that interpretation of the Bible is wrong, it forces to reject what is right.| I do get what you are asking. If Jesus came to me, proved who he was and asked me to kill one of my daughters and could prove that it lines up with scripture then the right thing to do would be to obey him. However, I do not think I would. I could not do that. It would be just one more thing Jesus has asked me to do that I don't for various reasons. |
But what if killing your daughter was necessary for your salvation? Jesus may have asked you to do lots of stuff that you don't do, but right now you're convinced that works aren't required for salvation. What if that interpretation of the Bible is wrong?
Would it make a difference if you knew that one particular daughter would herself never gain salvation, even if you let her live? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2013 : 06:53:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Suppose the argument is that the good is inherently bound up with god in the sense that this god is bound by logical necessity to do things that are within its nature, and these things make up exactly the good.
And then, this god's inability to do bad would be no more a threat to its omnipotence than its inability to create a rock so hard it can't lift it. This god is itself the standard of moral value.
I don't know how to answer that argument given its premises, if one is to accept the existence of an omnipotent god (which I think is entirely unjustified). But if one were to accept this existence, I don't see why they can't build the rest without contradiction. (Though I suppose if I were to assume the existence of some being satisfying any properties I choose, I could probably build any conclusion I like.) |
"Can god make a rock so large he can't lift it?" is an attempt at a single-trait paradox which assumes that omnipotence entails making oneself impotent. May as well ask, "if god can do anything, can he make himself not exist?"
However, I find that the concept of god as inherently good conflicts with the concept of god as a perfect being. God lacks the ability to choose to do good, because his nature forces it on him (he can't even mull over a moral choice because perfection demands that he never be an iota incorrect). The end result (a good act) might be the same, but god cannot get to it through a process of moral reasoning and decision-making. God chooses to act morally in exactly the same way that a paramecium chooses what microorganisms to eat. That doesn't mesh well with my conception of a perfect being.
Perhaps this is one reason why the Bible appears to be lacking as a how-to guide for overcoming moral dilemmas - perfection means never having to struggle with them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2013 : 19:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
However, I find that the concept of god as inherently good conflicts with the concept of god as a perfect being. God lacks the ability to choose to do good, because his nature forces it on him (he can't even mull over a moral choice because perfection demands that he never be an iota incorrect). The end result (a good act) might be the same, but god cannot get to it through a process of moral reasoning and decision-making. God chooses to act morally in exactly the same way that a paramecium chooses what microorganisms to eat. That doesn't mesh well with my conception of a perfect being. |
Well, this argument is constructed in such a way meant to anticipate your very point (and that the good is arbitrary). You're assuming there's such a thing as a god choosing to undertake a good act. If there's no standard of measuring goodness but this god, then this god's constraint to the good act is not a limitation, but rather a logical necessity. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2013 : 04:49:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Well, this argument is constructed in such a way meant to anticipate your very point (and that the good is arbitrary). You're assuming there's such a thing as a god choosing to undertake a good act. If there's no standard of measuring goodness but this god, then this god's constraint to the good act is not a limitation, but rather a logical necessity. |
Being constrained by logical necessity is a limitation. I'm more free than god, in that sense, since I can ignore logical necessity at times. In argumentation, for example, I'm free to state logically unsound conclusions. Regardless of being presented a black swan, I can continue to state that all of them are white. Not so a perfect god.
Besides, I'm specifically stating that god cannot make moral choices. If god could choose to be good, that would mean that he's capable of choosing otherwise (or at least mulling it over), which again contradicts his perfectness. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Questions For a Christian
