bfniii

interesting. i don't recall you "catching" me in any errors. perhaps you could quote them so i could clarify your misunderstanding.


what's curious about this ridiculous exercise is that you:
1. don't show how the instruments HAD TO BE late. you just state it. i guess we're all to take you at your word.
2. don't show that what i said is a mistake. you just state it.


whatever. bring some quotes and we'll clear it up.


funny. the main protagonist in that discussion can't even explain why someone bears the burden. all he keeps doing is stating his opponent bears it. how convenient. he can't explain why the sources he cites are authoritative or who maintains this "standard". when i ask these critical questions, i get personal insults. i guess skeptics don't like having their beliefs questioned.

he goes on and on about the claimant bearing the burden, but when i point out claims he makes, he won't support them. that is some of the most blatant hypocrisy i have seen in these forums.

the point is, i participated in the tyre prophecy thread that went over 400 posts. my questions regarding that prophecy are not a secret. you and i may not agree on the issue, but at least we had the guts to present our case. why would you take up for someone who is representing the skeptic cause so poorly?

bfniii

i've already answered this question.

that is most certainly NOT "all" that i did. to reduce my ~29 posts to this (mis)representation is a typical tactic of several posters in this thread. several of those posts were specifically directed at your points. one major point you have overlooked is that you have yet to define "accurately". what do you mean by that?

why would you bother posting crap like this when it neither accurately represents my position nor provides a response to my position? what a waste.

i have yet to see one bit of evidence from a skeptic that we should think we don't have the original version despite claims to that effect.

Johnny Skeptic

Not in a satisfactory manner. I am not aware of “any� criteria that are available for historians to accurately date ancient texts within +/- 100 years. Are you? As I told you in my previous, post, just plain old common sense should tell you than anyone can easily write about anything anytime that they want to? Why is this not obvious to you? If you could produce just one single historian from a leading university who agrees with you, that would be a good start. How about it? You are not a historian, and neither am I. That is why you and I need to contact some historians. Let’s let them settle the issues of dating and revisions.

Please restate which historical sources you used to date the prophecy. That is the main issue here.

Obviously, what I am asking is for credible evidence that the prophecy predated the events. Even if the prophecy predated the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. Due to Nebuchadnezzar's great power, his proven penchant for conquest, his close proximity to Tyre, and Tyre's great wealth, what was at all unusual about his attacks against the mainland settlement? The invasion must have taken months to plan, and at least hundreds, if not thousands of people would have known about it. Any one of those people might have told Ezekiel about the plans. Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings," and yet this king of kings, other nations, and God himself, took centuries to defeat one little mainland settlement and a tiny island populated by puny humans.

The notion of an all-powerful God using pagan nations to war on another pagan nation is patently absurd. It is equally absurd that the Tyrians who were alive when Alexander conquered the island settlement were born centuries after the original prophecy was supposedly made against THEIR ANCESTORS, NOT THEM, and that generations of Tyrians who lived at the island settlement lived out their lives in reasonable comfort.

Well, now you have the opportunity to clear things up and restate what your position actually is, both for my benefit and for the benefit of new readers. Do you believe that the prophecy predated the events? If so, what are your historical sources other than a single Wikipedia article that has an anonymous author.

The Tyre prophecy is one of the most debated topics between Christians and skeptics. Surely it deserves enough of your attention to restate your position. It would be much better for us to make a new start at this time instead of getting involved in a lot of arguments about past comments that will not contribute anything helpful to these debates. Readers are interested in good arguments, not personal confrontations and emotionalism. If your God exists and is available to help you, then you should be relaxed and confident, and not get your feathers ruffled.

It most certainly is not my intention to misrepresent you. Both of my longtime employees are fundamentalist Christians, including my live-in housekeeper of 15 years. They will tell you that I am honest, and that I do not tell lies or attempt to misrepresent people. I will put you in touch with them if you wish.

Actually, the undecided crowd who are shopping for a world view are saying “We have yet to see one bit of evidence from a Christian that we should think we have the original version.�

My position is that it is plausible that later revisions were made, not that later revisions were actually made. Why do you object to this? Typical of many fundamentalist Christians, you are attempting to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. No, I can’t disprove a man claim’s that he saw a pig sprout wings and fly. Can you? The Bible admits that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.� If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings.

In my previous post, I told you that Deuteronony 13 says that bad people can predict the future too. I also told you that even if God can predict the future, I would not follow him due to his questionable nature. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to predict the future and goodness. The Bible itself admits it in Deuteronomy 13.

bfniii

i was using it as an analogy to a specific point.


these are great questions and they may be plausible, if we had a reason to think such things happened. i am certainly open to examining any reasons you advance.


i have already responded to this point.


i have asked you before why you think it should have been different. did God say He was supposed to have acted differently?


i'm not sure this is an accurate representation of the accounts i have read about the siege at tyre.


was He supposed to?


why do you find that the most convincing?

i would imagine that if that had happened, it would be quite easy to conclude that the prophecy was too vague to irrefutably refer to alexander a la nostradamus, or it was specific enough to refer to more than one person.


none of this guarantees that nebuchadnezzar would have necessarily attacked tyre.


you are more than entitled to think that way. however, there are other passages in the bible that unfold quite differently.

bfniii

this response precisely outlines the question i have been asking you. what would be proof to you? what would be satisfactory to you?

your question is an epistimological one. how do we know anything? with what certainty do we know things? in order for us to determine specifics, we need an epistimological standard that makes sense to you. some people are satisfied that the prophecy was composed prior to the event based on the information currently available.


no that wouldn't be a good start as i have told you before. popular opinion is not going to decide the matter. there is no standard for measuring impartiality. who is going to decide which sources are acceptable? how can we guarantee that any one source is accurate? there are many problems with such an approach.


brother johnny, i have told you again and again; contact whoever you wish. i don't understand why you keep grandstanding.


ezekiel 26:1. do we need others? if so, what others? if so, how many? if so, from whom? note: please keep in mind i am not saying that we should take 26:1 at face value or that the date mentioned is irrefutable proof (as i am sure i am about to be accused of). my questions are part of a process of elimination.


you didn't answer the question. i asked for you to define what accuracy means to you and you replied with "credible evidence" which is just a repetition with different vocabulary. what would be credible evidence to you?


not that this is an accurate representation of what is recorded in the bible.


here you are mistaken. the prophecy refers to tyre the nation and does not give a "time limit" as to what descendants were exculpable.


and they are certainly free to think that if they wish. i would want to find out by what criteria they are making such a statement.


but this statement is based on "what if". i have asked for you to provide what gives you the idea there might have been later revisions.


no i am not. you are stating it is plausible. i am asking why it is plausible to you. can you not articulate your belief in such a way as to be convincing? if you can't, then how can someone think it is anything more than unsupported assumption?

it is not a burden of disproof. any alleged corroborative evidence could be easily dismissed, as in the case of the TF. as i have said in another discussion, this is not competitive debate and there isn't an affirmative side and a negative side. everyone is free to claim or believe whatever they wish. my question all along to anyone has been "why do you believe what you believe". what i have gotten in return are mostly personal insults and alot of stonewalling.


there are ways to at least cast doubt on an account of that type.


this leads right back to my question to you if you know of any examples of tampering.


why does God appear questionable to you?

Johnny Skeptic

What would be satisfactory for me is if a sizeable majority of historians, say 60%, established a set of criteria for accurately dating writings of antiquity and dated the Tyre prophecy before the events.

You tell me. You are trying to date the prophecy before the events, but I am not trying to date the prophecy because I know that it is impossible to do so. My position is that we don’t know when it was written one way or the other.

No such standard is possible that I know of. If you know of one that is endorsed by some historians at leading universities, or even some leading fundamentalist Christian universities or seminaries, I will be willing to consider it. Regarding "we need an epistimological standard," we need protection from natural disasters much more than we need epistimological standards, but we don't have any.

There is no currently available information that I know of for dating the Tyre prophecy that is endorsed by a sizeable majority of historians. Do you know of any?

That is, except in cases when you believe that providing a consensus of historians suits your purposes. Whenever skeptics claim that some of 1st Corinthians 15 contains interpolations, Christians immediately run to the experts to help them out. Surely you have done this on some occasions. Whether you realize it or not, you have impeached the testimony of everyone in the world, including yourself with “There is no standard for measuring impartiality.�

Christian scholars usually have bibliographies in their books, and often they are quite extensive. If you do not wish to consult experts, who do you wish to consult? The qualifications of sources are important, but what is more important is the criteria that they use as a basis for their opinions. Who do you believe is qualified to date the Tyre prophecy, why do you trust them, and what are their criteria for dating the prophecy? Do you have any criteria of your own for dating prophecy?

I never asked for irrefutable proof. Regarding “from whom,� you tell me. You are trying to date the prophecy, not me. I an quite certain that that is impossible. As I have told you before, just plain old common sense should tell you that anyone can write about anything anytime that they want to, and anybody can revise anything anytime that they want to.

As far as I know, credible evidence is not possible for the reasons that I previously stated.

It is an accurate representation. Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26:1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

“I am against,�…..and will cause,� proves my case.

Then the descendants of the Tyrians who are alive today are culpable too, right? The texts say that the Tyrians were guilty of pride. Surely that would have also included people all over the world, right?

They are asking you for reliable criteria for dating the prophecy, but you haven’t provided them with any.

Is not your assertion that the prophecy predated the events based upon a “what if�? All plausibilities are “what ifs,� are they not? How about the claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and died for the sins of mankind? Are these claims not “what ifs�? Have you never stated a plausibility in a debate?

And I have asked you to provide what gives you the idea that there weren’t later revisions. A debate, or a court trial, begins with an initial, primary assertion, or with initial, primary assertions. The Bible is full of initial, primary assertions from cover to cover. It is up to Christians to back up the assertions. It is not up to skeptics to disprove them. That is the way that it works in court trials. It is up to the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not up to the defense to disprove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why do I believe that there might have been later revisions? Because many religious people are liars and deceivers, and many religious people who are not liars and deceivers have innocent but inaccurate revelations. The latter argument is irrefutable. A lot of religious people are honest but misinformed due to subjective spiritual/emotional experiences.

No I am not. You are stating it is plausible. I am asking why it is plausible to you.[/quote]

Why is it plausible to you that the prophecy predated the events, and why is it not plausible to you that later revisions might have been made?

Can you as the claimant articulate your beliefs and presuppositions in such as way as to be convincing? If you can’t, then how can someone think it is anything more than unsupported assumption? Do you not assume that the prophecy predated the events, and that is was not later revised? I do not assume anything one way or the other, except that it is plausible that the prophecy was written after the events, and was later revised. Plausibilities are widely accepted in debates. Just contact any fundamentalist Christian college and find out for yourself. Plausibilities are widely used in court trials. Many court trials would be impossible to conduct without the use of them.

What is TF?

A web definition for the word “believe� is “accept as true.� Am I correct that you believe that the prophecy predated the events and that it was not later revised? As far as I recall, I have never stated that I believe that the prophecy did not predate the events, and that it was later revised. If I did, it was not what I meant to say. One thing that I believe is that plain old common sense should tell anyone that anyone can write anything anytime that they want to, and anyone can revise anything anytime that they want to.

Yes, just like casting doubt upon talking donkeys, people surviving being swallowed by large fish, and walking on water. Do you have any evidence that Jesus ever healed anyone, or that God performs miracle healing today?

The Bible itself indicates that tampering with the texts is plausible, does it not? You might as well ask if I know of any examples where humans have deceived people, lied to people, or had innocent but inaccurate revelations. The Secular Web has about 60 articles on interpolations. Even today, it would be easy for skeptics to tamper with the texts and go to some remote jungle regions and pass the revisions off as the original version. This would have been much easier centuries ago.

You did not reply to my first statement. Please do so. Why does God appear questionable to me? We have finally gotten to my very favorite Bible topic, the questionable nature of God. If you wish, I will start a new thread on this topic, because our discussions on this topic will likely go on for months, or maybe for over a year. I once debated this topic with a Christian philosopher at the Theology Web for many months. He went by the name of SCJC0401. He finally gave up. I could title a new thread “the questionable nature of God.� How about it? In my opinion, the nature of God is a more important topic than the Resurrection or prophecy.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I was unable to edit my previous post any further.

You said:

In a new thread on the nature of God that I will start soon if you agree, my first question to you will be, "What do you find to be appealing about God"? Please don't reply to my question here. I just wanted to give you advance notice so that you could start doing your homework. What I really mean is, "What tangible things has God done, both in ancient times and today, that you find to be appealing"?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Your confusion on this issue (and your inability to own up to your blunder) is symptomatic of your overall confusion regarding burden-of-proof issues in general.

Those Greek musical instruments are only one of several indicators of a late date for Daniel. They don't constitute PROOF, because there is always the possibility that the instruments (and the Greek words for them) were known in the region rather earlier than historians recognize.

However, you have taken some half-remembered fact (that the musical instruments are somehow involved in the dating of Daniel), combined this with your wish that Daniel was written early, and concocted a new idea: that the instruments are evidence of an EARLY date. And you keep presenting this "evidence" to those who know that it exists only in your own imagination. And now you think I have a duty to disprove your "evidence"!

There is a scene in the movie "Ben Hur" where one of the characters is wearing a wristwatch. Movie buffs believe this is an anachronism, as wristwatches were not known to exist at the time in which the story is set. However, if a group of fundies decided that Ben Hur is a documentary that was actually filmed two thousand years ago: would you repeatedly mention the wristwatch as evidence that this claim is true, and then deny that you have made a mistake, and go on to demand proof that wristwatches did NOT exist at that time?

By the way: if you insist on arguing that the Bible should be assumed true by default until someone can disprove it, perhaps you should present your case on the thread Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired"

bfniii

why 60%? why not 61%? i realize i'll get lambasted for asking that question, but my point is to find out why that seems reasonable to you. it seems that it is an appeal to numbers, which is a fallacy. 60% of historians can be wrong. besides, how are you going to quantify that? is someone going to conduct a poll of every historian in the world?

a bigger issue is if someone else requires 95% of historians to agree on said criteria. they can then say that your 60% standard is too weak thus invalidating the conclusion.

i gather from this response that you think we can't positively know when any texts from antiquity were written. however, there are theorized dates for some ancient writings. how is that possible if historians don't have these criteria?



i am? i realize i cited the date listed in ezekiel 26:1, but that doesn't mean i am trying to date the passage.



you made a statement of certainty; "we don’t know when it was written one way or the other". my question is how do you know this? again, i realize certain skeptics are bound to ridicule me for asking that, but i am trying to find out what epistemological standards you are using so we can apply them to the date of the prophecy.



so you seem to be leaning in a humian direction. now we're getting somewhere. my next question to you is this; how do we know anything from antiquity?



i've already addressed natural disasters in the other thread.



why do you feel it is necessary that everyone else accept your standard of "a sizeable majority of historians"? why is that standard authoritative? if you can convince someone of that, then your standard might be worth something.



oh i realize it and there is a point to it. back to the question, why do you commit the fallacy of appeal to numbers?



as i have said, we can analyze the opinions of anyone. there is a date mentioned in 26:1. let's list the reasons why that date is either wrong, or uncertain and use a process of elimination. so far, you have advanced the idea that the date can't be known. i have asked you how someone can know anything from antiquity. what standard are we using to date events and people from antiquity?



you are starting to copy plays out of the sauron playbook. i have not tried to date the prophecy. i cited the date in ezekiel 26:1. there's a difference. i am asking anyone who is reading this thread what reasons they have for believing that date is false or unknowable. for some reason, skeptics in this thread are much less brave than the ones in other threads, such as the tyre or daniel discussions.



but what i am trying to point out is that your standard of impossibility casts all ancient writings into doubt. you didn't qualify who you were referring to. you said "anyone..., anything...., anytime". we know some things from antiquity. how do we know them? i am trying get us to agree on an epistemological standard.



no it does not. your original statement implies a meaninglessness that omits what you even cite in verse 2.



no, because the nation of tyre is no more. it hasn't existed for a long time.



is that all that tyre was guilty of?



wait, they are using a standard to claim they see no evidence. i am asking them by what standard they are making that claim. what would be "evidence" to them?



this is a clever way of not answering the question. it has been said several times in this discussion that later revisions are made. for some reason, there has yet to be clarification of this indictment.



this isn't a court trial. there is an important reason why that is pertinent.



they have, to themselves. they owe no one an explanation as to why they believe what they believe. the christians i know seem perfectly happy and satisfied that the bible is a trustworthy document. alot of them are well educated (in fact, several are professors at secular universities) and have read the same history books you have. now tell me why you think they are wrong.



then why are they called skeptics? that makes no sense. they are called skeptics because they doubt what christians believe. i am asking you and anyone else what standard your skepticism is based on.



this perfectly illustrates the misunderstanding of burden that has been going on in this thread. as i have said, christians owe an explanation to no one about their beliefs. they are not the prosecution. apologetics is derived from apology, or defense. it is the defense of the christian faith against prosecution from non-christians. somehow, that has gotten horrifically twisted in this thread. if a christian were to proselytize someone, then they would need to cough up some pretty good explanations if they hope to convince that person. THEN they would bear a burden.



so if skeptics are also liars and deceivers, we shouldn't trust skepticism either, right? where does that leave us?
there are people who do bad things in the name of religion. but there are many more who are trustworthy. you seem to be cherry picking the bad ones to be the biblical authors or copyists. how do you know they were the bad ones and not the good ones?



do you have some examples?



because you haven't given me a reason to think otherwise. do you have any such reasons?



i wasn't aware that i was trying to convince someone. i am aware that i am trying to learn about objections to christianity. however, the skeptics here seem extremely reluctant to share their beliefs (except their belief that they shouldn't have to explain their beliefs).



testimonium flavianum. sorry about the abbreviation. habit.



"A later addition is most certainly a reasonable possibility since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings" and said that his army would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement. There is no evidence that that happened." this quote comes from post #12. additionally, in post #7 you state "What indicates that the Tyre prophecy was not recorded until at least 100 after Ezekiel’s death? The correct answer is, nothing at all. What indicates that the prophecy was not altered well after it was first recorded? The correct answer is, nothing at all."

this is at least the second time i have quoted this. why do you keep ignoring that you posted it?



we've been through all of that in the other thread.
again, this isn't about disproof. i'm trying to find out what your version of events is.



since you won't answer the question i have asked multiple times, i can only assume you know of no examples.



what about it?



do whatever you like.

Johnny Skeptic

I don’t need any. The writer of the book of Revelation made a general statement. His implication was that tampering was possible, so if it is possible to tamper with some texts, then why would it not be possible to tamper with other texts? As I have told you before, deliberate tampering is not the only issue. Many religious books contain innocent but inaccurate revelations. How does one separate the truth from tampering and innocent but inaccurate revelations?

Let me simply my arguments: A web definition of the word “believe� is “to accept as true.� Do you accept it as true, or quite likely to be true, or true based upon you own requirements for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events? If so, based upon what evidence other than “the Bible says so�? Do you accept it as true that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version? I do not accept it as true that the prophecy was written after the events, and that is was later revised.

Why 60%? Why not 61%? I realize I'll get lambasted for asking that question, but my point is to find out why that seems reasonable to you.[/quote]

I just told you what seems reasonable to me, did I not? Since you claim that the Tyre prophecy is credible, you pick a percentage, or does a majority consensus among historians not appeal to you? How about a majority consensus among fundamentalist Christian historians? I left messages regarding these issues two days ago at Wheaton College and Dallas Theology Seminary. I will also contact some other fundamentalist Christian schools. You are I are not trained historians. It is time to call in the experts, and what could be more fair than for me to consult exclusively fundamentalist Christian experts? You would never agree to consult exclusively skeptic experts. I have discovered from personal experience that the very best way to defeat a fundamentalist Christian in a debate is to consult exclusively fundamentalist Christian experts.

You call my plausibility arguments regarding the Tyre prophecy “what ifs,� but the Bible is full of “what ifs� from cover to cover. Some good examples are the completely unverifiable claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, and never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. These are by far the most important claims in the entire Bible, but they are most assuredly completely unverifiable by any means other than by faith. Do you deny this?

Plausibilities are widely accepted in debates, and many court trials would be impossible to conduct without allowing the use of plausibility arguments.

The claims of a global flood, the plagues in Egypt, and the parting of the Red Sea are at best quite difficult for Christians to defend.

You must be kidding. It is quite common for Christian scholars to have extensive bibliographies in their books. They most certainly do not find it necessary to conduct a poll of every historian in the world. Surely you have made appeals to a general consensus on a number of occasions over the years. Sometimes argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, but surely your position is not that numbers never make a difference. If I claimed that 2+2 = 5, surely you would make an appeal to the vast majority of mathematicians who believe that 2+2 = 4. If I claimed that the earth is flat, you would definitely make an appeal to the vast majority of scientists.

What I am asking you for is ANY percentage over 50%. How about it?

The dating of the Tyre prophecy is the topic of this thread, not other writings of antiquity, but just out of curiosity, what other ancient writings are you referring to? How can any historian reliably establish criteria for accurately dating any writing of antiquity within +/- 100 years. In addition, how can any historian preclude the plausibilities of later revisions and innocent but inaccurate revelations?

I am? I realize I cited the date listed in Ezekiel 26, but that doesn't mean I am trying to date the passage.[/quote]

If you are not trying to date the prophecy, then why did you mention Ezekiel 26? Do you believe that the prophecy predated the events or not?

Let me put it another way: I am not aware of any widely accepted standards among historians for dating the writings of antiquity to within +/- 100 years, or any widely accepted standards among historians for separating the truth from tampering and innocent but inaccurate revelations. Are you?

That is not the proper question. As I have told you before, the issues of which historical characters lived and when writings about them were written are two entirely different matters. There is widespread agreement among historians regarding the former, but most certainly not the latter. Any competent historian will tell you this. The proper question is “How can we accurately date the writings of antiquity to within +/- 100 years, and how can we accurately separate the truth from tampering and innocent but inaccurate revelations�? Can writers not write about anything anytime that they want to? Can writers not revise anything anytime that they want to?

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] Why does God appear questionable to me? We have finally gotten to my very favorite Bible topic, the questionable nature of God. If you wish, I will start a new thread on this topic, because our discussions on this topic will likely go on for months, or maybe for over a year. I once debated this topic with a Christian philosopher at the Theology Web for many months. He went by the name of SCJC0401. He finally gave up. I could title a new thread “the questionable nature of God.� How about it? In my opinion, the nature of God is a more important topic than the Resurrection or prophecy.

If I start a new thread about the nature of God, will you participate? If so, in part of my opening statement I will ask you and other readers the following questions:

1 - What non-Biblical evidence is there that Jesus healed people?

2 - What non-Biblical evidence is there that Jesus fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish?

3 - What non-Biblical evidence is there that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, and never sinned?

4 - What non-Biblical evidence is there that Jesus’ shed blood and death actually remitted the sins of mankind?

5 - What is the definition of a miracle healing?

6 - What evidence is there that God performs miracle healings today?

7 - Why doesn’t God prevent natural disasters?

8 - Why does God refuse to tell us why he is happy to cure the common cold, but has no interest whatsoever in preventing natural disasters?

9 - Why doesn’t God help us a lot more than he does?

10 - Why does God allow innocent animals to suffer?

11 - Why is God inconsistent? Sometimes he protects people, and sometimes he doesn’t.

Bfniii, that would only be the beginning of dozens of questions that I would ask about the nature of God.