Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: I will number my arguments for easy reference since I plan to repost any of my arguments that you conveniently refuse to reply to.

Argument #1

Although that is what I believe, which surely you already know, that is not what I said. Your attempt to get me to become the claimant obviously failed. I said:

As I said, "If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God." According to my definition, no religious books contains an indisputable prophecy. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have become Christians as a result.

If a God exists, and wanted to convince people that he is able to predict the future, he could easily have convinced the vast majority of the people in the world that he can predict the future thousands of years ago.

Argument #2

Is it your position that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to love and accept him, or that he is not willing to do so?

Argument #3

God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it. Why is that? Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If a Christian discovered a cure for cancer, and was able to make the cure available to everyone in the world who had cancer within one week, would he do so, or would he choose to allow the existing means of distributing cures for diseases to distribute the cure, which would result in needless suffering? Does God consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer?

Argument #4

God wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort. Why is that?

Argument #5

Do you have any idea why the percentages of women theists is much higher than the percentages of men theists in all cultures?

Argument #6

Do you have any idea why the percentages of elderly theists who give up religion is much smaller than the percentages of younger theists who give up religion across all cultures.

Argument #7

If the universe is naturalistic, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic the ways that things would be if the universe is naturalistic, 1) all religions that have books would be spread entirely by word of mouth, which is the case, 2) humans would only able to obtain food through human effort no matter what their worldview is, which is the case, 3) it would not be surprising that the percentage of women who are theists is significantly higher than the percentage of men who are theists in every culture, which is the case, 4) it would not be surprising that the percentages of elderly people who change their worldviews are much smaller than the percentages of younger people who change their worldviews, which is the case, 5) hurricanes would kill people, animals, and plants, and destroy property as if there were not any differences between them, which appears to the case, 6) all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview, and the only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, which appears to be the case 7) it would not be surprising that fossils and sediments are sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics, and have convinced some evangelical Christian geologists that a global flood did not occur, which is the case, 8) no religious book would contain any indisputable prophecies, which is the case, and 9) it would not be surprising that humans are very similar genetically and anatomically to other primates.

In my opinion, it is very improbable that a moral God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, and wants people to believe that they know what he wants them to do with their lives, but frequently mimics a naturalistic universe in predictable ways, or mimics some other God who chose to mimic a naturalistic universe, and always makes disputable prophecies, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

Argument #8

Under many different circumstances, you would not have been a Christian today, and you would have been just as certain of your worldview as you are now. Just like everyone else, your definition of the most probably valid worldview is whatever worldview that you happen to hold at a given time. I am not impressed with a God who allows what people believe to be determined by chance and circumstance, some examples being where a person lives, and what worldview a person's parents have.

I do not mind reposting any arguments that you conveniently refuse to reply to as frequently as necessary. Your frequent evasiveness indicates that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend to be. Surely the undecided crowd has noticed this. If you wish to discuss some of the these issues at the GRD Forum, just let me know. Since you have already conveniently vacated that forum, and the MF&P Forum, and the Evolution/Creation Forum, I assume that you currently wish to limit your embarrassment to this forum.

Johnny Skeptic

The link that you gave said the following:

"asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer. For example, 'When are we going to give the old folks of this country the pension they deserve?' The speaker is leading the audience to the answer 'Right now.' Alternatively, he could have said 'When will we be able to afford a major increase in old age pensions?' In that case, the answer he is aiming at is almost certainly not 'Right now.'"

If I asked you "Why doesn't God provide more evidence than he has provided?," that argument does not apply to my question. In addition, if I said "God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it. Why is that?," that argument does not apply to my question. Further, if said "God wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort. Why is that?," that argument does not apply to my question.

You obviously do not comprehend what you read. I am not leading you to answer anything. You can answer my questions however you want to answer them. Are you proposing that it is not reasonable for skeptics to question the actions of any of the Gods of any religions?

arnoldo

On second thought those questions seem to be more leading questions than rhetorical questions.
That is still a rhetroical questionwhich sways someone to think
1. If God really cared about humanity he would have provided more evidence to prove his existence.
Again you are asking a rhetorical question which leads the listener to think
1. God really should directly reveal himself to each and every person on the planet instead of depending on people to "preach the gospel"
Again, the question is framed in such a way that God should magically turn stones into bread and provide manna for all of mankind.
I could say you also don't comprehend the bible because of the same rhetorical questions which you keep posting over and over and over.
No, keep asking your rhetorical questions, but it seems you are only "preaching to the choir" since your only response to the answers anyone gives you is "that will not do."

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. I have had lots of debates with you in four forums, and the vast majority of my arguments have been quite detailed, and seldom said "That will not do." Would you like a lot of examples of where you conveniently withdrew from debates with me? I assume that you don't. I can state my arguments and not ask any questions at all. I will number them for convenient reference.

Argument #1

No human can predict when and where a hurricane will form and go ashore, month, day, and year. If a man predicted when and where a hurricane would form and go ashore, and was a religious person, and claimed that his God told him when and where the hurricane would form and go ashore, surely some people who were not followers of his religion would join his religion.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Those texts show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.

Now imagine what would have happened if there had been 10,000 only begotten Sons of Gods all over the world instead of only one only begotten Son of God, and had performed miracles all over the world, and had been crucified, and had risen from the dead. In such a case, in for instance the first century, the Christian church would have been much larger than it was. Surely the Middle East was not the only place in the entire world where people placed great emphasis upon tangible, firsthand evidence.

You once made the utterly absurd claim that God used prophecy after the fact to stengthen the faith of the Jews. If Ezekiel had predicted that Alexander would finally defeat Tyre, surely that would have strengthened the faith of the Jews much more than was the case. As it was, surely many Jews wondered why Ezekiel did not mention Alexander. No Jew who lived during Ezekiel's time saw the island settlement defeated. If the Jews knew about the prophecy, it is probable that they believed that all of Tyre would be defeated during their lifetime, especially since Ezekiel referred to Nebuchadnezzar as "a king of kings."

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, surely a lot more Jews would have accepted Jesus.

Truly, Bible prophecy is some of the very best evidence that the Bible is fraudulent. No rational person would believe that a God would be unable to convince most people that he is able to predict the future.

Argument #2

If a loving God exists, it is not likely that he chose the Jews to be his chosen people since that would be genetic favoritism. If free will exists, a man's character is best judged by his choices, not by the choices of his ancestors, and most certainly not by the choices of his ancestors who lived thousands of years ago regarding modern Jews.

Argument #3

If a God inspired the Bible, I am not aware of any credible evidence that he is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will.

Argument #4

If a God inspired the Bible, he wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it. Most Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer, but God doesn't since he has never verbally told anyone about the Gospel message, at least as far as we know. If a devout Christian man discovered a cure for cancer, and was able to make the cure available to everyone in the world who had cancer within one week, he would do so. He would not choose to allow the existing means of distributing cures for diseases to distribute the cure, which would result in needless suffering. No rational, loving God would tell Christians to make the spreading of the Gospel message a priority, but refuse to directly participate in the spreading of the Gospel message. Therefore, it is very probable that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Argument #5

We have a similar situation with the distribution of food. God wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort. God supposedly inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead, but millions of people have died slow, painful deaths from starvation because God refused to give them food. No rational, loving God would tell Christians to give food to hungry people, but refuse to directly give food to hungry people himself. Therefore, it is very probable that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Argument #6

The percentages of women theists is much higher than the percentages of men theists in all cultures. Regarding the U.S., Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Consider the following from the cover:

Billy Graham:

"Based on the most extensive survey ever conducted of religion in America, 'One Nation Under God' delivers surprising revelations about the religious beliefs, practices, and affiliations of Americans, and about the complex dynamics of a country that is paradoxically among the most religious and the most secular on earth."

"'One Nation Under God' is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print."

John Cardinal O'Conner

"'One Nation Under God' comes as not surprise, either in content or in quality of research. Its authors have demonstrated their objectivity, their professionalism, and their openness so frequently in the past, that for them to have produced a work of lesser value would have disappointed all who have come to rely on their data and their integrity, as have I. This book will disappoint no one interested in facts or their implication for our country."

"Seymour P. Lachman is the University Dean for Community Development at the City University of New York. Barry A. Kosmin is a sociologist at the CUNY Graduate School."

Kosmin and Lachman provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age are important factors regarding why people believe what they believe.

Consider the following from the book regarding gender:

Aside from Kosmin and Lachman, consider the following:

http://fazeer.wordpress.com/2006/12/...ious-than-men/

If the universe is naturalistic, or if a God exists who is not the God of the Bible and has chosen to mimic a naturalistic universe, genetic and sociological factors would account for the fact that the percentages of women who are religious across all cultures are significantly higher than the percentage of men who are religious.

Argument #7

The percentages of elderly theists who give up religion is much smaller than the percentages of younger theists who give up religion across all cultures. If the universe is naturalistic, or if a God exists who is not the God of the Bible and has chosen to mimic a naturalistic universe, that is understandable since it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are. Regarding the U.S., the statistics that I mentioned previously confirm that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

Argument #8

Geography is frequently involved regarding why people believe what they believe. Consider the following from the book:

Argument #9

Simply stated, Kosmin and Lachman's book deals with the significant influences of the secular factors of chance and circumstance. I do not find a God to be appealing who allows what people to believe to be determined by the secular factors of chance and circumstance. Under many different circumstances, Christians would have had other worldviews, and they would have been just as certain of their worldviews as they are now. Just like everyone else, Christians' definition of the most probably valid worldview is whatever worldview that they happen to hold at a given time. No rational, loving God would ever set up a system like that since he would know that doing so could not possibly benefit him or anyone else.

If the universe is naturalistic, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic the ways that things would be if the universe is naturalistic, 1) all religions that have books would be spread entirely by word of mouth, which is the case 2) humans would only able to obtain food through human effort no matter what their worldview is, which is the case, 3) it would not be surprising that the percentage of women who are theists is significantly higher than the percentage of men who are theists in every culture, which is the case, 4) it would not be surprising that the percentages of elderly people who change their worldviews are much smaller than the percentages of younger people who change their worldviews, which is the case, 5) hurricanes would kill people, animals, and plants, and destroy property as if there were not any differences between them, which appears to the case, 6) all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview, and the only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, which appears to be the case 7) it would not be surprising that fossils and sediments are sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics, and have convinced some evangelical Christian geologists that a global flood did not occur, which is the case, 8) no religious book would contain any indisputable prophecies, which is the case, and 9) it would not be surprising that humans are very similar genetically and anatomically to other primates.

In my opinion, it is very improbable that a moral God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, and wants people to believe that they know what he wants them to do with their lives, but frequently mimics a naturalistic universe in predictable ways, or mimics some other God who chose to mimic a naturalistic universe, and has never made a prophecy of the quality of predicting when and where a natural disaster would form and go ashore, month, day, and year, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, I rarely say "that will not do." I have chased you out of many threads at four forums by using detailed arguments that seldom said "that will not do." On the other hand, when I adequately refute your arguments, you are frequently evasive. You admitted to me in a private message that you are frequently evavise, and that that was wrong. Frequently evasiveness always shows which side has the weaker arguments, and which side is the least confident of their arguments. You have tried most of the evasive tricks in the book, including the Fallacy of Many Questions, but so far, I have always had the last word no matter which argument you have used. Unfortunately for you, there is a record of everything that you have said at the IIDB. I would enjoy accumulating a long list of your many bloopers at four forums. Maybe I will have a new Internet web site made devoted just to your bloopers at the IIDB. One wonders to what extent you will go to embarrass yourself further than you already have.

-Jay-

Arnoldo -

I would offer the opinion that Johnny understands the Bible very, very well. You are not going to win an argument with him by attempting to dodge his questions.

His questions are direct and specific. You should either attempt to answer them or admit that you can't.

regards,

NinJay

arnoldo

How can I embarrass myself more than believing I am merely a nattering neo-chimp with internet access? BTW, thanks for the Ad hominem/ADD.

arnoldo

Knowing the Bible very, very well is worthless.

GenesisNemesis

Is that a reference to evolution? Aren't we talking about "99.5% pure"?

deadman_932

Knowing it as well as you do, then...is worth less than worthless? If you know it less than "very very well" you could still attempt to directly answer questions put directly to you. Instead...well, we have this thread.