Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 08-30-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

There is not sufficient evidecne that God was good 2,000 years ago, and there is not sufficient TANGIBLE evidence that he is good today.

what is good? God was not good compared to what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, the texts do not make any mention that anyone but the disciples knew about the supposed miracles. You said that someone must have know about the miracle. Well, following your own same line of reasoning, someone must have known about all of the claims of miracles found in all religious books.

i'm not sure i'm following this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

All four Gospels made second hand, third hand, or possibly even fourth hand claims about the miracle, but they might have all shared a single common source. The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that 90% of Matthew is borrowed from Mark, and that 50% of Luke is borrowed from Mark.

no amount of borrowing makes the gospels any less true. they all record unique material. i made the point in another thread that the gospels get criticized when they don't record the exact same material. but the material that is common is "copied from" and therefore not genuine. this is a double standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In addition, that is only the "obvious" borrowing. Further, we don't know how many people accepted the claim. If the vast majority of people rejected the claim, wouldn't that suggest a reasonable possibility that maybe the claim was not true?

this is an appeal to numbers. the claims are not false because people rejected them any more than they're true because people accepted them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today?

it's out there for those who choose to see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians.

and here you cite an example. no matter who is involved, miracles do still happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Today, there is no indication that tangible good things and bad things are distributed by divine intent.

there are people who disagree with this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

while it is true that certain types of miracles don't happen today, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, doesn't provide miracles, is not sovereign or absolutely good.

spin · 08-30-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

God was not good compared to what?

That's the point, bfniii. There is no comparison, so there is no way to say that god is good. It would be a meaningless statement. The notion of "good" exists because we able to measure something against a standard. There is no such standard for god, so you can't say god is good and hope to convey any meaning.

spin

Johnny Skeptic · 08-30-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's the point, bfniii. There is no comparison, so there is no way to say that god is good. It would be a meaningless statement. The notion of "good" exists because we able to measure something against a standard. There is no such standard for god, so you can't say god is good and hope to convey any meaning.

That is one argument that works. Another argument that works is that Christians claim that God is good because he has healed a lot of people, but I don't see any evidence at all that such was the case, either today or during the time of Jesus and the disciples.

bfniii · 08-30-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Why do you imagine that archaeologists speculate that marine fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood?

why do you call it imagination?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Archaeologists are educated people. They know history, they couldn't do their jobs otherwise. They know there was no Flood

you make it sound like all archaeologists everywhere. has anyone interviewed them all? without such a poll, that statement can't be supported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

(and, if there HAD been, they would certainly have found evidence of it by now).

this is an argument from silence. with such limited information on the event, corroborating evidence may exist, but we might not recognize it or may not have found it. in other words, archaeology is silent on the issue at this time.

what makes you so certain that it should have been found by now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

And, while they probably don't spend much time on mountaintops (as human remains and artifacts are rarely found there), they should know enough basic geology to know where those marine fossils actually come from.

that's the whole point. the idea is that they got there from the ocean. how do such ocean fossils get into mountaintops? i'm not saying it's proof. i'm just saying that there are theories that exist. there may never be proof. but the silence is not an irrefutable argument.

bfniii · 08-30-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

That's exactly the point: For judging god, you use/need a different morality than for judging humans. You first said that this wrong, and afterwards agreed with me.

my point all along has been to discern what standard or definition you use when calling God unjust. it has been suggested that God is unjust according to "current human legal standards and standards of social decency." since all people are not going to agree on what those standards are, we need to find a basic, ecumenical definition of the word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Umm, you just repeated what you said, you did not answer my question. So again: If he uses injustice for good things, it would actually not be injustice, but justice, no?

i was trying to differentiate that there is still injustice but that God can use it for ultimate good. the existence of ultimate good does not negate injustice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

I'm talking about the overall picture. Is it justice or injustice?

it is injustice that can be used for justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Oh, nice dodge. We actually don't have to discuss this, because it's irrelevant anyway. So you say.

i was merely pointing out the relevance to a christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

See, that's called "unknown purpose defense". It never worked and will never work.
As long as we don't have all the information, there's no other way than to judge with the information we have. And given this, my statement is still true. The only way you have around this is simply to assume that more information would change the picture.

not at all. i am saying that judging God on human standards is less than comprehensive. we have enough information to make an accurate assessment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

See above. *shrug*

i was trying to point out that if we judge God's actions on a limited definition of justice, then His actions will seem confusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

(2) If god apparently acts unjust,

God allowing evil as a result of our choices is not an example of Him being unjust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

you still call this just in the long term - because you are certain that there's a greater good behind it.

certainly. if God is indeed omnipotent, then He can take the evil or uncertainty in this life and use it for ultimate good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

In short, regardless what god does, you'll call him just. That's why the word has lost its meaning.

not at all. there is still a clear, absolute definition for just. the first hurdle to be cleared is why you think God allowing pain or suffering makes Him unjust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Newsflash: This already happened.

it did? so no one should ever explore the subject again. the case is closed and no amount of information or theorizing in the future could ever change what we currently know. that seems absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Yes. So what? The stance of the Smithsonian on this is a fact, and it does not agree with you. *shrug*

what do you mean by "so what"? you agree the statement does not say what you claim, but then say it doesn't agree with me. the statement does not imply that the flood did not happen. it claims archaeology is thus far silent on the issue, which is the correct stance to take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

What exactly don't you understand about:
A global flood would have left highly visible evidence none of which exists, although devout creationists looked fervently for it in the 19th century
?

the first assumption you make is "highly visible". those are subjective terms. the second assumption you make is that because it is highly visible, we could not possible miss it or misunderstand it. however much it has been looked for is irrelevant. there may never be irrefutable evidence for it which is also the case for other historical events.

bfniii · 08-30-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

You seem to be confusing the Babylonians with the Persians here. Tyre survived Nebuchadnezzar,

yes, some of the buildings and people survived, but the chapter doesn't say that this wouldn't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

and was peacefully absorbed into another empire, without military conquest.

thus ending the nation of tyre as it had been previously known which fulfilled the prophecy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Tyre was never destroyed by "the armies of many nations".

the chapter does not imply "destruction" by many nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Nope, many of the same buildings and people.

which fulfilled the "many nations" part of the prophecy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

15,000 people escaped to Sidon and then returned,

not that it mattered at that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

and Alexander is described as destroying "half" the city. Which soon recovered, in defiance of the prophecy.

buildings being rebuilt does not bring back the once great nation of tyre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Again, you really need to READ THE BOOK at some point. This was punishment. Indeed, you have even admitted this! Do you remember this exchange?

you didn't answer the question. what if God used this punishment for ultimate good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

So, it's "rather obvious" that the snake was punished!

satan precipitates the fall. would God have been just to let him go unpunished? the answer is no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

You have no problem with the notion that the snake is being punished, EXCEPT when you are directly challenged on the morality of inflicting that same punishment on ALL snakes for the crime of "being impersonated by Satan in the distant past". You obviously haven't thought through the implications of your own worldview.

of course i have. i presented the explanation that it could have been for ultimate good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Would it be "evil" if I did this?

did what? carried out the crime? by definition, a crime is unlawful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

If so: why won't you accept that God is "evil" too, but you simply don't care about that anymore?

because God didn't perpetrate the crime.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-30-2005, 09:30 PM

Message to bfniii: Please produce your evidence that Jesus healed people, and that God heals people today.

John A. Broussard · 08-30-2005, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Please produce your evidence that Jesus healed people, and that God heals people today.

Additional message to bfniii: And if god does heal people, why doesn't she/he/it ever restore a missing limb?

Jack the Bodiless · 08-31-2005, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Archaeologists are educated people. They know history, they couldn't do their jobs otherwise. They know there was no Flood

you make it sound like all archaeologists everywhere. has anyone interviewed them all? without such a poll, that statement can't be supported.

Claiming that there are "archaeologists" who believe in the Flood is like claiming that there are "cartographers" who believe the Earth is flat, or "Biblical scholars" who believe that the Bible says Jesus was executed by firing squad.

Quote:

(and, if there HAD been, they would certainly have found evidence of it by now).

this is an argument from silence. with such limited information on the event, corroborating evidence may exist, but we might not recognize it or may not have found it. in other words, archaeology is silent on the issue at this time.

Your personal ignorance of this evidence does not create an "argument from silence". I could just as easily argue that Jesus MIGHT have been excecuted by firing squad, because "the Bible is silent" on how he died.

Maybe the bullets have been found, but not recognized?

Quote:

And, while they probably don't spend much time on mountaintops (as human remains and artifacts are rarely found there), they should know enough basic geology to know where those marine fossils actually come from.

that's the whole point. the idea is that they got there from the ocean. how do such ocean fossils get into mountaintops? i'm not saying it's proof. i'm just saying that there are theories that exist. there may never be proof. but the silence is not an irrefutable argument.

Why do you imagine that plate tectonics has not been proved? Why do you imagine that geology is "silent" on this issue?

I think the Tyre prophecy issue has now been settled. No reasonable person would deny that the prophecy failed, but you will continue to blatantly ignore the Bible when it suits you.

On the amputation of snakes:

Quote:

So, it's "rather obvious" that the snake was punished!

satan precipitates the fall. would God have been just to let him go unpunished? the answer is no.

Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the serpent was Satan. And, obviously, all the subsequent generations of snakes weren't Satan either.

Quote:

You have no problem with the notion that the snake is being punished, EXCEPT when you are directly challenged on the morality of inflicting that same punishment on ALL snakes for the crime of "being impersonated by Satan in the distant past". You obviously haven't thought through the implications of your own worldview.

of course i have. i presented the explanation that it could have been for ultimate good.

More fuzzy thinking. If snakes lack legs "for their own good", why didn't God create them that way?

...And have you forgotten that the Bible is supposed to provide moral guidance for humanity? What edifying lesson should we learn from "if someone impersonates you and perpetrates a crime, God will rip the arms and legs off you and all your kids forever"?

John A. Broussard · 08-31-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

On the amputation of snakes:

Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the serpent was Satan. And, obviously, all the subsequent generations of snakes weren't Satan either.

More fuzzy thinking. If snakes lack legs "for their own good", why didn't God create them that way?

Let me take a shot at a bfniiiesque explanation.

God created snakes with legs because god knew that they would need their legs torn off later "for their own good."

Does that help?

08-30-2005, 09:30 PM	#217
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Biblical errors Message to bfniii: Please produce your evidence that Jesus healed people, and that God heals people today.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.