Johnny Skeptic

Don't you already know that I am an agnostic?

If a God inspired the Bible, either he is able to convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will or he isn't. It is as simple as that. In my opinion, if a God exists, he is able to convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. No understanding of Biblical theology is necessary in order to understand that.

In another thread, I told you the following:

You got away with tricking me again in this thread by diverting attention away from my arguments to your arguments, but now I remember what my new approach is. Your evasive approach to debating is not fair. As far as this thread is concerned, if you refuse to directly reply to all of the arguments in this post, I will ignore whatever you say and repost this post until you directly reply to all of the arguments in this post. I will use the same approach regarding my arguments in other threads.

At the GRD Forum, I said:

You replied:

That contradicts the following argument that you used in another thread:

Will you admit that you contradicted yourself?

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 11:43-48

"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. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

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. ”

Did any of that tangible, firsthand evidence force anyone to become a follower of Jesus? Did the evidence unfairly interfere with their free will?

It is up to you to reasonably explain why Jesus criticized Thomas for requiring tangible, firsthand evidence that he had risen from the dead, but willingly provided tangible firsthand evidence to many people who were not convinced by his words alone.

My primary position is that if a God exists, he is probably not the God of the Bible. 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 percentage of elderly people who change their worldviews is much smaller than the percentage 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 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 50% of the genome of chimpanzees and humans are identical, which is the case. I am defining an indisputable prophecy as a prophecy that would convince at least 60% of the people in the world that the prophecy was made by a being who might be a God, or who is not a human. An example would be a prediction of when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. No religious book has a prophecy of that quality.

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.

Johnny Skeptic

Don't you already know that I am an agnostic?

If a God inspired the Bible, either he is able to convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will or he isn't. It is as simple as that. In my opinion, if a God exists, he is able to convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. No understanding of Biblical theology is necessary in order to understand that.

Regarding assessing the character of any being, his motives are everything. What are God's motives? Unless we know what God's motives are, we cannot adequately asses his character. Matthew 1:21 says "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his ownly begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Those Scriptures indicate that it is very important to God that people go to heaven, not to hell, and that that is one of his primary goals, if not his primary goal. If a God inspired the Bible, in my opinion, he has not even come close to doing all that he can to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell without unfairly interfering with their free will.

In another thread, I told you the following:

You got away with tricking me again in this thread by diverting attention away from my arguments to your arguments, but now I remember what my new approach is. Your evasive approach to debating is not fair. As far as this thread is concerned, if you refuse to directly reply to all of the arguments in this post, I will ignore whatever you say and repost this post until you directly reply to all of the arguments in this post. I will use the same approach regarding my arguments in other threads.

At the GRD Forum, I said:

You replied:

That contradicts the following argument that you used in another thread:

Will you admit that you contradicted yourself?

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 11:43-48

"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. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

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. ”

Did any of that tangible, firsthand evidence force anyone to become a follower of Jesus? Did the evidence unfairly interfere with their free will?

It is up to you to reasonably explain why Jesus criticized Thomas for requiring tangible, firsthand evidence that he had risen from the dead, but willingly provided tangible firsthand evidence to many people who were not convinced by his words alone.

My primary position is that if a God exists, he is probably not the God of the Bible. 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 percentage of elderly people who change their worldviews is much smaller than the percentage 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 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 50% of the genome of chimpanzees and humans are identical, which is the case. I am defining an indisputable prophecy as a prophecy that would convince at least 60% of the people in the world that the prophecy was made by a being who might be a God, or who is not a human. An example would be a prediction of when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. No religious book has a prophecy of that quality.

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.

arnoldo

You fail to understand christian theology, or mythology if you prefer, that God had a plan to bring the gentile nations into the kingdom. Research how the gentiles were grafted on the olive tree which is symbolic of the Jewish nation. Also research how God plans to fully restore the nation of Israel. Do you think God only cares about the nation of Israel and doesn't care about the gentile nations?

Johnny Skeptic

Nope, in my previous post, I said:

That will be my standard reply until you reply to all the arguments in my previous post. You know that you are inept at directly replying to many arguments that skeptics make, so you came up with your unfair evasive approach that you would not approve of if skeptics used it against you. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

arnoldo

Goodbye, Johnny, cast not pearls before swine. :banghead:

Johnny Skeptic

Are you calling yourself a swine?

You and I have have had lots of debates in four forums, and you were perfectly willing to directly reply to my arguments until my arguments got better. Then you refused to directly reply to them anymore although you still insist that I directly reply to your arguments. Even most Christians will agree with me that that is not fair, not to mention the fact that virtually all of the undecided crowd believe that you are not fair.

I conclusively refuted what you called your best argument, and I proved that you contradicted yourself.

At the GRD Forum, I said:

You replied:

That contradicts the following argument that you used in another thread:

If the God of the Bible exists, he would want you to admit that you contradicted yourself, and he would want you to show the same courtesy to skeptics that you want them to show you, meaning that if you want skeptics to directly reply to your arguments, you should be willing to directly reply to their arguments.

arnoldo

Only if your wisdom is a metaphor for pearls

Johnny Skeptic

If your wisdom is a metaphor for pearls, you called yourself a swine. More to the point, do you believe that it is fair for you to refuse to directly reply to my arguments, and insist that I directly reply to your arguments? You used ot directly reply to my arguments until they got better. That is when you became evasive.

Is it your position that I did not prove that you contradicted yourself?

If a God exists, no rational person would claim that he has done everything that he can to convince people to love him and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will.

Under some circumstances, you would have had another worldview, in which case you would have been just as certain of your worldview as you are now. If you had later become a Christian, you would have considered your former worldview to be false. If after you had become a Christian you had given up Christianity, you would have been just as certain of your new worldview as you were of Christianity. What kind of God would allow chance and circumstance to decide what people believe, and allow every man to consider that whatever worldview he has at a given time is the best worldview? If a God exists, and wants to communicate with humans, it is reasonable to assume that in order to avoid doubt and confusion, he would telephathically give the same messages to everyone in the world. If no God has ever used written records to communicate with humans, that explains why all religions that have books have been spread exclusively by written records and by word of mouth, never directly by God via telepathy.

arnoldo

Well you basically call yourself a mutated chimp so I guess we're even

Johnny Skeptic

No, I am ahead because chimps are smarter than swine are.

This is fun. We can have one group of posts to exchange insults, and another group of posts to discuss evidence. Since my life expectancy is about 15 years, and since I never give up when I believe that I have the advantage, the only way that you will outlast me is to outlive me. If you continue to unfairly refuse to discuss evidence that I want to discuss, I will refuse to reply to any of your arguments except for your insults, which is a lot of fun for me, and I will continue to repost many examples of where I embarassed you at four forums. That way, readers will have proof of your evasiveness, and that you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.