Johnny Skeptic

Those are ridiculous arguments. First of all, you need to produce evidence that God is a moral being. Second of all, you need to produce evidence that the Bible is inerrant, specifically that God ever said anything about judging anyone. Third of all, God's rights are nothing more than arbitrary declarations by third parties who presumed to speak for God. Fourth of all, God's rights are not backed up by anything other than power, certainly not righteousness. "Might makes right" is not appealing to moral, fairminded people. It is not righteous to create hurricanes and indiscriminately kill people with them. You would normally oppose such a detestable practice, but in God's case, you have made an exception. Indiscriminate killing is good evidence of mental incompetence, or amorality. It is not possible for you to adequately refute either one of those possibilities. You are used to debating whether or not intelligent design is true, and whether or not the God of the Bible exists, but you have no chance of winning a debate about the possibilities that God is mentally incompetent or amoral.

On the same bases (which is the plural of basis) that you would question any being other than God if he did some of the things that God does, one of those bases being hypocrisy. God frequently breaks some of his own rules, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else, and he frequently does things that are punishable by life in prison or death under our legal system. If it is right for God to break his own rules whenever he wants to, then it is right for him to tell lies whenever he wants to. If I recall correctly, the Bible basically says that if you break one rule, you have broken them all. Surely the same applies to God.

May I ask on what basis you think that you are qualified to judge that the Bible writers correctly judged God's character?

Do you plan to participate in the thread on inerrancy? It is titled "Are there any inerantists at this forum?" I predict that as always, you will refuse to defend inerrancy, even though it is the foundation for most or all of your arguments. Undecided readers are sure to notice your evasiveness regarding the topic of inerrancy. I have asked you for over a year on numerous occasions to defend it, but you have always refused to so because you know that you are inept at defending it. You have discredited yourself by refusing to defend inerrancy.

By the way, earlier today I started a new thread at the Evolution/Creation Forum that is titled "Some help please regarding transitional forms." I posted some of your absurd comments about evolution. Your absurd comments are getting demolished. I know that you will not participate because you do want want to embarrass yourself any more than you already have. Your knowledge about science is conspicuous by its absence, and your knowledge of Biblical criticism and history is a close second. Would you be willing to start a new thread at the BC&H Forum that is titled "The integrity of the Gospels"? I doubt it, but I hope that you will. If you did, you would actually have to do some homework, and anyone who knows you well knows that you do not like to conduct detailed research and construct carefully prepared arguments.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: God withholds evidence that would cause some people to accept him if they were aware of it. No man can fairly be sent to hell for eternity without parole for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it. Moral, fairminded people have no choice but to reject a God like that.

You will have to admit that if some other supposed God showed up, if he did not meet your requirements for a moral God, you would not be able to love him.

I have debated you a lot, probably more than anyone else. I have over 200 files of our debates in my Microsoft Word computer program. You eventually withdrew from our debates last year and now you are back. I am a committed skeptic. I will oppose your arguments as long as I am able to, whether it takes weeks, months, or years. There is no doubt that the more you say, the more you will get into trouble. I plan to go over some of our past debates and repost some of your absurd arguments. It will not be difficult for me to reasonably prove that you have embarrassed yourself on numerous occassions in the past, as you are doing now.

figuer

This is nonsensical because I like doing good and I have no problem with the idea of god or honouring him etc. My problem is with the collection of self contradicting Jewish fairy tales that is claimed by foolish, unintelligent Christians to be the word of a god. Thus I do not reject god, I reject the Bible (and the other ridiculous mythological systems).

EternallyI

What God is it that you do not reject?

GenesisNemesis

Would you trust a machine when you don't know how it works, or would you question the schematics? If you do not have schematics, why trust the machine?

EternallyI

Just about every machine I use I have no schematics for. So, yes.

steamer

All of them. The one you only imagine, the one the Muslims only imagine, the ones the Norse only imagined and the ones the Romans and the Greeks only imagined. The gods of Egypt and all of the gods the Hindus only imagine. If I left out any gods you can rest assured that those gods were only imagined as well and I still have not rejected any actual gods that anyone knows exists.

EternallyI

steamer,

If you don't mind I would greatly appreciate it if you would expound upon this statement that you use so frequently: "only imagined". Answering things such as:
-What I mean when I say "imagined".
-Why I always add "only" in front of it.
-How this contrasts to the way I imagine that these imaginers "only imagine".

Perhaps in a seperate post.

figuer

I do not reject that god which can be observed to be: Our consciousness of the forces that structure the Universe, our inner joy in life, our feelings of purpose, our sense of justice and morality, our capacity for reason....

In other words...the immanent sense of existing.

steamer

You suddenly don't know what the word "imagined" means or are you just trying to be evasive and not answer a simple question honestly?

You suddenly don't know what the word 'only' means or are you just trying to be evasive and not answer a simple question honestly?

Are you aware of the fact that you only imagine god?

There are already several threads where I've asked the question. Do me a favor and answer it without suddenly forgetting the English language and the meaning of common words. Please, just answer the question honestly. It isn't too much to ask.