Johnny Skeptic

You have not responded adequately to these points, as well as some other points. For instance, I don't think that you answered my question that was "Do you object to a terminally ill person choosing the means and the time of his death?" In addition, I also asked you for an example of a miracle healing that happened to you or to someone who you know. I don't think you posted an example. I also asked you believe that Jesus healed people. I don't think you answered my question. At least for the benefit of new readers, you need to repost your supposed answers to my questions so new readers won't have to sort through this large thread in order to find out what you posted.

The key words regarding these issues are "trust," "consistency," "tangible," and "availability." No human would trust another human who displayed behavior similar to the behavior that has been displayed by the God of the Bible. For instance, no human would trust another human who could prevent natural disasters but refused to do so unless such a human clearly explained his refusal to prevent natural disasters, and in person I might add. Regarding Adam and Eve, we have only heard one uncorroborated side of the story. That is most certainly not acceptable. We need to hear Adam and Eve's side of the story. They might have been treated unfairly. You claim that God heals people, but have you noticed that he never heals anyone of a disease that would best indicate his supernatural powers? Some good examples are multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, and Alzheimer's disease. The Old Testament says that God ordered Moses to kill people who worked on the Sabbath Day, or who cursed at their parents. I would never worship a God who did not explain such conduct to my satisfaction. What tangible benefits has God ever provided for you? There is not any evidence at all that Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. In another post, I said that God is not consistently good and compassionate in tangible ways. Is it your position that God is consistently good and compassionate in tangible ways that humans can understand? Regarding availability, I would never trust a God who refused to discuss various issues with me in person, and who refused to explain why he refused to discuss various issues. I would never trust a God who did not explain why salvation by merit is not acceptable. Regarding spiritual/emotional evidence, that is not acceptable evidence. Any follower of any religion, including any Deist, can cite spiritual/emotional evidence.

You are after a comfortable eternal life, nothing more, and ultimately you couldn't care less who provides it as long as it is available. Do you dispute this? If there was cure for cancer, would it matter who provided it? Of course it wouldn't.

You did not adequately reply to my argument that skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but Christians are not. Some Christians who are uncertain about their beliefs are afraid that if they give up Christianity and it turns out that they are wrong, they will go to hell. Do you dispute this? No skeptic who is considering becoming a Christian believes that he has anything to fear if he accepts Christianity and it turns out that he was wrong. Do you dispute this?

Have you given up defending the dating of the Tyre prophecy. If so, good. If not then please make a post in the thread that it titled "A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy," and by all means, please start new threads on any other prophecies that you would like to defend.

As far as I recall, you never replied to my argument that 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 it were not possible to tamper with the texts, there would have been no need for the warnings.

In short, the grossly inconsistent track record of the God of the Bible is not anywhere near sufficient enough to warrant anyone trusting him.

Sven

Yes, whenever I look at the night sky and am baffled by the astronomical (pun intented) size of the universe, I understand why some people need an invisible sky daddy to overcome their sense of loneliness and insignificance in the light of this incomprhensible huge cosmos. :wave:

Jack the Bodiless

...And you should see this:


(from the New American Bible, St. Joseph edition)

Sven

Of course this includes them.
And we are free to disagree that the evidence leads to the conclusions they came to - especially in the case ofFlew who admitted later that he not even knew about the evidence.
Kind of destroys your or-so-subtile "argument", no?

Johnny Skeptic

An important issue is that Christians need to provide credible evidence that humans have free will, and that if free will exists, God has free will. As far as I know, the existance of free will cannot be proven using the modern scientific research method.

John A. Broussard

This seems like a good spot to bring up my oft repeated argument that the omniscient Christian god makes free will irrelevant.

Assumption one is that there exists an omniscient, sentient being.

Assumption two is that that being has written all that has happened, is happening and will happen in a large book. Since the book includes the entire universe, every quark and quasar, every real and virtual particle, every thought of every thinking creature--everything in fact--it is necessarily a rather large book. (This second assumption isn't vital to this discussion, since an omniscient sentient being would have all these events already written in its mind. The big book just makes for easier discussion)

The third assumption is self evident. Human beings either have or do not have free will.

Given assumptions one and two, let's assume that human beings do not have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer inevitably seems to be "no."

Given assumptions one and two again, let's assume that human beings do have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer seems necessarily to be also "no."

If the above reasoning is correct, then--given the existence of an omniscient, sentient being--it doesn't matter whether human beings do or do not have free will. Such a being simply makes free will irrelevant.

I'm looking for flaws in the above argument.

Thanks.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: In your opinion, does might always make right, or does might only make right when the supposedly most mighty being in the universe makes promises that you like via human proxies? Why you assume that the God of the Bible created the universe? When I told you that God is not consistently good and compassionate, you said God is not inconsistent. However, God is grossly inconsistent based upon human standards of consistency, love and compassion. Are you suggesting that I attempt to understand God's definition of consistency as it applies to him by using my human understanding? Is it your position that some good always comes from bad things, or that potentilly, good can always come from bad things under certain conditions? If more people gave up Christianity because of Hurricane Katriana than became Christians, was the hurricane a good thing?

Will you please give me an example of a miracle healing regarding yourself or somone who you know?

Do you have any evidence that Jesus healed anyone?

I would never choose to worship a being whose character I deemed to be questionable, and who always refused to visit me in person, in tangible form, and answer my questions to my satisfaction. I don't think that you answered my question that was "Do you object to a terminally ill person choosing the means and the time of his death?" What about the late Vincent Humbert, the Frenchman who was quadriplegic, blind, and mute, and who wanted to die by means of euthanasia and was denied that right by French president Chirac? No loving God would ever allow anyone to become like Vincent Humbert. In addition, I also asked you for an example of a miracle healing that happened to you or to someone who you know. I don't think you posted an example. I also asked you believe that Jesus healed people. I don't think you answered my question. At least for the benefit of new readers, you need to repost your supposed answers to my questions so new readers won't have to sort through this large thread in order to find out what you posted.

The key words regarding these issues are "trust," "consistency," "tangible," and "availability." No human would trust another human who displayed behavior similar to the behavior that has been displayed by the God of the Bible. For instance, no human would trust another human who could prevent natural disasters but refused to do so unless such a human clearly explained his refusal to prevent natural disasters, and in person I might add. Regarding Adam and Eve, we have only heard one uncorroborated side of the story. That is most certainly not acceptable. We need to hear Adam and Eve's side of the story. They might have been treated unfairly. You claim that God heals people, but have you noticed that he never heals anyone of a disease that would best indicate his supernatural powers? Some good examples are multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, and Alzheimer's disease. The Old Testament says that God ordered Moses to kill people who worked on the Sabbath Day, or who cursed at their parents. I would never worship a God who did not explain such conduct to my satisfaction. What tangible benefits has God ever provided for you? There is not any evidence at all that Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. In another post, I said that God is not consistently good and compassionate in tangible ways. Is it your position that God is consistently good and compassionate in tangible ways that humans can understand? Regarding availability, I would never trust a God who refused to discuss various issues with me in person, and who refused to explain why he refused to discuss various issues. I would never trust a God who did not explain why salvation by merit is not acceptable. Regarding spiritual/emotional evidence, that is not acceptable evidence. Any follower of any religion, including any Deist, can cite spiritual/emotional evidence.

You are after a comfortable eternal life, nothing more, and ultimately you couldn't care less who provides it as long as it is available. Do you dispute this? If there was cure for cancer, would it matter who provided it? Of course it wouldn't.

You did not adequately reply to my argument that skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but Christians are not. Some Christians who are uncertain about their beliefs are afraid that if they give up Christianity and it turns out that they are wrong, they will go to hell. Do you dispute this? No skeptic who is considering becoming a Christian believes that he has anything to fear if he accepts Christianity and it turns out that he was wrong. Do you dispute this?

Did you reply to my argument that the Bible indicates 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 it were not possible to tamper with the texts, there would have been no need for the warnings.

In short, the grossly inconsistent track record of the God of the Bible is not anywhere near sufficient enough to warrant anyone trusting him.

Johnny Skeptic

Several days ago in another thread, I asked bfniii about miracle healings, and he said that he had dealt with miracles in this thread. If he did, I am quite certain that his arguments were not credible. This thread is quite large, and bfniii knows it, so it appears to me that he is hoping that I will not take a lot of time going back finding his posts out of the many hundreds of posts in this thread. I will probably do that if necessary, but I shouldn't have to. I would always restate any of arguments if bfniii asked my to. That is just common courtesy. At least for the benefit to new readers, bfniii should provide them with evidence that God performs miracle healings today. It would be quite rude and inconsiderate for bfniii to tell new readers to go back and find all of his posts in this thread that deal with miracles. The evidence should of course be accompanied by credible documentation. Don't plan on bfniii providing any.

I asked bfniii if he would particpate in a new thread on miracles if I started one, but he conveniently refused to answer my question.

John A. Broussard

It took you a while to catch on.

I stopped even reading bfnii's posts since he just keeps carrying on a monologue, and consistently ignores meaningful questions.

bfniii

well, the first, most obvious, problem is that the situation is not what the bible claims happened. the bible doesn't state that the apostles claimed they had Jesus in a bottle, but no one else could see Him. what needs to happen now is that you disprove what the bible says regarding Jesus, or the burning bush, or the crucifixon or whatever else.

the second problem is that today, people aren't claiming that God is something corporeal that can be "caught on tape". God is supernatural, i.e. outside normal space-time unlike a dragon.

the third problem is that the dragon has only chosen to reveal itself to one hapless soul whereas christians contend that God has revealed Himself to countless generations of people.

i'm sure there is more, but it's late.



more garbage. how about you muster up the courage to point out some specifics.



you would hate socrates.

actually, it's not rude. i'm trying to learn about objections to christianity. how am i going to do that without asking questions? besides, you should take a cue from john a. broussard. he answers questions with questions all the time and i find it rather refreshing as opposed to the other, abrasive skeptics.



what do you mean by that? i feel like my interpretation is pretty literal.



i think the first thing we need to clear up is old covenant versus new covenant.