Johnny Skeptic

In your opinion, what is this three dimensional being trying to accomplish?

How do you, a mere two-dimensional being, know that a three dimensional being has chosen to partially communicate with humans with written records? A three dimensional being would not need to use written records to communicate with human. Is it your position that God communicated with Adam and Eve and Noah with written records? It is my position that a three-dimensional being would not ever use written records to communicate with people because that would invite disputes regarding authorship, lies, interpolations, and innocent but inaccurate revelations.

If a three dimensional being exists, and I do not understand him, what evidence do you have that you understand him? What evidence do you have that deists do not understand him better than Christians understand him?

Of course, your argument is easily refuted by the fact that God could easily increase the abilities of humans to understand him if he wanted to. If he does not want to, you cannot prove that that is my fault. In addition, you cannot prove that everything that God does is right.

You will never be able to convince rational people to believe that a three dimensional being who has strange ways is frequently predictable by two dimensional beings, and frequently mimics the ways that things would be if he did not exist. Logically, a three dimensional being whose thoughts and ways are different from humans' thoughts and ways would not be frequently predictable, and no matter how strange he was he would not undermine his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by frequently mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it would be easy to predict the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he shows favoritism towards younger skeptics.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against younger Christians.

The preceding arguments are easily explained secularly because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would also expect to find that food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that. That would needlessly invite dissent instead of discouraging dissent.

James says that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Since millions of people have died because God refused to give them enough food to eat, I find what James said to be quite odd. Why do Christians suppose that God inspired James to write that?

It is much too convenient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.

In summary, if a God exists, it is virtually impossible that it would be possible to frequently predict WHERE he reveals himself to people (more so in countries that have high percentages of Christians), and WHICH SEX he prefers to reveal himself to year after year (female), and WHICH AGE groups he prefers to reveal himself to (younger people). No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly encouraging dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and unnecessarily undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists, or at the very least, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise based upon the evidence that we have at this time.

Now why should anyone believe that a God acts like that?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Why must a three-dimensional being necessarily be good? A three dimensional being might be good, evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who botched his attempts to create a much better world than the world that he created. Paul says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Paul was obviously not aware that it is just as likely that it is God who masquerades as an angel of light. If God is masquerading as an angel of light, you wouldn't be able to know that because as you said, "his ways are higher than our ways." That obviously includes all possibly Gods no matter what they might be like.

Regardless of who a God might be, what makes it appropriate for him to rule the universe? It is your position that power legitimizes authority?

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you most certainly would not have mentioned anything about a three-dimensional being, and that God's ways are higher than our ways are. There is not any doubt whatsoever that you are not nearly as interested in what the evidence IS as you are in what the evidence PROMISES.

If your three dimensional being argument is valid, it is the only argument that you would ever need to use. You would not have to waste years of your life debating prophecy or anything else. Have you considered exclusively using that argument in all of your debates? If that argument is not valid for all debates, it is not valid for any debates.

arnoldo

A lot of Christian are hypocrites and don't go around doing good deeds. Yeshua said he would vomit this *lukewarm church* out of his mouth because their faith was dead and didn't "feed the hungry" as per your example.

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, a loving God would be willing to give food to people if Christians refused to do so rather that allow some people to die slow, painful deaths from starvation. If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that food would be distributed exclusively by humans, and that the Gospel message would be distributed exclusively by humans, and that all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. I challenge you to provide credible evidence that all tangible benefits are not indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. In my opinion, a loving God would leave no doubt that all tangible benefits are not indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. Otherwise, he would be needlessly mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

The best conclusion is that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

itsamysteryhuh

I am only replying to the following quote by Johnny Skeptic since he asked me to in the thread titled "Was Jesus ever an actual human being" (I'm responding because I choose to via free will ).


Who's confused? :huh:

Additionally (and assuming the Bible has the correct information about God), the Bible says God is both good and just. It also describes God as incomprehensible (ie, as humans we cannot see God without it resulting in death).

Johnny Skeptic

Lot's of people. Christians believe that Micah 5:2 says that a messiah would come who would become ruler of Israel. Jesus did not become ruler of Israel. Old Testament Jews believed that the ruler would rule an earthly kingdom, not a heavenly kingdom. Therefore, they we mislead by God. 2 Samuel 7:10 says that God would provide a homeland for Jews where no one would bother them. The promise referred to this life, not to the next life. If you read all of chapter 7, you will see that verse 10 refers to this life, not to the next life. That prophecy will never come true in this life because the Israelis will never be at peace with their neighbors. The New Testament says that there will always be wars and rumors of wars in this life, and that in the last days, nation will rise against nation. There is no way that the Israelis are going to be at peace with their neighbors in a world like that.

So, what I have been leading up to is would it have been helpful if Micah had said that the ruler would rule a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom, and that Pontius Pilate would be the governor of Palestine? In addition, during the U.S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis was President of the Southern Confederacy. He was a Christian. He believed that the Bible endorses slavery, which it does. Even if it didn't, Davis believed that it did. In your opinion, would it have been helpful for God to tangibly show up in person and tell Davis that slavery is wrong, or for God to appear to Davis in a dream and tell him that slavery is wrong.

How would you use those arguments against deism?

If all religions are false, all religous writers would be forced to claim that God is incomprehensible.

If God is incomprehensible, then no one can know enough about him to make an informed decision to accept him.

How do you account for the fact that every year the percentage of women who accept the three dimensional being is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who accept him? A loving God would not have any interest in a person's sex.

How do account for the facts that every year a much lower percentage of elderly skeptics accept the three dimensional being than the percentage of younger skeptics who accept him, and that every year the percentage of elderly Christians who reject him is much lower than percentage of younger Christians who reject him? A loving God would not have any interest in a person's age.

A God who had strange ways would not be predictable.

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, on some occasions when Jesus' words were not enough to convince people, he provided them with tangible, firsthand signs and wonders as evidence that he was the Son of God. 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 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

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.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples when about confirming the message of his grace by performing signs and wonders. It is quite odd that with all of the miracles that Jesus had performed, and with his post-Resurrection appearances, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that there was a need for even more tangible confirmations? "O ye of little faith" contradicts the Scriptures that I mentioned. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

Will you agree with me that if God had wanted to, he could easily have prevented confusion regarding whether or not Jesus was the messiah, and confusion regarding slavery during the U.S. Civil War? Christians believe that Micah 5:2 says that a messiah would come who would become ruler of Israel. Jesus did not become ruler of Israel. Old Testament Jews believed that the ruler would rule an earthly kingdom, not a heavenly kingdom. Therefore, they we mislead by God. 2 Samuel 7:10 says that God would provide a homeland for Jews where no one would bother them. If you read all of chapter 7, you will see that verse 10 refers to this life, not to the next life. That prophecy will never come true in this life because the Israelis will never be at peace with their neighbors. The New Testament says that there will always be wars and rumors of wars in this life, and that in the last days, nation will rise against nation. There is no way that the Israelis are going to be at peace with their neighbors in a world like that.

What I have been leading up to is would it have been helpful if Micah had said that the ruler would rule a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom, and that Pontius Pilate would be the governor of Palestine. In addition, during the U.S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis was President of the Southern Confederacy. He was a Christian. He believed that the Bible endorses slavery, which it does. Even if it didn't, Davis believed that it did. It have been helpful for God to tangibly show up in person and tell Davis that slavery is wrong, or for God to appear to Davis in a dream and tell him that slavery is wrong.

How do you account for the fact that every year the percentage of women who become Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who become Christians? A loving God would not have any interest in a person's sex. It would be quite strange that a loving God would be that predictable, and would show favoritism towards women.

How do you account for the facts that every year a much lower percentage of elderly skeptics become Christians than the percentage of younger skeptics who become Christians, and that every year the percentage of elderly Christians who give up Christianity is much lower than percentage of younger Christians who give up Christianity? A loving God would not have any interest in a person's age. It would be quite strange that a loving God would be that predictable, and would discriminate against elderly skeptics, and would show favoritism towards younger skeptics, but if the God of the Bible does not exist, the preceding evidence is easily explained by the fact that is is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

How do you account for the fact that as far as we know, the Gospel message has been spread entirely by humans? If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it, but he was perfectly content to communicate directly with Adam, Noah, and Abraham. In your opinion, is the Gospel message any less important and any less necessary than what God told Adam, Noah, and Abraham? If the God of the Bible does not exist, then that easily explains why, as far as we know, that no one has ever heard the Gospel message unless another person told them about it.

We have a similar situation regarding the distribution of food. How do you account for the fact that, as far as we know, food is distributed entirely by humans? If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to have enough food to eat if another person gives them enough food to eat. That is quite strange, but if the God of the Bible does not exist, that easily explains why, as far as we know, food is distributed entirely by humans.

If the God of the Bible exists, it is quite strange that he did not tell Old Testament Jews to go all over the world and tell people about his specific existence, and then changed his mind after Jesus rose from the dead and wanted Christians to go all over the world and tell people about his specific existence, but if the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people, that easily explains this situation.

Christians have a perceived vested interest regarding the Bible's promise that Christians will one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life. The followers of some other religions also have a perceived vested in the outcomes of what their religious books promise. If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, Christians would quickly dismiss their excuse that God's thoughts and ways are different from humans' thought and ways. This proves that Christians are not nearly as interested in what the evidence IS as they are in what the evidence PROMISES. On the other hand, since I do not demand an eventual outcome that is favorable to me, even if the Bible said that God will send everyone to heaven, I would still reject it for the same reasons that I reject it now, but I would hope that it is true.

Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit them. Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interest.

Hypothetical arguments are frequently excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Fundamentalist Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

One of the best arguments against Christianity is the lack of confirmations from non-Jewish and non-Christian sources. Other than the Bible, there is not one single credible non-Jewish record of the Exodus and the Ten Plagues. If the Ten Plagues occurred, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. As history shows, that did not happen. Logically, the very best evidence that the Exodus and the Ten Plagues occurred would be from non-Jewish sources. If the God of the Bible exists, why did he refuse to provide confirmations from non-Jewish sources, thereby needlessly creating doubt and confusion.

The New Testament says lots of things regarding what the Pharisees said and did, but why aren't there any surviving copies of records where the Pharisees spoke for themselves? If the God of the Bible exists, why did he refuse to provide convincing confirmations from non-Christian sources who spoke for themselves?

The New Testament says that the Pharisess said that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub. That had to be a lie, or an innocent but inaccurate revelation. It would not have made any sense for a messiah be become ruler of Israel, reference Micah 5:2, and protect the Jews from their enemies, but refuse to heal them of their diseases.

Logically, the best evidence that some people who saw Jesus perform miracles rejected him would not be Biblical evidence, but firsthand evidence from the dissenters themselves. If there were any such records, they would have been highly prized by early Christians, and they would have been copied and preserved. Or, if early Christians were not smart enough to do that, God should have told them to copy and preserve the records.

arnoldo

They had more important things to do than write books. IIRC there is a scripture if the apostles were to write all of the things that Yeshua did all the libraries in the world would not be able to contain it.

Johnny Skeptic

It does not do Christians any good to quote the Bible. If God intended for the Bible to be a primary means for him to communicate with humans, he would have made it available to everyone in the world himself long ago. No rational God would inspire and preserve the most important and helpful writings in history and depend entirely on humans to distribute it, and discriminate against people who lived far away from the Middle East. As far as we know, no one who lived in China during the first century heard the Gospel message. The Gospel message would not have been any less useful and helpful to Chinese people than it was to people who lived in the Middle East. It is virtually impossible that a loving God would play favorites based upon geography.

Johnny Skeptic

However, since non-Christians do not trust the Bible, the best evidence for non-Christians would be from non-Jewish and non-Christian sources. Regarding the Ten Plagues, if God had caused many records to be preserved that were written by non-Jewish historians, the Bible would have far more credibility than it does today, and Jews and Christians would have more confidence in the Bible than they do today, and the Christian church would be larger than it is today. The same argument applies to claims of miracles in other religious books.

At any rate, if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily show up and prove to everyone's satisfaction that he is able to predict the future. Demonstrations of power are a necessary requirement to validate a God's existence. This is validated by John 3:2. The verse says "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." After that, it all gets down to God's character, in which case all that you essentially have to offer is that since God's thoughts and ways are different than our thoughts and ways, people should believe that there are reasonable explanations for why God does what he does, except of course for the convenient exception that if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would not use that argument.

Deists also believe that God's thoughts and ways are different than our thoughts and ways. What is your message to them?