Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ashibaka · 11-22-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
If God forced us to worship Him, He would not be loving.

And by sending us to Hell for not worshipping Him, He is being loving?

Sorry, try again

Wyz_sub10 · 11-22-2002, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:


give me the link!

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001361&p=3" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001361&p=3</a>

Wyz_sub10 · 11-22-2002, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Ku Bop: Is it believable to claim that morality and ethics arose from an impersonal, material world?

Absolutely. Why not? I don't want to be hit, so I won't hit you. I know how it feels to be sad, so I don't want to make you sad. I know how important it is to be liked, so I will behave in a way that encourages people to like me. Where's the mystery?

Quote:

How can you descern between what can be understood by the human mind and what is the product of human thought.

I agree BH's statement is tricky. Perhaps the bible could have revealed information not yet known that could be validated - something to separate it from the other writings of man.

Quote:

You are, in reality, demanding that God communicate something incommunicable. It is to His credit that he revealed himself to us via human media, in an understandable manner. He is a personal God, both transcendent and immanent.

Basically you are saying that we should be happy we at least got the bible - god didn't have to do that, but he did, and we should be grateful.

Why? Didn't he create us to bring him glory? If so, why wouldn't he try to communicate with us as clearly as possible? He he truly was a personal god he could have spoken to each of us. No big chore for an omnipotent being. Why use a bible or a prophet when he could come straight to us? The need for a bible shows that the message can not be described as 'personal'.

Quote:

(This all goes back to presuppositions.) The Scriptures are clear that Satan and his demons are real, and that they are deceivers. They have the power to manipulate men and the elements in order to cause miracles and religious experiences for people of other faiths, all for the purpose of taking glory away from the Lord God.

Maybe these demons are deceiving you into thinking the bible is the word of god? Maybe you are praying to satan every time and you just don't know it? Everything you say about other religions, they say about you. So that assertion is meaningless.

This also goes back to the issue of circular reasoning in accepting the bible as fact (especially accepting the bible over other texts).

Quote:

God is the God of secondary causes. It isn't suprising that many miracles can be explained via natural causes.

I'm guessing you think this only applies to good things - he's not the god or cancer, but he's the god of remission, correct? If they can be explained via natural causes, then they are not miracles - they are well understood.

Quote:

These events are often called freak happenings for a reason. The reason being that they are abnormal, exceptional.

They are called freak happenings only because they are not yet understood. Much of what we called "freak happenings" 100 years ago are now understood and predictable. No god required.

Quote:

God is Lord of the heavens, earth, and sea. He can do what He wishes with them.

I suppose an omnipotent god could do whatever he wanted. My life as a special being to god seems like a bizarre way for an omnipotent being to pass the time (except that time doesn't matter to him). But sure, an omnipotent god could create a little sandbox world to play with.

But an omnipotent *and* omnibenevolent being...well, that changes things a little. Causing the rains to kill tens of thousands of people in Asia every year may be the perrogative of an omnipotent being, but it is inconsistent with the trait of omnibenevolence.

You can't have it all and still ackowledge the world we live in.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]

Jayjay · 11-23-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:
My favorite argument is one I kind of thought up myself, but I'm sure someone else has thought it up before:

And here I was thinking I thought of it.

There are no original ideas...

Quote:

If god is omniscient, and therefore knows everything that will ever happen in our future, then why would he create somone he knows will never believe in him, and thus will go to hell?

He is essentially creating people with no chance to make it in to heaven, who will burn in hell forever.

If any theists(or anyone who just wants to play devil's advocate) have a rebuttal to this i would like to here it, because i haven't really presented it to other people to get their views on it.

(Devils's advocate here) Not all gods send people to hell, there are those who think Hell is just "separation from God", or oblivion, or merely a temporary spanking. So this argument only works against a particular category of deities (tri-omni + literal hell).

xeren · 11-23-2002, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jayjay:

(Devils's advocate here) Not all gods send people to hell, there are those who think Hell is just "separation from God", or oblivion, or merely a temporary spanking. So this argument only works against a particular category of deities (tri-omni + literal hell).

well, yeah, i was speaking of the christian god of course. I may have forgotten to mention that.

Heathen Dawn · 11-23-2002, 09:46 AM

My favorite argument against all forms of theism (and that can include polytheism as well) is the Argument from Nonsystematic Fate. This argument is a step further from the Argument of Evil: saying that the good fate that befalls mankind and other creatures is as much an indicator of the non-existence of gods as the evil fate. The key is that good and evil fate befall creatures with no system at all. The only viable explanation for this, I argue, is that fate flows naturally with no controller over it - that is, no gods, no masters.

Wyz_sub10 · 11-25-2002, 05:15 AM

Kup Bop,

You haven't responded to either of my posts to you. No thoughts?

Jayjay · 11-25-2002, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:
well, yeah, i was speaking of the christian god of course. I may have forgotten to mention that.

Yes, I was speaking of the Christian deity as well. The thing is, surprisingly many christians don't in fact consider Hell as a literal punishment at all, so this argument has nothing on their God.

Ku Bop · 12-01-2002, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Hmm, I hope that we didn't scare Ku Bop away with our blitzkrieg!

Any response Bible Humper?

(Ku Bop)

Bible Humper · 12-01-2002, 09:35 AM

Thank you for the response, and for bumping this back up, Ku Bop, I forgot all about this!

I'm leaving right now for a bit, look for the answer a few hours from now at the earliest. Take care.

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

11-23-2002, 09:46 AM	#36
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	My favorite argument against all forms of theism (and that can include polytheism as well) is the Argument from Nonsystematic Fate. This argument is a step further from the Argument of Evil: saying that the good fate that befalls mankind and other creatures is as much an indicator of the non-existence of gods as the evil fate. The key is that good and evil fate befall creatures with no system at all. The only viable explanation for this, I argue, is that fate flows naturally with no controller over it - that is, no gods, no masters.

11-25-2002, 05:15 AM	#37
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Kup Bop, You haven't responded to either of my posts to you. No thoughts?

12-01-2002, 09:35 AM	#40
Bible Humper Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,125	Thank you for the response, and for bumping this back up, Ku Bop, I forgot all about this! I'm leaving right now for a bit, look for the answer a few hours from now at the earliest. Take care.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.