Speaking in 'tongues'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alien,

Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?

Maybe just throw in the odd, "it's my personal faith belief that the bible (or the bits of it that suit me at least) is authoritative" from time-to-time for the avoidance of any confusion?

O he ho ho he de ho diddi do rumpy dump rumpy dump it's Caricature time again.

I think you'll find the important bit, the call to repentence and letting Jesus in doesn't initially ''suit'' a lot of people. vis St Paul, the writer of Isiaih, St Augustine, John Bunyan and many more.

[jakswan]

To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.

How?

Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?

No.

Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

That is a simplistic question. To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Oh dear he still doesn't get it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you'll find the important bit, the call to repentence and letting Jesus in...

How does Jesus feel about the people who have let him in throwing obscenities at the people whose arguments and opinions they don't like?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I think you'll find the important bit, the call to repentence and letting Jesus in...

How does Jesus feel about the people who have let him in throwing obscenities at the people whose arguments and opinions they don't like?

Why don't you ask him yourself.

[Gordon]

To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.

To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?

This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl  - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why don't you ask him yourself.

Because he's dead.

Apology accepted though...

...oh no, hang on a minute. You didn't apologise did you.

How very Christian of you.

[Alien]

1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).

2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?

You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story").  Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?

I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.

I agree, you do not need to see the Bible as authoritative if you are a theist or deist.

Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?

If you can demonstrate it I should only have to ask the once.

If you could understand it or were prepared to accept it having understood it I should only have to demonstrate it once.

[Alien]

To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.

How?

Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?

No.

Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

That is a simplistic question.

Are you going to answer it now?

I did. See #873.

[Alien]

Alien,

Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?

Maybe just throw in the odd, "it's my personal faith belief that the bible (or the bits of it that suit me at least) is authoritative" from time-to-time for the avoidance of any confusion?

When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism and my inaccurate analysis of my ability to correctly understand logic."

[Alien]

To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.

How?

Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?

No.

Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

That is a simplistic question. To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Oh dear he still doesn't get it.

In what way?

[Alien]

To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.

To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?

I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.

This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl  - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?

[Andy]

1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).

2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?

You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story").  Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?

I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.

I agree, you do not need to see the Bible as authoritative if you are a theist or deist.

Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?

If you can demonstrate it I should only have to ask the once.

If you could understand it or were prepared to accept it having understood it I should only have to demonstrate it once.

So are you going to?

[Andy]

To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.

How?

Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?

No.

Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

That is a simplistic question.

Are you going to answer it now?

I did. See #873.

No, you made an "analogy". Please answer the question.

[Gordon]

To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.

To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?

I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.

This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl  - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?

No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.

So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism…

That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.

…and my inaccurate analysis of my ability to correctly understand logic."

My analysis of logic may of course be inaccurate, but so far at least you’ve never managed to demonstrate that. Just asserting it to be the case only makes you look foolish – try instead to find an example of that inaccuracy, and attempt to argue the point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.

What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.

You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alien,

When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism…

That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.

Complete claptrap Hillside, the clue is in the word philosophical. You are trying to make a philosophical proposition into a scientific proposition and therefore God into a scientific proposition.

I any case your statement about it being probabilistic is based in a totally philosophical naturalist context.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Complete claptrap Hillside, the clue is in the word philosophical. You are trying to make a philosophical proposition into a scientific proposition and therefore God into a scientific proposition.

I any case your statement about it being probabilistic is based in a totally philosophical naturalist context.

Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?

If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?

[Alien]

To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.

How?

Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?

No.

Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

That is a simplistic question.

Are you going to answer it now?

I did. See #873.

No, you made an "analogy". Please answer the question.

OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.

[Alien]

To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.

To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?

I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.

This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl  - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?

No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.

No analogy fits entirely. Yes, God knows all the circumstances, but unless you can demonstrate that God's omniscience means that he can make everyone act only morally correctly and achieve whatever other aims he has, then you have not demonstrated that the existence of moral evil means that a good God cannot exist.

Remember, I am not trying to prove that a good God exists here, but rather trying to demonstrate that the accusation that moral evil demonstrates that a good God cannot exist is fallacious.

So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?

Sit back?

[Alien]

Alien,

When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism…

That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.

Says who? You?

You do use flowery language. Very pretty, but it doesn't add (or subtract) from the logic (or not) of your reasoning.

…and my inaccurate analysis of my ability to correctly understand logic."

My analysis of logic may of course be inaccurate, but so far at least you’ve never managed to demonstrate that.

To whose satisfaction?

Just asserting it to be the case only makes you look foolish – try instead to find an example of that inaccuracy, and attempt to argue the point.

Ditto for your claim about me.

Yawn.

[Alien]

Alien,

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.

What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.

You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.

Oh, I see. You mean that Gordon's actual problem is that he misunderstand what Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent. Thanks. I see your point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Complete claptrap Hillside, the clue is in the word philosophical. You are trying to make a philosophical proposition into a scientific proposition and therefore God into a scientific proposition.

I any case your statement about it being probabilistic is based in a totally philosophical naturalist context.

Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?



If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?

philosophical naturalism is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one. You are on the wrong track talking about the probability of it.

To even suggest a probability of it suggests the circularity of the argument.

If it is probabilistic what is the probability of it? Show your working.

[Gordon]

Alien,

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.

What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.

You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.

Oh, I see. You mean that Gordon's actual problem is that he misunderstand what Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent. Thanks. I see your point.

Given your previous reliance on TACTDJFF as an example of something that could never be morally acceptable, and I agree with you on that, I'm amazed that you so easily excuse your God from acting to prevent something that is on a par with  the awfullness of TACTDJFF in moral terms.

Looks like you've got double standards on the go here, where your God has a free pass - mind you, given the amount of bad things that incessantly happen your God is hopelessly ineffective in meaningful terms to the extent it may as well not exist at all!

[jakswan]

To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.

Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.

To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?

I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.

This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl  - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.

Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.

"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?

No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.

No analogy fits entirely. Yes, God knows all the circumstances, but unless you can demonstrate that God's omniscience means that he can make everyone act only morally correctly and achieve whatever other aims he has, then you have not demonstrated that the existence of moral evil means that a good God cannot exist.

Remember, I am not trying to prove that a good God exists here, but rather trying to demonstrate that the accusation that moral evil demonstrates that a good God cannot exist is fallacious.

So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?

Sit back?

So allowing the rape of a 9 year old must be a morally good?