But as far as the structure of your argument goes, I would question Premise 1. Because there are those whose belief in a Higher Power is based mainly on First Cause and Design--and those two arguments say nothing about the alleged Higher Power necessarily being Omniscient, Omnipotent, or All-Good.
(I discuss this more in my video series "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic.")
> I would say that the existence of suffering makes it impossible for a tri-omni god to exist. Such a being could and would bypass suffering and obtain greater goods immediately.
Agreed ... unless one buys into the "mysterious ways" argument (of course, that aproach is so broad that it can justify *any* belief, no matter how bizarre).
I think a good way around the "God moves in mysterious ways" argument is to then claim that if that is true, you can NEVER question religious texts. If god says stone people who work on the sabbath - god works in mysterious ways. You can't question anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, because god works in mysterious ways. Nothing needs to make sense any more.
When I was a little kid I asked my mother why God made mosquitos, and she said to feed the bats. Then I asked why did God have to make bats, and she answered, "to eat the mosquitos." Alright. That's all I got. Love your posts. bye.
I engaged with Epy regarding his defense of Earthquakes and Tsunamis as depreciation due to sin.
I asked if he accepted physics geology and evolution, which he said he did. I pointed out that plate tectonics was going on for a couple of billion years before humans evolved.
He claims it was satan who originally caused sin. He seems happy to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> I asked if he accepted physics geology and evolution, which he said he did. I pointed out that plate tectonics was going on for a couple of billion years before humans evolved. He claims it was satan who originally caused sin.
Apologetics involves some fancy footwork! (If you don't mind me asking, on which video did this exchange take place? I'd like to check it out!)
Not a very sophisticated argument I know, but t's interesting how a few facts force him to rewrite the bible. I actually find it quite scary that someone with his mental agility is willing to twist the bible, the facts and his own mind to these ends.
> I actually find it quite scary that someone with his mental agility is willing to twist the bible, the facts and his own mind to these ends.
That's something that never fails to amaze me. I work with some physicians who seem so intelligent in select areas, yet they allow logic to completely escape them when it comes to religion.
@ToddAllenGates As you hinted, theodicy is not a paradox in Greek, Babylonian, or deist mythologies, as the gods are not proposed to be simultaneously omnipotent & omnibenevolent. What you failed to mention is that the "mysterious ways" apology abrogates a finite mind's capacity to render any of the gods' actions as 'good' every bit as much as it destroys judgement on actions as 'evil'. A theist's finite mind is left unable to discern if the object of his worship is worthy of praise or scorn.
> the "mysterious ways" apology abrogates a finite mind's capacity to render any of the gods' actions as 'good' every bit as much as it destroys judgement on actions as 'evil'
the problem with the argument is that it starts out with a premise derived thru revelation...that God is good. Since there is obviously suffering in the world, there must, through logical necessity, be good reasons for it. But what could the good reasons be for God to design smallpox virus? It seems intuitively absurd . we are to believe, on faith, something intuitively paradoxical.why would God do that?
> the problem with the argument is that it starts out with a premise derived thru revelation
Yes, this is true for Epydemic2020. His argument depends on the idea that the notion that the Bible is God's Word is something already firmly established.
even if the bible is the "word" of God, I am not sure you can consistently argue that the book claims God is all good.i think the notion of God changes over time wrt to this, perhaps after the hebrew experience with the dualistic Persians.
Have you read Bart Erhman's relatively new book on biblical answers to the problem of suffering? quite good.
well, there is probably something true about that statement, but do you really think we could not comprehend joy without smallpox, malaria,cholera, plague, Auchewitch? are you going to be able to comprehend joy in heaven?
it seems to me that the argument "Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God." leads to a strong agnostic position. the statement implies that ALL concepts about god are necessarily incomplete and incomprehensible and so humans cannot know whether god is good, bad, cunning,deceiptful,evil,indifferent,etc and so we must disregard all human concepts of god.
I like the way you use calm, reasonable language Todd.
Reason always wins the day. As a former christian, I suffered cognitive dissonance constantly while practising my former faith. Eventually, the evidence for Reason overwhelms the presence of Faith. Having a debate on the nature of suffering is an excellent way to expose theists to the arguements of Reason in a non-confrontational way.
> As a former christian, I suffered cognitive dissonance constantly while practising my former faith. Eventually, the evidence for Reason overwhelms the presence of Faith.
At least for those who can break free, such as yourself—congratulations!
> I like the way you use calm, reasonable language Todd
You are a pleasure to debate with. I have watched your video many times.
Can you clarify your position on the hindu caste system and muslim acquiring virgins in heaven and how it relates to "Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God." I don't want to misrepresent your position.
I feel likewise! I only regret the timing—that I won't be able to continue participating for the time being due to day job responsibilities. I feel a bit like someone who starts a snowball fight and then runs and hides inside his house.
> Can you clarify your position on the hindu caste system and muslim acquiring virgins in heaven and how it relates to "Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God."
TODD: Hey Sanjay, you're smarter than most of the executives I work with: why don't you get a more challenging & higher-paying job than cleaning toilets?
SANJAY: Unfortunately, my religion forbids it. I am of the Sudra caste, and our occupations are severely restricted.
TODD: But can't you understand that Hinduism—and especially its "holy rules" about the caste system—is just a bunch of crap made up by people? That it totally defies logic? After all, if you took a thousand people from each so-called "caste" and tested them for their physical & emotional & intellectual abilities, no one "caste" would rise above the others: there's absolutely no evidence to support the belief that one caste is inherently superior to the next.
TODD: Can't you understand that it's all superstitious nonsense?
SANJAY: I am afraid it is *you* who do not understand my friend. You try to use your human logic to disprove the laws from the gods, but the finite cannot comprehend Infinite—the Divine is beyond human comprehension.
So the same could apply to Muslims (& Mormons, Aztecs, tree-worshippers, etc.) trying to defend aspects of their faith: I could claim that logic proves their claims to be ridiculous, and they could counter that my attempts at logic were useless because the finite human mind is incapable of comprehending the Infinite.
Thanks for the clarification. I think your comparison misses the mark a little bit. My position is not "You cannot understand, therefore I am right". It is "if you do not know, this argument cannot be used to claim to know". The Aztec has not yet justified his position. He is doing the same thing I would criticize the atheist for doing with the problem of evil.
Also, argument #9 does support my view, but was never intended to be the single-handed refuter of the evidential problem of evil.
> My position is "if you do not know, this argument cannot be used to claim to know".
Okay, but the Hindu could say the same thing. You do not *know* the caste system is merely a human invention, therefore you can't claim to know the caste system is not the will of the gods.
> Also, argument #9 does support my view, but was never intended to be the single-handed refuter of the evidential problem of evil.
Instead of calling it the "evidential problem of evil," I think the communication between us would be clearer if we called it the "problem of suffering."
No skeptic would call the wasp "evil" (evidential or otherwise) for laying her eggs inside a caterpillar so the larvae could eat the caterpillar alive. This is just the way nature evolved. But yet this *does* cause creature suffering.
And if this macabre mothering was part of God's Design (and from a theist's point of view, how could it not be?), this raises the question "Why did God design life so that its survival depends on making other creatures suffer?"
Furthermore, I believe your argument #9 is the only one that could possibly address the likes of "God's design" of wildlife suffering.
(Unless you believe it "benefits" the gazelle to be chased and then disemboweled by a pack of hyenas, or the gazelle will be enjoying heaven all that much more for being ripped apart alive while on earth.)
Hi again. Just one additional thought. You wrote "The [Hindu] has not yet justified his position," which suggests that the Christian *has* justified in his position (via arguments you haven't discussed during this series). I obviously do NOT think the Christian position is justified (also via arguments not discussed during this series—those can be best found in my series "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers").
So this is why I called this series "stalemating with Epydemic2020" rather than something like "Pwning Epydemic2020." I think it's because of *other arguments* (re: the evidence for whether Christianity is really from God, or just one of the tens of thousands made up by man) that we stalemate on this issue. That is to say, if Christianity were really from God, I would agree that your arguments would be valid.
I live in 'tornado alley'. Yeah, it does make me a little nervous every tornado season, but after so many years, the fear sort of fades. Statistically, they're (tornados) less dangerous than riding in a car, so not much of a concern considering I probably ride in a car every day.
Great point about the weakness and uselessness of an argument that is compatible with any possible situation. This doesn't get brought up nearly often enough in the context of the theist-nontheist debate.
We still see the primitive biblical notion -- and, more broadly, mythological notion -- that natural disaster is the result of divine wrath. However, at least among Christians, it's seems to be popular only with the oddest elements of the apologetic set, e.g., Pat Robertson.
> We still see the primitive biblical notion -- and, more broadly, mythological notion -- that natural disaster is the result of divine wrath.
For those who have that primitive worldview, I would think explaining the areas that *don't* get punished are more difficult than explaining those that do . . . because were divine punishment reality, we here in NYC should be getting our asses kicked quite regularly!
Great job Todd. I encourage all inquiring minds to check out Rational Muscle's video: Genesis Chapter 1 Revised Reality Version He has reauthored Genesis the way should have read in the first place, scientifically accurate and understandable to bronze age desert nomads. He slams the door on the feeble excuse you often hear "but they wouldn't have understood modern science"
> I encourage all inquiring minds to check out Rational Muscle's video: Genesis Chapter 1 Revised Reality Version He has reauthored Genesis the way should have read in the first place, scientifically accurate and understandable to bronze age desert nomads
...the Aztec had to sacrifice virgins? I though they could use anyone. I seem to recall that detractors of the king often found themselves on the sacrificial alter. Although, it has been a while since I took high school history class. ^_^
> ...the Aztec had to sacrifice virgins? I thought they could use anyone.
True, they didn't have to be virgins ... my memory from my "Archeology of religion" is that virgin sacrifices just made the "gift" a bit more special (a "cherry on top" so to speak).
When it comes to the Aztecs, different archeologists come to different conclusions—but a common conclusion is that the earliest Aztecs sacrificed only their own members, but later Aztecs (1400s) leaned more on war prisoners.
Well, I guess if you really believe that failing to kill some one will mean the sun won't come up (did they believe that it died?). War prisoners would be a more logical choice. I still have a hard time believing that the people in power actually thought that.
I think that is the most messed up religious practice that I've hear of. I mean they supposedly killed some one EVERY DAY.
INDEED THEY DO! Oh sorry, lol. But yes, indeed they do. I've studied religions from all parts of the world...next up is Asia. lol. But yes, the sacrifices were intense, I was like "Wow,ripping out a beating heart...damn.." lol
It's much appreciated! In a lot of my videos I compare Christianity to other ancient religions, and I'm bound to slip up and make mistakes now & then -- so it's great to have a watchdog audience to keep me straight!
(It was thanks to reader / viewer feedback that I had to issue a 2008 revision of my 2006 book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer.")
The non-specific nature of the 'finite cannot comprehend' defense is a defeater. An infinite amount of evidence would be required to justify belief that God is infinite. The unknown purpose for suffering defense is the strongest the theist can put forth, yet the burden of proof is on the theist to put forth such a purpose. Remember Job's admission that the world is unjust ;P
> The unknown purpose for suffering defense is the strongest the theist can put forth
Agreed, especially when it comes to explaining suffering independent of Free Will. The "unknown" defense is merely weak, whereas their more specific arguments are absurd.
> Remember Job's admission that the world is unjust
I have a separate series on that ... for now, I'll just say that one of the most surprising things about the Book of Job is that it made its way into the Bible!
@thejewishagnostic
As an atheist, I agree with the conclusion.
But as far as the structure of your argument goes, I would question Premise 1. Because there are those whose belief in a Higher Power is based mainly on First Cause and Design--and those two arguments say nothing about the alleged Higher Power necessarily being Omniscient, Omnipotent, or All-Good.
(I discuss this more in my video series "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic.")
ToddAllenGates 2 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
> I would say that the existence of suffering makes it impossible for a tri-omni god to exist. Such a being could and would bypass suffering and obtain greater goods immediately.
Agreed ... unless one buys into the "mysterious ways" argument (of course, that aproach is so broad that it can justify *any* belief, no matter how bizarre).
ToddAllenGates 9 months ago
I think a good way around the "God moves in mysterious ways" argument is to then claim that if that is true, you can NEVER question religious texts. If god says stone people who work on the sabbath - god works in mysterious ways. You can't question anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, because god works in mysterious ways. Nothing needs to make sense any more.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago 3
> You can't question anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, because god works in mysterious ways.
The scariest theists are those who will agree whole-heartedly!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago 2
When I was a little kid I asked my mother why God made mosquitos, and she said to feed the bats. Then I asked why did God have to make bats, and she answered, "to eat the mosquitos." Alright. That's all I got. Love your posts. bye.
zach9899 2 years ago
> God made mosquitoes ... to feed the bats... God made bats ... to eat the mosquitoes
God always has a plan!
> Love your posts
Thank you!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I engaged with Epy regarding his defense of Earthquakes and Tsunamis as depreciation due to sin.
I asked if he accepted physics geology and evolution, which he said he did. I pointed out that plate tectonics was going on for a couple of billion years before humans evolved.
He claims it was satan who originally caused sin. He seems happy to throw the baby out with the bath water.
hilbert54 2 years ago
> I asked if he accepted physics geology and evolution, which he said he did. I pointed out that plate tectonics was going on for a couple of billion years before humans evolved. He claims it was satan who originally caused sin.
Apologetics involves some fancy footwork! (If you don't mind me asking, on which video did this exchange take place? I'd like to check it out!)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Todd it was on
The Problem of Evil, Is It a problem? Logical and Evidential Formulations Addressed
We finished with PM's so the whole conversation is not shown.
hilbert54 2 years ago
> it was on "The Problem of Evil, Is It a problem? Logical and Evidential Formulations Addressed"
Just read through the comments--you made some great points.
But maybe ... human sin was so bad that God started punishing the earth with earthquakes billions of years *before* we arrived!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Not a very sophisticated argument I know, but t's interesting how a few facts force him to rewrite the bible. I actually find it quite scary that someone with his mental agility is willing to twist the bible, the facts and his own mind to these ends.
hilbert54 2 years ago
> I actually find it quite scary that someone with his mental agility is willing to twist the bible, the facts and his own mind to these ends.
That's something that never fails to amaze me. I work with some physicians who seem so intelligent in select areas, yet they allow logic to completely escape them when it comes to religion.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
@ToddAllenGates As you hinted, theodicy is not a paradox in Greek, Babylonian, or deist mythologies, as the gods are not proposed to be simultaneously omnipotent & omnibenevolent. What you failed to mention is that the "mysterious ways" apology abrogates a finite mind's capacity to render any of the gods' actions as 'good' every bit as much as it destroys judgement on actions as 'evil'. A theist's finite mind is left unable to discern if the object of his worship is worthy of praise or scorn.
myerssa7 1 year ago
@myerssa7
> the "mysterious ways" apology abrogates a finite mind's capacity to render any of the gods' actions as 'good' every bit as much as it destroys judgement on actions as 'evil'
Quite true!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
the problem with the argument is that it starts out with a premise derived thru revelation...that God is good. Since there is obviously suffering in the world, there must, through logical necessity, be good reasons for it. But what could the good reasons be for God to design smallpox virus? It seems intuitively absurd . we are to believe, on faith, something intuitively paradoxical.why would God do that?
adstanra 2 years ago
> the problem with the argument is that it starts out with a premise derived thru revelation
Yes, this is true for Epydemic2020. His argument depends on the idea that the notion that the Bible is God's Word is something already firmly established.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
even if the bible is the "word" of God, I am not sure you can consistently argue that the book claims God is all good.i think the notion of God changes over time wrt to this, perhaps after the hebrew experience with the dualistic Persians.
Have you read Bart Erhman's relatively new book on biblical answers to the problem of suffering? quite good.
adstanra 2 years ago
> I am not sure you can consistently argue that the book claims God is all good
I think an excellent case could be made to the contrary -- but I'm picking my battles!
> Have you read Bart Erhman's relatively new book on biblical answers to the problem of suffering?
I've only glanced at someone else's copy--but it's on my To Read list.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
> i think the notion of God changes over time wrt to this, perhaps after the hebrew experience with the dualistic Persians.
I discuss this in my video series called "The Evolution of the Afterlife."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
thanks , I'll check it out.
adstanra 2 years ago
Without some suffering in life, could be truly comprehend joy?
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
well, there is probably something true about that statement, but do you really think we could not comprehend joy without smallpox, malaria,cholera, plague, Auchewitch? are you going to be able to comprehend joy in heaven?
adstanra 2 years ago
Point taken....very well! I don't have any belief in the supernatural. Just playing the "devil's" advocate....so to speak.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
> Without some suffering in life, could be truly comprehend joy?
It reminds me of the crude joke . . .
Q: Why did the moron hit himself repeatedly in the head with a hammer?
A: Because it felt so good when he stopped!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
it seems to me that the argument "Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God." leads to a strong agnostic position. the statement implies that ALL concepts about god are necessarily incomplete and incomprehensible and so humans cannot know whether god is good, bad, cunning,deceiptful,evil,indifferent,etc and so we must disregard all human concepts of god.
oarobin 2 years ago
"kognitive Incoherence" is the term I usually use. Good video. You have my sub.
ballaballaballen 2 years ago
> Good video. You have my sub.
Thanks ballaballaballen—much appreciated!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I found you through ProfMTH, your response to Epydemic (hopefully spelled with irony in mind) is concise and insightful. sub'd and 5*'d.
TheGreatSimonski 2 years ago
> found you through ProfMTH,
He did me a great favor--since his shout-out yesterday, I've probably gotten 150 new subs.
> your response to Epydemic (hopefully spelled with irony in mind) is concise and insightful. sub'd and 5*'d.
Thank you: much appreciated!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I like the way you use calm, reasonable language Todd.
Reason always wins the day. As a former christian, I suffered cognitive dissonance constantly while practising my former faith. Eventually, the evidence for Reason overwhelms the presence of Faith. Having a debate on the nature of suffering is an excellent way to expose theists to the arguements of Reason in a non-confrontational way.
Great vid.
metrx330 2 years ago
> As a former christian, I suffered cognitive dissonance constantly while practising my former faith. Eventually, the evidence for Reason overwhelms the presence of Faith.
At least for those who can break free, such as yourself—congratulations!
> I like the way you use calm, reasonable language Todd
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
You are a pleasure to debate with. I have watched your video many times.
Can you clarify your position on the hindu caste system and muslim acquiring virgins in heaven and how it relates to "Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God." I don't want to misrepresent your position.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago 2
1 of 5:
> You are a pleasure to debate with.
I feel likewise! I only regret the timing—that I won't be able to continue participating for the time being due to day job responsibilities. I feel a bit like someone who starts a snowball fight and then runs and hides inside his house.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 5:
> Can you clarify your position on the hindu caste system and muslim acquiring virgins in heaven and how it relates to "Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God."
TODD: Hey Sanjay, you're smarter than most of the executives I work with: why don't you get a more challenging & higher-paying job than cleaning toilets?
SANJAY: Unfortunately, my religion forbids it. I am of the Sudra caste, and our occupations are severely restricted.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 5:
TODD: But can't you understand that Hinduism—and especially its "holy rules" about the caste system—is just a bunch of crap made up by people? That it totally defies logic? After all, if you took a thousand people from each so-called "caste" and tested them for their physical & emotional & intellectual abilities, no one "caste" would rise above the others: there's absolutely no evidence to support the belief that one caste is inherently superior to the next.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 5:
TODD: Can't you understand that it's all superstitious nonsense?
SANJAY: I am afraid it is *you* who do not understand my friend. You try to use your human logic to disprove the laws from the gods, but the finite cannot comprehend Infinite—the Divine is beyond human comprehension.
* * * * * * * * *
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 5:
So the same could apply to Muslims (& Mormons, Aztecs, tree-worshippers, etc.) trying to defend aspects of their faith: I could claim that logic proves their claims to be ridiculous, and they could counter that my attempts at logic were useless because the finite human mind is incapable of comprehending the Infinite.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Thanks for the clarification. I think your comparison misses the mark a little bit. My position is not "You cannot understand, therefore I am right". It is "if you do not know, this argument cannot be used to claim to know". The Aztec has not yet justified his position. He is doing the same thing I would criticize the atheist for doing with the problem of evil.
Also, argument #9 does support my view, but was never intended to be the single-handed refuter of the evidential problem of evil.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 4:
> My position is "if you do not know, this argument cannot be used to claim to know".
Okay, but the Hindu could say the same thing. You do not *know* the caste system is merely a human invention, therefore you can't claim to know the caste system is not the will of the gods.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 4:
> Also, argument #9 does support my view, but was never intended to be the single-handed refuter of the evidential problem of evil.
Instead of calling it the "evidential problem of evil," I think the communication between us would be clearer if we called it the "problem of suffering."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 4:
No skeptic would call the wasp "evil" (evidential or otherwise) for laying her eggs inside a caterpillar so the larvae could eat the caterpillar alive. This is just the way nature evolved. But yet this *does* cause creature suffering.
And if this macabre mothering was part of God's Design (and from a theist's point of view, how could it not be?), this raises the question "Why did God design life so that its survival depends on making other creatures suffer?"
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 4:
Furthermore, I believe your argument #9 is the only one that could possibly address the likes of "God's design" of wildlife suffering.
(Unless you believe it "benefits" the gazelle to be chased and then disemboweled by a pack of hyenas, or the gazelle will be enjoying heaven all that much more for being ripped apart alive while on earth.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
1 of 2:
Hi again. Just one additional thought. You wrote "The [Hindu] has not yet justified his position," which suggests that the Christian *has* justified in his position (via arguments you haven't discussed during this series). I obviously do NOT think the Christian position is justified (also via arguments not discussed during this series—those can be best found in my series "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers").
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
So this is why I called this series "stalemating with Epydemic2020" rather than something like "Pwning Epydemic2020." I think it's because of *other arguments* (re: the evidence for whether Christianity is really from God, or just one of the tens of thousands made up by man) that we stalemate on this issue. That is to say, if Christianity were really from God, I would agree that your arguments would be valid.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
The reason the bible doesn't answer any "Why this" type questions is because its not your role in religion to think.
Fits the military mind set "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die"
BayerLexan 2 years ago
I live in 'tornado alley'. Yeah, it does make me a little nervous every tornado season, but after so many years, the fear sort of fades. Statistically, they're (tornados) less dangerous than riding in a car, so not much of a concern considering I probably ride in a car every day.
BayerLexan 2 years ago
> Statistically, they're (tornados) less dangerous than riding in a car, so not much of a concern considering I probably ride in a car every day
I guess drivers are in need of more punishment than Tornado Alley inhabitants!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Epydemic2020 loves death. But I bet he's anti-abortion.
Perrine234 2 years ago
Great point about the weakness and uselessness of an argument that is compatible with any possible situation. This doesn't get brought up nearly often enough in the context of the theist-nontheist debate.
We still see the primitive biblical notion -- and, more broadly, mythological notion -- that natural disaster is the result of divine wrath. However, at least among Christians, it's seems to be popular only with the oddest elements of the apologetic set, e.g., Pat Robertson.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 6
> We still see the primitive biblical notion -- and, more broadly, mythological notion -- that natural disaster is the result of divine wrath.
For those who have that primitive worldview, I would think explaining the areas that *don't* get punished are more difficult than explaining those that do . . . because were divine punishment reality, we here in NYC should be getting our asses kicked quite regularly!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Indeed. That never seems to phase the likes of Pat Robertson though, does it?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
> That never seems to phase the likes of Pat Robertson though, does it?
Fanatics like Robertson can be the skeptic's best friend—nothing demonstrates the absurdity of the Bible better than people who take it seriously!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
"Nothing demonstrates the absurdity of the Bible better than people who take it seriously!"
Sorry, that just needed some quotation marks around it. Haha!
brainfoodlunch 2 years ago
> that just needed some quotation marks around it
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Great job Todd. I encourage all inquiring minds to check out Rational Muscle's video: Genesis Chapter 1 Revised Reality Version He has reauthored Genesis the way should have read in the first place, scientifically accurate and understandable to bronze age desert nomads. He slams the door on the feeble excuse you often hear "but they wouldn't have understood modern science"
ogrimdoombringer 2 years ago
> I encourage all inquiring minds to check out Rational Muscle's video: Genesis Chapter 1 Revised Reality Version
I'll check it out—thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
> I encourage all inquiring minds to check out Rational Muscle's video: Genesis Chapter 1 Revised Reality Version He has reauthored Genesis the way should have read in the first place, scientifically accurate and understandable to bronze age desert nomads
I finally watched it--*great* video!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Comment removed
abominog667 2 years ago
...the Aztec had to sacrifice virgins? I though they could use anyone. I seem to recall that detractors of the king often found themselves on the sacrificial alter. Although, it has been a while since I took high school history class. ^_^
Disthron 2 years ago
> ...the Aztec had to sacrifice virgins? I thought they could use anyone.
True, they didn't have to be virgins ... my memory from my "Archeology of religion" is that virgin sacrifices just made the "gift" a bit more special (a "cherry on top" so to speak).
When it comes to the Aztecs, different archeologists come to different conclusions—but a common conclusion is that the earliest Aztecs sacrificed only their own members, but later Aztecs (1400s) leaned more on war prisoners.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Well, I guess if you really believe that failing to kill some one will mean the sun won't come up (did they believe that it died?). War prisoners would be a more logical choice. I still have a hard time believing that the people in power actually thought that.
I think that is the most messed up religious practice that I've hear of. I mean they supposedly killed some one EVERY DAY.
Disthron 2 years ago
Hi again Disthron,
Check out wikipedia's article "Human Sacrifice in Aztec Culture." Aztecs make the wildest-eyed Muslim fanatic look quite mild in comparison!
(Also, thanks for pointing out my mistake in saying the victims had to be virgins -- I just added an annotation to correct that mis-information.)
- Todd
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
INDEED THEY DO! Oh sorry, lol. But yes, indeed they do. I've studied religions from all parts of the world...next up is Asia. lol. But yes, the sacrifices were intense, I was like "Wow,ripping out a beating heart...damn.." lol
Ravindra9689 2 years ago
Hay, glad I could help. And keep up the good work.
Disthron 2 years ago
> glad I could help
It's much appreciated! In a lot of my videos I compare Christianity to other ancient religions, and I'm bound to slip up and make mistakes now & then -- so it's great to have a watchdog audience to keep me straight!
(It was thanks to reader / viewer feedback that I had to issue a 2008 revision of my 2006 book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer.")
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I love the Aztec comparison.
pteromalid 2 years ago
> I love the Aztec comparison.
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
The non-specific nature of the 'finite cannot comprehend' defense is a defeater. An infinite amount of evidence would be required to justify belief that God is infinite. The unknown purpose for suffering defense is the strongest the theist can put forth, yet the burden of proof is on the theist to put forth such a purpose. Remember Job's admission that the world is unjust ;P
unassumption 2 years ago
> The unknown purpose for suffering defense is the strongest the theist can put forth
Agreed, especially when it comes to explaining suffering independent of Free Will. The "unknown" defense is merely weak, whereas their more specific arguments are absurd.
> Remember Job's admission that the world is unjust
I have a separate series on that ... for now, I'll just say that one of the most surprising things about the Book of Job is that it made its way into the Bible!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Well argued as usual. Love your work.
f7ipper 2 years ago
> Well argued as usual. Love your work.
Thank you!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago