Hypothetically, if you try and imagine a world where religion never existed and no one believed in a God and we all shared the same beliefs, do you honestly believe people would never have been murderous, racist, sexist, homophobic etc. or find some other excuse to crash a plane into a building or start a war?
Would you say omnibenevolence implies a lack of capacity to do unloving things or to be unloving? Because certainly omnibenevolence implies that you do only loving things and if you do unloving things you contradict yourself. Implying you can only do loving things.
God has no evidence to support his existence after all these years. Give it up, people. You're clinging to self delusion because you're afraid to die.
@FlyingPinkUnicorn ::: When you know what to expect, you are not afraid to die. Look at the testimonies of those who have NDEs; they look forward to death.
@theRekcabofD Miracles and Bible verses? You have effectively conceded the argument. I wonder: if your god loves everyone, why does he send nonbelievers to hell?
I should also add that you're addressing a particular conception of God which not everyone shares. This is something like the orthodox Christian view, and you may be straw man-ing by addressing only that.
@theRekcabofD I doubt that ANY interpretation of ANY holy book (esp. your bible) is correct. In your bible's case, it has been translated, edited, copied and re-copied so many times that meanings are certain to have changed greatly. Even in the original language, no admissible evidence exists that your bible is the "one true word of god."
Also, I see religious faith (belief without or in spite of evidence) as one of the worst vices anyone can partake in; it is overt self-delusion.
@theRekcabofD Whose interpretation is correct? Christianity boasts over 36,000 known denominations who interpret your bible differently; all claim that theirs is correct. Plus, this does not include INDIVIDUAL interpretation, which is far more diverse.
As for the "whore" reference, your book repeatedly calls "fallen and sinful" without your god. That is equivalent to a groomsman going into LURID detail about the bride's (premarital) sex life.
@theRekcabofD It does a rather poor job of that if benevolence...esp. OMNIbenevolence is one of your god's character traits. Your analogy is also poor; would ANYONE in a wedding insult the bride by calling her a whore?
@theRekcabofD If your god is fundamentally inscrutable to the human mind, how can anyone claim to know same god's actual will? The bible? Even if divinely inspired, human minds still had to filter and intrepret the information being fed them.
Except following God's 'commands' doesn't lead to evil actions.
People don't always know Gods commands and some try to 'improvise' for God out of ignorance of his actual will. People may choose not to learn his commands out of defiance or other things, or with their own innocent ignorance be easily deceived into believing they know Gods commands without hearing them for themselves.
@FelixTheGhost but...what objective method is there to detect whether a given command ACTUALLY comes from your god? Where are the (relatively) immediate consequences for disobedience?
I say this with no intention of disagreement or disrespect seeing as all of your arguments are perfectly sound. However, I've seen many arguments from both sides and have found the only logical conclusion then, is a God(s) with no traits. To me the arguments do a wonderful job of dismantling religion, but not of dismissing the possibility of a God(s) which can be ascribed to the beginning of all things. It may not be as literal as portrayed by religion, but none the less a plausible beginning.
@antybu86 They are following a bloodthirsty god synthesized by man, afraid that a storm was the wrath of God. Or they are listening to a religious leader who distorts the word of God. The true God told us to love one another and to be peaceful.
@antybu86 I wish you would have elaborated like this a little more when mentioning option #2 because it comes across like you don't have a good rebuttal to the option. You clearly do have a good rebuttal, so why not just put it in the video?
@HaveFaithInScience Many Christians don't take everything in Exodus and other parts of the Old Testament literally. Catholic school religion class describes the plagues as possible natural disasters, believed to be God's hand. They take literally Moses' leading them from Egypt, the 10 Commandments,God's with the Hebrew people,etc. Catholic Church has decided the Old Testament's reality +symbolism. The New Testament, however, they believe is much more literal and historically accurate.
@HaveFaithInScience Even if God didn't literally make plagues or spread apart the Sea (not saying he didn't), it was Moses' faith in God that helped lead the Hebrews out of Egypt,and afterwards God did givethem the 10 Commandments. The Catholic Church does however, take Jesus' miracles literally because they prove to be more historically accurate.
@aaa333ify In the bible, god commands violence, bigotry, and slavery. Somehow, most people of differing faiths and most people of no faith have the better judgement to reject these atrocious actions.
One would assert that justice is an aspect of benevolence - thus God's perfectly just.
But mercy is also an aspect of benevolence. Thus God's perfectly merciful.
But justice and mercy are fundamentally in conflict.One doesn't throw oneself on the "justice" of the court. If I give you justice, you receive exactly what you deserve.
Mercy is different.
If I'm merciful, I don't ask if you "deserve" it. You deserve justice. Mercy's by definition undeserved. I just forgive.
@Queeranus You obviously haven't heard the maxim, "justice delayed *is* justice denied."
You also have failed to understand my point. Perfect mercy and perfect justice are both aspects of perfect benevolence - but are mutually exclusive.
If I administer perfect justice to someone who has wronged you, then he gets exactly what he deserves, But if I am perfectly merciful -- then I forgive him, without reservation.
To which you say -- "Hey, what about justice? You just let him off scot free!"
@prodprod I would argue that your idea of perfect mercy is not perfect mercy. If someone slaps you, says you're sorry, and you honestly believe them, forgive them, and let them go, that is mercy. If this happens 100 times in the next 15 minutes, are you going to let them go and forgive them every time because you have perfect mercy? No, that's not perfect mercy at all, that, is stupidity. God knows all the details on how things go down, and may postpone his judgement based upon that.
@Queeranus Once again, you simply fail to accept the consequences of "perfect" mercy. Is it "stupid" to place conditions upon forgiveness? If so, why is it any more "stupid" to place conditions upon being merciful fifty times but not fifty-one? Or five times, but not six? Or once, but not twice? Or even once? If mercy is perfect, like love, it must have no limits. You cannot say, I will love you up until X - or I will forgive you *unless* -
And again - mercy *cannot* be contingent on judgment.
@prodprod Place conditions on forgiveness? Forgiveness and mercy are two COMPLETELY different things dude. God KNOWS whether someone is genuine or not and because he is the perfect Judge, he Judges perfectly whether someone deserves mercy. Now if you want to argue whether he's a perfect Judge or not, that's a whole different argument, but don't bring it up here because I've already proven in previous comments. You also failed to prove that you even understand what "perfect" mercy is.
@Queeranus If I demand conditions for forgiveness, then my forgiveness, by definition, is *conditional* -- not perfect. To be *perfectly forgiving* -- I must by "all-forgiving" - you know, like all powerful, all knowing? All-forgiving.
Likewise, God's mercy is conditional. Some get it, some don't. If you're not "good enough" for God's mercy -- then you're screwed. According to Christian theology ninety-nine percent of humanity won't get it.
@prodprod once again... you DON'T know Christianity, so DO your research on it before you say anything. God forgives ANYONE who asks for forgiveness. And as I said before, perfect mercy does not equate to giving mercy for EVERYTHING. Are you honestly trolling? You haven't gotten anywhere or absorbed anything! Do you even read what I write????????
@prodprod Add 1+1 to get one... right.... *cough* abiogenesis + cell theory *cough*. Whether it's consistent with christian theology? No, i proved you wrong outside of any kind of theology. Notice I used an example of slapping, having nothing to do with God. Now if you want to say that you have a different definition of Perfect that's fine, but that's not consistent with what the rest of the world would say. Unconditional and perfect are not the same thing as I already showed you with mercy!
Abiogenesis, which you obviously understand as clearly as you understand logic and philosophy has what to do with this discussion? And as for your example of slapping. if my mercy is limited, then it is not perfect. It is not all-encompassing. I'll be merciful up to a point, and then no further. So I'll forgive one slap, but not a hundred. Or I'll forgive any number of slaps plus any wrong whatsoever - if you accept me as your savior - but no mercy if you don't.
@prodprod You forget however, that God is the perfect judge and omniscient! He knows when someone is going to be sincere and so is able to administer perfect mercy! Jesus has nothing to do with God's mercy to us, when we accept him he cleanses our soul and makes it holy. He gives us his holy spirit. I was merely stating that abiogenesis and cell theory clash like night and day and add 1+1 to get 17. Unless you believe some non-God religion such as Buddhism, you believe abiogenesis.
Again, and yet again, and yet again and forevermore, you still don't get the point.
It doesn't matter whether someone is sincere. That is a *criterion* for mercy. A *criterion* for forgiveness. That makes perfect sense as a measure for justice.
Justice is deserved. Mercy is gift. A perfect gift giver gives full measure to all. If you only got gifts as a reward for what you'd earned - they wouldn't really be gifts - they'd be salary.
If Mercy is a kind of reward, then it's mere justice.
@prodprod No YOU don't get the point! We have different definitions for perfect mercy! Your definition conforms to man's understanding of "perfect" mercy. I know that men are fools and those who think themselves wise will be shown to be fools. We DON'T know everything. I tried to explain what perfect mercy is as best I could to you using logic, but you just HAVE to be right because that's what the dictionary says. Man made the dictionary, and man is fallible by definition, God is infallible.
We obviously have different definitions of perfect mercy. No kidding. But you don't get to simply elevate your definition to the status of divine inspiration and claim victory accordingly. Men are fools and fallible? So what are you? An angel? Logic simply has to do with the "consequences" of given definitions. If you choose a definition of "perfect mercy" that is, by definition imperfect then, surprise, your definition will "logically" be completely absurd, which it is.
@prodprod Your statements go both ways my friend, so I guess I can only say and see that you have ignored why I logically consider your definition to be incorrect. No need to respond to that. Now if you had proven my definition wrong that would be one thing, but you did not.
And how does one go about "proving" a definition wrong, other than by recourse to authority? Say, by pointing to a dictionary, which you rejected as being merely "man-made?" You're trying to score a victory for your "logic" by recourse to "divine authority" but unless the heavens open up and we actually get a ruling from on high, I'm afraid that's not going to win this one for you.
So if the "dictionary" defines words in a certain way, and I use those words that way - then yes. I'm right.
Against what do you measure the fallibility of a book that simply lists definitions of words derived from the lexicographer's judgments of common and on-going usage?
I suppose you might agree or disagree as to the lexicographer's inclusion of a particular word or a particular usage of a word on *that basis" -- that a usage is *insufficiently common* -- but at best that would be a statistical objection.
You can't deny a definition on a factual basis. Usage determines meaning.
@prodprod I got my definition from the bible? Usage does NOT determine meaning! If the Nazi's commonly used the word perfect to describe Hitler then they were right in that Hitler represented perfection? I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying your logic is wrong.
There's a difference between the "use* of a word and the "usage" of a word.
That is, if everyone for many generations took a word that originally meant "left-handed" and used it to mean evil and untrustworthy then today, were I to refer to your behavior or motives as "sinister" -- you wouldn't think that I was calling you "left-handed" -- even though that's the original definition of the word.
Usage has *redefined* the meaning of that word, in the same way that it originally defined it.
@prodprod Nope, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what I say and it doesn't matter to you whether you're wrong or not. Because to you, both the dictionary and yourself are infallible. You did nothing to disprove my point, the dictionary is still fallible.
A dictionary may be wrong only to the extent that it can wrongly define a word relative to its usage. If a dictionary says that *dog* is defined as an animal with hoofs and fins - then that dictionary is wrong.
But it's wrong because that's not how the word *dog* is generally used.
The way in which the word is generally understood *is* what the word means. The way in which any word is generally understood *is* what any word means.
It certainly doesn't change the fact that we have two words - perfect and mercy and that you have managed to put them together in reference to a being who manages to show mercy to a microscopically small percentage of the human race (namely only those people who accept him) and condemn all others to eternal torment in hell -
- but somehow or other you consider that these three terms - "perfect," "mercy" and "virtually everyone burns in hell for eternity" to be mutually consistent.
@prodprod Also, merely because something is a maxim, does not mean that it is of absolute truth and certainty. Using it as a proof simply does not work. I would agree with that maxim, within the life of an Individual, as our lives are undeniably finite. However, eternity works much differently, since it's well.... eternity (infinite just in case you didn't know that already).
I would assert that eternal punishment or reward renders all concepts of justice utterly meaningless.
If you give a penny to charity and I reward you by giving you a trillion tons of gold, you might consider that to be a reward slightly out of balance to your good deed. Likewise, if you steal a penny and I punish you by torturing you for life - ditto.
But the above pales in comparison to *eternal* reward or punishment for any earthly good or evil. It is inherently unjust (nor merciful).
@prodprod Well you would assert wrong. The Catholic church is the only church that even implies that good deeds are what get you into heaven. How can you argue against God and Christianity if you don't even know what they are? Jesus is the way to heaven, not any number of good deeds. Also, we as human beings DO NOT understand the weight of sin. Because we are not judged immediately and don't see the consequences we fail to see how truly heinous sin is.
So far as I can tell the "heinous" sin consists of Eve disobeying God when she was incapable of even understanding what sin was - because she hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil - and thus could not know that it was wrong to disobey God. And while she could have known, having eaten, that it was wrong to offer the fruit to Adam, *he* couldn't have sinned when he ate it.
So the "heinous" sin that condemns us all is one woman giving a piece of fruit to a guy?
@prodprod Where did you get that she was incapable of understanding that she didn't know it was wrong? The knowledge of good and evil is not the same as knowing right from wrong. She knew it was wrong to eat the fruit, she was FOOLED into eating it thinking not that it was wrong, but that it wouldn't matter if she was wrong because she would be like God. Just because something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is or isn't a sin! Key concept in that last sentence!
So they knew right from wrong but not good from evil? And taking the apple was wrong but not evil? Well, according Webster, evil is "morally reprehensible or sinful" and "wrong" is an "injurious or unjust act."
So how is the taking of the apple characterized? As the Original Injury? As the Original Unjust Act? Oh -- it's called the Original Sin." A moral evil."
But they had no knowledge of moral good or evil.
Nor right or wrong, according to any word of the OT.
@prodprod If she didn't know it was wrong then why did she hesitate? She wouldn't even have questioned. Ahem, let me demonstrate the difference between right/wrong and good/evil. If I decide to bookdrop some kid for no reason, I don't really see how you could see that as anything BUT wrong. Is that evil though? Certainly not by my definition of evil. God is NOT going to send someone to hell because they were perfect their whole lives but decided to bookdrop some random stranger some day.
@Queeranus She hesitated because God told her that the day she ate of the fruit, she would die. The serpent told her that this was a lie. The serpent told her the truth. She ate of the fruit. She did *not* die that day. Instead, she gained knowledge of good and evil. God lied. The serpent spoke the truth. And a thousand generations of apologists pretend that the "literally inerrant" words need to actually say something other than what they literally say in order to be "literally true."
@prodprod Adam and Eve were immortal while in the Garden. Nor did God lie, he did not say that they would die immediately, he said that they would experience death.
Gen. 2. 17 ..but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEROF thou shalt surely die.
Oh, and man was immortal? Gen. 3.22 - And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat AND LIVE FOREVER therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.
@prodprod Man was immortal because of the the tree of Life which he would eat from every day. Also, day... if day is even a thousand years (not taken literally) then it still holds true. Good points, but is Genesis to be taken literally? Science says no, I do love Science, and I would also say no, more than likely not. What you have pointed out most certainly points to it not being taken literally.
And you wonder why I call what you say utter drivel?
The Bible is the word of God -- except it says a day, but that probably means a thousand years. Or maybe a million years. Or really whatever you want.
And even though the OT explicitly says that God drove Adam out of the garden in order to KEEP HIM from eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal, you simply assert that he had been eating and was immortal before that.
@prodprod Already you forgot that Revelations IS coded. It doesn't take long to figure that out, nor should it take long to figure out that Genesis could just as easily be.
I didn't forget that people "claim" that Revelations is coded.
And why is it that they do? Because if you take it literally -- first, it didn't come true when it was supposed to and, second, it read like a crazy fever dream.
So what is the code? Oh - the code is however you choose to interpret it so that Armageddon is just about to happen in the next few years.
In fact, one thing has always been sure - End Times right around the corner, where they've been for the last 2000 years.
Only if morality is derived from the same make-believe source as your book of revelations, which it isn't -- although I'm not exactly sure what moral "fiber" is -- is that a kind of spiritual roughage that one takes just prior to divine revelation? Sort of helps it go down easier?
@prodprod Don't you understand that morality is a figment of man's imagination if God or Karma doesn't exist? So either it comes from something supernatural, or it doesn't exist! If you choose to live with morals that's great, please do, but if there is nothing supernatural in this world and you get away with stealing like Bill Gates did then good for you! You did a great service to yourself and so did Bill Gates. I however refuse to believe that morality is man made.
Saying so doesn't make it so. You've failed to advance any evidence for your position whatsoever after all this time and have failed even to adequately define your terms, which even you don't seem to understand, so irrespective of what you choose to believe (which seems to be the heart and substance of your so-called argument) I actually require evidence to accept a position. I have evidence of patterns of human behavior, natural explanations to account for those behaviors and need nothing more.
@prodprod ... I am done with you since you don't even understand logic. Saying so? THAT IS SO. Morality is man-made according to you and as such is a result of man's imagination. Imagined=Real right? NO!!!!!!! Should I even have responded to this? NO
Q, your argument are growing more feeble by the post. So that which is the product of imagination is not real? So a symphony, an invention, a painting - all the products of man's imagination, and all "man-made" thus are *not* real according to you?
I think they are all real, just as morality, like philosophy, or aesthetics, as a human invention, is also real.
By all means, don't respond, as you are out of steam and obviously have been out of steam for a long time.
@prodprod No, it is not a part of reality until it is no longer in one's IMAGINATION. By all means, don't respond, as you are out of steam and obviously have been out of steam for a long time. Please, just TRY to refute that, please do. A symphony is not real until written or performed. An invention is not real until it is written down or brought to life. It is PERHAPS only real as the cellular make-up in one's brain as a memory if that is even how it works (psychology still doesn't know).
Well, morality" isn't revealed until it is expressed as human behavior, in the same way that philosophy isn't revealed until, likewise conveyed through human expression. They might still be real in the sense that our thoughts are real, even if they have not been expressed to others. As you indicate, our thoughts are real, in some physical sense, as the mental activity of our brains - although it's a legitimate question as to whether mere thoughts alone have moral content.
@prodprod Morality isn't revealed until it is expressed as human behavior only IF God is not real. It does nothing to change Morality as man-made and not necessarily universally binding.
@prodprod Now if you wish to argue what merits what punishment, that is putting yourself above God as a perfect judge. I don't need to know you to say that you're not a perfect judge.
You don't have to be perfect to understand the concept of fairness.
No finite good merits infinite reward. No finite evil merits infinite punishment. No claim about original sin gets you out of it, because all human acts are finite, thus none can be considered "infinitely evil."
If you think that you're capable of constructing a logical argument that demonstrates the contrary, do so - and "we can't understand God's mysterious ways" I'm afraid isn't a term in a logically constructed argument.
Theodicy is not "a branch of theology" but rather a philosophical and theological /problem/. Of course, many theologians have tried (and failed to) solve it, but if theodicy is not the answer, it is the question, and one to which the only really logical answer is, that there is probably no god.
OH MY GOSH, I can't tell you how much I LOVE logic and HATE this video! The logical equations are incomplete, you have failed to take into account SO many things. Your arguments are just ASKING to be torn up and destroyed.
This video assumes that morality is greater than God. ITS LOGIC is flawed. It also assumes that we have a perfect interpretation of morality, which we MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT.
Well, this is the Euthyphro dilemma. If you're saying that morality is dictated by God, then I would argue that it's not morality at all - it's just taking orders.
This counter argument assumes that if morality is independent of God that it somehow automatically makes God a messenger. He is the one who MADE morality and he defines morality not by what he does or says but by what he IS. He is the existence of perfect morality, which we do not understand because our sense of morals is imperfect. This is THE flaw in your logic, and if you somehow manage to in your mind weasel your way out of this then congratulations, you are a master of words, but not logic.
Uh yeah...... too bad that's NOT what I said. God defining something by his being/existence is not the same as BEING what he is defining. Dude... i've torn every single one of your arguments to shreds and you still have yet to come back at me with any kind of TRULY logical or scientific response. You see, I love logic, I love science, I am not ignorant, I know the theories of atheism, evolution, and science very well. I am studying to be a Doctor, and yet, I am a Christian, why is that? RESEARCH
This still doesn't fly. We assign all sorts of qualities to God what we define independently. We talk of power and of God being all-powerful. We talk of knowledge, but of God being all-powerful. We talk of "presence" and of God being "all-present" -- all of these concepts can be easily understood without any recourse to God as a defining agent.
If "goodness" is only that which God commands, then that assertion fails to answer the question of what goodness is, in itself.
@prodprod I never said that goodness is that which God commands. Also, our ability to understand morality by ourselves (which I would argue against, but that's aside from the point), does nothing to disprove anything that I said. Also, without God or a higher power or some kind of Universal karma, then morality is pointless and a figment of imagination. If all is nigh then if I shoot you and get away with it then nothing will happen to me as a result regardless of if whether or not it's "wrong."
So you're saying that the "point" of good and evil is whether you receive punishment or reward for having done it? No, Q - that's what we call self interest.
If the point of morality is in its consequence, then what is the point of God doing good? He doesn't act in expectation of punishment or reward.
Oh, God does good because good is worth doing *in itself?""
And what determines this? If it is only God's command, then it's arbitrary.
If good is good in itself, then it's not from God.
@prodprod Perhaps a better word would be non-existent rather than pointless. I just feel that the word pointless gets the... point... across better in the mind of the reader. I could argue that point further, but I feel no need. God does good because that's... simply what he does and he is satisfied with it. Also, I already addressed your other concerns in previous comments, you are being redundant.
If you've managed to satisfy yourself, well then, like "god's goodness" -- I trust that your points constitute whatever point you were aiming to make for yourself.
If you think you've actually advanced a coherent argument to me, you have, I'm afraid, failed.
God does good on account it's in his nature to do good on account of like - he's just a great big inherent mass of intrinsically self-defined goodness - whatever "goodness" is.
@prodprod If i think I advanced a coherent argument? I DID, and If you can't see that at the very least my argument was coherent, then there is no point in replying to anything you say because you fail to understand logic. Don't try to act all smart if you can't even comprehend what I'm trying to say. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it is invalid. Oh wait, I forgot, the world revolves around you...
What do you mean by "good?" What do you mean by "moral?" What do you mean by "just?" What do you mean by "merciful?" What do you mean by "forgiving?"
Unless we have independent definitions of these terms, how can we even begin to determine whether God, or anyone or anything else possesses these qualities or lacks them?
And if you can define these qualities independent of God -- from whence come your definitions?
@prodprod .... I dont know why I bother with you when it won't get anyone anywhere since all you do is talk. I said that AFTER I had proven your assertions wrong. Are those words really in need of operational definitions? I know forgiveness (waive desire for punishment) and Moral (right vs wrong) arent, I think youre running out of things to say. Mercy-leniency and compassion shown toward offenders, good-that which God defines and understands as morally admirable vs that which we THINK is good
So perfect forgiveness would thus be waiving *all* desire for punishment - but not in your world. And perfect mercy would be "total* leniency toward "all* offenders - but not in your world
To say right vs. wrong without further defining the meaning of these terms is to say nothing at all.
If you think saying that good is that which God *defines as morally admirable* says something more coherent than good is "that which God commands" - it doesn't.
@prodprod That doesn't even matter, I didn't say that "good" deeds are what is even of any importance. But not in my world? Um no, how about you ask a quality parent, whether or not they WANT to discipline their child. They will all tell you that they would prefer not to, but at the same time if they DON'T discipline their child then he/she will turn out to be a total BRAT. Your logic is flawed. Dude... I don't know what world you live in... but I live in the real world.
Keep ducking the question. Maybe you can pretend that's as good as an answer.
On what basis do I punish or reward my child? For "doing good?" For shunning evil? Or for doing right and avoiding wrong? Two different things according to you, though you still neglect to specify what any of these terms mean other than by lazy recourse to "God's nature" -- which is, of course self-determined - by God - but nevertheless incapable of being altered - even by God.
@prodprod No, I don't think that God can alter himself. Nor do I think you can take God out of the equation if he is the one who made right from wrong and good and evil. Nor am I ducking any question, just because you're not satisfied with my answer doesn't mean it is inadequate. Punish your kid however you want? It doesn't matter, just do a good job raising him cuz you'll never do it perfectly because we aren't perfect. I answered this question in another response. The Spirit is tainted.
Of course God can't alter himself -- any more than he can make a rock too heavy to lift. Because omnipotence is logically impossible. Oh - that's right. God is omnipotent, except that he can't do the logically impossible. Except that omnipotence itself is logically impossible. Meaning that an omnipotent God is logically impossible.
And saying that God "made right from wrong and good from evil" still doesn't say what the difference is between them.
@prodprod Look, I'm not trying to have an academic debate with you dude. I'm going to maintain the assumption that unless I state otherwise, you know what commonly used english words mean. So please stop with your meaningless statements of "meaning". I already addressed "that which God commands" vs defines in a previous comment. Why is it that I continually find myself saying that? If you use flawed logic (as usual) in any more responses from now on I'm just going to say illogical in response.
I'm glad you're not trying to have an "academic" debate, because you're failing miserably. And I'm sorry if you find my attempts at deriving meaning from your drivel as "meaningless statements."
Ditto. and double ditto with virtually everything that you and most theists say most of the time. The fact that you live in a community of like minded drivelers who simply accept one another's drivel is lucky for you and your fellow drivelers, but it places no requirement on me to accept your drivel.
@prodprod No it doesn't require anything, but you've heard all of the things I've said from other people? Really? I havent, I always hear "because that's how God made it." Which is not adequate nor is it science. I love science, I love logic, and I'm well on my way towards becoming a doctor. As of right now my lowest grade in any class is around a 95 and that is with one HORRIBLE teacher. If you think that science and logic are drivel then who or what are you? You contradict your very own being.
@Queeranus If you haven't heard them, then you haven't been around very long. And nothing having to do with God is "science" and if you don't know that you know neither theology nor science. And I doubt that you have even a passing acquaintance with logic, formal or otherwise based on your inability to structure a decent logical argument. But the more I talk to you the younger you seem and I'm starting to fear that I've been wasting my time (sorry to say) with some kid in high school).
@prodprod Lol, so what if I was in high school, are knowledge and wisdom dependent upon age? I am not in high school, thank you very much mr. "ad hominem." Also... if God MADE science, how does that make the two of them independent of one another? Perhaps I should have responded to this by simply saying illogical.
Actually, it would be a "genetic fallacy" not an ad hominen -- if I were using it to suggest that your arguments were invalid on the basis that you were in high school. Which I wasn't. I was simply suggesting that, *based on the quality of your arguments" I was beginning to suspect that you were in high school.
And it's obvious that, however long you've been around, you must be unacquainted with the principle of methodological naturalism, on which all scientific investigation is based.
@prodprod "Some kid in high school." No that's not derogatory at alll... and you do realize that science was STARTED in order to explain how God made and ran the world?
Just because it's derogatory doesn't make it an ad hominem.
As for Science being started in order to explain God -- Genetic Fallacy.
Also, depending on how one defines science, as a study of the natural world, it was certainly pursued by the ancient Greeks, Persians, etc. so at best you'd have to say, how the GODS made and ran the world, although the more accurate statement would simply be that they wanted to study how the "world" ran. They simply believed that gods were part of it.
@prodprod Right, if you say so, cuz it even matters what is and isn't ad hominem. Mmm gotta love misquotations. Science was not started to explain God. Please don't respond to this because it is going nowhere.
@prodprod PLEASE read the bible before responding to anything else I say. What you constitute as Christianity in your head is not how the bible presents it. Christians may be hypocrites but that doesnt mean that Christianity is flawed. Even if you claim to have read the bible, you dont understand Christianity. You have misrepresented it twice merely within our little rambles back and forth. Christianity is not without logic or science! Look up DNA as proof of God and read the bible! Do research!
@Queeranus I'm supposed to look up DNA as proof of God? And this has something to do with the Bible? You mean the Bible that describes the the earth having been made in four days, with the sun, the moon and all of the stars -- in one day -- after plants were made? The Bible that describes the sky as a solid dome with water above it? The "Christianity" that endorses slavery? The Jesus that preached the imminent end of the world - 2000 years ago?
@prodprod Okay then mr. fancy pants, read the new testament, or at the very least the 4 gospels. Whether the earth is old or new doesn't do anything to disprove DNA as proof of God if you will choose to stop being ignorant and do some research. Hmm... isn't that what atheists accuse Christians of doing?
Oh, so you're dragging out the ragged banner of ID, re-shellacked with the already disproved patina of "information theory" as proof of God. Ho-ho-ho-hum. Why not try beating me down with the mighty staff of "no new information can be created" - except that it can be and is.
And your assumption that I haven't read both OT and NT, is yet more posturing. The entire basis of the NT is built on Adam and Eve - thus the truth of Genesis.
But if Genesis is true, *all* natural sciences are false.
@prodprod That last statement isn't true... not even if genesis is taken literally as God COULD have made everything in motion quite easily, and while that isn't science it does nothing to void science of its truth. No one ever said however that you have to take genesis literally. Revelations isn't literal at ALL, it's all coded. Also, if you did read the bible you didn't get it right the first time around that's for sure because if you had I wouldn't have had to have corrected you on anything.
You have yet to correct me on anything, except in your own mind. And if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then all of Christianity, in turn, falls. How could there be a real Blood Sacrifice and Resurrection for a figurative metaphorical Fall of Man?
And if the Garden is real, and God making man from clay and Eve from a rib, then the whole 6 day creation story must be true, as described - the Earth made in 4 days, the rest of the universe -- some 50 billion galaxies, made in 1.
@prodprod You have yet to correct me on anything, except in your own mind. Was that a quote or did I just say that to you? I'll give you a hint, it's the latter of the two. What a pointless statement, I have used logic every step of the way and have not been illogical once. I never said that EVERYTHING was coded and figurative. You assumed that, something you tend to do QUITE a bit.
@prodprod Also, you misunderstand how it works. It is not mere information theory. Nor is it or could it possibly be disproved until abiogensis occurs. DNA is a language (which requires intelligence to exist or have been created) and yet it is required for even the most basic of cell life. The idea that there were organisms that are simpler than the most basic of cells today is NOT science, it is an untestable hypothesis, which barely even makes sense.
Your lack of understanding of the basis of abiogenesis is matched only by your exceptionally limited understanding of the Old Testament.
DNA isn't a language, and cells were not the first kind of living organisms - not by hundreds of millions of years. And the fact that something doesn't make sense to you or your ID cronies isn't the test of whether it's scientifically valid or testable.
And your alternate "scientific" theory? A big ghost made everything with magic for reasons of his own.
@prodprod Dude, you're wrong, I'm just gonna have to leave it at that. There is NO reason why we wouldn't see this pre-life form today if it happened to form by random chance. You assume that it both hasn't happened again for who knows what reason, AND that these creatures for some reason went extinct. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, ASSUMING IS DIFFERENT THAN HYPOTHESIZING.
"Dude" -- you obviously know so little about this issue, that not only are you not right, you aren't even wrong and I can't even begin to school you on the subject of the current scientific theories of abiogenesis in the remaining 250 characters available to me. If you're really interested, which I doubt, there are many sources, on-line and in print that can give you more detailed information than I can.
Even if we had no current natural explanation that wouldn't justify an appeal to magic.
@prodprod I will do more research on it, but it won't change anything. The details of how life can from no life does not change the fact that life doesn't come from not life. Also, there is a difference between "magic" and unlimited power.
Right, whatever you do, as a committed theist, never let facts get in the way of what you know to be true.
And as for the difference between "magic" and "unlimited power?"
Yeah. Magic lets you do anything at all just by wanting to do it without any rules or limits, for instance just by "saying words" and then something just comes into existence.
On the other hand, "unlimited power" is very different. It let's you -- oh, hold on, wait a minute --
@prodprod Magic doesn't exist. Power does. I'm glad you're making claims now instead of using logic, it shows me that you know how to circle back to things already covered or change the subject when you're wrong.
You're right. Magic doesn't exist. The "power" to say a word and make a unicorn come into existence doesn't happen. Or the power to say a word and make a universe come into existence - that also doesn't happen.
Because magic "power" doesn't exist. Just like trees exist, but not magic trees. Or fruit but not magic fruit. Or beings but not magic beings.
Oh, and if the word "magic" offends you, just substitute supernatural or miraculous or any word you like better but which means the same thingn
@prodprod I can 100% guarantee if you go looking for one for the rest of your life for however long it is, you WILL find a miracle. Something that cannot possibly be explained by coincidence. I can't say you'll see one with your own eyes, but the question you must ask is: Are ALL of these people hypocrites or crazy? Because liar doesn't quite cut it as a Christian. YES, you will find crazy people, and YES you will find hypocrites, but it's the people that aren't either that you have to question.
Q, I have no doubt that you and others who believe as you do are sincere. Nor do I think you are crazy. I think that you are committed to a supernatural world view -- that what I would call nature, you would call, for want of a better term, merely the "appearance" of nature. The earth doesn't move around the sun nor objects fall to earth because they are bound to by their nature, but because God wills it. If a moment from now his will directed them to do otherwise, they would.
(cont'd) Thus the only "real" nature is God's nature, which is essentially limitless and unbounded, It is what I would call "supernatural." While God obviously doesn't do most things most of the time, it might at any point do almost anything. Raise the dead, heal the sick. Move a mountain. End the Earth.
You are correct to say that I reject the idea of a supernatural universe and find the idea of a combined "natural/supernatural" universe incoherent. It's one or the other.
(cont'd) And all of the evidence leads me to conclude that existence can only be coherently and satisfactorily explained by a "natural" universe consisting of entities that have "innate" qualities, rather than ones assigned to them from an immaterial "outside" of existence, a concept that to me, is simply incoherent.
Whatever happens, happens within existence and thus "within nature" and must necessarily be a part of nature, whether we can currently explain it or not.
@prodprod Interesting point of view. I have never heard of anyone with that point of view before. But i don't believe your "definition" of nature is what you would find in the dictionary : ) (not trying to be rude or evoke a response but be witty rather and poke fun lol, no need to respond or refute)
Well, "poking fun" aside -- I'm using the word nature in the larger sense of "the external world in its entirety" and also the more specific sense of "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing" -- both definitions to be found in Websters, among a number of other less relevant definitions.
I obviously appreciate that we disagree on this subject -- but I'm certainly not making up my own definitions.
@prodprod DNA is a language as defined not by the traditional use of the word but by the programming sense of the word and you CANNOT deny that no matter what you believe. If you do, you are being ignorant.
@prodprod Then please do summarize it for me if you believe I do not know better. You're not knocking down information theory, and you can't say that DNA is not a language because if you do then you AREN'T acquainted with the argument.
I'm sorry if you fail to understand the difference between language and information. DNA, through RNA transmits "information" -- language is also the means by which human brains transmits information. A lens also transmits information when light passes through it and is focused from one place to another. That doesn't mean that the light that passes through a lens is language nor that DNA is a language, or that RNA is, or that a lens is.
@prodprod I'm sorry if you fail to understand the difference between language and information. DNA is a language because it is coded. Information is raw, it is not coded. Randomisty and chaos do not encode. Your brain codes and decodes, because it is intelligent.
@Queeranus One can determine the underlying structure of a molecule by examining the structure of a crystal grown from that material, but in what sense is that "raw" information? The "raw" information of the molecule's structure is the structure of the molecule itself. yet one can "derive" the structure of the molecule by studying the crystalline structure -- the underlying structure is "encoded" in the crystal, yet a crystal is not a language nor evidence of an intelligent "coder."
@prodprod Is that a "code" that is meant to be decoded? A code as defined by computer science (the same science I used to refer to langauge) Code: the -symbolic arrangement of data or instructions- in a computer program, or the set of such instructions. Is there a comma in between data and or? Do the cystals contain, or are they instructions as defined by computer science? Instruction: a line of code written as part of a computer program. While DNA is not a computer program, it IS a program.
It's always extremely risky to push metaphors further than they ought to go. It is altogether too tempting to embrace this metaphor of DNA "codons" as the "language" of life as it were a literal language for the human program.
One could assert that a molecule is a program, or a blueprint, for building a crystal, since molecules do build crystals in the same way (that is, through chemical processes) that DNA builds a living thing -- but what does that tell us about molecules or crystals?
@prodprod A program as defined by computer science: A sequence of instructions that a computer can interpret and execute. When we substitute the would be's for both the molecule and DNA, Computer is replaced by Cell, and Molecule would be replaced by... Nature? Does nature interpret and execute or is a crystal simply the result of nature and natural laws being put into place. One could argue execution... but interpretation? ONLY IF nature had/has intelligence.
Suicide bombers are doing only what they are TOLD is right by extremists of the Islam faith who misinterpret the entire meaning of the Quoran
God has never "ordered" us to take violent action against other believers in Him, and certainly not in His name. So to say that following His orders lead to "evil" is a mistaken argument, because if you follow any order He gives, it will lead to only good.
Jesus preached love & forgiveness throughout the NT, and the claim is that God = Jesus, vice versa
Well, suicide bombers certainly believe they are doing the work of God. So, why doesn't he correct their mistake? It seems like it'd be an easy thing for him to do.
@antybu86 they believe they are, only because of what they're being told by the "true believers" (who tell them lies in order to get the result they want)
And the question of "Why does God allow evil to exist?" has been theorized about since philosophy was first put into practice.
The whole premise of evil exists, imo, so that we can tell right from evil...and make the choice to do right. Without evil we don't need God's help, or even God for that matter. It humbles us and brings us to Him
My question is this: Why does God allow people who are convinced that they are doing good to continue under that conviction when they are wrong? If these are people who sincerely want to do good, then why doesn't God attempt to correct them on their mistake>
Again, I can only speak from my philosophical perspectives and opinions...but here's my take on your question:
If God simply corrected every evil mindset, stopped every murder and theft, and eliminated entirely these things that are evil, everyone would simply become a Christian because they know that God will just eliminate any evil, and believe only because there's no doubt whatsoever..God doesn't want those kinds of Christians, He wants the blind faith and unconditional believers
I'm not even talking about god correcting evil mindsets or stopping all murder and theft... I'm talking about the people who are trying to do GOOD, but are unknowingly doing evil. Why wouldn't God make an attempt to clarify his message for them?
Say you're poor and you want to help your family, and someone comes along and offers to sell you some stock in a sure-fire gold mine. So you take all of your savings and the money that should go to pay for the mortgage -- all the money you've got in the world -- and buy the gold mine stocks.
Which are worthless. Because he's a con artist. And you are an idiot. And now you end up on the street with the family you tried to help.
Hmmm, so if god does not exist, then life will end eventually, if life will end eventually there will not be someone to acknowledge that we ever existed, if no one aknowledges we existed lr that anything ever existed, then did anything exist?
Hypothetically, if you try and imagine a world where religion never existed and no one believed in a God and we all shared the same beliefs, do you honestly believe people would never have been murderous, racist, sexist, homophobic etc. or find some other excuse to crash a plane into a building or start a war?
MrAuthentic314 2 months ago
Who is the plagarist and what did he plagarize?
every116 2 months ago
Would you say omnibenevolence implies a lack of capacity to do unloving things or to be unloving? Because certainly omnibenevolence implies that you do only loving things and if you do unloving things you contradict yourself. Implying you can only do loving things.
retrogamerist 3 months ago
Option 2 is where most apologists would go but you just brushed over it. It's a reasonable position (if you're a Christian).
dookdawg214 5 months ago
God has no evidence to support his existence after all these years. Give it up, people. You're clinging to self delusion because you're afraid to die.
FlyingPinkUnicorn 5 months ago
@FlyingPinkUnicorn ::: When you know what to expect, you are not afraid to die. Look at the testimonies of those who have NDEs; they look forward to death.
k0smon 4 months ago
Your ''argument'' from good intentions falls apart against a god that does not pertain to doctrine.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
What is the good action if you chose between shooting Hitler on the spot or letting him live and kill millions of people?
Good actions doesn't always meet our criteria for good.
dannywizz 9 months ago
@theRekcabofD Your god created hell, so that puts at least secondary responsibility on him.
And faith (belief without/despite evidence) is no gift; it is one of the most destructive vices imaginable: it is self-delusion.
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD Miracles and Bible verses? You have effectively conceded the argument. I wonder: if your god loves everyone, why does he send nonbelievers to hell?
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma.
I should also add that you're addressing a particular conception of God which not everyone shares. This is something like the orthodox Christian view, and you may be straw man-ing by addressing only that.
KittenButter 1 year ago
@KittenButter
How is the Euthyphro dilemma a false one?
If God isn't omnipotent then there is an answer: he can't... "he's impotent"
If God doesn't want to or doesn't feel like it or doesn't care then there is an answer: he won't "he's malevolent"
Feeding all the starving children in the world? Nah... Preventing all rapes and murder... nope.
How is this a false dilemma? As nerdy as it is Yoda's statement holds true for omnipotent beings "do or do not there is no try"
999theshadow999 6 months ago
O___O''
Sorry I thought you were talking about a different arguement... Man I feel stupid.
999theshadow999 6 months ago
@theRekcabofD I doubt that ANY interpretation of ANY holy book (esp. your bible) is correct. In your bible's case, it has been translated, edited, copied and re-copied so many times that meanings are certain to have changed greatly. Even in the original language, no admissible evidence exists that your bible is the "one true word of god."
Also, I see religious faith (belief without or in spite of evidence) as one of the worst vices anyone can partake in; it is overt self-delusion.
SpyHotz404 1 year ago 2
@theRekcabofD Whose interpretation is correct? Christianity boasts over 36,000 known denominations who interpret your bible differently; all claim that theirs is correct. Plus, this does not include INDIVIDUAL interpretation, which is far more diverse.
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
As for the "whore" reference, your book repeatedly calls "fallen and sinful" without your god. That is equivalent to a groomsman going into LURID detail about the bride's (premarital) sex life.
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD It does a rather poor job of that if benevolence...esp. OMNIbenevolence is one of your god's character traits. Your analogy is also poor; would ANYONE in a wedding insult the bride by calling her a whore?
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD If your god is fundamentally inscrutable to the human mind, how can anyone claim to know same god's actual will? The bible? Even if divinely inspired, human minds still had to filter and intrepret the information being fed them.
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
Except following God's 'commands' doesn't lead to evil actions.
People don't always know Gods commands and some try to 'improvise' for God out of ignorance of his actual will. People may choose not to learn his commands out of defiance or other things, or with their own innocent ignorance be easily deceived into believing they know Gods commands without hearing them for themselves.
FelixTheGhost 1 year ago
@FelixTheGhost but...what objective method is there to detect whether a given command ACTUALLY comes from your god? Where are the (relatively) immediate consequences for disobedience?
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
hmm...this is your weakest argument in the series. I really like your others though
skepticnyc 1 year ago
I'll go with the crazy, homofobic, cruel, murderous, evil, immoral, stupid racist dont exist.
Zipzap220 1 year ago 10
I say this with no intention of disagreement or disrespect seeing as all of your arguments are perfectly sound. However, I've seen many arguments from both sides and have found the only logical conclusion then, is a God(s) with no traits. To me the arguments do a wonderful job of dismantling religion, but not of dismissing the possibility of a God(s) which can be ascribed to the beginning of all things. It may not be as literal as portrayed by religion, but none the less a plausible beginning.
TheKissmyasthma99 1 year ago
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not mutually exclusive.
Just because god *can* do anything, does not mean he *has to* do everything.
God still has the choice of doing that which is morally sound, even though he could do that which is morally uncouth.
tovadaq 1 year ago
@tovadaq: yes, they are mutually exclusive.
An omnipotent god would never have created lucifer - knowing that in doing so, he was condemning millions to hell.
DMFmonster 1 year ago
@DMFmonster Which makes this particular god a creep.
It still doesn't mean that because you *can* do everything you *have to*, *want to* or *will* do everything...
tovadaq 1 year ago
God's commands are good, but sometimes people are too lazy or too scared to follow them, so they do evil.
aaa333ify 1 year ago
@aaa333ify But what about people who are dedicated to following God's commands, but end up doing evil things?
antybu86 1 year ago 19
@antybu86 They are following a bloodthirsty god synthesized by man, afraid that a storm was the wrath of God. Or they are listening to a religious leader who distorts the word of God. The true God told us to love one another and to be peaceful.
xtcarnage15586 1 year ago
@antybu86 I wish you would have elaborated like this a little more when mentioning option #2 because it comes across like you don't have a good rebuttal to the option. You clearly do have a good rebuttal, so why not just put it in the video?
lunagalapogos 3 months ago
@aaa333ify so when God ordered the killing of all the firstborn sons of Egypt that command was good?
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
@HaveFaithInScience Many Christians don't take everything in Exodus and other parts of the Old Testament literally. Catholic school religion class describes the plagues as possible natural disasters, believed to be God's hand. They take literally Moses' leading them from Egypt, the 10 Commandments,God's with the Hebrew people,etc. Catholic Church has decided the Old Testament's reality +symbolism. The New Testament, however, they believe is much more literal and historically accurate.
aaa333ify 1 year ago
@HaveFaithInScience Even if God didn't literally make plagues or spread apart the Sea (not saying he didn't), it was Moses' faith in God that helped lead the Hebrews out of Egypt,and afterwards God did givethem the 10 Commandments. The Catholic Church does however, take Jesus' miracles literally because they prove to be more historically accurate.
aaa333ify 1 year ago
@aaa333ify In the bible, god commands violence, bigotry, and slavery. Somehow, most people of differing faiths and most people of no faith have the better judgement to reject these atrocious actions.
ninjaduc1 1 year ago
Another problem.
One would assert that justice is an aspect of benevolence - thus God's perfectly just.
But mercy is also an aspect of benevolence. Thus God's perfectly merciful.
But justice and mercy are fundamentally in conflict.One doesn't throw oneself on the "justice" of the court. If I give you justice, you receive exactly what you deserve.
Mercy is different.
If I'm merciful, I don't ask if you "deserve" it. You deserve justice. Mercy's by definition undeserved. I just forgive.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod God's mercy is not eliminating Justice, it is postponing it. Everyone answers eventually, no one is spared in the long run.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus You obviously haven't heard the maxim, "justice delayed *is* justice denied."
You also have failed to understand my point. Perfect mercy and perfect justice are both aspects of perfect benevolence - but are mutually exclusive.
If I administer perfect justice to someone who has wronged you, then he gets exactly what he deserves, But if I am perfectly merciful -- then I forgive him, without reservation.
To which you say -- "Hey, what about justice? You just let him off scot free!"
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod I would argue that your idea of perfect mercy is not perfect mercy. If someone slaps you, says you're sorry, and you honestly believe them, forgive them, and let them go, that is mercy. If this happens 100 times in the next 15 minutes, are you going to let them go and forgive them every time because you have perfect mercy? No, that's not perfect mercy at all, that, is stupidity. God knows all the details on how things go down, and may postpone his judgement based upon that.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus Once again, you simply fail to accept the consequences of "perfect" mercy. Is it "stupid" to place conditions upon forgiveness? If so, why is it any more "stupid" to place conditions upon being merciful fifty times but not fifty-one? Or five times, but not six? Or once, but not twice? Or even once? If mercy is perfect, like love, it must have no limits. You cannot say, I will love you up until X - or I will forgive you *unless* -
And again - mercy *cannot* be contingent on judgment.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Place conditions on forgiveness? Forgiveness and mercy are two COMPLETELY different things dude. God KNOWS whether someone is genuine or not and because he is the perfect Judge, he Judges perfectly whether someone deserves mercy. Now if you want to argue whether he's a perfect Judge or not, that's a whole different argument, but don't bring it up here because I've already proven in previous comments. You also failed to prove that you even understand what "perfect" mercy is.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus If I demand conditions for forgiveness, then my forgiveness, by definition, is *conditional* -- not perfect. To be *perfectly forgiving* -- I must by "all-forgiving" - you know, like all powerful, all knowing? All-forgiving.
Likewise, God's mercy is conditional. Some get it, some don't. If you're not "good enough" for God's mercy -- then you're screwed. According to Christian theology ninety-nine percent of humanity won't get it.
So God is NOT all-merciful and NOT all-forgiving.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod once again... you DON'T know Christianity, so DO your research on it before you say anything. God forgives ANYONE who asks for forgiveness. And as I said before, perfect mercy does not equate to giving mercy for EVERYTHING. Are you honestly trolling? You haven't gotten anywhere or absorbed anything! Do you even read what I write????????
Queeranus 1 year ago
am well-acquainted with the *assertions* of Christianity and of Christians who can add 1+1+1 and come up with 1.
Perfect mercy = unconditional and absolute mercy, whether it's consistent with Christian theology or not.
Perfect forgiveness = ditto whether it's consistent with Christian theology or not.
Forgiveness that requires asking forgiveness (for what again?) isn't unconditional, and thus, though it may be "Christian" isn't perfect.
Sorry if you don't like it.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Add 1+1 to get one... right.... *cough* abiogenesis + cell theory *cough*. Whether it's consistent with christian theology? No, i proved you wrong outside of any kind of theology. Notice I used an example of slapping, having nothing to do with God. Now if you want to say that you have a different definition of Perfect that's fine, but that's not consistent with what the rest of the world would say. Unconditional and perfect are not the same thing as I already showed you with mercy!
Queeranus 1 year ago
Abiogenesis, which you obviously understand as clearly as you understand logic and philosophy has what to do with this discussion? And as for your example of slapping. if my mercy is limited, then it is not perfect. It is not all-encompassing. I'll be merciful up to a point, and then no further. So I'll forgive one slap, but not a hundred. Or I'll forgive any number of slaps plus any wrong whatsoever - if you accept me as your savior - but no mercy if you don't.
Thus conditional. Not absolute.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod You forget however, that God is the perfect judge and omniscient! He knows when someone is going to be sincere and so is able to administer perfect mercy! Jesus has nothing to do with God's mercy to us, when we accept him he cleanses our soul and makes it holy. He gives us his holy spirit. I was merely stating that abiogenesis and cell theory clash like night and day and add 1+1 to get 17. Unless you believe some non-God religion such as Buddhism, you believe abiogenesis.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Again, and yet again, and yet again and forevermore, you still don't get the point.
It doesn't matter whether someone is sincere. That is a *criterion* for mercy. A *criterion* for forgiveness. That makes perfect sense as a measure for justice.
Justice is deserved. Mercy is gift. A perfect gift giver gives full measure to all. If you only got gifts as a reward for what you'd earned - they wouldn't really be gifts - they'd be salary.
If Mercy is a kind of reward, then it's mere justice.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod No YOU don't get the point! We have different definitions for perfect mercy! Your definition conforms to man's understanding of "perfect" mercy. I know that men are fools and those who think themselves wise will be shown to be fools. We DON'T know everything. I tried to explain what perfect mercy is as best I could to you using logic, but you just HAVE to be right because that's what the dictionary says. Man made the dictionary, and man is fallible by definition, God is infallible.
Queeranus 1 year ago
We obviously have different definitions of perfect mercy. No kidding. But you don't get to simply elevate your definition to the status of divine inspiration and claim victory accordingly. Men are fools and fallible? So what are you? An angel? Logic simply has to do with the "consequences" of given definitions. If you choose a definition of "perfect mercy" that is, by definition imperfect then, surprise, your definition will "logically" be completely absurd, which it is.
Much like your God.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Your statements go both ways my friend, so I guess I can only say and see that you have ignored why I logically consider your definition to be incorrect. No need to respond to that. Now if you had proven my definition wrong that would be one thing, but you did not.
Queeranus 1 year ago
And how does one go about "proving" a definition wrong, other than by recourse to authority? Say, by pointing to a dictionary, which you rejected as being merely "man-made?" You're trying to score a victory for your "logic" by recourse to "divine authority" but unless the heavens open up and we actually get a ruling from on high, I'm afraid that's not going to win this one for you.
So if the "dictionary" defines words in a certain way, and I use those words that way - then yes. I'm right.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Yes you are right, a dictionary is infallible!
Queeranus 1 year ago
Against what do you measure the fallibility of a book that simply lists definitions of words derived from the lexicographer's judgments of common and on-going usage?
I suppose you might agree or disagree as to the lexicographer's inclusion of a particular word or a particular usage of a word on *that basis" -- that a usage is *insufficiently common* -- but at best that would be a statistical objection.
You can't deny a definition on a factual basis. Usage determines meaning.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod I got my definition from the bible? Usage does NOT determine meaning! If the Nazi's commonly used the word perfect to describe Hitler then they were right in that Hitler represented perfection? I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying your logic is wrong.
Queeranus 1 year ago
There's a difference between the "use* of a word and the "usage" of a word.
That is, if everyone for many generations took a word that originally meant "left-handed" and used it to mean evil and untrustworthy then today, were I to refer to your behavior or motives as "sinister" -- you wouldn't think that I was calling you "left-handed" -- even though that's the original definition of the word.
Usage has *redefined* the meaning of that word, in the same way that it originally defined it.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Nope, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what I say and it doesn't matter to you whether you're wrong or not. Because to you, both the dictionary and yourself are infallible. You did nothing to disprove my point, the dictionary is still fallible.
Queeranus 1 year ago
A dictionary may be wrong only to the extent that it can wrongly define a word relative to its usage. If a dictionary says that *dog* is defined as an animal with hoofs and fins - then that dictionary is wrong.
But it's wrong because that's not how the word *dog* is generally used.
The way in which the word is generally understood *is* what the word means. The way in which any word is generally understood *is* what any word means.
How else could words be used to communicate?
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Okay fine then, the WORD is used correctly, but the CONCEPT isn't. Does that change anything? No.
Queeranus 1 year ago
It certainly doesn't change the fact that we have two words - perfect and mercy and that you have managed to put them together in reference to a being who manages to show mercy to a microscopically small percentage of the human race (namely only those people who accept him) and condemn all others to eternal torment in hell -
- but somehow or other you consider that these three terms - "perfect," "mercy" and "virtually everyone burns in hell for eternity" to be mutually consistent.
I don't.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Also, merely because something is a maxim, does not mean that it is of absolute truth and certainty. Using it as a proof simply does not work. I would agree with that maxim, within the life of an Individual, as our lives are undeniably finite. However, eternity works much differently, since it's well.... eternity (infinite just in case you didn't know that already).
Queeranus 1 year ago
I would assert that eternal punishment or reward renders all concepts of justice utterly meaningless.
If you give a penny to charity and I reward you by giving you a trillion tons of gold, you might consider that to be a reward slightly out of balance to your good deed. Likewise, if you steal a penny and I punish you by torturing you for life - ditto.
But the above pales in comparison to *eternal* reward or punishment for any earthly good or evil. It is inherently unjust (nor merciful).
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Well you would assert wrong. The Catholic church is the only church that even implies that good deeds are what get you into heaven. How can you argue against God and Christianity if you don't even know what they are? Jesus is the way to heaven, not any number of good deeds. Also, we as human beings DO NOT understand the weight of sin. Because we are not judged immediately and don't see the consequences we fail to see how truly heinous sin is.
Queeranus 1 year ago
So far as I can tell the "heinous" sin consists of Eve disobeying God when she was incapable of even understanding what sin was - because she hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil - and thus could not know that it was wrong to disobey God. And while she could have known, having eaten, that it was wrong to offer the fruit to Adam, *he* couldn't have sinned when he ate it.
So the "heinous" sin that condemns us all is one woman giving a piece of fruit to a guy?
Right.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Where did you get that she was incapable of understanding that she didn't know it was wrong? The knowledge of good and evil is not the same as knowing right from wrong. She knew it was wrong to eat the fruit, she was FOOLED into eating it thinking not that it was wrong, but that it wouldn't matter if she was wrong because she would be like God. Just because something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is or isn't a sin! Key concept in that last sentence!
Queeranus 1 year ago
So they knew right from wrong but not good from evil? And taking the apple was wrong but not evil? Well, according Webster, evil is "morally reprehensible or sinful" and "wrong" is an "injurious or unjust act."
So how is the taking of the apple characterized? As the Original Injury? As the Original Unjust Act? Oh -- it's called the Original Sin." A moral evil."
But they had no knowledge of moral good or evil.
Nor right or wrong, according to any word of the OT.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod If she didn't know it was wrong then why did she hesitate? She wouldn't even have questioned. Ahem, let me demonstrate the difference between right/wrong and good/evil. If I decide to bookdrop some kid for no reason, I don't really see how you could see that as anything BUT wrong. Is that evil though? Certainly not by my definition of evil. God is NOT going to send someone to hell because they were perfect their whole lives but decided to bookdrop some random stranger some day.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus She hesitated because God told her that the day she ate of the fruit, she would die. The serpent told her that this was a lie. The serpent told her the truth. She ate of the fruit. She did *not* die that day. Instead, she gained knowledge of good and evil. God lied. The serpent spoke the truth. And a thousand generations of apologists pretend that the "literally inerrant" words need to actually say something other than what they literally say in order to be "literally true."
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Adam and Eve were immortal while in the Garden. Nor did God lie, he did not say that they would die immediately, he said that they would experience death.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Gen. 2. 17 ..but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEROF thou shalt surely die.
Oh, and man was immortal? Gen. 3.22 - And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat AND LIVE FOREVER therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Try reading it.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Man was immortal because of the the tree of Life which he would eat from every day. Also, day... if day is even a thousand years (not taken literally) then it still holds true. Good points, but is Genesis to be taken literally? Science says no, I do love Science, and I would also say no, more than likely not. What you have pointed out most certainly points to it not being taken literally.
Queeranus 1 year ago
And you wonder why I call what you say utter drivel?
The Bible is the word of God -- except it says a day, but that probably means a thousand years. Or maybe a million years. Or really whatever you want.
And even though the OT explicitly says that God drove Adam out of the garden in order to KEEP HIM from eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal, you simply assert that he had been eating and was immortal before that.
Q, this is Literal. Literal mythology.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Already you forgot that Revelations IS coded. It doesn't take long to figure that out, nor should it take long to figure out that Genesis could just as easily be.
Queeranus 1 year ago
I didn't forget that people "claim" that Revelations is coded.
And why is it that they do? Because if you take it literally -- first, it didn't come true when it was supposed to and, second, it read like a crazy fever dream.
So what is the code? Oh - the code is however you choose to interpret it so that Armageddon is just about to happen in the next few years.
In fact, one thing has always been sure - End Times right around the corner, where they've been for the last 2000 years.
Suuuure.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Illogical. Your issues have been previously addressed. If interpretation makes something correct then moral fiber is nonexistent.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Only if morality is derived from the same make-believe source as your book of revelations, which it isn't -- although I'm not exactly sure what moral "fiber" is -- is that a kind of spiritual roughage that one takes just prior to divine revelation? Sort of helps it go down easier?
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Don't you understand that morality is a figment of man's imagination if God or Karma doesn't exist? So either it comes from something supernatural, or it doesn't exist! If you choose to live with morals that's great, please do, but if there is nothing supernatural in this world and you get away with stealing like Bill Gates did then good for you! You did a great service to yourself and so did Bill Gates. I however refuse to believe that morality is man made.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Saying so doesn't make it so. You've failed to advance any evidence for your position whatsoever after all this time and have failed even to adequately define your terms, which even you don't seem to understand, so irrespective of what you choose to believe (which seems to be the heart and substance of your so-called argument) I actually require evidence to accept a position. I have evidence of patterns of human behavior, natural explanations to account for those behaviors and need nothing more.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod ... I am done with you since you don't even understand logic. Saying so? THAT IS SO. Morality is man-made according to you and as such is a result of man's imagination. Imagined=Real right? NO!!!!!!! Should I even have responded to this? NO
Queeranus 1 year ago
Q, your argument are growing more feeble by the post. So that which is the product of imagination is not real? So a symphony, an invention, a painting - all the products of man's imagination, and all "man-made" thus are *not* real according to you?
I think they are all real, just as morality, like philosophy, or aesthetics, as a human invention, is also real.
By all means, don't respond, as you are out of steam and obviously have been out of steam for a long time.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod No, it is not a part of reality until it is no longer in one's IMAGINATION. By all means, don't respond, as you are out of steam and obviously have been out of steam for a long time. Please, just TRY to refute that, please do. A symphony is not real until written or performed. An invention is not real until it is written down or brought to life. It is PERHAPS only real as the cellular make-up in one's brain as a memory if that is even how it works (psychology still doesn't know).
Queeranus 1 year ago
Well, morality" isn't revealed until it is expressed as human behavior, in the same way that philosophy isn't revealed until, likewise conveyed through human expression. They might still be real in the sense that our thoughts are real, even if they have not been expressed to others. As you indicate, our thoughts are real, in some physical sense, as the mental activity of our brains - although it's a legitimate question as to whether mere thoughts alone have moral content.
I'm not sure they do.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Morality isn't revealed until it is expressed as human behavior only IF God is not real. It does nothing to change Morality as man-made and not necessarily universally binding.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@prodprod Now if you wish to argue what merits what punishment, that is putting yourself above God as a perfect judge. I don't need to know you to say that you're not a perfect judge.
Queeranus 1 year ago
You don't have to be perfect to understand the concept of fairness.
No finite good merits infinite reward. No finite evil merits infinite punishment. No claim about original sin gets you out of it, because all human acts are finite, thus none can be considered "infinitely evil."
If you think that you're capable of constructing a logical argument that demonstrates the contrary, do so - and "we can't understand God's mysterious ways" I'm afraid isn't a term in a logically constructed argument.
prodprod 1 year ago
Theodicy is not "a branch of theology" but rather a philosophical and theological /problem/. Of course, many theologians have tried (and failed to) solve it, but if theodicy is not the answer, it is the question, and one to which the only really logical answer is, that there is probably no god.
dasGagaTier 1 year ago
To paraphrase Immanuel Kant, fuck the greater good, the individual is their own moral agent.
The assertion of a God to dictate morality is absurd. Morality is only a human conception.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Not bad, but I liked the first two videos more. Still, it's good (d^_^)d
MrNobody47710 1 year ago
OH MY GOSH, I can't tell you how much I LOVE logic and HATE this video! The logical equations are incomplete, you have failed to take into account SO many things. Your arguments are just ASKING to be torn up and destroyed.
Queeranus 1 year ago
I would really love for you to do so - especially in video response format.
antybu86 1 year ago
This video assumes that morality is greater than God. ITS LOGIC is flawed. It also assumes that we have a perfect interpretation of morality, which we MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Well, this is the Euthyphro dilemma. If you're saying that morality is dictated by God, then I would argue that it's not morality at all - it's just taking orders.
antybu86 1 year ago
This counter argument assumes that if morality is independent of God that it somehow automatically makes God a messenger. He is the one who MADE morality and he defines morality not by what he does or says but by what he IS. He is the existence of perfect morality, which we do not understand because our sense of morals is imperfect. This is THE flaw in your logic, and if you somehow manage to in your mind weasel your way out of this then congratulations, you are a master of words, but not logic.
Queeranus 1 year ago
So God "made" morality, and God "is" morality? Does that mean God made himself?
And I like the last bit of your comment. Quite an easy excuse for you to continue believing nonsense.
antybu86 1 year ago
Uh yeah...... too bad that's NOT what I said. God defining something by his being/existence is not the same as BEING what he is defining. Dude... i've torn every single one of your arguments to shreds and you still have yet to come back at me with any kind of TRULY logical or scientific response. You see, I love logic, I love science, I am not ignorant, I know the theories of atheism, evolution, and science very well. I am studying to be a Doctor, and yet, I am a Christian, why is that? RESEARCH
Queeranus 1 year ago
This still doesn't fly. We assign all sorts of qualities to God what we define independently. We talk of power and of God being all-powerful. We talk of knowledge, but of God being all-powerful. We talk of "presence" and of God being "all-present" -- all of these concepts can be easily understood without any recourse to God as a defining agent.
If "goodness" is only that which God commands, then that assertion fails to answer the question of what goodness is, in itself.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod I never said that goodness is that which God commands. Also, our ability to understand morality by ourselves (which I would argue against, but that's aside from the point), does nothing to disprove anything that I said. Also, without God or a higher power or some kind of Universal karma, then morality is pointless and a figment of imagination. If all is nigh then if I shoot you and get away with it then nothing will happen to me as a result regardless of if whether or not it's "wrong."
Queeranus 1 year ago
So you're saying that the "point" of good and evil is whether you receive punishment or reward for having done it? No, Q - that's what we call self interest.
If the point of morality is in its consequence, then what is the point of God doing good? He doesn't act in expectation of punishment or reward.
Oh, God does good because good is worth doing *in itself?""
And what determines this? If it is only God's command, then it's arbitrary.
If good is good in itself, then it's not from God.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Perhaps a better word would be non-existent rather than pointless. I just feel that the word pointless gets the... point... across better in the mind of the reader. I could argue that point further, but I feel no need. God does good because that's... simply what he does and he is satisfied with it. Also, I already addressed your other concerns in previous comments, you are being redundant.
Queeranus 1 year ago
If you've managed to satisfy yourself, well then, like "god's goodness" -- I trust that your points constitute whatever point you were aiming to make for yourself.
If you think you've actually advanced a coherent argument to me, you have, I'm afraid, failed.
God does good on account it's in his nature to do good on account of like - he's just a great big inherent mass of intrinsically self-defined goodness - whatever "goodness" is.
So there.
Hey, if that works for you - go for it.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod If i think I advanced a coherent argument? I DID, and If you can't see that at the very least my argument was coherent, then there is no point in replying to anything you say because you fail to understand logic. Don't try to act all smart if you can't even comprehend what I'm trying to say. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it is invalid. Oh wait, I forgot, the world revolves around you...
Queeranus 1 year ago
You can't ad hominen your way out of this.
What do you mean by "good?" What do you mean by "moral?" What do you mean by "just?" What do you mean by "merciful?" What do you mean by "forgiving?"
Unless we have independent definitions of these terms, how can we even begin to determine whether God, or anyone or anything else possesses these qualities or lacks them?
And if you can define these qualities independent of God -- from whence come your definitions?
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod .... I dont know why I bother with you when it won't get anyone anywhere since all you do is talk. I said that AFTER I had proven your assertions wrong. Are those words really in need of operational definitions? I know forgiveness (waive desire for punishment) and Moral (right vs wrong) arent, I think youre running out of things to say. Mercy-leniency and compassion shown toward offenders, good-that which God defines and understands as morally admirable vs that which we THINK is good
Queeranus 1 year ago
So perfect forgiveness would thus be waiving *all* desire for punishment - but not in your world. And perfect mercy would be "total* leniency toward "all* offenders - but not in your world
To say right vs. wrong without further defining the meaning of these terms is to say nothing at all.
If you think saying that good is that which God *defines as morally admirable* says something more coherent than good is "that which God commands" - it doesn't.
By what criteria does God do this?
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod That doesn't even matter, I didn't say that "good" deeds are what is even of any importance. But not in my world? Um no, how about you ask a quality parent, whether or not they WANT to discipline their child. They will all tell you that they would prefer not to, but at the same time if they DON'T discipline their child then he/she will turn out to be a total BRAT. Your logic is flawed. Dude... I don't know what world you live in... but I live in the real world.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Keep ducking the question. Maybe you can pretend that's as good as an answer.
On what basis do I punish or reward my child? For "doing good?" For shunning evil? Or for doing right and avoiding wrong? Two different things according to you, though you still neglect to specify what any of these terms mean other than by lazy recourse to "God's nature" -- which is, of course self-determined - by God - but nevertheless incapable of being altered - even by God.
Oh, but *I've" got a logic problem.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod No, I don't think that God can alter himself. Nor do I think you can take God out of the equation if he is the one who made right from wrong and good and evil. Nor am I ducking any question, just because you're not satisfied with my answer doesn't mean it is inadequate. Punish your kid however you want? It doesn't matter, just do a good job raising him cuz you'll never do it perfectly because we aren't perfect. I answered this question in another response. The Spirit is tainted.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Of course God can't alter himself -- any more than he can make a rock too heavy to lift. Because omnipotence is logically impossible. Oh - that's right. God is omnipotent, except that he can't do the logically impossible. Except that omnipotence itself is logically impossible. Meaning that an omnipotent God is logically impossible.
And saying that God "made right from wrong and good from evil" still doesn't say what the difference is between them.
Like stoning non-virgins? That still right?
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Look, I'm not trying to have an academic debate with you dude. I'm going to maintain the assumption that unless I state otherwise, you know what commonly used english words mean. So please stop with your meaningless statements of "meaning". I already addressed "that which God commands" vs defines in a previous comment. Why is it that I continually find myself saying that? If you use flawed logic (as usual) in any more responses from now on I'm just going to say illogical in response.
Queeranus 1 year ago
I'm glad you're not trying to have an "academic" debate, because you're failing miserably. And I'm sorry if you find my attempts at deriving meaning from your drivel as "meaningless statements."
Ditto. and double ditto with virtually everything that you and most theists say most of the time. The fact that you live in a community of like minded drivelers who simply accept one another's drivel is lucky for you and your fellow drivelers, but it places no requirement on me to accept your drivel.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod No it doesn't require anything, but you've heard all of the things I've said from other people? Really? I havent, I always hear "because that's how God made it." Which is not adequate nor is it science. I love science, I love logic, and I'm well on my way towards becoming a doctor. As of right now my lowest grade in any class is around a 95 and that is with one HORRIBLE teacher. If you think that science and logic are drivel then who or what are you? You contradict your very own being.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus If you haven't heard them, then you haven't been around very long. And nothing having to do with God is "science" and if you don't know that you know neither theology nor science. And I doubt that you have even a passing acquaintance with logic, formal or otherwise based on your inability to structure a decent logical argument. But the more I talk to you the younger you seem and I'm starting to fear that I've been wasting my time (sorry to say) with some kid in high school).
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Lol, so what if I was in high school, are knowledge and wisdom dependent upon age? I am not in high school, thank you very much mr. "ad hominem." Also... if God MADE science, how does that make the two of them independent of one another? Perhaps I should have responded to this by simply saying illogical.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Actually, it would be a "genetic fallacy" not an ad hominen -- if I were using it to suggest that your arguments were invalid on the basis that you were in high school. Which I wasn't. I was simply suggesting that, *based on the quality of your arguments" I was beginning to suspect that you were in high school.
And it's obvious that, however long you've been around, you must be unacquainted with the principle of methodological naturalism, on which all scientific investigation is based.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod "Some kid in high school." No that's not derogatory at alll... and you do realize that science was STARTED in order to explain how God made and ran the world?
Queeranus 1 year ago
Just because it's derogatory doesn't make it an ad hominem.
As for Science being started in order to explain God -- Genetic Fallacy.
Also, depending on how one defines science, as a study of the natural world, it was certainly pursued by the ancient Greeks, Persians, etc. so at best you'd have to say, how the GODS made and ran the world, although the more accurate statement would simply be that they wanted to study how the "world" ran. They simply believed that gods were part of it.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Right, if you say so, cuz it even matters what is and isn't ad hominem. Mmm gotta love misquotations. Science was not started to explain God. Please don't respond to this because it is going nowhere.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@prodprod PLEASE read the bible before responding to anything else I say. What you constitute as Christianity in your head is not how the bible presents it. Christians may be hypocrites but that doesnt mean that Christianity is flawed. Even if you claim to have read the bible, you dont understand Christianity. You have misrepresented it twice merely within our little rambles back and forth. Christianity is not without logic or science! Look up DNA as proof of God and read the bible! Do research!
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus I'm supposed to look up DNA as proof of God? And this has something to do with the Bible? You mean the Bible that describes the the earth having been made in four days, with the sun, the moon and all of the stars -- in one day -- after plants were made? The Bible that describes the sky as a solid dome with water above it? The "Christianity" that endorses slavery? The Jesus that preached the imminent end of the world - 2000 years ago?
Sure, explain it all -- away.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Okay then mr. fancy pants, read the new testament, or at the very least the 4 gospels. Whether the earth is old or new doesn't do anything to disprove DNA as proof of God if you will choose to stop being ignorant and do some research. Hmm... isn't that what atheists accuse Christians of doing?
Queeranus 1 year ago
Oh, so you're dragging out the ragged banner of ID, re-shellacked with the already disproved patina of "information theory" as proof of God. Ho-ho-ho-hum. Why not try beating me down with the mighty staff of "no new information can be created" - except that it can be and is.
And your assumption that I haven't read both OT and NT, is yet more posturing. The entire basis of the NT is built on Adam and Eve - thus the truth of Genesis.
But if Genesis is true, *all* natural sciences are false.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod That last statement isn't true... not even if genesis is taken literally as God COULD have made everything in motion quite easily, and while that isn't science it does nothing to void science of its truth. No one ever said however that you have to take genesis literally. Revelations isn't literal at ALL, it's all coded. Also, if you did read the bible you didn't get it right the first time around that's for sure because if you had I wouldn't have had to have corrected you on anything.
Queeranus 1 year ago
You have yet to correct me on anything, except in your own mind. And if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then all of Christianity, in turn, falls. How could there be a real Blood Sacrifice and Resurrection for a figurative metaphorical Fall of Man?
And if the Garden is real, and God making man from clay and Eve from a rib, then the whole 6 day creation story must be true, as described - the Earth made in 4 days, the rest of the universe -- some 50 billion galaxies, made in 1.
Absurd.
prodprod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prodprod You have yet to correct me on anything, except in your own mind. Was that a quote or did I just say that to you? I'll give you a hint, it's the latter of the two. What a pointless statement, I have used logic every step of the way and have not been illogical once. I never said that EVERYTHING was coded and figurative. You assumed that, something you tend to do QUITE a bit.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@prodprod Also, you misunderstand how it works. It is not mere information theory. Nor is it or could it possibly be disproved until abiogensis occurs. DNA is a language (which requires intelligence to exist or have been created) and yet it is required for even the most basic of cell life. The idea that there were organisms that are simpler than the most basic of cells today is NOT science, it is an untestable hypothesis, which barely even makes sense.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Your lack of understanding of the basis of abiogenesis is matched only by your exceptionally limited understanding of the Old Testament.
DNA isn't a language, and cells were not the first kind of living organisms - not by hundreds of millions of years. And the fact that something doesn't make sense to you or your ID cronies isn't the test of whether it's scientifically valid or testable.
And your alternate "scientific" theory? A big ghost made everything with magic for reasons of his own.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Dude, you're wrong, I'm just gonna have to leave it at that. There is NO reason why we wouldn't see this pre-life form today if it happened to form by random chance. You assume that it both hasn't happened again for who knows what reason, AND that these creatures for some reason went extinct. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, ASSUMING IS DIFFERENT THAN HYPOTHESIZING.
Queeranus 1 year ago
"Dude" -- you obviously know so little about this issue, that not only are you not right, you aren't even wrong and I can't even begin to school you on the subject of the current scientific theories of abiogenesis in the remaining 250 characters available to me. If you're really interested, which I doubt, there are many sources, on-line and in print that can give you more detailed information than I can.
Even if we had no current natural explanation that wouldn't justify an appeal to magic.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod I will do more research on it, but it won't change anything. The details of how life can from no life does not change the fact that life doesn't come from not life. Also, there is a difference between "magic" and unlimited power.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Right, whatever you do, as a committed theist, never let facts get in the way of what you know to be true.
And as for the difference between "magic" and "unlimited power?"
Yeah. Magic lets you do anything at all just by wanting to do it without any rules or limits, for instance just by "saying words" and then something just comes into existence.
On the other hand, "unlimited power" is very different. It let's you -- oh, hold on, wait a minute --
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Yes, Harry Potter is invincible! He beat Lord Voldemort!
Queeranus 1 year ago
And both of them are about as real as as Jehovah. So hail Lord Jehovah! He done beat that evil Satan!
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Magic doesn't exist. Power does. I'm glad you're making claims now instead of using logic, it shows me that you know how to circle back to things already covered or change the subject when you're wrong.
Queeranus 1 year ago
You're right. Magic doesn't exist. The "power" to say a word and make a unicorn come into existence doesn't happen. Or the power to say a word and make a universe come into existence - that also doesn't happen.
Because magic "power" doesn't exist. Just like trees exist, but not magic trees. Or fruit but not magic fruit. Or beings but not magic beings.
Oh, and if the word "magic" offends you, just substitute supernatural or miraculous or any word you like better but which means the same thingn
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod I can 100% guarantee if you go looking for one for the rest of your life for however long it is, you WILL find a miracle. Something that cannot possibly be explained by coincidence. I can't say you'll see one with your own eyes, but the question you must ask is: Are ALL of these people hypocrites or crazy? Because liar doesn't quite cut it as a Christian. YES, you will find crazy people, and YES you will find hypocrites, but it's the people that aren't either that you have to question.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Q, I have no doubt that you and others who believe as you do are sincere. Nor do I think you are crazy. I think that you are committed to a supernatural world view -- that what I would call nature, you would call, for want of a better term, merely the "appearance" of nature. The earth doesn't move around the sun nor objects fall to earth because they are bound to by their nature, but because God wills it. If a moment from now his will directed them to do otherwise, they would.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) Thus the only "real" nature is God's nature, which is essentially limitless and unbounded, It is what I would call "supernatural." While God obviously doesn't do most things most of the time, it might at any point do almost anything. Raise the dead, heal the sick. Move a mountain. End the Earth.
You are correct to say that I reject the idea of a supernatural universe and find the idea of a combined "natural/supernatural" universe incoherent. It's one or the other.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) And all of the evidence leads me to conclude that existence can only be coherently and satisfactorily explained by a "natural" universe consisting of entities that have "innate" qualities, rather than ones assigned to them from an immaterial "outside" of existence, a concept that to me, is simply incoherent.
Whatever happens, happens within existence and thus "within nature" and must necessarily be a part of nature, whether we can currently explain it or not.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Interesting point of view. I have never heard of anyone with that point of view before. But i don't believe your "definition" of nature is what you would find in the dictionary : ) (not trying to be rude or evoke a response but be witty rather and poke fun lol, no need to respond or refute)
Queeranus 1 year ago
Well, "poking fun" aside -- I'm using the word nature in the larger sense of "the external world in its entirety" and also the more specific sense of "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing" -- both definitions to be found in Websters, among a number of other less relevant definitions.
I obviously appreciate that we disagree on this subject -- but I'm certainly not making up my own definitions.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod DNA is a language as defined not by the traditional use of the word but by the programming sense of the word and you CANNOT deny that no matter what you believe. If you do, you are being ignorant.
Queeranus 1 year ago
I am well acquainted with this ID argument and I am also well acquainted with its refutation, which you apparently are not.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Then please do summarize it for me if you believe I do not know better. You're not knocking down information theory, and you can't say that DNA is not a language because if you do then you AREN'T acquainted with the argument.
Queeranus 1 year ago
I'm sorry if you fail to understand the difference between language and information. DNA, through RNA transmits "information" -- language is also the means by which human brains transmits information. A lens also transmits information when light passes through it and is focused from one place to another. That doesn't mean that the light that passes through a lens is language nor that DNA is a language, or that RNA is, or that a lens is.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod I'm sorry if you fail to understand the difference between language and information. DNA is a language because it is coded. Information is raw, it is not coded. Randomisty and chaos do not encode. Your brain codes and decodes, because it is intelligent.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus One can determine the underlying structure of a molecule by examining the structure of a crystal grown from that material, but in what sense is that "raw" information? The "raw" information of the molecule's structure is the structure of the molecule itself. yet one can "derive" the structure of the molecule by studying the crystalline structure -- the underlying structure is "encoded" in the crystal, yet a crystal is not a language nor evidence of an intelligent "coder."
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Is that a "code" that is meant to be decoded? A code as defined by computer science (the same science I used to refer to langauge) Code: the -symbolic arrangement of data or instructions- in a computer program, or the set of such instructions. Is there a comma in between data and or? Do the cystals contain, or are they instructions as defined by computer science? Instruction: a line of code written as part of a computer program. While DNA is not a computer program, it IS a program.
Queeranus 1 year ago
It's always extremely risky to push metaphors further than they ought to go. It is altogether too tempting to embrace this metaphor of DNA "codons" as the "language" of life as it were a literal language for the human program.
One could assert that a molecule is a program, or a blueprint, for building a crystal, since molecules do build crystals in the same way (that is, through chemical processes) that DNA builds a living thing -- but what does that tell us about molecules or crystals?
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod A program as defined by computer science: A sequence of instructions that a computer can interpret and execute. When we substitute the would be's for both the molecule and DNA, Computer is replaced by Cell, and Molecule would be replaced by... Nature? Does nature interpret and execute or is a crystal simply the result of nature and natural laws being put into place. One could argue execution... but interpretation? ONLY IF nature had/has intelligence.
Queeranus 1 year ago
Suicide bombers are doing only what they are TOLD is right by extremists of the Islam faith who misinterpret the entire meaning of the Quoran
God has never "ordered" us to take violent action against other believers in Him, and certainly not in His name. So to say that following His orders lead to "evil" is a mistaken argument, because if you follow any order He gives, it will lead to only good.
Jesus preached love & forgiveness throughout the NT, and the claim is that God = Jesus, vice versa
redalert979 2 years ago
Well, suicide bombers certainly believe they are doing the work of God. So, why doesn't he correct their mistake? It seems like it'd be an easy thing for him to do.
antybu86 2 years ago
@antybu86 they believe they are, only because of what they're being told by the "true believers" (who tell them lies in order to get the result they want)
And the question of "Why does God allow evil to exist?" has been theorized about since philosophy was first put into practice.
The whole premise of evil exists, imo, so that we can tell right from evil...and make the choice to do right. Without evil we don't need God's help, or even God for that matter. It humbles us and brings us to Him
redalert979 1 year ago
That's not my question here.
My question is this: Why does God allow people who are convinced that they are doing good to continue under that conviction when they are wrong? If these are people who sincerely want to do good, then why doesn't God attempt to correct them on their mistake>
antybu86 1 year ago
Again, I can only speak from my philosophical perspectives and opinions...but here's my take on your question:
If God simply corrected every evil mindset, stopped every murder and theft, and eliminated entirely these things that are evil, everyone would simply become a Christian because they know that God will just eliminate any evil, and believe only because there's no doubt whatsoever..God doesn't want those kinds of Christians, He wants the blind faith and unconditional believers
redalert979 1 year ago
I'm not even talking about god correcting evil mindsets or stopping all murder and theft... I'm talking about the people who are trying to do GOOD, but are unknowingly doing evil. Why wouldn't God make an attempt to clarify his message for them?
antybu86 1 year ago
Can you give me a few examples of "people who are trying to good but are unknowingly doing evil"?
Do you mean, for example, someone who commits a murder and argues it was because "God" or "an angel" told them to do so?
redalert979 1 year ago
Say you're poor and you want to help your family, and someone comes along and offers to sell you some stock in a sure-fire gold mine. So you take all of your savings and the money that should go to pay for the mortgage -- all the money you've got in the world -- and buy the gold mine stocks.
Which are worthless. Because he's a con artist. And you are an idiot. And now you end up on the street with the family you tried to help.
Good intentions + you are an idiot = evil result.
prodprod 1 year ago
Excellent video. Well stated, well put.
FaganRoberts 2 years ago
Hmmm, so if god does not exist, then life will end eventually, if life will end eventually there will not be someone to acknowledge that we ever existed, if no one aknowledges we existed lr that anything ever existed, then did anything exist?
YoshiMario69 2 years ago
@YoshiMario69
You seem to think that things, not witnessed by life, don't exist. So prior to God's creation of life you must agree that God didn't exist.
And if God did not exist before life existed then he obviously wasn't around to create life.
I agree with your conclusion. God does not exist.
You method for arriving at that conclusion aren't very sound though.
dimbulb23 2 years ago
1. because God gave us free-will... that's why bad things happen.
2. you need to realize that while suffering seems hard, it can only make you stronger(if you are a Believer).
3. and while dying in an earthquake is the worst thing, it's also the BEST thing that could happen to a Christian. we go home.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago