Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Joshua260]

...a sociopath (who doesn´t care what makes a good society).

Lol!! That's not what defines a sociopath!! Here's the definition:
"a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."
So it's not that he doesn't care what makes a good society (that's hilarious of you to propose that!!), it's that he can't function in a society. You also defined moral goods as those which makes a "good" society, but what do you mean by "good"? A "good" society for the rapist may be one in which there are lots of little girls available to rape and there's no punishment for it. Are we to use your definition of "good" or the rapists definition? If it's yours, then please define what you mean by "good".

 

[quatona]

Lol!! That's not what defines a sociopath!! Here's the definition:
"a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."
So it's not that he doesn't care what makes a good society (that's hilarious of you to propose that!!), it's that he can't function in a society.

It seems to me that both are covered by the definition.

You also defined moral goods as those which makes a "good" society, but what do you mean by "good"?

No, I didn´t. I merely said that I don´t think the person in question even contemplates on the question what makes a good society.
But you have become better at copying the disingenious elements in Willy´s tactics - I give you that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again...I did not say that morals change. You're still misrepresenting me and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing that.

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting you. You're contradicting yourself. You're making one statement...then making another contradictory statement. I'm just trying to clear up what you're trying to say.

Saying that the bible teaches objective moral values instead of absolute moral values means that in some cases killing is a moral wrong and sometimes killing is *not* moral wrong.

You just said "morals don't change" and now you're saying "sometimes killing is wrong, sometimes killing isn't wrong". You don't understand how those two statements are contradictory? Is killing always wrong? Or does killing change from wrong to right depending upon circumstances? You make it sound like we're talking about two different actions when we talk about killing in self defense and killing during murder...but we aren't. They're both killing.

I don't see why you are having difficulty understanding this. Is having sex sometimes wrong? Is it always wrong? Doesn't whether or not having sex is wrong depend on the particular circumstances? Can't you tell the difference between having consensual sex with your lawfully wedded wife versus having sex with a 3-year old?

Absolutely...that's why I think morals are subjective/relativistic. That means that the they change from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance. You already seem to agree that they change from circumstance to circumstance...now all you need to do is recognize that each person sees morality differently from everyone else (based upon perspective) and you'll basically understand morality the same way I do.

This thinking leads to a confusion between moral epistemology and moral ontology. I agree that sensing what is objectively wrong is not always clear. For instance, is smoking objectively right or wrong? But on other issues like raping little girls for fun, it seems to be quite clear that it's wrong no matter what any human thinks.

Why?

Well, I would say for two reasons. The first reason I've already explained. Just as how I know that the outside world exists, in the same way I sense that OMV&Ds exist. It's called a properly basic belief. In spite of what empiricist say, there are some foundational beliefs that we have to accept in order to make sense of our world. Which leads me to my second reason. When I compare the atheists world view to the Christian world view, the Christian world view is the only one that seems to make sense of certain characteristics of our world, like the existence of universal logic, the uniformity of nature, and the existence of an objective morality. Don't get me wrong...it's not a god of the gaps argument...saying that science hasn't figured it out yet, so "God did it". Rather, the existence of these characteristics don't make sense in a purely naturalistic world. That, and for other reasons why I believe Christianity to be true, convince me that the bible speaks truth...and that "thou shalt not murder" is wrong, no matter what any human thinks. So, both a properly basic belief, and the bible tell me that OMV&Ds exist.

I don't think you understand what a "properly basic belief" is. We don't need objective morality to exist in order to "make sense of the world"...we can just understand that morals exist as opinions and they make perfect sense. We also avoid all of the logical problems that come along with objective morality. Problems like the fact that you cannot detect (through science or logic or philosophy) objective morals and the bigger problem of being able to prove them true (through any methodology).

Nope. You're talking about subjective morality...simply giving me your personal opinion about whether one should or should not rape a little girl. But I'm asking whether or not raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. I don't think this is like trying to discern whether smoking is right or wrong...it seems pretty easy for me to discern that raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. Is that not clear for you?

Lol no, it's not clear...how can we determine what's morally good or bad apart from what "any human thinks"? The implication there is that even if humans didn't exist (imagine humanity got wiped out) that raping little girls would still be wrong. Is that what you think? That morals exist apart from humanity entirely?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. It's right there in the bible.
He had to reset the world because it was totally messed up.

Again, your definition of "failure" depends on some of your own philosophical assumptions (which I see that you're not sharing, by the way. ). You say "it's right there in the bible." Right where, exactly?

I call it a reset. I can't call it anything else.

Ok, you can call it anything you want, but it wasn't a reset. To reset something implies taking something back to the beginning--a do over. I see no indication in the text that God intended to wipe mankind out AND then start over. So, it wasn't a reset; rather, it was a massive judgement.

No, it was definatly doomed by default.

There wasn't a 'default'; however, there was a decisive 'deception' involved in the Story.

In the mythology, Adam and Eve, at their creation, didn't know right from wrong.

There's nothing in the text to tell us that they didn't know right from wrong. They knew God; and they had His command, and they knew there were some consequences that go with eating of the 'magical' tree (i.e. the other 'magical' tree--there were two of them as you already know.)

They had to eat from the magical tree to gain that knowledge.

Only the knowledge of Good and Evil, but not of knowledge in general.

"magical", because that's the only word I can use to describe a tree that brings forward fruit that imparts knowledge upon consumed.

That's fine if you want to call it 'magical' for discussion's sake. I agree that the Story is a theological myth. The whole Story is 'magical' in that sense.

In any case, precisely because they didn't know right from wrong, they could not have realised that it was "wrong" to disobbey the commandment not to eat from the tree.

You're reading 'into' the passage what you want to ... If we want to be ultra-literal with a mythical, poetic passage, then we should point out that Adam 'knew' how to give animals names, thus using some form of communication or identifiable cognitive processing to do so. And I think this is relevant to bring this up, if we're going to be extra-literal with the implications of the Story ...

One can even question why the tree was even put there in the first place.....

Sure, one could. And why not?

On top of the tree... there's even a snake there which is apparantly the very embodiment of evil itself, which then talks the "blank slates" Adam and Eve into eating from the fruit.

Blank slates? Eve is communicating with the Serpent. How blank, literally speaking, was she, Dogma?

The whole setup pretty much smells like a major trap. What did this god expect to happen???

I'm not smelling anything, except the smell of satanic seduction, and it kind of smells nasty.

And even after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, without realising they were doing something wrong, God did not HAVE to doom them and all of their decendents with it. That was god's choice. He could have just forgiven them. But he didn't.

I get the feeling that when you were a kid, when someone offered to read you Mother Goose, you took the book and tossed it at the wall. Not that I blame you really ...

God created hell.

I don't know----did He create an underworld?

God created the rules by which souls are judged and send to hell.

Well, I can't disagree with you there.

God created humans in such a way that it would be impossible to live upto the rules that he himself created as well.

I don't know. How hard is it not to eat a fruit from a tree? (I mean, that's the only rule Adam and Eve have in the Story, but I guess even one rule can be lot for some people to handle.)

Yes. It is actually very, very correct to state that humans were doomed by default in this story. Humans never stood a chance.

Yeah, those rascally mythical talking serpents will get you each and every time.

Again: created "sick" and commanded to be well.

Well, if you think that being created in the Image of God is the same as beginning 'sick,' who am I to disabuse you of the cognitive preference!

Note the bold. He knew this would happen. Off course he knew. He created us that way (according to the story). Doomed by default.

Bold is duly noted! And, we should also note that nowhere in the Eden Story do we see literal indication that God 'knew' everything. Now, why might I still infer that God knew Adam and Eve would sin if the story seems to literally say that God had to go out of His way to ask questions of His Edenic subjects? Doesn't He know the answers already?

No, I'm not particularly interested in what someone who's not part of this conversation has to say. You are, however, free to summarize his points in here in your own words. In fact, I invite you to do so, if you think it is relevant to the discussion.

Actually, Barclay is part of the conversation if it is his idea I am drawing from. "Creation Ethics" is his idea, not mine.

Meanwhile, I'll just ask this: what is so christian about it, if it doesn't come from the bible?

You're not one of those "if it's not literally stated in the bible, then it can't be true" kind of guys, are you? Have you ever taken a hermeneutics class?

And where can one find these "objective morals", if not in the bible?

We can find them in God we trust.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philo,
Such questions are easily answered once one acquires principles. In this case we need moral principles such as:

The means, end and intent of any action must be good or the act is not morally good.

Also:

We can use only the amount of force necessary to defend ourselves (or those we are responsible for) against an agressor, up to and including taking human life.

Also just war theory posits:

The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

There is nothing wrong with an individual or nation defending itself against an agressor. In fact it is possible to sin by walking away from a situation where one can successfully intervene in a particular evil. In the case of taking Hitler's life to prevent the holocaust this presumes we know his taking power in Germany would lead to the evils that actually happened. Hindsight is 20/20. As time moved on in Nazi Germany there came a point where it would have been a moral necessity to intervene in the government. If this meant killing Hitler and/or other key figures who were actively involved in the holocaust then there was a point where this would have been morally permissible. Likewise for other situations like those you've mentioned here with Nebby, Vespasian and Titus. We can look back on each situation but it is hard for us to insert ourselves into it and make good judgments as to when and how an offense could have been mounted. Nevertheless, men like Schindler and or German officers who took part in Operation Valkyrie are examples of those who were in a position to try to stop Hitler even if it meant taking his life.

Hi Ratjaws,

Actually, my questions were "yes" or "no" questions, and, as unfortunate as it is, your 'just war theory' specifications have little or nothing to do with whether or not Nebby, Vespasion and Titus should be given the old heave ho!

 

[Davian]

Lol!! That's not what defines a sociopath!! Here's the definition:
"a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."
So it's not that he doesn't care what makes a good society (that's hilarious of you to propose that!!), it's that he can't function in a society.
...

Where did you get that idea?

Sociopaths In High Places by Cangemi, Joseph P.; Pfohl, William

Abstract: This article utilizes seven cases to describe the behavior of the sociopathic personality in a leadership role. The arenas in which this article focuses include the industrial world, the academic world, and the non-profit organization world. Indepth analysis of several of the cases presented should provide the reader with a better awareness of the sociopathic mind and its propensity for destruction of others, as well as the major focus of this behavior disorder - the need to win, and to win at all costs.

Link to pdf

I worked in corporate America for 10+ years, and had direct experience with individuals like those described in this paper. They function just fine. Just don't get in their way, or fail to suck up with sufficient force.

 

[Joshua260]

Well, even if it were clear to me (which it totally isn´t), this would still fall under the category "what a human thinks". So I am not sure how your or my opinion on this helps bypassing our subjectivity.

Ok, thanks. So you aren't clear whether raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. You have an opinion, but you're not quite sure. Who knows, maybe it's *not* wrong, eh?

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[quatona]

Let me simplify the situation...
what if the only people left in the world are you, the rapist, and the little girl (who let's say is deaf and dumb for argument's sake).

Why not simplify it even further: There aren´t any humans at all. Would raping little children for fun still be wrong?

 

[quatona]

Ok, thanks. So you aren't clear whether raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. You have an opinion, but you're not quite sure. Who knows, maybe it's *not* wrong, eh?

It´s been explained to you too many times for me to file your misrepresentations under "misunderstandings".

I notice you keep ignoring and dodging the actual arguments and questions presented to you that aren´t following your script.
I won´t stop giving and asking them, though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arch,
Excellent questions! Ok, I see where you are applying the fallacy of comp but I'm not sure why it would apply to our subject? I guess I need to point out I have a principle, metaphysical in nature, that I'm applying here:

"The effect must be in the cause." I can add to this by saying: "No effect can be greater than it's cause."

I will also add that principles are foundational to thought on any subject and metaphysical principles undergird those of scientific principles, since metaphysics is more rudamentary to the nature of a being than empirical or corporeal (physical) principles. For instance, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which is mathematical, even though applied to matter, (limits the precision of knowing both position and velocity of a particle at the same time), is superceded by the metaphysical principle that a being cannot be in two places at the same time. So in studying quantum physics theoriticians have improperly deduced that a particle must be present in multiple places at once in order to account for the effect manifest by a particular experiment. Taking into account such heirarchy of principle they should rather suspect that their hypothesis is wrong and adjust it (which some have done, also improperly, by assuming consciousness to a particle; that one particle can "know"where another is and adjust itself to that particle's velocity or position). The point beng here in relation to our subject is you refer to members and sets which are mathematical properties that only apply to being as quantified. I am refering to a much more fundamental metaphysical principle, in reverse, that we should be able to trace back from effect to cause in order to determine something about material being(s). This principle of cause and effect is more fundamental than any mathematical principle which, as I've just stated, applies not to matter in particular, but to what can be quantified. In other words the idea of members and sets cannot be taken into account until the more fundamental principle is so each individual being that makes up our universe has a cause that can be traced back to another and another, back to some point where our question occupies. The idea of cause and effect applies to every individual being and cannot be construed otherwise despite trying to apply a mathematical principle to them. If each individual character in relation to cause and effect is the same in principle then "the whole set" is no different.

No... why must the whole set necessarily exhibit the same property as its constituent components? That isn't a necessary requirement. Prefacing your proposition with "metaphysical" doesn't render it as such either. Besides which, if you insist that all things must have a cause, then you must still justify why deities are an exception to a principle you consider overriding.

How we see the universe of cause and effects is consistent and therefore to speak of an individual being is to speak of the whole. We are left with the question does this chain go on ad-infinituim (the corrollary has matter always existed applies here too) or does it end with a first cause?

As pointed out earlier in another thread, if the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, then the universe has always existed, in the sense that it has existed for all time.

If it ends with a First Cause, that is if this chain begins with a cause found in one being, that being must have within tiself all of these effects, plus whatever other effects my come later in time, and include time since time is not a real entity but is dependent on the presence of existent beings. So this First Cause must contain all that we find in every individual being from atoms, to sand and rock and stars, to algee and plants, to amoeba and insects and animals, to rational beings such as humans and angels. Energy and matter must be accounted for in this First Cause, as must the principles of material science, and all the metaphysical principles that undergird this science, and so on and so forth.

If the entire point of this argument is to show that the origin of the universe is mysterious and in need of explanation, then I don't think you'd find much disagreement on that. However, the point is not merely to show that the universe's origins remain unknown, but to show that a personal creator deity satisfactorily accounts for it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Still waiting, @Joshua260. Gee, you dodge as much as @anonymous person does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, thanks. So you aren't clear whether raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. You have an opinion, but you're not quite sure. Who knows, maybe it's *not* wrong, eh?

Thanks for the conversation.

I'm sure in quatona's opinion it is wrong. He just realizes that it's an opinion...not a fact. You're asking for speculation on facts that don't exist. Facts that, for all practical purposes, appear to be opinions and function exactly like them.

Let's imagine for a moment that morals are facts, something that can be true or false. You have no means of proving any of these "facts" nor do you even have a methodology for discovering these "facts". In short, if someone were to give you a moral opinion...you'd have no way of knowing if it's true or false in regards to the moral facts.

So what's the point in calling them "facts"? Even if they are facts, they appear as opinions and function as opinions. It's a bit silly to argue whether or not they are facts until you have either a means of discovering them or a means of proving them.

I would say that the only real reasons to argue that moral facts exist are purely psychological. It feels good to think that you are making the "right" moral choices...it also justifies judging the behavior of those around you according to your own moral opinions. It's a psychological defense against ambiguity and doubt...two things that religion tries desperately to remove from reality.

 

[Davian]

This week's Atheist Experience internet show takes a WLC script-apologist as the first caller. In this format, the caller can't just evade and ignore the hosts, so there is more exploration and discovery of the holes in the script than can be done here as Joshua/anonymous person presents it.

(Caution - coarse language)

(advance to 10m30s)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This week's Atheist Experience internet show takes a WLC script-apologist as the first caller. In this format, the caller can't just evade and ignore the hosts, so there is more exploration and discovery of the holes in the script than can be done here as Joshua/anonymous person presents it.

(Caution - coarse language)

(advance to 10m30s)

Matt Dillahunty nails it at 26:54.

 

[anonymous person]

Matt Dillahunty nails it at 26:54.

May I respond to this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

May I respond to this?

It's an open forum.

 

[anonymous person]

It's an open forum.

Matt said that with God, we have no foundation for objective morality.

Did you hear that part?

 

[Davian]

Matt said that with God, we have no foundation for objective morality.

Did you hear that part?

I heard, with the theist's claim of a "god", there is no foundation for objective morality. All [the theist] has done is say "this is what God says" or "this is consistent with God's character".

Have you ever called in to this show?

 

[quatona]

Matt said that with God, we have no foundation for objective morality.

Did you hear that part?

I think what he said was that - once we have declared or agreed upon something to be the foundation of morality (be it a - existing or imagined - God, or human well being or whatever) - we can make objective moral assessments based on that foundation. That´s how far moral objectivity goes.
For a person who considers human well being the foundation God isn´t the foundation, for someone who considers God the foundation it isn´t human well being.
We have yet to see a compelling argument why to pick your foundation over any other.

A very interesting thing, however, is: When you start this "raping innocent babies for fun" routine, you are implicitly appealing to our foundation of morality. Yes, from this it follows clearly and objectively that "raping innocent babies for fun" wrong.
From yours (a God beyond our understanding whose decrees are - by virtue of his power - always right and good, no matter what they might say) this isn´t clear at all.

 

[anonymous person]

I heard, with the theist's claim of a "god", there is no foundation for objective morality. All [the theist] has done is say "this is what God says" or "this is consistent with God's character".

Have you ever called in to this show?

Then you did not hear everything he said.

He said with God we have no foundation for objective morality.

He then said, "because......"