Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[High Fidelity]

Would a just God hold one accountable for things beyond one's control?

Define beyond one's control.

 

[Davian]

Define beyond one's control.

Things that are beyond one's conscious control, to be specific, such as one's beliefs.

 

[High Fidelity]

Things that are beyond one's conscious control, to be specific, such as one's beliefs.

That's still very vague and while I can see what you're getting at, many different theologies and denominations would answer you differently.

 

[Davian]

That's still very vague and while I can see what you're getting at, many different theologies and denominations would answer you differently.

Then answer on the basis of your own theology, as I assumed you did for #280.

Would a just God hold one accountable for things beyond one's conscious control, such as one's beliefs?

 

[High Fidelity]

Then answer on the basis of your own theology, as I assumed you did for #280.

Would a just God hold one accountable for things beyond one's conscious control, such as one's beliefs?

Again, things are just because He does them, so whatever He does, ultimately, is just. Whether that means holding those who haven't heard to account, then that's that.

I am pretty sure there's nothing in Scripture that says anything specifically about those that haven't heard, but some points to consider are the following;

John 14:6 and Acts 4:12.

Consider then Romans 10:13-14.

I understand it's not what many want to hear, but that's just how it is. We also need to remember that His ways are above our ways and we're not to be wise in our own eyes and lean on our own understanding. It's very easy, especially in this instance, to apply humanistic understanding and emotion to something -- Someone -- that is not us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, things are just because He does them, so whatever He does, ultimately, is just. Whether that means holding those who haven't heard to account, then that's that.

See my previous comment on this, in addition to this comment from FrumiousBandersnatch:

If the standard you use to assess God's moral goodness is God, it's a meaningless assessment. To say 'God is good' only means 'God is himself' and 'God reveals what is good' only means 'God reveals whatever he reveals'. You can apply this to anyone or anything: e.g. Trump is morally good; what does it mean to be morally good? it means to have the moral character of Trump; but why does it mean this? because Trump is morally good...

So being morally good means God has the moral character of Himself, whatever that may be. This doesn't imply anything about God or his concern for our wellbeing, it just means God is Himself. His commands & actions could cause untold harm and suffering (as in the Bible) and still be good by definition. He could have hatred & contempt for all beings and still be 'good' by definition.

It seems to me that 'goodness' in the context 'God is the standard of goodness', is meaningless or redundant; God is the standard of Himself, whatever that is - effectively a meaningless tautology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The following is the definition of a truth claim:
"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_claim

The following are truth claims:
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

In that case, my previous answer was a truth claim (I hold 1 to be true - i.e. it's my opinion that it's true).

 

[Davian]

Again, things are just because He does them, so whatever He does, ultimately, is just. Whether that means holding those who haven't heard to account, then that's that.

I am pretty sure there's nothing in Scripture that says anything specifically about those that haven't heard, but some points to consider are the following;

John 14:6 and Acts 4:12.

Consider then Romans 10:13-14.

Going down that path paints Christians as gullible, and that is not how I view belief.

I understand it's not what many want to hear, but that's just how it is.

It's not about what I want or don't want to hear, but finding what you are writing to be incoherent.

If I say that I am following George, and you ask, which way is he going, and I say "up", and you ask, what if he goes in a different direction, and I say, "we'll call that 'up'", would you find that to be coherent, when we already have a usable definition of the word "up"?

Would it not be more accurate to describe what you are saying not as "just", but as "might makes right"? If this hypothetical "George" is all-powerful, we'll use "up" in whatever manner we need to so as to avoid his wrath?

We also need to remember that His ways are above our ways and we're not to be wise in our own eyes and lean on our own understanding. It's very easy, especially in this instance, to apply humanistic understanding and emotion to something -- Someone -- that is not us.

From my perspective, gods are a human invention, so you can make your god out to be whatever you see fit. However, I can see the value in never letting the ink dry so as to avoid being pinned down on something you can't back up out of.

Putting your theology aside for the moment, what about you? Do you feel that others should hold you accountable for things beyond your conscious control?

 

[Joshua260]

I've often been told that I'm very patient. That's not always true, but sometimes I am willing to beat a dead horse, and this conversation is interesting to me...so if you can put up with my dead horse-beating, I think I'd like to address this some more.

First, the following is the definition of a truth claim:
"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_claim

No, there are plenty other possible truth claims.

We'll see...

Plus, the last one isn´t a truth claim.

Well, I can demonstrate that it most definitely could be a truth claim. But I see that in one case it may not be...and I think it reflects your position.

So you say "there are plenty other possible truth claims". I don't think there's *plenty*, and I doubt that there's even one more than what I've already listed. I think that many statements can be grouped under those three possible answers.

I thought I would list the choices followed by the types of people who I think would agree with them.

1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
a. a Christian (truth claim).
b. a non-Christian theist (truth claim).

2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
a. an atheist (truth claim).
b. non-Christian theist (truth claim).

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."
a. a non-Christian theist who does not want to answer to whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (truth claim).
b. an atheist who does not want to answer to whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (subjective truth claim).
c. a non-Christian theist who is unclear whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (truth claim).
d. an atheist who is unclear whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (subjective truth claim).
e. an agnostic (makes no truth claim)

So I said I would explain how #3 can most definitely be a truth claim. It can be in the cases of 3a and 3c above. The reason why is because the law of non-contradiction holds that both assertions (1b and 2b) cannot both be true at the same time. It has to be one or the other!!

...there are other options that you haven´t offered: "I know it is wrong" or "I know it is right."

If the person is speaking objectively, he can be classed in either 1 or 2. If subjectively, #3 would apply.

So if I understand you correctly, you are answering that you don't know and that you are not making a truth claim. In that case, you can still use the same language for the last option:

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

 

[quatona]

I've often been told that I'm very patient.

If you want to argue for an untenable position, you sure need a lot of patience. So I guess this trait of yours comes in handy here.

First, the following is the definition of a truth claim:
"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_claim


We'll see...
Well, I can demonstrate that it most definitely could be a truth claim. But I see that in one case it may not be...and I think it reflects your position.

So your third option collects statements of very different nature. Reason enough to reject this poll, because it stacks the deck.

1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
a. a Christian (truth claim).
b. a non-Christian theist (truth claim).

2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
a. an atheist (truth claim).
b. non-Christian theist (truth claim).

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."
a. a non-Christian theist who does not want to answer to whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (truth claim).
b. an atheist who does not want to answer to whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (subjective truth claim).
c. a non-Christian theist who is unclear whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (truth claim).
d. an atheist who is unclear whether raping little girls for is wrong or not (subjective truth claim).
e. an agnostic (makes no truth claim)

I have no idea why you would introduce religious convictions here. They are completely irrelevant.

So I said I would explain how #3 can most definitely be a truth claim. It can be in the cases of 3a

No. Someone who makes no claim makes no truth claim. That should be obvious.

and 3c above.

This person neither makes a truth claim here.

The reason why is because the law of non-contradiction holds that both assertions (1b and 2b) cannot both be true at the same time. It has to be one or the other!!

No. The question to which 1b or 2b are possible answers can simply be based on a faulty (or unaccepted) premise. They can both be inaccurate or considered inaccurate.
Furthermore, #3 answer a totally different question (since it doesn´t come with the qualifier "no matter what any human thinks").
So 1+2 and 3 aren´t even in competition. They are from completely different categories.

If the person is speaking objectively, he can be classed in either 1 or 2.

...but for some - not so strange (because your tactics are very transparent) - reason you had omitted your "objectivity"-clause in the third option. So your version of objectivity ("no matter what any human thinks") doesn´t apply, by virtue of your own choice of wording this option.

Now, maybe you want to re-introduce it here? I am sure I needn´t warn you that this will get you in even deeper trouble.

If subjectively, #3 would apply.

It may apply, but so may other claims. Like "it is wrong" or "it is right" or "it is sometimes wrong and sometimes right" (without referring to your "objectivity"-clause which you have purposefully left out here). Thus, the option leaves it to the responder to define the criteria for "right" and "wrong".

So if I understand you correctly, you are answering that you don't know and that you are not making a truth claim.

That was my response when the clause "no matter what any human thinks" was still part of the question.

In that case, you can still use the same language for the last option:

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

No, I can´t and I don´t. You have never even asked me the question to which this could possibly be an answer to, after all. By filing my response under 3 you are pretending I had answered to a question that you hadn´t even asked.
All through this thread you had asked for an answer based on your "objectivity"-clause ("no matter what any human thinks"), and I had responded accordingly.
And suddenly my response is filed in a category that doesn´t come with this clause. That´s weird, to say it mildly. If you weren´t a Christian (who are not only notorious for their patience, but also for their intellectual honesty) I might make uncharitable assumptions about your motives at this point.



The first options are answers to a different question.

Now make up your mind which of the two question you want to ask me - but don´t keep pretending I was answering a question I wasn´t asked.

 

[Joshua260]

In that case, my previous answer was a truth claim (I hold 1 to be true - i.e. it's my opinion that it's true).

For reference:
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks.

I'm not sure how much you've studied the Moral Argument, but if "it's [your] opinion that it's true" that "raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks" (which I'm glad to hear), then you must believe that objective moral values and duties do exist. This happens to be the second premise of the argument.

For reference:

The Moral Argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So we both believe that premise 2 is true. But what about premise 1? If God does not exist, then who or what places moral obligations on us? Nothing and no one. So it seems that both premises 1 and 2 appear to be true, and if so, then the conclusion naturally follows that God exists. I hope this gives you cause to reconsider your atheism.

If you are interested in more info, there's a good video discussing the argument at the following url:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-moral-argument

 

[Joshua260]

No. Someone who makes no claim makes no truth claim. That should be obvious.

This person neither makes a truth claim here.

Clearly, you still do not understand my meaning here. We've tried this a few times already. Slow down and consider what I'm saying very carefully.
Let me ask you this:
Is it true that something cannot 1) exist and 2) not exist at the same time?

Let's cut to the chase then because you are not making yourself clear. Instead of me listing choices, why don't you just answer the following two questions:
1. are you making a truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun?
2. if so, what is your truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun?

 

[quatona]

Clearly, you still do not understand my meaning here.

I did understand your meaning. Until you suddenly changed your course.

We've tried this a few times already. Slow down and consider what I'm saying very carefully.

Sure. I just would like you to do the same with my responses.

Let me ask you this:
Is it true that something cannot 1) exist and 2) not exist at the same time?

The claim that X exists and doesn´t exist at the same time violates logic. So, if we can agree that we are talking on basis of logic (which I am not entirely clear you are willing to), this is where neither of us wants to go: it´s an illogical claim.

Let's cut to the chase then because you are not making yourself clear. Instead of me listing choices, why don't you just answer the following two questions:

Ok. I have been playing by your rules all the time, why not play by them even if you change them and disregard your previous rules because they didn´t work?

1. are you making a truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun?

Yes.

2. if so, what is your truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun?

"It happens occasionally." (Not to put too fine a point on it - but I´ll mention it for completeness´ sake: I am not entirely convinced that the "for fun" part is an accurate description of the motives of the perpetrator, though).
Another one would be: "It´s against the law."
Another one would be: "It´s almost universally disapproved of."
Another one: "It causes great suffering."
Or, a more personal truth claim: "It strikes me as abhorrent."

 

[quatona]

Let's cut to the chase then because you are not making yourself clear. Instead of me listing choices, why don't you just answer the following two questions:
1. are you making a truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun?
2. if so, what is your truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun?

Now that I have shown that I am willing to follow your questions no matter how often you change them, will you answer some analogious questions, please? (I am pretty sure this will help clarify some misunderstandings here, which I am sure is in your interest, as well.)
1. are you making a truth claim regarding Bach´s Goldberg Variations?
2. if so, what is your truth claim regarding Bach´s Goldberg Variations?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For reference:
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks.

I'm not sure how much you've studied the Moral Argument, but if "it's [your] opinion that it's true" that "raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks" (which I'm glad to hear), then you must believe that objective moral values and duties do exist. This happens to be the second premise of the argument.

What about those who think it's wrong no matter what any supernatural agent says?

For reference:

The Moral Argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So we both believe that premise 2 is true. But what about premise 1? If God does not exist, then who or what places moral obligations on us? Nothing and no one. So it seems that both premises 1 and 2 appear to be true, and if so, then the conclusion naturally follows that God exists. I hope this gives you cause to reconsider your atheism.

People weren't sticking to the script... so you went along with the script anyway. You are a consummate apologist.

If you are interested in more info, there's a good video discussing the argument at the following url:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-moral-argument

Been there, done that. Have you got anything new?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For reference:
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks.

I'm not sure how much you've studied the Moral Argument, but if "it's [your] opinion that it's true" that "raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks" (which I'm glad to hear), then you must believe that objective moral values and duties do exist. This happens to be the second premise of the argument.

For reference:

The Moral Argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So we both believe that premise 2 is true. But what about premise 1? If God does not exist, then who or what places moral obligations on us? Nothing and no one. So it seems that both premises 1 and 2 appear to be true, and if so, then the conclusion naturally follows that God exists. I hope this gives you cause to reconsider your atheism.

If objective moral values and duties are necessarily God-given moral values and duties, then the argument becomes circular. Simply replace the word "objective" with "God-given" and you'll see the problem. See this previous discussion with Jeremy:

In your first definition, 'objective' values were defined as those values that stem from God as their locus. This rendered your first premise tautological: If God does not exist, then objective moral values (defined as those values which stem from God) do not exist either.

According to your second definition, 'objective' values are those values which exist independent of personal perception and conception. You have described God as a person. From your definition of 'objective', it would follow logically then that 'objective' values must also be independent of God as he is, in your view, a person.

 

[Davian]

...
I hope this gives you cause to reconsider your atheism.

Are you implying by this that belief is a conscious choice?

 

[Davian]

...
People weren't sticking to the script... so you went along with the script anyway. You are a consummate apologist.

I've watched few more WLC debates than I'd care to admit to, and it does appear that he trots out the same old presuppositions at the beginning, and follows his script regardless of who he is debating, or what they respond with. It would seem that Joshua/a.p./Jeremy is attempting to apply the same [and somewhat unsuitable] tactics to an internet discussion forum.

 

[Joshua260]

I did understand your meaning. Until you suddenly changed your course.

Sure. I just would like you to do the same with my responses.

The claim that X exists and doesn´t exist at the same time violates logic. So, if we can agree that we are talking on basis of logic (which I am not entirely clear you are willing to), this is where neither of us wants to go: it´s an illogical claim.


Ok. I have been playing by your rules all the time, why not play by them even if you change them and disregard your previous rules because they didn´t work?

You spent a lot of effort insulting me. It appears that's one of your favorite tactics.

"It happens occasionally." (Not to put too fine a point on it - but I´ll mention it for completeness´ sake: I am not entirely convinced that the "for fun" part is an accurate description of the motives of the perpetrator, though).
Another one would be: "It´s against the law."
Another one would be: "It´s almost universally disapproved of."
Another one: "It causes great suffering."
Or, a more personal truth claim: "It strikes me as abhorrent."

None of these responses are relevant to the discussion. I want to know whether you believe raping little girls for fun is wrong or not wrong.
Since you've now resorted to just being insulting and evasive, I'll just go with the last relevant response you provided, which is:

...and, first of all (because that would be my answer), c. Where´s the option "I don´t know that there is a moral right or wrong no matter what any human thinks - despite the fact that some humans claim there is"?

Since you don't know whether raping little girls for fun is wrong or not, your position agrees with the last option:
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

 

[Moral Orel]

Since you don't know whether raping little girls for fun is wrong or not, your position agrees with the last option:
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

Ugh.... I hate this argument. The trick is to get people to think that they either have to believe in God or they want to do some terrible atrocity. The trick is that we can say that "raping little girls for fun" is something that is wrong, but only because we learned that over time. It was always wrong, but we used to think it was okay.

Remember when marriages were arranged by fathers? And daughters were sold (at a very young age) to their suitors based solely on a financial transaction between the father and her husband to be? Did those daughters offer consent? What if they said, "no"? Well they got wedded off anyways, and probably beaten for being disrespectful to their elders. And then, of course, the husband would have sex with them whether they liked it or not. I call that rape. Don't you?

But this very system was spelled out in the Old Testament because that's what people thought was right back then. If morals such as these are objective because they are passed on by God, then God's morals must change over time as well... but they don't do they because God is unchanging? So either what they were doing back then was wrong, or we should be treating women like that now. So which is it?

While we're naming off atrocities and judging their moral merit should we broach the subject of genocide, slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice as well?