Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Joshua260]

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

There could be lots of "supernatural agents", but the question is there one who places moral obligations on us. You don't indicate whether the person in question is a theist or not. He certainly can't be a Christian, because we believe that God's commandments are just and right.

So if he's a non-Christian theist, then he agrees with #1.
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."

If he's an atheist, then he must be answering subjectively, so he agrees with #3.

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

 

[Joshua260]

It was always wrong, but we used to think it was okay.

By what standard do you judge that raping little girls for fun has always been wrong? Nature makes no moral judgments.

As Dawkins says in reference to a godless universe, "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-real-consequences-of-atheism#ixzz3zBzzCdVp

BTW, in his statement above, Dawkins is essentially agreeing with the first premise of the moral argument:
"1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."

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?

Again, by what standard do you judge these things in the bible as being wrong?

Your response is pretty common and is based on several misunderstandings. A response to all the things you list would be to in depth here. I suggest that you read the book by Paul Copan called "Is God a Moral Monster?" which deals extensively with these issues. An excellent book!!

 

[Joshua260]

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:

First, I am not Jeremy. Second, I believe Jeremy made a mistake.
That is why in my example I use the phrase "human", as in:
"Raping little girls for fun is wrong, no matter what any human thinks."

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that you did not provide an answer to my question. Which statement would you agree with below?
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."

 

[Moral Orel]

As Dawkins says in reference to a godless universe, "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"

Is Richard Dawkins supposed to be an influence of mine because he's an atheist or is he just some guy with an opinion?

Again, by what standard do you judge these things in the bible as being wrong?

We create a code of conduct and call it morality based on what is the most beneficial for people as a whole. There are tangible, proven benefits to treating people fairly and it isn't a magic force that compels us to feel that way. "Fairly" may seem like a soft word or a generic word given the topic at hand, but everything boils down to that, really. You know, the ol' golden rule.

And I have had many a conversation with Christians, on these forums and in the real world, that have tried to justify the OT atrocities as being necessary, but given an omnipotent God, there was always a peaceful solution.

 

[Joshua260]

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

As you know, when Christians exhort you to "believe in Jesus Christ", we mean that you should put your trust in him, and yes, that is a conscious choice.

 

[quatona]

You spent a lot of effort insulting me.

No, I didn´t spend a lot of time on it. Where exactly did you perceive an insult?

None of these responses are relevant to the discussion.

Well, I just answered your question.

I want to know whether you believe raping little girls for fun is wrong or not wrong.

You didn´t ask me that. You asked if I could make a truth claim regarding raping little girls for fun, and I made several truth claims regarding it. How can I know what you actually want to know? I can only go by the questions, as you ask them.
First, your questions were all about "no matter what any human thinks".
Then you suddenly created a response option without that qualifier.
Next, you asked me to make a truth claim.
Now you say, all you want to know is what I believe.

So this is your most recent question:
"Do you believe that raping little girls for fun is wrong?"
Yes, I do believe that.
Please make sure you don´t take it for the response to another question.

Since you've now resorted to just being insulting and evasive,

I have given you a lot of points (albeit I admit they aren´t taken care of in your script). I have answered the question you asked me.

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."

As has been pointed out to you several times, this is a misrepresentation of my position. My patience with attempts at telling me what my position is goes only so far.

So, what about the Goldberg Variations?

 

[Joshua260]

We create a code of conduct and call it morality based on what is the most beneficial for people as a whole. There are tangible, proven benefits to treating people fairly and it isn't a magic force that compels us to feel that way. "Fairly" may seem like a soft word or a generic word given the topic at hand, but everything boils down to that, really. You know, the ol' golden rule.

But any constructed subjective morality does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of an objective morality. In the above reply, you're basically assuming atheism from the start...where you begin with "we create".

And I have had many a conversation with Christians, on these forums and in the real world, that have tried to justify the OT atrocities as being necessary, but given an omnipotent God, there was always a peaceful solution.

So you're saying that an omnipotent God could make us freely choose to do only good things?

 

[Joshua260]

So this is your most recent question:
"Do you believe that raping little girls for fun is wrong?"
Yes, I do believe that.

Ok. So do you believe that it's wrong no matter what any human thinks?

 

[quatona]

Ok. So do you believe that it's wrong no matter what any human thinks?

Hang on. First I want you to admit that my response isn´t covered by option #3 (nor by any of the other two options). QED.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There could be lots of "supernatural agents", but the question is there one who places moral obligations on us.

A question you have yet to answer by the way.

You don't indicate whether the person in question is a theist or not. He certainly can't be a Christian, because we believe that God's commandments are just and right.

So if he's a non-Christian theist, then he agrees with #1.
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."

If he's an atheist, then he must be answering subjectively, so he agrees with #3.

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

Er, nope. Atheism does not entail ethical subjectivism. You already know this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-real-consequences-of-atheism#ixzz3zBzzCdVp

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

BTW, in his statement above, Dawkins is essentially agreeing with the first premise of the moral argument:
"1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."

Er, no he isn't.

Again, by what standard do you judge these things in the bible as being wrong?

Matt answered this. You didn't bother to engage with it because it didn't fit with your script. You're pretty poor at these sort of conversations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First, I am not Jeremy.

I know you're not, but your responses are indistinguishable from his, so I'm going to treat them the same.

Second, I believe Jeremy made a mistake.
That is why in my example I use the phrase "human", as in:
"Raping little girls for fun is wrong, no matter what any human thinks."

Wasn't Christ supposedly fully god and fully human? In any case, given that you believe there are other forms of intelligence, why limit it to what humans think? After all, Satan might want you to engage in such an act, and he isn't human.

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that you did not provide an answer to my question. Which statement would you agree with below?
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."

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that you haven't answered this question, or my question about plagiarism. This is another similarity between you and Jeremy: the dodging.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hang on. First I want you to admit that my response isn´t covered by option #3 (nor by any of the other two options). QED.

"Does not compute. Script error. SCRIPT ERROR. Read more: faithablereason.com"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your response is pretty common and is based on several misunderstandings. A response to all the things you list would be to in depth here. I suggest that you read the book by Paul Copan called "Is God a Moral Monster?" which deals extensively with these issues. An excellent book!!

Funnily enough, Jeremy recommended the exact same book:

Paul Copan wrote an excellent book covering all the above entitled Is God a Moral Monster? Great book.

To speak any more on this here would be in contravention of the forum rules, i.e. to engage in General Apologetics. However, I will send you a free copy of Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster for you to read if you want me to.

You like the same books, post the same quotes...

I think might be a good idea to quote you a famous atheist, David Hume:
"I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause".

I think you know very well that even the great skeptic David Hume would not go so far as to claim such an absurd proposition that something could arise without a cause.

As Dawkins says in reference to a godless universe, "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"

Jeremy is an atheist who agrees with Dawkins when he says, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He certainly can't be a Christian, because we believe that God's commandments are just and right.

Why are they just and right?

 

[Joshua260]

Hang on. First I want you to admit that my response isn´t covered by option #3 (nor by any of the other two options). QED.

I cannot agree to that at this point. From your answer so far, you either agree with #1 or 3?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I cannot agree to that at this point. From your answer so far, you either agree with #1 or 3?

Psstt.. turn to page 5.

 

[Joshua260]

Why are they just and right?

I've explained this numerous times already in this thread. Because the bible, which defines the nature of the Christian god describes his nature, and by extension his judgements and commandments as just and right.

 

[Joshua260]

Funnily enough, Jeremy recommended the exact same book:




You like the same books, post the same quotes...

I have told you numerous times that I am not Jeremy. You are harassing me, just like you have done before.

BTW, it shouldn't surprise you that many Christians read the same books. Just like many atheists have Matt Dillahunty as their poster boy for atheism. So it should be no surprise that you will find folks on both sides that sound similar. This is a pointless and silly rebuttal that you use over and over. You're just playing by the Dawkins playbook.

Richard Dawkins himself has advocated the atheist should use ridicule and mockery as one of their chief weapons against Christians. “Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3zCnYZbvZ

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have told you numerous times that I am not Jeremy. You are harassing me, just like you have done before.

Where did I say that you were Jeremy? Can you please point to the post, in this thread, where I have said that you were Jeremy? Is it "harassment" to simply note the similarity between the posts of two individuals?

BTW, it shouldn't surprise you that many Christians read the same books. Just like many atheists have Matt Dillahunty as their poster boy for atheism. So it should be no surprise that you will find folks on both sides that sound similar. This is a pointless and silly rebuttal that you use over and over. You're just playing by the Dawkins playbook.

Really? I have yet to meet two atheists on this forum who sound so remarkably similar.

Richard Dawkins himself has advocated the atheist should use ridicule and mockery as one of their chief weapons against Christians. “Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.”

You know, I seem to remember Jeremy saying something similar... Let's see if I can find the post.