Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

So what if the Bible describes him as such?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're just playing by the Dawkins playbook.

That's funny coming from the guy who is literally playing by another person's (Craig's) playbook.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 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.

No; because there are no objective moral values (it's an incoherent idea), I can only say that [in my opinion] it's wrong, no matter what anyone else thinks.

To put it another way, I don't care what anyone else thinks about it; I personally think it's wrong.

Does that help clarify it for you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Yes, it's ethically dubious for obvious reasons.

 

[Moral Orel]

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".

No. It isn't "constructed subjective morality" simply because it didn't come from God. It is objective morality because it is always wrong to rape little girls for fun, no matter what anyone else thinks, even if it is spelled out as a law in the Bible. Just because they thought it was okay a long time ago, doesn't mean it was okay a long time ago. Sometimes we have to discover morality because for some reason it never occurred to us. Like slavery, and racism, and sexism, etc... Of course an all-knowing God who is the source of all morality could have just told us these things were wrong from the start, but the Bible seems to suggest that he encourages these things so...

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

That's not what we're talking about at all. Don't try to change arguments midstream. I could argue that statement too, but try to stay on topic. We're talking about the things that God commanded people to do in the OT that today we find morally reprehensible. That has nothing to do with the whole free will argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So what if the Bible describes him as such?

Because the Bible is the word of God... oh, wait

Getting dizzy again...

 

[HitchSlap]

Here's the argument as I presented it:

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

In order to keep from shot-gunning our evaluation of this argument again, first I'd like for you to tell me whether you believe the argument above is valid. In other words, does the conclusion follow from the premises (whether they or true or not)?

It would be just as equally valid to not believe, as to believe, given 50/50 odds.

 

[quatona]

I cannot agree to that at this point.

It doesn´t matter much whether you agree. It´s clearly there for everyone to see.
"I believe it´s wrong" doesn´t mean "It may or may not be wrong", nor does it say anything about "no matter what any human thinks".

From your answer so far, you either agree with #1 or 3?

Obviously, my response doesn´t match either of those categories.
Your script is at a dead end here, as it has been so many times before.
Your category system is incomplete, at best.

 

[Davian]

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

"Nature" doesn't, but people do, based on a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.

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"

That does seem where the evidence leads us. I don't like it, but I do not want to deceive myself into thinking otherwise.

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

From that page: "Dr. Craig: Well, I think what he explains is the consequences of naturalism for moral values and duties. His claim is that if atheism is true then what we perceive to be moral values and duties are really just figments of our imagination ingrained into us by biological and social conditioning."

Atheism is not a truth statement, but Craig's statement is intellectually dishonest, in that it implies that biological and social conditioning are insufficient for establishing moral values and duties.

I also do not see how basing your morals on "anything goes, as long as you believe [in the Christian god]" addresses this "raping little girls" scenario that you keep dragging thorough here. Why do *you* consider it wrong?

 

[Davian]

I have told you numerous times that I am not Jeremy.

Are you "anonymous person"? I do seem to get these two accounts mixed up.

 

[Davian]

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.

Yet you and I can both quickly test this truth claim, and find it false, and our findings are corroborated by current neuroscience and modern philosophy of mind.

Yet you maintain that it is true? Will your theology collapse if you accept the scientific standpoint?

 

[Davian]

...
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?

I would consider a form of rape. While not strictly "for fun", the man would be getting a sex partner, a cook, housekeeper, etc..

I recall discussing this in person with someone, and they rebutted "well if she didn't want to marry him, she should say so", to which I replied, "do you think a 13-year-old girl would have much say in the matter?". The exchange ended there.

 

[Joshua260]

It would be just as equally valid to not believe, as to believe, given 50/50 odds.

"Valid to believe" is not the same as "better to believe". And if both of the premises are true, then it is better to believe in the Christian god than not.

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Valid to believe" is not the same as "better to believe". And if both of the premises are true, then it is better to believe in the Christian god than not.

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

I would agree with this syllogism.

 

[Joshua260]

So what if the Bible describes him as such?

I was answering your question.

So you're not going to reply with which statement below you agree with, are you?
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."

 

[Davian]

"Valid to believe" is not the same as "better to believe".

But there is overlap, such as with the belief that dogs bite. Both valid and better to believe so.

And if both of the premises are true, then it is better to believe in the Christian god than not.

But they are not - your god exists or it does not.

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.

I am still waiting to see what you base this on. Is a literal Adam and Eve as likely as not? Is a biblical-global-flood as likely as not? Is evolutionary theory as likely as not? Is modern cosmology as likely as not?

2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.

This rests on the falsity that one can consciously choose what one believes.

3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

Therefore, your arguments needs a lot more troubleshooting.

 

[Joshua260]

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

I would agree with this syllogism.

I appreciate your candor. Whether or not one believes the premises are true, my goal was to provide a fair presentation of Pascal's Wager. In order to understand his argument correctly, the part of the argument that gets all the "air-time" (premise 2), must be taken in context with the rest of the Pensees, in which Pascal presented his argument for premise 1. I don't believe even Pascal himself would have accepted the argument as a good one based on premise 2 alone.

So Pascal's wager is fine. What it really boils down to, as usual, is whether one believes the arguments and evidence is sufficient for one to reasonably believe in the probability that the Christian god exists (premise 1). In this case, at least 50% probable.

 

[quatona]

Hey Joshua,
have you solved the problem how to equate "It´s wrong" und "It may or may not be wrong", in the meantime?

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.

How exactly did you calculate those odds?

2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.

Why? Better in which way? Better by which criteria, goals and ideals?

 

[Davian]

Because the Bible is the word of God... oh, wait

Getting dizzy again...

Circular logic has the same affect on me.

 

[HitchSlap]

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.


I appreciate your candor. Whether or not one believes the premises are true, my goal was to provide a fair presentation of Pascal's Wager. In order to understand his argument correctly, the part of the argument that gets all the "air-time" (premise 2), must be taken in context with the rest of the Pensees, in which Pascal presented his argument for premise 1. I don't believe even Pascal himself would have accepted the argument as a good one based on premise 2 alone.

So Pascal's wager is fine. What it really boils down to, as usual, is whether one believes the arguments and evidence is sufficient for one to reasonably believe in the probability that the Christian god exists (premise 1). In this case, at least 50% probable.

This syllogism can be applied to any deity that's ever been imagined. Which is why, IMO, it's a poor argument, as there is nothing to indicate this deity is anymore salient than another. For instance, replace "Christian God" with Zeus, and the syllogism remain just as sound. Additionally, wouldn't an omniscient deity know one's motives for belief?