Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

ed: You do know I am playing Devils advocate here right?

dm: No, I don't know that.

And I thought you had debated before. I guess I was wrong.

dm: You are extremely zealous in your support of Hitler. I have suggested that maybe you are just playing devil's advocate and you did not respond.

I just assumed your debating experience and reading comprehension would answer that question. Again, I guess I was wrong and over estimated you.

dm: When I combine this with the fact that the people you seem to identify with are wearing racist "6MWE" tee shirts, I don't know.

I dont even know what 6MWE means. I dont identify with any racist group. As a Christian, I consider racism antithetical to Christianity as do most Christians.

ed: You just feel he was not fair to them, right?
dm: No, I know that Hitler was not fair to the Jews.

How do you know that your definition of fairness is right and theirs is wrong?

ed: On what objective basis?
dm: On the same basis I have told you many times before: If people like Hitler kill each other, it breaks the trust relationship we need to survive.

That is a subjective basis, not objective.

ed: You are the one that claimed if something was done out of love then it could be justified even killing.
dm: False. I never said this.

Yes, you did.

ed: Why is your love better than his, objectively?

dm: Same answer as every other time you asked: I want to live, and if people like Hitler indiscriminately kill
each other, that breaks the trust relationship we need to survive.

Again, those are subjective reasons.

ed: Only because he killed and was unfair to your favorite species, homo sapiens.

dm: No. because Hitler broke the trust relationship we need to survive. (And I want to survive.)

And WE is homo sapiens, thanks for confirming what I just wrote.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, you did.

No, I did not. Repeating a false statement over and over does not make it true.

I never said that killing can be justified if the killer says it is done out of love. You are just making this false accusation up out of thin air. Then you repeat the same false assertion over and over.

How does it benefit your cause to make up false things about people and then repeat them over and over?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Uhh no they are not. Just because they are Christian philosophers does not mean that they are professional apologists, try again.

Apologist: one who speaks or writes in defense of Christianity. Everyone knows that. Plantinga and Swinburne are both famous for doing this.

 

[Ed1wolf]

There have been so many bad arguments on this thread for the existence of God, sometimes it feels like reading this:
ExChristian.Net - Articles: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence

Well so far you haven't refuted mine.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The jokes's on you, Ed. Although since what Donald Trump was up to around the time @doubtingmerle posted this was inciting insurrection against the government of the United States of America, it's a pretty black joke.
Seriously. At this point, Merle is right. Anyone who can say Donald Trump doesn't carry a huge amount of blame for the catastrophe that is the coronavirus in the US, or indeed that he did a good job - well, the only response to such a person can only be:

His words were no different than what every politician says multiple times a year. And the FBI has confirmed now it was planned days before by the Oath Keepers and other extremist groups thereby proving Trump had nothing to do with it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: All of those things violate the actual teachings of Christianity.

ia: Your answer is a textbook logical fallacy.

Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, the NTS fallacy does not apply to Christianity since we have an actual objective definition of what Christianity is, unlike Scotsmen.

ed: I dont deny that they have done good things but most of Western society is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Not on atheist principles, or muslim principles, or buddhist principles.
ia: That's because most of western society was Christian. That doesn't mean, however, that Christianity can claim credit for the advances of western civilisation, just that these advances were made by people who happened to be Christians. So what?

Generally people are influenced by their worldview. They incorporated many of their Christian principles into their founding of the society especially in the case of the USA.

ed: No, the key is the Christian principles but the printing press was certainly instrumental in spreading those principles to more people. That way the corrupt RCC couldn't restrict peoples access to Gods word. The Enlightenment actually would probably have never occurred if not for the Reformation.

ia: Quite possibly you're right. But that does not in any way contradict Merle's saying that the Enlightenment was more valuable to society than the Reformation.

Well I disagree, most of the most important principles of Western society came from Christianity like human equality and human rights, not from the Enlightenment.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This thread is too big. I have moved this discussion here: Did a Homo Erectus build an Ocean Liner? | Christian Forums .

Sorry, I only have time for one thread at a time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Let me get this straight. You claim that atheists were not able to come up with a good moral system on their own, but rather, needed to rely on Christians who gave them their moral system. And Christians got their moral system from the Bible. And from the Bible you find that, "Babies have a sinful nature...and deserve to die according to the universal law of justice. And possibly God wanted to not to have them around to remind the descendants of Noah...of the all the evil done during the pre-flood days"

Sorry, but I think I can find better sources of moral teaching than this.

Not the real objective one.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, I am not a biologist, so it is always nice to get a perspective from someone like you who is a professional biologist.

Below are your comments in response to: "you believe people will live 900 years old if they ingest the right chemicals? "

Understood, but 900 years?!?

Danged igneous rocks.

So this woman could be good for another 786 years?

Ah, killer supernovae are the problem. Good to know.


That does it. I will become a vegan.

Uh, on second thought...


Add a year here, add a year there, soon we are up to living 900 years. Cool!

Yes, all those factors combined with being born relatively soon after their ancestors ingested fruit from the Tree of Life which potentially would have allowed Adam and Eve to live forever if they had not sinned.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not really. Neither species nor race are well-defined scientific terms. The popular definition of species as being a limitation on interbreeding is just a convenient rule of thumb, but there are many exceptions and a variety of other criteria, depending on the context. Designating a species is basically a way of indicating that a population is sufficiently different to show clear evidence of a separate evolutionary path - this doesn't necessarily mean they can't interbreed or even merge with populations of closely related species.

Homo sapiens also interbred with Homo neanderthalensis, but both they and Homo erectus were significantly different populations genetically and morphologically - sufficiently different that we can identify their genetic signatures in modern Homo sapiens and identify them as separate species from their bones.

I disagree. Since sapiens and Neanderthals produced fertile offspring, I believe they were the same species just a different race. Early humans were much more genetically diverse and had more genetic plasticity than modern humans. It would be similar to finding a fossil of a German shepherd and a chihuahua. You would probably think that they were different species, but they are in fact the same species.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: All of the edits in the Bible have been identified by scholars...

dm: How could you possibly know that all Bible edits are identified? We have no idea what edits might have been done in the first century before the books were widely circulated.

I guess I should have said that all the edits for which we have evidence for have been identified. There is no evidence for any other edits. And we know that ancient jews were very meticulous in the copying and writing of texts and that early Christians believed that lying was a moral absolute, therefore, there is much lower probability of text tampering among them as compared to pagans.

dm: Deuteronomy 28? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this chapter teaches that divine interventions are rare?

See my earlier post where I dealt with that chapter.

dm; Amazon.com: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (0884915134810): Ehrman, Bart D.: Books

I read Ehrman's other book about edits in the Bible and not single one was significant. And there is no evidence of any significant corruption of Scripture.

dm: And the entire book of Matthew is a rewrite of Mark, copying 90% of the verses with edits, and then adding a lot of material on top of that.

Matthew just added some things that he as an eyewitness witnessed.

ed: Matthew was authorized by God to write his text. There is no evidence of later edits.

dm: How do you know Matthew was authorized to rewrite Mark? Maybe the fallible person who told you that was mistaken.

He didn't rewrite Mark, he just added details that he witnessed. The Holy spirit has confirmed that the fallible person was not mistaken.

ed: Actually you dont need to believe everything in them, just the essentials.
dm: What are the essentials that we need to believe? You have told me that if one believes the Son of God was named Pedro and died in Mexico for our sins, that this mistaken person will go to hell.

The Apostles Creed and the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments and Christ.

dm: If there is going to be a final exam, and I need to score 100% to get in, I would want to know what is on the final. Please list all the things one must believe to go to heaven.

See above.

ed: The church guided by God chose the correct books and that has been confirmed by historical evidence and research.
dm: How do you know the church picked the right books?

Because the historical evidence points in that direction and the holy spirit has confirmed it.

dm: And why is it that every single list of books before the 4th century differs from the list we have today?

The differences are not significant.

dm: If there is going to be a final, one would think God would tell us which books are going to be on the final.

He has.

ed: Exactly. No contradiction there. They were from Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census and the birth and then returned to Nazareth.

dm: Uh, that is what Luke says. But Matthew indicates Joseph and Mary were not going home to Nazareth, but were moving there to avoid Herod. They contradict.

No, he may have initially thought about going back to Bethlehem but decided to go back to Nazareth. No contradiction there.

dm: So is the final going to be based on Matthew or Luke? Which one truly has the essentials?

They both have the essentials.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, the NTS fallacy does not apply to Christianity since we have an actual objective definition of what Christianity is, unlike Scotsmen.

That's quite inaccurate. First of all, we do have an objective view of what a Scotsman is - a man who was born and lives in Scotland. That's why the NTS fallacy is a fallacy, because it's making up an imaginary qualification. This isn't easy to do, since "being a Scotsman" is a fairly easy thing to determine, but the fallacious speaker in the example is appealing to some mythical sense of "true Scottishness" and citing the action of "eats salt in his porridge" as proof.
For Christianity, it's easier, because while you might say there is an objective definition of being a Christian (someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ) there is a great deal of confusion about what those teachings actually were and what they meant, the proof of which is that there are literally hundreds of different types of Christians, all disagreeing with each other, and many of them saying that the others are not really Christians at all.
So yes - when you say that the people who disagree with you are not real Christians, that's a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Generally people are influenced by their worldview. They incorporated many of their Christian principles into their founding of the society especially in the case of the USA.

You'll find it difficult to prove that. While Christianity was a major element in Western culture, it was not the only element; and indeed, reaction to Christianity, or learning from religious mistakes was also an important factor.

Well I disagree, most of the most important principles of Western society came from Christianity like human equality and human rights, not from the Enlightenment.

That's a considerable oversimplification, and a misleading one. There is a reason that the Enlightenment was called that. It was a time in which people began to think new ideas, many of them considering that the old viewpoints of religious thinking were incorrect or limiting. The American Constitution owes a great deal to these thinkers. Trying to claim credit for human equality and human rights from Christianity is an extremely difficult task to attempt, partly because many other factors can claim credit for it, and partly because of Christianity's historical role against these things. Christianity's ideal model is not a democracy, it is s divinely ordained monarchy; human rights are seen as subordinate to divine rights; and gender inequality is promoted by Christianity.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

His words were no different than what every politician says multiple times a year. And the FBI has confirmed now it was planned days before by the Oath Keepers and other extremist groups thereby proving Trump had nothing to do with it.

That's not at all how it works.
I have no trouble at all believing that evidence has been found saying that the Capitol riots were planned days in advance. It's quite possible - indeed, likely - that Donald Trump knew something of what they were planning and approved of it. It's certainly true that for a very long time he had been using incendiary rhetoric to foment exactly such an uprising. And on the day itself, he actively encouraged resurrection, which was carried out by people who were very clear that they were following his directions. If you don't know this, then you are either ignorant of the facts or in denial about them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you know that your definition of fairness is right and theirs is wrong?

You say this in response to, "I know that Hitler was not fair to the Jews."

I have stated my reasons for saying that the Holocaust was unfair to the Jews. I have started two other threads on the subject here. Everybody here agrees with me that Hitler was not being fair to the Jews.

If you think Hitler was being fair to the Jews, then make your case. If not, then I win. You cannot claim victory if you just walk around outside the ring. If you have a case, make it.

That is a subjective basis, not objective.

You say this in response to, "If people like Hitler kill each other, it breaks the trust relationship we need to survive."

Now you want to go back to this again?

Rewind.

In this thread I explained to you that my life is real. It is an objective fact that in order to survive we all need each other. It is an objective fact that in order to benefit from each other, we need rules of behavior. Morality includes rules of behavior that allow us to live our objective, real lives, in objective, real cooperation with objective, real people.

In response you argued that my life was not real and objective. We then went back and forth on whether my life was real, until you forgot about what we were talking about, and the conversation fizzled out.

Morality goes beyond just mutual rules that we need to survive. It involves recognizing the good in others, and doing loving things for others when the act has no benefit to ourselves. That is a subjective form of morality, and is the best kind. But it seems that you cannot get beyond the need for morality to be objective. I have explained the crudest form of morality, one that is based on the objective need for fair cooperation with others for survival. But there is so much more to morality.

I dont even know what 6MWE means.

It means six million weren't enough. It is a horrible, racist thing to say. Trump supporters were wearing shirts with this logo when they invaded the Capital. Unfortunately, those folks seem to be on your team. So when I see your nonstop arguments that maybe Hitler was fair to the Jews, and I see the shirts that your team is wearing, then I need to ask you if you are for or against Hitler.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sorry, I only have time for one thread at a time.

OK, but in that thread I refuted the arguments you made here that a Homo Erectus built an ocean liner. I will take it that your argument was refuted, and will assume that no Homo Erectus ever built a large freight ship that sailed the oceans.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Apostles Creed and the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments and Christ.

You say this in response to:

What are the essentials that we need to believe? You have told me that if one believes the Son of God was named Pedro and died in Mexico for our sins, that this mistaken person will go to hell.​

Ah, so you say we need to believe in the Ten Commandments--AKA The Ten Strong Recommendations-- to get to heaven. Do we need to remember Saturday to keep it holy? If you don't believe in remembering Saturday to keep it holy, will you burn in hell forever?

And let's look at the Apostle's Creed. You say people will burn in hell forever if they don't believe all of this:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
​

So this is the material that is going to be on the final? And if I get 99% on the final, am I eternal toast?

What if I think the son was named Joshua or Pedro or Emmanuel or Horus? Toast?

What if I think Jesus suffered under Herod? Toast?

What if I think Christ's body was put in a cave and that he was never actually buried? Toast?

What if I think he was dead for 3 days and 3 nights, and rose on the fourth day? Toast?

What if I think he is at the left hand of the Father? Toast?

What if I think the church is not catholic? Toast?

What if I think the resurrection is to a new body, with the old body left to decay? Toast?

​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree. Since sapiens and Neanderthals produced fertile offspring, I believe they were the same species just a different race.

Your beliefs don't change the expert consensus view of the meaning and usage of the terms.

Early humans were much more genetically diverse and had more genetic plasticity than modern humans. It would be similar to finding a fossil of a German shepherd and a chihuahua. You would probably think that they were different species, but they are in fact the same species.

Except that the analogy is inappropriate. Neanderthals and modern humans were distinctly different and independent breeding populations that occasionally interbred, as often occurs between closely related species today. They were not as closely related to modern humans as human races or dog breeds are related to each other. This has been further confirmed by genetic comparisons.

Modern humans are extremely genetically homogenous. 'Racial' characteristics are superficial differences; there is more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them, and less genetic diversity between humans on different continents than in chimpanzees from a small part of Africa.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I guess I should have said that all the edits for which we have evidence for have been identified.

Ah, all the edits that have been identified have been identified. Got it.

There are hundreds of thousands of differences in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. No two manuscripts agree on everything. How do you know there are not many other edits that you don't know about?

A manuscript of Ephesians has "in Ephesus" scribbled in the margin. Is this something somebody inserted? Or did a proofreader see the mistake and add it in later? We don't know. See Blog (ericsowell.com)

And we know that ancient jews were very meticulous in the copying and writing of texts and that early Christians believed that lying was a moral absolute, therefore, there is much lower probability of text tampering among them as compared to pagans.

The hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts show this is false.

Many people were modifying manuscripts, so the book of Revelations adds a curse on anybody who tries to edit it. This wouldn't be necessary if edits never happened.

I read Ehrman's other book about edits in the Bible and not single one was significant.

That's odd. The promise that no deadly drink will hurt believers is thought to be a later insertion into Mark. One would think that would be significant.

The command to give to everyone who asks was not in Mark, but Luke added it in his edit. That is significant.

The entire Sermon on the Mount is added in through Matthew's edit of Mark. Is that not significant?

Matthew just added some things that he as an eyewitness witnessed.

Whenever Mark tells the story, Matthew never retells it from his perspective. Instead he follows Mark nearly word for word, with a few changes. If Matthew was there to see the story himself, he would not have just copied Mark with edits. He would have told it from his viewpoint.

He didn't rewrite Mark, he just added details that he witnessed. The Holy spirit has confirmed that the fallible person was not mistaken.

And how does the Holy Spirit confirm it? You get this feeling that it must be true, so you say that is the Spirit speaking? That does not sound reliable to me.

No, he may have initially thought about going back to Bethlehem but decided to go back to Nazareth. No contradiction there.

If Joseph lived in Nazareth, and had traveled to Bethlehem only on business, why would he go to Bethlehem after being diverted to Egypt? That makes no sense. Matthew implies that he is relocating to Nazareth, but Luke says he was returning to his home in Nazareth.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Using your logic, if a computer is purely physical then its decisions are based on the movements of electrons in the computer and not logical calculations.

Therefore, using your logic, we have proven that computers cannot do spreadsheets.

But I don't agree with your logic.

Uhh computers dont have a free will either. Thanks for making my point. Their electrical charges are designed/programmed to go down certain predetermined pathways just like our brains if there is a purely physical mind.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If our rights come from God where in the Bible does it give the right to:

Free speech - It says the opposite.

Jesus and all of his disciples only used verbal persuasion in spreading the gospel, not force and never tried to stop any opposition speech with force.

cw: Free expression of religion - God does not allow that.

Same as above.

cw: Right to own a gun

Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword to defend themselves when He got arrested.

cw: Free from forcibly housing of soldiers in your home

The commandment "You shall not steal" plainly implies a right to private property, housing in soldiers in private homes is plainly a violation of that.

cw; Right to a free press

See above.

cw: Right to a grand jury or due process - God is the ultimate judge not a jury (Ananias and Saphira)

God is the ultimate judge, but He had temporal judges in ancient Israel.

cw: Free from cruel or unusual punishment - God does some cruel punishments.

No, God invented lex talonis, which means the punishment must fit the crime.

cw: The bible is mainly in opposition to our rights in America. Rights are agreed upon by a society, they do not come from god. They can change over time.

So does that mean that since the German people agreed that the jews did not have rights in their society then what the Nazis did was ok?