Your evidence for God, in another theist's hands...

[coffee4u]

Did someone really say that? How odd. Given that over a third of the world's population are Christian, almost a third are Muslim and Hinduism comes in third, it clearly is a case that most people DO believe in a god. I have heard that predictions are that globally Christianity will continue to grow, in Europe the trend towards atheism is slowing and in the US it is likely to follow.

Most people probably do to one degree or another, but I was running with what he said.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Thinking of questions that Christians can't answer...
- Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
- Can you prove that Santa does not exist?
- Why don't prayers ever have any effect?
- Does the Bible endorse slavery?

• the gods are a realm of existence, they do not set up what is good
• Santa is a metaphor for a particular God, called the Father (because of his role)
• with prayers… maybe you should be protected from what you want
• the Bible is a book from a particular time and place, that's all

 

[InterestedAtheist]

How so?

I said: "What if a believer in a different God told you they had the same reasons for believing in their God as you do for believing in yours? Would you then believe in their God?"
And you answered "The first two questions are text book Islamic Dilemma material Christians use in public to point out that even the Islamic Quran only reveals that Muhammad is the most obvious false prophet in history."

This does not seem to answer my questions in any way. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

I also said: "And if a third party asked you which of the two of you were correct, would you be able to show them that you were?"
And you answered: "As to the 3rd question, see above."

I can't see anything above. If it's a video, this might be because I live in China.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And here is why the problem arises. Clearly most Christians accept the existence of God on far more evidence that is far more convincing than Father Christmas.

They do? How strange that I've never seen it.

I believe in one because I have had experience of that one, I have seen the arguments, I have observed others who also believe in God.

1. I've had experience of Santa. Met him many times. Most people have.
2. Putting aside the fact that I've seen the arguments for Christianity as well, and have found them all to be remarkably weak...why should I need arguments for Santa existing?
3. I have observed many others who believe in Santa.

On the other side of the coin, I have the admission from my parents that there is no Santa, the clear logical problem of him visiting all children, the moral problem that he will give one child a bicycle and another an X-box while another gets an orange.

1. Just because your parents told you Santa doesn't exist, does that make it so? My parents told me God doesn't exist. Would you accept that as proof that he doesn't?
2. What problem? He's magical.
3. Maybe the child who got the orange wasn't as nice as the one who got the bike. Who knows?

That not all children get visited by Santa, that people's ideas of Santa vary and are primarily influenced by a 19th century poem and a 20th century advertising campaign.

1. Maybe the children who didn't get visited by Santa didn't believe in him enough. Or maybe they were too naughty.
2. Yes, they probably are. And people's ideas of God are probably mostly influence by Hollywood as well. So what?

That the logistics of living at the North Pole and having Elves manufacture toys made by other companies and so on...

What logistics? Santa's magical.

The the fact that you see no difference clearly indicates that you have not looked at the evidence for one and against the other. It isn't rational to put the levels of evidence for the two side by side and say that they are the same.

You believe in an invisible God that nobody has ever actually encountered this side of death, with a religion based on a book written by authors of dubious provenance two thousand years ago or more, as part of a Church that has splintered into literally hundreds of sects because none of them can agree with each other. You believe that people can come back to life, walk on water and multiply food magically - and you balk at the idea of a fairy toymaker?
Sounds like you have extremely selective standards of skepticism to me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The article quoted is in itself biased. It assumes support a priori and then uses wording to indicate negativity where there is none unless you start with that assumption.

I think you're viewing "lack of support for" as "opposition." The article is a perfectly reasonable summary of Christian verses about slavery. It's fairly neutral and matter-of-fact. Don't complain that it's biased against you just because it doesn't actively support you. Or because the facts don't.

In particular, "forcefully instruct slaves to obey their masters.." Nothing in the NT is forceful, but it is encouraged and reasons are given. Later on the article says '"Parables depict cruel treatment of slaves". Depiction of such is not any way endorsement and certainly in the examples given it is seen to be a bad thing. Of course you might agree with this if you are of the opinion that 'Twelve Years a Slave' is endorsing slavery!

Now your own bias is showing. "Forcefully" could just mean "in clear, plain terms." Which is certainly accurate. Do you dispute the passages in the New Testament tell slaves that they should obey their masters?
The writers of the New Testament, Jesus and his followers, were not at all shy about confronting difficult issues. They criticised immorality wherever they saw it. Yet they said nothing about slavery, despite being clearly aware of it, referring to it on numerous occasions. Can you find me a single instance in the Bible of someone saying that slavery is wrong and all slaves should be freed - actual, physical slaves, not just as a metaphor for sin, but people held in literal bondage - because it is immoral to capture, buy or own human slaves?
Answer: no, you can't.

Ephesians 6:5-8 - "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ, not like those who do their work only when someone is watching—as people-pleasers—but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from the heart. Obey with enthusiasm, as though serving the Lord and not people, because you know that each person, whether slave or free, if he does something good, this will be rewarded by the Lord"
This doesn't endorse slavery (declare public approval of it), it doesn't condemn it either. It just accepts it.

Look, I don't blame you for not wanting to accept this. For me, whether the Bible endorses slavery or not is a matter of indifference. For you, it's not. I get it. I get why you don't want to admit it.
But for you to say that "Slaves, obey your masters sincerely because that's what God wants you to do" is not an endorsement and a sentiment of approval about slavery, is simply wrong.

What is more, what follows shows that this is not a one sided bias in favour of slavery: "Masters, treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him."

Sure. There's nothing inconsistent with holding slaves and saying that they should be fairly treated. You may not be aware of this, but the US slavery system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also had laws protecting the rights of slaves, and saying that masters who abused them should be punished.
Rather than a criticism of slavery, the verse is in support of it: it's saying that slavery is a good thing, if the system is made to work properly.

And again this is not an endorsement of slavery and also clearly pointing out to non-Jewish slave owners that they have a responsibility to look after their slaves.

Of course it's an endorsement of slavery. It's saying, "This is the right way to do slavery. You should do it like this."

Col 3:22-24 says the same as Ephesians and is followed by the same plea to the Masters.

The same point as above.
If the Bible had considered slavery to be wrong, it would have said that slaves should be freed, should run away, should try to free themselves, etc. It does not. As far as the Bible is concerned, slavery is just fine. That = endorsement. See?

1 Tim 6:1-2: "Those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as deserving of full respect. This will prevent the name of God and Christian teaching from being discredited. But those who have believing masters must not show them less respect because they are brothers. Instead they are to serve all the more, because those who benefit from their service are believers and dearly loved."
Again this is not an endorsement, it is dealing with a fact of life, encouraging those who are in difficult circumstances to carry on in their faith. In essence it is saying the same thing as Jesus when he told his followers to 'turn the other cheek' or 'walk the extra mile'. Titus 2:9 is a repetition of the above - and the continuation of a general paragraph on being in control of oneself.

You are quite mistaken. Look at it again: "They are to serve all the more." It is actively encouraging slaves to be devoted to their slavery, saying that this is pleasing to God; God wants slaves to be good slaves. That is an endorsement.

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse." is an iteration of the above. Again no endorsement. It is followed by reasons for acting this way in the same way as the other passages do. A few verses later it points out they are not alone in their suffering for Christ also suffered.

I'm amazed you can read this endorsement of slavery and then say that it is not an endorsement. "Slaves, I am telling you that you should obey your masters, not just the good ones, but even the bad ones. This is the right way to behave."

None of these passages endorse Slavery - it just gets slaves to do better and gives them a reason for this. This follows a general trend in early Christianity - your circumstances don't matter, you are acceptable to God. For example Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." It is no wonder Slaves turned in their droves to Christianity in the first few centuries - they were afforded equal status with everyone else (including their masters). That Christian slave owners had to be told not treat their slaves badly is hardly surprising - very few people are perfect. Owners who were Christians were to call their slaves brother or sister - something difficult to do if you thought of them as goods to be bought and sold and used as you will.

A few points:
1. The verse you quote from Galatians - are you aware that Paul is talking about the issue of circumcision here? He's not talking about slavery, he's talking about issues for gentiles becoming Christians.
2. "Owners who were Christians were to call their slaves brother or sister," the Bible says? How nice. A shame it doesn't say that they should be freed. If the Bible was actually anti-slavery, then it would certainly have done so.
3. Slaves turned in droves to Christianity? Didn't turn out so well, historically speaking, did it? Remind me, where did the great slave trade of the British Empire and the US come from? Wasn't it Christians who established it, built it up into a huge, world-spanning business, and ran it for hundreds of years and millions of dollars?

You ask for a passage in the Old or New Testament that says that enslaving others is an immoral act and that all slaves should be set free. Perhaps if you read the Old Testament Law you would see that slavery was actually seen as a moral solution - the prevention of starvation. People chose to go into slavery knowing that they and their family would be fed and looked after. And after 7 years their freedom was guaranteed if they so chose it. Slaves had rights, regardless of their origins.

In fact, there was more than one type of slavery in the Old Testament. There were indeed those who entered slavery voluntarily, were treated more like servants than slaves, and could be freed after a period of time, indeed. But there were also other slaves who were captured, bought, sold, could be punished brutally at their masters' whims, and who would stay slaves for life, and their children too. I really suggest you do some research on this, because if you're going to join in debates on a topic you should have a good background knowledge of it.

This is pretty much the same as society today, though we don't call it slavery and we don't require 7 years of servitude. You need to feed your family - you go to some company that wants your services and they will give you enough to look after your family as long as you provide those services. The Israelites had it written into their law.

It's a funny thing, but when I debate Christians on slavery - and I've had more than a few discussions similar to this - they usually end up, sooner or later, sounding like pro-slavery advocates. You seem to be trying to persuade yourself that slavery isn't such a bad thing.

Based on the verses you quoted you suggest that the New Testament endorses slavery, but it does not. But it is not the case that it condemns it outright either. Why would it? It is clear that Jesus' message of salvation had nothing to do with the physical overthrowing of oppression, despite the fact that this is what the Jews wanted of their Messiah. His message was about a new way of life, that said 'your circumstances are irrelevant, follow me and I will change your life.

Jesus and his disciples condemned a great many immoral practices, and were not shy about doing so. If they had thought slavery was immoral, they would certainly have said so. But they didn't. Not only did they not encourage the freeing of slaves, or command it, or ask for it, they encouraged slaves to devote themselves to their slavery.

On the other hand, Jesus did reinforce Isaiah's prophecy when he announced his ministry: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me... He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and... to set free those who are oppressed"

Sorry, weren't you just saying that Jesus wasn't interested in earthly matters? As you just said, this is obviously speaking of spiritual bondage.

The New Testament at best can be said to condemn slavery ('set free') and at worst accepts it as part of the world into which the Christian message is being sent.

"Set free" is quite taken out of context, I'm afraid. The plain fact is that the writers of the New Testament clearly approved of slavery, which is why they wrote that slaves should be good slaves, and that this was pleasing to God.

That's a bit rich!
You aren't willing to put your case either.

Of course I am. That's exactly what I've been spending my time doing.

The reality is that you should be investigating these issues yourself. It is by far the best way to understand the issues. Someone telling you isn't going to change you. You need to see both sides of the argument and understand why someone might hold a particular viewpoint and why it might be seen to be rational. A good thing to do is watch videos that say the same things you do and then watch the critiques of those things. And then you should watch the things that say the opposite of what you think and then watch critiques of those too. Ask yourself how the original statements stack up and whether the critique is valid or not.

This is of course good advice, and of course this is just what I do do. But we are in the middle of a debate here, and you are asking me to make your arguments for you. Why should I? If you can't make your own case, you lose the debate.

If you want to learn then you learn best by researching and not just thinking you have unanswerable questions.

In this case, I would like you to do the learning, because you're the one who is mistaken.

I don't agree with Copan on everything, but he does at least provide answers. And that is what was asked for. I don't want to read the book again, so I don't think I will take up your offer in this instance. Thanks for the offer, though.

This is your problem. Copan "provides answers" at least. They may not be good answers, not answers you can remember now or be bothered to look up, but at least you have a book which you remember does answer our difficult questions, if you were to read it.
At best, this is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. "You're wrong because Copan says you're wrong." In a book that you don't want to have to read. Right.

I have read what it says about everything . I have a number of books on the subject that I read about 15 years ago, but none of these are accessible to me now so I am reliant on an ever failing memory. I seem to recall from the last time I looked is the principle problem of taking verses out of context.

Can I seriously recommend that you read these verses in context.
Would you be interested in hearing the views of a pro-slavery Christian, a pastor who preached slavery from the Bible and showed how the Bible does in fact endorse slavery?

Did someone really say that? How odd. Given that over a third of the world's population are Christian, almost a third are Muslim and Hinduism comes in third, it clearly is a case that most people DO believe in a god. I have heard that predictions are that globally Christianity will continue to grow, in Europe the trend towards atheism is slowing and in the US it is likely to follow.

I notice the way you changed that from "most people don't believe in god" to "most people don't believe in a god." There's quite a difference, isn't there?
So a third of the world's population are Christian (though they disagree among themselves, and not all of them consider all of the others to be Christians). A third of the world's population are non-Christian moneotheists; and another major fraction are polytheists.
Certainly sounds like most people don't believe in the Christian God. Especially in America, where you may be interested to know that the trend for being religious is downwards, and accelerating.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No you wouldn't, because Christianity is not based on proof. It is our spirit responding to God. Only the spiritual can connect to the spiritual.

Prove that the spiritual exists.

The spirit can be likened to another sense like smell, but one that is not fully working anymore since the fall.

Can it, though? Because it's quite possible to prove the existence of a sense to a person without it. Blind people, for example, may not be able to see, but that doesn't stop them recognising that there is such a thing as "sight" which other people possess.

When you say "Most people don't believe in god" you are missing all of what the spiritual is. It isn't just God. The spiritual also includes angels and fallen angels.

Prove it.

So broaden the question to "Do most people believe/have searched/have dabbled in the spiritual" and you will find that yes most have. The reason they do is they sense it is there, but like a person with little sense of smell they don't really know what they are 'smelling'. This includes things like church and religion, including finding another 'god' but also praying to angels, believing in ghosts, thinking they can see the future in cards . All of that is tied to the spiritual.

Why should we broaden the question? "Can you support your idea that God exists" is doing nicely, thank you.

What you would have if a miracle took place in front of you would be head knowledge. You would believe you saw it, but that soon gets replaced by question such as:
"Maybe what I saw was an hallucination"
"I must be losing my mind"
"It was a magic trick"

As it should be. These are sensible questions to ask. Not dismissing everything we see, but considering all the options, and then deciding which makes the most sense.

Because that is the way the mind works. It evaluates the evidence and finds it lacking so it tries to come up with an alternative answer based on other known probabilities.

As it should - if the evidence is lacking.
On the other hand, if the evidence for God was there, why would I look for another solution?

Your mind is not your spirit. Your mind by itself cannot know God, cannot have faith in God.
The ancient Israelite's had many miracles performed in front of them, their belief did not last. It didn't even last long enough for Moses to go up the mountain and come back with the ten Commandments.

I have a feeling the Bible says that because, frankly, it makes a better story. More dramatic.
Look: if I saw a man raise his hands and part the sea, and then if I walked through the sea, and if credible witnesses could assure me I was not hallucinating, I would believe.
Of course, I have never encountered a miracle like that. Or, rather more accurately, the only place I have encountered miracles like that is the only place they can exist, if God isn't real: in stories.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The latter would be more accurate. Question answered. Next!

Perhaps you didn't see my answer. I said:

"Thank you.
In that case, do I understand you to be saying that goodness means "whatever is in accordance with God's nature"?"

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

They do? How strange that I've never seen it.

Odd that given the sheer number of arguments put forth by philosophers right up to the modern day. It suggests to me that you have never gone looking for it. The mere fact that around 90% of the population of the world thinks you are wrong should give you pause for thought and wonder what it is you are missing (and you clearly are missing out a lot).

1. I've had experience of Santa. Met him many times. Most people have.
2. Putting aside the fact that I've seen the arguments for Christianity as well, and have found them all to be remarkably weak...why should I need arguments for Santa existing?
3. I have observed many others who believe in Santa.

I'm guessing that you are calling on the children of the world for support of your argument. I've managed to meet one teenager who thought Santa was real, the rest did not and I've never come across any adults who do, though I'd imagine some might, particularly the mentally challenged.

The fact fact that you have to resort to those who don't have the developed knowledge to support your argument is a reason why it doesn't compare with the arguments for God. If we ignore children, the percentage of people who believe Santa is real is going to be less than 0.5%. The percentage who believe God is real is going to be more than 70%. The disparity is another clue as to why trying to compare the two is not a reasonable thing to do.

1. Just because your parents told you Santa doesn't exist, does that make it so? My parents told me God doesn't exist. Would you accept that as proof that he doesn't?

No but you are now switching between belief and proof as though they are the same thing. What you and I believe is true is irrelevant - either it is true or it is not. At some point you have to choose to accept what you have been told or to investigate it for yourself. Most children stop believing in Santa because they have an inkling and start investigating, even while their parents might be still implying the truth of Santa.

The better question response to your parents telling you God doesn't exist would be 'are they right?"

2. What problem? He's magical.
3. Maybe the child who got the orange wasn't as nice as the one who got the bike. Who knows?

1. Maybe the children who didn't get visited by Santa didn't believe in him enough. Or maybe they were too naughty.
2. Yes, they probably are. And people's ideas of God are probably mostly influence by Hollywood as well. So what?

What logistics? Santa's magical.

You believe in an invisible God that nobody has ever actually encountered this side of death, with a religion based on a book written by authors of dubious provenance two thousand years ago or more, as part of a Church that has splintered into literally hundreds of sects because none of them can agree with each other. You believe that people can come back to life, walk on water and multiply food magically - and you balk at the idea of a fairy toymaker?
Sounds like you have extremely selective standards of skepticism to me.

The excuses are pretty lame. I'm not preventing you from believing in Santa at all, I'm just pointing out why most people do not believe in Santa. It is clear that you have huge amounts of faith since you believe that the evidence in favour of Santa is on the same level as the evidence for God. That evidence against is also on the same level and that you (a huge minority) have got it right while the majority have not. That is know as hubris.

Skepticism should be (and used to be) about not accepting everything you are told unless you have reason to do so. The fact that your reasoning in favour of Santa relies on the testimony of the mentally challenged and undeveloped does not speak well of your own skepticism about Santa. That you would then think it is of the same standard as the testimony of highly educated thinkers about God also suggests that your own biases have prevented you from being skeptical of your own position.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The writers of the New Testament, Jesus and his followers, were not at all shy about confronting difficult issues. They criticised immorality wherever they saw it. Yet they said nothing about slavery, despite being clearly aware of it, referring to it on numerous occasions. Can you find me a single instance in the Bible of someone saying that slavery is wrong and all slaves should be freed - actual, physical slaves, not just as a metaphor for sin, but people held in literal bondage - because it is immoral to capture, buy or own human slaves?
Answer: no, you can't.

Why is is immoral to capture, buy or own human slaves?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Perhaps you didn't see my answer. I said:

"Thank you.
In that case, do I understand you to be saying that goodness means "whatever is in accordance with God's nature"?"

That seems reasonable, but does it matter - it comes back to your original point that it was a question that Christians can't answer and it has been answered by a Christian. So who cares about the nuances?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Odd that given the sheer number of arguments put forth by philosophers right up to the modern day.

Oooh, do tell. What are these amazing arguments for God's existence?

It suggests to me that you have never gone looking for it.

Apart from my 20 plus years of debating on Christian forums such as this one?

The mere fact that around 90% of the population of the world thinks you are wrong should give you pause for thought and wonder what it is you are missing (and you clearly are missing out a lot).

First of all, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Second, do you not realise that with this, as with virtually everything else in this post of yours, you are talking about yourself? Tell me, what percentage of the world shares your exact beliefs about God? You list yourself as a Charismatic Christian, so probably not a high percentage. And yet you confidently assert that you are right and the vast majority of the world is wrong?
This is why the Santa question is one that Christians can't answer. In attacking the foundations of it, they attack their own. As we shall see...

I'm guessing that you are calling on the children of the world for support of your argument. I've managed to meet one teenager who thought Santa was real, the rest did not and I've never come across any adults who do, though I'd imagine some might, particularly the mentally challenged.

Perhaps it's just a matter of faith. Maybe grown-ups just don't have enough faith, which is why they don't believe.

The fact fact that you have to resort to those who don't have the developed knowledge to support your argument is a reason why it doesn't compare with the arguments for God. If we ignore children, the percentage of people who believe Santa is real is going to be less than 0.5%.

Why should we ignore children?

The percentage who believe God is real is going to be more than 70%. The disparity is another clue as to why trying to compare the two is not a reasonable thing to do.

You're doing it again. It's not 70% of the world who believe in God. It's 70% of the world who believe in a god or gods. and most of them think that you are wrong.

No but you are now switching between belief and proof as though they are the same thing. What you and I believe is true is irrelevant - either it is true or it is not. At some point you have to choose to accept what you have been told or to investigate it for yourself. Most children stop believing in Santa because they have an inkling and start investigating, even while their parents might be still implying the truth of Santa.

And what arguments do these growing-up children find to disprove Santa's existence? Please tell me, because I would like to know them.

The better question response to your parents telling you God doesn't exist would be 'are they right?"

Well, yes. If only you had asked that about Santa! You might still be getting presents under your tree now.

The excuses are pretty lame.

Really? They're copied straight from the Christian playbook.

I'm not preventing you from believing in Santa at all, I'm just pointing out why most people do not believe in Santa.

In fact, you're not. I'm still waiting to hear your reasons.

It is clear that you have huge amounts of faith since you believe that the evidence in favour of Santa is on the same level as the evidence for God.

Well, yes. Faith is good, right?

That evidence against is also on the same level and that you (a huge minority) have got it right while the majority have not. That is know as hubris.

Right back atcha! You believe that you are right, and most of the world is wrong. Because you know most of the world believes you are wrong, right?

Skepticism should be (and used to be) about not accepting everything you are told unless you have reason to do so.

Quite right! I have plenty of reasons to believe in Santa. What reasons do you have to believe in God?

The fact that your reasoning in favour of Santa relies on the testimony of the mentally challenged and undeveloped does not speak well of your own skepticism about Santa.

But so many of them! I seem to remember you saying that lots of people agreeing with you was good, right? Also, faith.

That you would then think it is of the same standard as the testimony of highly educated thinkers about God also suggests that your own biases have prevented you from being skeptical of your own position.

And are you impressed by the testimony of highly educated thinkers about Allah, or other gods?
Look. I know Santa is real. I have faith that he is real. Why should I stop believing just because you did? Tell me that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why is is immoral to capture, buy or own human slaves?

I don't know. According to the Bible, it isn't.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That seems reasonable, but does it matter - it comes back to your original point that it was a question that Christians can't answer and it has been answered by a Christian. So who cares about the nuances?

Because, on a debating forum, little details can be important. As we shall see.

For now consider this: you have said that "goodness" means "whatever is in accord with God's nature."
Okay, then. I have a follow-up question or two.

Is the goodness of God's nature measured by some external standard (that is, we can say "it is God's nature to be good" because there is a standard of of goodness against we can set and measure this nature? If so, then God is not the source of all goodness. There is an external source, which we do not need God to exist for.

Or is goodness itself defined by whichever way God's character is? If so, then goodness is completely arbitrary. Whatever God's character dictated would be good - including rape, murder and torture, if God's character happened to be in favour of these. This is because the concept of "goodness" would mean nothing more than "what God is" - as you yourself have just agreed.

You might object that God does not and would never endorse such things, but your objections can carry no weight; if he did endorse them, they would be good and, being good, you could not object to them.

And so we see, you're still stuck on the horns of Euthyphro's Dilemma. You never got off them. Either God is not the source of all goodness, or goodness itself means anything, and therefore nothing.

And with that, I must say goodnight from my part of the world. I look forward to seeing your reply.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I don't know. According to the Bible, it isn't.

The question was for you, not about what the Bible says. You are saying that those things are immoral. You must have a reason for thinking that, else how are you judging the Bible's stance on the issue?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Because, on a debating forum, little details can be important. As we shall see.

For now consider this: you have said that "goodness" means "whatever is in accord with God's nature."
Okay, then. I have a follow-up question or two.

Is the goodness of God's nature measured by some external standard (that is, we can say "it is God's nature to be good" because there is a standard of of goodness against we can set and measure this nature? If so, then God is not the source of all goodness. There is an external source, which we do not need God to exist for.

Or is goodness itself defined by whichever way God's character is? If so, then goodness is completely arbitrary. Whatever God's character dictated would be good - including rape, murder and torture, if God's character happened to be in favour of these. This is because the concept of "goodness" would mean nothing more than "what God is" - as you yourself have just agreed.

You might object that God does not and would never endorse such things, but your objections can carry no weight; if he did endorse them, they would be good and, being good, you could not object to them.

And so we see, you're still stuck on the horns of Euthyphro's Dilemma. You never got off them. Either God is not the source of all goodness, or goodness itself means anything, and therefore nothing.

And with that, I must say goodnight from my part of the world. I look forward to seeing your reply.

Well, for starters you seem to be going around in circles. You started with Euthyphro and and then despite me suggesting another way you have reverted back to it.

If you want to narrow it down to those two, then yes, the second is more accurate.

Firstly you are arguing that God's goodness is arbitrary but arbitrary means based on personal whim without reason, yet the indicators of the Law clearly show that there is reason and it is not arbitrary. Specific laws nearly all point towards some kind of reconciliation between and/or God. So personal whim might be true, but a lack of reason is not.

Secondly you point out that rape, murder and torture would be considered good if God's character indicated so, but since God has indicated that such things are not good, then it becomes something of a moot point.

The idea that goodness means anything presupposes an arbitrary God which is not what either has been proposed, nor observed either by Jews or by Christians. And that brings us back to the original response I made to this: God IS good.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

First of all, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Second, do you not realise that with this, as with virtually everything else in this post of yours, you are talking about yourself? Tell me, what percentage of the world shares your exact beliefs about God? You list yourself as a Charismatic Christian, so probably not a high percentage. And yet you confidently assert that you are right and the vast majority of the world is wrong?

I know argumentum ad popular is a fallacy. But then I'm not using it as an argument for the existences of God, but an argument as to why you should consider that there are a lot more evidence and arguments than you have given consideration to. And the fact that you have been debating on forums for 20 or so years and still think that there are no arguments is a good indication that you are not listening to what your opponents are saying... which doesn't give me much hope that you will listen to anything I have to say.

So what if a tiny percentage of people think exactly as I do about God? If people perceive god differently they are still perceiving god. They might actually be right and I might be wrong. But if I am wrong, then does that then mean that they and I are not perceiving god at all? Of course not. It is the old dilemma of a bunch of blind people describing an elephant be feeling a little bit of it. Just because they can't agree with each other does not automatically mean that there is no elephant.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

In fact, you're not. I'm still waiting to hear your reasons.

And I've given them or did you forget that you responded with your refutation of my reasons?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well, yes. Faith is good, right?

No. Faith is neither good nor bad. It is what you have faith in that is good or even bad. There are those that have faith that the government are trying to influence their thinking so they wear tinfoil on their heads.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Right back atcha! You believe that you are right, and most of the world is wrong. Because you know most of the world believes you are wrong, right?

No. And this is why you and I are different. I believe I am right, but then so does most of the world about whatever subject you want to want to put up for grabs. But belief that I am right, does not make me right and I am willing to change views where there is good reasoning or evidence or arguments. But since you wave burden of proof around and then do your best not to provide GOOD reasoning, evidence or arguments, I'm clearly in the right to think your views are probably wrong and that I am probably right.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Quite right! I have plenty of reasons to believe in Santa. What reasons do you have to believe in God?

But so many of them! I seem to remember you saying that lots of people agreeing with you was good, right? Also, faith.

And are you impressed by the testimony of highly educated thinkers about Allah, or other gods?
Look. I know Santa is real. I have faith that he is real. Why should I stop believing just because you did? Tell me that.

You are quite at liberty to continue to believe in Santa if you want to. I don't object to that at all. I do object to you suggesting that childish reasoning somehow is equal to intelligent and educated reasoning, however.

And yes, I am impressed by highly educated thinkers regardless of their persuasion. I don't necessarily think they are right, but I do think we should give them the chance to back up their reasoning and see if it stacks up. So far your reasoning for Santa does not come close even to some of the Hindu or Buddhist arguments I have seen in the past.

You ask about my reasons to believe in God. I believe in a divine being because I have experienced said being on a number of occasions. I have seen answers to prayer (despite your assertion that there is no evidence that prayer has any impact). I have heard God speak to me directly and through others. I have know the presence of God in times of triumph and times of disaster. And the longer I have studied the more reasons I have to suppose that there is truth in the existence of God. If that was all I had to go on, I think that would still be sufficient reason, but on top of that there are the numerous philosophical arguments as well as the fact that science has backed up many of the ideas that I hold and where it didn't I revised my views... because that is what reasoning is about.