Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you "anonymous person"? I do seem to get these two accounts mixed up.
I don't know why you and Arch are so hung up on if two or more people sound alike. The only guess I can make for your motive is that the site rules advise us not to pretend to be someone else, and maybe you're wanting to make sure that I don't break any rules. Who knows, maybe a moderator would ban me for a while as a punishment or a warning. For this reason, I appreciate your bringing this to my attention.
A while back, some publicly claimed in a thread that I was quoting without referencing. They were correct. Frankly, I just didn't want to clutter up my responses with all of those references. At the time, I did not realize I was breaking any rules. However, when that was pointed out to me, I stopped immediately. From then on, I have been very careful to include references.
Now you and Arch appear to be very interested in the fact that sometimes people sound very much alike. I guess you're just looking out for my interest, and I very much appreciate that!! But just because two or more people end up quoting a lot of the same quotes, that does not prove that they are all the same person. The explanation is simple. There are some very popular apologists who have done well in selling books, podcasts, and so forth. So, the more the public is saturated with the most popular content in this genre, the more likely two or more people are going to say similar things...even more so (in an internet forum) if those apologists have popular websites.
I say all that because I want the moderators to be assured that I am not misrepresenting myself. You've also asked me before if I was related in any way (financially or personally) to any of the organizations' websites that I might quote from. The answer is no. Actually, I'm a big fan of several various apologists: Craig, Lennox (he's awesome!), Copan, Geisler, Habermas, and some others. But as I pointed out above, some have been more prolific at publishing apologetic material than others, so the odds of two people quoting the same material (in an internet form with only a few clicks away from popular websites) is higher for those apologists.
In summary, I am not going by any other name on this website. I am not misrepresenting myself. The only name I am using on this website is Joshua260. Further, I have absolutely no affiliation with any organization I may quote from. You and Arch may find that I sound like other posters, but that is only a coincidence. But again, thanks for pointing that coincidence out to me. I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
Oh...good grief!! As I said, Pascal cited evidence and arguments for the existence of the Christian god and even why it is more likely that the Christian god exist than any other, like Zeus and so forth. He addressed your rebuttal in the Pensees!!! So no, the argument is not just as sound if you replace the Christian God with Zeus.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know why you and Arch are so hung up on if two or more people sound alike. The only guess I can make for your motive is that the site rules advise us not to pretend to be someone else, and maybe you're wanting to make sure that I don't break any rules. Who knows, maybe a moderator would ban me for a while as a punishment or a warning. For this reason, I appreciate your bringing this to my attention.
A while back, some publicly claimed in a thread that I was quoting without referencing. They were correct. Frankly, I just didn't want to clutter up my responses with all of those references. At the time, I did not realize I was breaking any rules. However, when that was pointed out to me, I stopped immediately. From then on, I have been very careful to include references.
Now you and Arch appear to be very interested in the fact that sometimes people sound very much alike. I guess you're just looking out for my interest, and I very much appreciate that!! But just because two or more people end up quoting a lot of the same quotes, that does not prove that they are all the same person. The explanation is simple. There are some very popular apologists who have done well in selling books, podcasts, and so forth. So, the more the public is saturated with the most popular content in this genre, the more likely two or more people are going to say similar things...even more so (in an internet forum) if those apologists have popular websites.
I say all that because I want the moderators to be assured that I am not misrepresenting myself. You've also asked me before if I was related in any way (financially or personally) to any of the organizations' websites that I might quote from. The answer is no. Actually, I'm a big fan of several various apologists: Craig, Lennox (he's awesome!), Copan, Geisler, Habermas, and some others. But as I pointed out above, some have been more prolific at publishing apologetic material than others, so the odds of two people quoting the same material (in an internet form with only a few clicks away from popular websites) is higher for those apologists.
In summary, I am not going by any other name on this website. I am not misrepresenting myself. The only name I am using on this website is Joshua260. Further, I have absolutely no affiliation with any organization I may quote from. You and Arch may find that I sound like other posters, but that is only a coincidence. But again, thanks for pointing that coincidence out to me. I appreciate it.
A simple 'no' would have sufficed.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
This syllogism can be applied to any deity that's ever been imagined.
I´m not sure about that.
Unfortunately, Joshua hasn´t mentioned the criteria why believing in bible-god is so good - but oftentimes I have heard it´s about your eternal fate. So we would have to look for the most atrocious, aggressive, brutal, most heavily punishing God to believe in. It seem to me that Biblegod can run circles around Zeus in that department.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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".

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.
Well, this is what you said:

So this is your most recent question:
"Do you believe that raping little girls for fun is wrong?"
Yes, I do believe that.
This isn't rocket science, you know. You said you believe raping little girls for fun is wrong. So the next question is do you believe that is an objective moral wrong or do you believe in it subjectively?
From that point there, I can only surmise that you are either claiming that to be true speaking as one who is a Christian, or a non-Christian theist (both of these would ne objectively), or you are speaking subjectively. In which case I may have to add one to my list under #3.
But until you give me more info about whether you are speaking objectively or subjectively, I cannot be sure whether you would agree with #1 or #3.

However, as we've talked about this three times already, you keep coming back to where you say that you don't know whether raping little girls for fun is wrong. So I'm betting that we will eventually once again end back up on the last option:

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh...good grief!! As I said, Pascal cited evidence and arguments for the existence of the Christian god and even why it is more likely that the Christian god exist than any other, like Zeus and so forth. He addressed your rebuttal in the Pensees!!! So no, the argument is not just as sound if you replace the Christian God with Zeus.
Oh... good grief, one can come up with compelling reasons for any deity... that's why there are thousands of them. Just because you agree with Pascal's reasons, because it's the god you happen to believe in. Do you think a follower of Vishnu would find Pascal's reasons compelling?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Well, I've answered "no" many times before, but you and Arch keep asking.
To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that you (Joshua260) have responded to my queries on the use of multiple accounts here, or possible financial involvement in the [commercial] web site that you promote.
Are you done with this now?
Sure, until it appears appropriate to raise it again.

What of the balance of my posts directed at you? Are you working on those?
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's funny coming from the guy who is literally playing by another person's (Craig's) playbook.
But Craig's "playbook" is to deal with the actual arguments, while Dawkins publicly advocates to his devotees that they actually refrain from interacting with the arguments, and rather mock and ridicule Christians. These are his own words!!

“Don't interact with their arguments...instead just mock them and ridicule them.” -Richard Dawkins

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3zFulTr3n

I'm curious as to what you think about Dawkins's comment above.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
A while back, some publicly claimed in a thread that I was quoting without referencing. They were correct. Frankly, I just didn't want to clutter up my responses with all of those references. At the time, I did not realize I was breaking any rules. However, when that was pointed out to me, I stopped immediately. From then on, I have been very careful to include references.
You didn't think it would be problematic to present someone else's work as if it were your own?
Now you and Arch appear to be very interested in the fact that sometimes people sound very much alike. I guess you're just looking out for my interest, and I very much appreciate that!! But just because two or more people end up quoting a lot of the same quotes, that does not prove that they are all the same person.
Of course not. Where have I ever suggested that it does?
The explanation is simple. There are some very popular apologists who have done well in selling books, podcasts, and so forth. So, the more the public is saturated with the most popular content in this genre, the more likely two or more people are going to say similar things...even more so (in an internet forum) if those apologists have popular websites.
Yes, that's one possible explanation.
In summary, I am not going by any other name on this website. I am not misrepresenting myself. The only name I am using on this website is Joshua260. Further, I have absolutely no affiliation with any organization I may quote from. You and Arch may find that I sound like other posters, but that is only a coincidence. But again, thanks for pointing that coincidence out to me. I appreciate it.
I like to point out such coincidences. ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh... good grief, one can come up with compelling reasons for any deity...
I think you overstepped your bounds here. This is demonstrably false.

Just because you agree with Pascal's reasons, because it's the god you happen to believe in. Do you think a follower of Vishnu would find Pascal's reasons compelling?
You're committing the genetic fallacy here. Trying to invalidate a persons' belief by trying to show how they came to believe in that belief. This is demonstrably false. After all, I was an atheist for 30+ years.

Back to the point I was making, which is that there's no issue with Pascal's logic as many atheists claim, but rather with the strength of evidence supporting premise 1. Some find it sufficient for a reasonable person to believe in the existence of God and others disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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."
I already have.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're committing the genetic fallacy here. Trying to invalidate a persons' belief by trying to show how they came to believe in that belief. This is demonstrably false. After all, I was an atheist for 30+ years.
Uh huh. Sure. ;) Just like you studied physics?
Back to the point I was making, which is that there's no issue with Pascal's logic as many atheists claim, but rather with the strength of evidence supporting premise 1. Some find it sufficient for a reasonable person to believe in the existence of God and others disagree.
Oh come on Joshua260, you could plug in any deity of your choosing and make that argument work.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But Craig's "playbook" is to deal with the actual arguments, while Dawkins publicly advocates to his devotees that they actually refrain from interacting with the arguments, and rather mock and ridicule Christians. These are his own words!!
I concur with Davian on this:
I've watched few more WLC debates than I'd care to admit to, and it does appear that he trots out the same old presuppositions at the beginning, and follows his script regardless of who he is debating, or what they respond with.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
I don't know if you understood my selections.

To review, I listed three possible answers:
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."

...and you said:
In that case, my previous answer was a truth claim (I hold 1 to be true - i.e. it's my opinion that it's true).
I disagree that the existence of OMV&Ds is incoherent. Let me explain...
When Christians say that we believe in objective moral values and duties, we mean for example that:
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."

You just said it again here:
I don't care what anyone else thinks about it; I personally think it's wrong.
But I think I know now what you meant...
Sometimes people are a little vague when they say "I personally think it's wrong." For example, I'm trying to figure out if there's some standard you're using to make that judgement. If you think it's really wrong, then you must believe in the existence of OMV&Ds. But if there's no objective standard (which you claim is incoherent) which you can use to judge that behavior as really "wrong", then all you have left is just your personal preference that we not do such things. Of course, child rapists have a different preference.

So if I may, since you are speaking subjectively, then your real answer is the last option:

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

I find some people are having a hard time admitting that they agree with this option. But that's the one a person should agree with if they are speaking subjectively. As you implied above, there may be some who think it's not morally wrong...but you think it is.

Ok. So thanks for your response. I appreciate it!
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't know if you understood my selections.

To review, I listed three possible answers:
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."

...and you said:

I disagree that the existence of OMV&Ds is incoherent. Let me explain...
When Christians say that we believe in objective moral values and duties, we mean for example that:
1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."

You just said it again here:

But I think I know now what you meant...
Sometimes people are a little vague when they say "I personally think it's wrong." For example, I'm trying to figure out if there's some standard you're using to make that judgement. If you think it's really wrong, then you must believe in the existence of OMV&Ds. But if there's no objective standard (which you claim is incoherent) which you can use to judge that behavior as really "wrong", then all you have left is just your personal preference that we not do such things. Of course, child rapists have a different preference.

So if I may, since you are speaking subjectively, then your real answer is the last option:

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

I find some people are having a hard time admitting that they agree with this option. But that's the one a person should agree with if they are speaking subjectively. As you implied above, there may be some who think it's not morally wrong...but you think it is.

Ok. So thanks for your response. I appreciate it!
You do understand that ethical subjectivism does not entail moral nihilism, right? Because it seems that you keep gravitating toward this point whenever anyone says something that could be construed as subjectivist. In fact, the script you're working from - which everyone has already seen by the way - is heading in that direction.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Uh huh. Sure. ;) Just like you studied physics?
Another pointless remark. Really, I wish you would stick to the arguments instead of ...oh wait...

“Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3zFulTr3n

Oh come on Joshua260, you could plug in any deity of your choosing and make that argument work.
The point I have been making is that the argument is valid...and thank you for agreeing that Pascal put forth a valid argument.

However...
1. the evidence supporting premise 2, when speaking of the Christian god has been well-vetted and even logistically proven to be sound. I'm not so sure that premise 2 would be true if we were speaking of an evil unjust god.

2. The evidence supporting premise 1, when speaking of the Christian god, is vastly greater and much more convincing than the supporting evidence for the god Neptune.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Another pointless remark. Really, I wish you would stick to the arguments instead of ...oh wait...

“Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3zFulTr3n
Well, you aren't presenting your own arguments, and the moral argument has been done to death on here, so...

By the way, I have interacted with your arguments. I'm waiting for you to respond to my comments.
The point I have been making is that the argument is valid...and thank you for agreeing that Pascal put forth a valid argument.

However...
1. the evidence supporting premise 2, when speaking of the Christian god has been well-vetted and even logistically proven to be sound. I'm not so sure that premise 2 would be true if we were speaking of an evil unjust god.

2. The evidence supporting premise 1, when speaking of the Christian god, is vastly greater and much more convincing than the supporting evidence for the god Neptune.
In other words, it's just as poor as that supporting other god claims.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
On naturalism, you have absolutely no foundation for an objective morality. Nature is blind to morality. You're got to have some reason for believing in an objective morality. It's irrational for you to believe in an objective morality without any reason to do so. You're just making a say-so statement. No atheist would let me get away with that.

We've already talked about this...remember? Even Dawkins agrees:
"there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded

That has nothing to do with the whole free will argument.

Excuse me. You said:
given an omnipotent God, there was always a peaceful solution.
In order for an omnipotent god to make it so that there is always a peaceful solution, then he would have to prevent us from doing evil.
 
Upvote 0