Euthyphro's Dilemma

Nicholas Deka said:

NV and I actually already gave answers for the Christians a few posts back. It does directly contradict all the "original sin" mumbo jumbo in the Bible, but there is evidence it's true.

Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated words in books do not constitute evidence. Those words must be backed with something tangible.

Dave Ellis said:

Unsubstantiated words in books do not constitute evidence. Those words must be backed with something tangible.

Click to expand...

Meh, I'll take what I can get with Christians. You're not going to get tangible. Best you can do is look at what their theology says and show it don't make a lick o' sense.

Nicholas Deka said:

Meh, I'll take what I can get with Christians. You're not going to get tangible. Best you can do is look at what their theology says and show it don't make a lick o' sense.

Click to expand...

That's the thing though, there's no such thing as evidence "for Christians" or "for atheists" or for anyone else.... Evidence is evidence for anyone. Someone may choose to disregard evidence due to their belief system, however that just makes them wrong. It doesn't negate the evidence at all.

That being said, there is a benefit in certain situations to pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible to make your point.... however more often than not they'll simply refuse to acknowledge the problem, or make up some ad hoc rationalization to allow them to cling to their beliefs.

Basically, I've found it's better to undercut the legitimacy of the entire thing, rather than squabble over details that are usually wide open to interpretation anyway.

Dave Ellis said:

That's the thing though, there's no such thing as evidence "for Christians" or "for atheists" or for anyone else.... Evidence is evidence for anyone. Someone may choose to disregard evidence due to their belief system, however that just makes them wrong. It doesn't negate the evidence at all.

That being said, there is a benefit in certain situations to pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible to make your point.... however more often than not they'll simply refuse to acknowledge the problem, or make up some ad hoc rationalization to allow them to cling to their beliefs.

Basically, I've found it's better to undercut the legitimacy of the entire thing, rather than squabble over details that are usually wide open to interpretation anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of that. I've had rare... super rare occasions where someone realizes part of their personal interpretation must be wrong and then rethink just how literally they want to take it. But yes, most of the time they just shut the door on the conversation once they feel threatened.

I've seen a lot of people around here take the direct approach you mention at the end, and that always get's the reply, "there can't be natural evidence for the supernatural" and then the conversation ends.

I prefer the in depth approach because you can go a lot further with it. I quote a lot of Bible verses because Christians will talk about the Bible till they're blue in the face (or you are). Only in this specific forum do I go all out with the whole "God existing doesn't make sense!" routine. Most of the time I just want Christians to realize evolution is reasonable, or that gay people aren't icky, or that giving to the poor ought to be their number one concern.

To any Christian apologists reading this, I assume you want to have us go all out with the whole "God existing doesn't make sense!" routine so you can practice your skills on us infidels. I hope no one takes it personally or like I'm trying to ruin your faith.

devolved said:

But we are not talking about merely loving God issue, but about the opposite claim - that God loves and cares about us.

For example, as a father... could you stand and watch a child being raped, abused and mutilated in all agony and then do absolutely nothing to stop it, and be considered morally upright?

Click to expand...

Yes, if it resulted in a greater good. For example if the rapist is wearing a hair trigger nuclear bomb strapped to his back in the middle of NYC and threatens to use it if you try to stop him. Then it is moral to not try to stop him until you can do it without triggering the nuclear bomb. So it is with God, He allows evil to occur for a finite time so that a greater good can occur, the permanent destruction of evil forever.

dev: You don't seem to understand the identity principle of attributes. Either you are moral and your "moral make-up" informs certain actions, or you are not.

Essentially, it's then becomes a game of double-standards and rationalizations.

1) God can be uncreated vs everything else has to be created
2) God doesn't have to follow his own rules .... everything else has to follow these rules

Click to expand...

No, God does follow His own rules although as King and Judge of the Universe, He has an authority and responsibility that we don't have. Such as meteing out the death penalty for rebelling against Him. We only have the authority to use the death penalty for two specific crimes.

dev: 3) We have to speak to people in person vs God speaks to people through Bible

Essentially it seems like rather unintuitive and seemingly contrived set of standards.

Click to expand...

While God primarily speaks thru the Bible, He also speaks to us thru people, circumstances, nature, and our consciences and intuition.

Nicholas Deka said:

Which is it? Is it impossible for God to make it so that people don't have to do anything to attain that infallible will or not? Children go through no such process.

You seem to be confusing two very different statements.

1. There is only one path to a perfect will.
2. There can only be one path to a perfect will.

Just because the Bible says 1 does not mean that logically 2 follows.

Click to expand...

The process is different for different beings. A morally accountable being has to go thru the process while a being that is not morally accountable (a child under the age of accountability) does not.

Ed1wolf said:

Yes, if it resulted in a greater good. For example if the rapist is wearing a hair trigger nuclear bomb strapped to his back in the middle of NYC and threatens to use it if you try to stop him. Then it is moral to not try to stop him until you can do it without triggering the nuclear bomb. So it is with God, He allows evil to occur for a finite time so that a greater good can occur, the permanent destruction of evil forever.

Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant when talking about god. God would have the ability to eliminate the nuclear bomb instantly, and safely. In fact, he'd have the power to prevent that person from ever acquiring a nuclear bomb in the first place.

There is no reason for him to ever allow evil to occur. By allowing it to occur, he is complicit with those evil acts.

Ed1wolf said:

No, God does follow His own rules although as King and Judge of the Universe, He has an authority and responsibility that we don't have. Such as meteing out the death penalty for rebelling against Him. We only have the authority to use the death penalty for two specific crimes.

Click to expand...

Any responsible and moral ruler would hold themselves to the same standard as their subjects. To do otherwise is tyrannical.

Ed1wolf said:

While God primarily speaks thru the Bible, He also speaks to us thru people, circumstances, nature, and our consciences and intuition.

Click to expand...

Which of course comes down to unfalsifiable hearsay. None of it can be proven to come from god.

Dave Ellis said:

That is another assertion, not a demonstration.

I'm asking you to prove your claims, not just provide me with more claims.

Click to expand...

For one, all the biblical evidence for His Triune nature, the evidence that He is not bound to a physical body, and other characteristics represented by Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:6, Romans 11:33-36, plus a multitude of things that we don't know about Him.

Dave Ellis said:

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, children who have not reached the age of accountability go to heaven when they die, the evidence appears to show.

de: What evidence?

Click to expand...

Biblical evidence from what David said when his infant son from Bathsheba died. He said he would see him in the afterlife.

Ed1wolf said:

For one, all the biblical evidence for His Triune nature, the evidence that He is not bound to a physical body, and other characteristics represented by Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:6, Romans 11:33-36, plus a multitude of things that we don't know about Him.

Click to expand...

Ed1wolf said:

Biblical evidence from what David said when his infant son from Bathsheba died. He said he would see him in the afterlife.

Click to expand...

That's not evidence, the bible is the claim.

The evidence would be what you use to demonstrate the claim (i.e. the Bible) is actually correct.

Ed1wolf said:

The process is different for different beings. A morally accountable being has to go thru the process while a being that is not morally accountable (a child under the age of accountability) does not.

Click to expand...

Then God is capable of just making everyone gain that perfect infallible nature before they reach the point of accountability. Then no evil would have existed.

You claimed that a being which is morally infallible is impossible to come into existence without going through the process. As if it was some sort of logical contradiction. I showed that it is in fact not impossible, therefore it is God's choice to have people go through an existence in which they will choose evil, whereas He could have chosen to have people go through existence without ever making the mistake of choosing evil, and without infringing on their free will.

Now what does this mean? What is the purpose of evil now that we have ruled out the desire for free will?

Ed1wolf said:

Yes, if it resulted in a greater good. For example if the rapist is wearing a hair trigger nuclear bomb strapped to his back in the middle of NYC and threatens to use it if you try to stop him. Then it is moral to not try to stop him until you can do it without triggering the nuclear bomb. So it is with God, He allows evil to occur for a finite time so that a greater good can occur, the permanent destruction of evil forever.

Click to expand...

If I as a father had the ability to alter the switch on that nuclear bomb so it wouldn't trigger, prior to stopping the rapist I would.

If I had this ability and I chose not to use it because rapist's free will must be exercised prior to me punishing the rapist... that would be immoral.

Ed1wolf said:

No, God does follow His own rules although as King and Judge of the Universe, He has an authority and responsibility that we don't have. Such as meteing out the death penalty for rebelling against Him. We only have the authority to use the death penalty for two specific crimes.

Click to expand...

You are switching the subject. I'm talking about the morality in context of what we are obligated to do as "proper behavior", and not additional responsibilities of an authority. See the above.

Ed1wolf said:

While God primarily speaks thru the Bible, He also speaks to us thru people, circumstances, nature, and our consciences and intuition.

Click to expand...

Do you understanding the semantic meaning of "speaks". It implies a more precise means of communication than what you are describing above. If God needs to hide in order to "speak" through these things, then God is essentially indistinguishable from these things.

And it seems awfully like an attempt to make these things into something that they are likely not in order to validate one's own presuppositions via confirmation bias. For example, I could do the very thing for my dead grandmother. She speaks to me through my memories, but she also speaks to me through circumstances, other people, intuition, etc...

Sapiens said:

I don't and I didn't. Actually, I don't really know what you're referring to here. What you quoted from me is the same thing I defend since the beginning.

Click to expand...

When I look up "good" in any dictionary, I see no mention of gods, yours or otherwise. You are redefining the word as you see fit. Your defence is intellectually bankrupt.

He transcends nature, He is immaterial. He is a mind, a consciousness, a person.

Click to expand...

I asked, is that like a perpetual motion machine? A perpetual motion machine delivers power without needing an outside source of its own. Is your god like a perpetual motion machine? Yes or no?

Just quote yourself then.

Click to expand...

No need, the post is still back there, if you wish to tackle the balance of it.

Nothing is conceded, I don't even know what you want me to concede anyways.

Click to expand...

It is as good as conceded, and will be perceived that way, if you are unable to directly answer my questions, and instead evade and obfuscate. Govern yourself accordingly.

Dave Ellis said:

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, if it resulted in a greater good. For example if the rapist is wearing a hair trigger nuclear bomb strapped to his back in the middle of NYC and threatens to use it if you try to stop him. Then it is moral to not try to stop him until you can do it without triggering the nuclear bomb. So it is with God, He allows evil to occur for a finite time so that a greater good can occur, the permanent destruction of evil forever.

de: Which is irrelevant when talking about god. God would have the ability to eliminate the nuclear bomb instantly, and safely. In fact, he'd have the power to prevent that person from ever acquiring a nuclear bomb in the first place.

There is no reason for him to ever allow evil to occur. By allowing it to occur, he is complicit with those evil acts.

Click to expand...

No, as I explained earlier there are things God cannot do. He cannot eliminate evil forever or other greater goods that we don't even know about in a universe such as this without allowing the possibility that it can occur and then once it does occur He cannot stop it in order to accomplish these greater goods.

↑

ed: No, God does follow His own rules although as King and Judge of the Universe, He has an authority and responsibility that we don't have. Such as meteing out the death penalty for rebelling against Him. We only have the authority to use the death penalty for two specific crimes.

de: Any responsible and moral ruler would hold themselves to the same standard as their subjects. To do otherwise is tyrannical.

Click to expand...

No, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. A judge can throw someone in jail for life and it is perfectly moral, legal and not considered tyrannical if they committed a crime worthy of that punishment, you as a private citizen can not lock someone up for life even if they have committed a crime worthy of that punishment. Only the judge has the role and authority to do such a thing.

↑

ed: While God primarily speaks thru the Bible, He also speaks to us thru people, circumstances, nature, and our consciences and intuition.

de: Which of course comes down to unfalsifiable hearsay. None of it can be proven to come from god.

Click to expand...

While it can't be PROVEN absolutely, there is strong evidence it comes from God. Of all the major religious books only the Bible teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding and is winding down energetically 3000 years before science confirmed these characteristics of the universe. Also, there is strong historical evidence that the founder of biblical Christianity rose from the dead.

Ed1wolf said:

No, as I explained earlier there are things God cannot do. He cannot eliminate evil forever in a universe such as this without allowing the possibility that it can occur.

Click to expand...

How about merely minimizing the worst expressions of it? That's something we as humans try to do, and do ok IMO. I think God could do much better.

Ed1wolf said:

No, as I explained earlier there are things God cannot do. He cannot eliminate evil forever or other greater goods that we don't even know about in a universe such as this without allowing the possibility that it can occur and then once it does occur He cannot stop it in order to accomplish these greater goods.

Click to expand...

Why? That makes no sense.

Ed1wolf said:

No, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. A judge can throw someone in jail for life and it is perfectly moral, legal and not considered tyrannical if they committed a crime worthy of that punishment, you as a private citizen can not lock someone up for life even if they have committed a crime worthy of that punishment. Only the judge has the role and authority to do such a thing.

Click to expand...

Sure, however judges are bound by the law, which is created based upon the will of the people and their representatives in government. Judges in the US are also appointed by the governors or legislators, which again are put in place by the people. So, while judges do have the authority to hand out sentences and punishments for crimes they are ultimately subordinate to the general public and the law.

It's a good thing too, because a judge with unconstrained power would be a terrible thing. We saw that kind of tyranny back in the dark ages and medieval period when kings were absolute rulers. In a more modern setting, a dictator would be akin to an absolute monarch.

God has a lot more in common with dictators and absolute monarchs than he does with US judges, or judges elsewhere in the civilized world. Christopher Hitchens aptly called heaven a "celestial North Korea", that phrase works here as well.

Any leader worthy of leadership should govern with a mandate from the people. On a global scale, no god ever worshipped has met that goal.

Ed1wolf said:

While it can't be PROVEN absolutely, there is strong evidence it comes from God. Of all the major religious books only the Bible teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding and is winding down energetically 3000 years before science confirmed these characteristics of the universe.

Click to expand...

That's just flat out false. The bible does say the universe had a beginning, along with virtually every other creation myth from all of the other holy books. As for teaching that the universe is expanding and moving towards heat death, you'll need to back that up.

And let me guess, it'll be some laughably twisted and reinterpreted bible passage that doesn't actually say what you claim.

Ed1wolf said:

Also, there is strong historical evidence that the founder of biblical Christianity rose from the dead.

Click to expand...

There's no historical evidence whatsoever that the founder of biblical Christianity (I assume you mean Jesus) existed at all, much less rose from the dead. There are exactly zero contemporary historical sources for that claim.

Dave Ellis said:

There's no historical evidence whatsoever that the founder of biblical Christianity (I assume you mean Jesus) existed at all, much less rose from the dead. There are exactly zero contemporary historical sources for that claim.

Click to expand...

False! The works of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, and Lucian provide more than enough evidence to support the claim that Jesus actually existed and was crucified.

jason_delisle said:

False! The works of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, and Lucian provide more than enough evidence to support the claim that Jesus actually existed and was crucified.

Click to expand...

All of the relevant sources like the ones you've cited above usually came a century or more after the supposed time of Jesus.

The only potential near-contemporary (but still not a contemporary) was Josephus, and it's pretty well universally accepted by scholars that the bits about Jesus were forged and inserted into the original sometime in the 4th century. Likely by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea.

More importantly, the ACTUAL contemporary historians, including some who were literally in the area of Jerusalem before, during and after the supposed life of Jesus (such as Philo of Alexandria) have exactly nothing at all to say about Jesus. There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus, or his supposed ministry, or other key biblical events in the actual historical record.

Dave Ellis said:

All of the relevant sources like the ones you've cited above usually came a century or more after the supposed time of Jesus.

The only potential near-contemporary (but still not a contemporary) was Josephus, and it's pretty well universally accepted by scholars that the bits about Jesus were forged and inserted into the original sometime in the 4th century. Likely by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea.

More importantly, the ACTUAL contemporary historians, including some who were literally in the area of Jerusalem before, during and after the supposed life of Jesus (such as Philo of Alexandria) have exactly nothing at all to say about Jesus. There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus, or his supposed ministry, or other key biblical events in the actual historical record.

Click to expand...

So in your opinion, what would qualify as "evidence" that Jesus actually existed?

jason_delisle said:

So in your opinion, what would qualify as "evidence" that Jesus actually existed?

Click to expand...

Some kind of artifacts, something in the contemporary record (either positive or negative), or some other thing that would necessitate his existence.

For example, I'm sure you're going to go with the standard apologetic of Alexander the Great having no contemporary sources, however the defeat of the Achaemenid Empire and the spread of the Macedonian empire and Greek culture would not have happened without Alexander (or at least a person we now know as Alexander). Likewise, we can reliably date the founding of various cities that he started (i.e. Alexandria) to around the same period. We do have some artifacts from that time period as well.

So, we do have plenty of compelling evidence to show Alexander existed.

We don't really have anything like that about Jesus though. Nothing contemporary, despite the 1st century being a particularly well recorded and preserved time of ancient history, no artifacts and no consequential effects later in history that necessitated Jesus existing. The closest you can get is the existence of Christianity, however all you need for that is people believing that he existed decades later when the gospels were written. You don't need actual existence.

That's not to say that it's impossible that a person we now refer to as Jesus existed at some point and the cult he founded eventually grew into modern day Christianity, however we have no evidence to show that he did exist, much less that he performed miracles and came back from the dead as is described in the bible.