Where's God?

doubtingmerle · Dec 5, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Atheism has absolutely no rational foundation for morality. It is non existent.

And you really expect atheists to read this, slap there foreheads, and say, "By golly, he is right, I cannot think of a reason to be good"? Of course not. Atheists are generally of high moral character, and have a solid rational foundation for morality.

I subscribe to the humanist ethic, which places a high value on humans, and seeks a moral code that benefits humans. We have a solid foundation for our morality: we love people, and seek moral principles that help people. See, for instance, Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association .

We have a deep love for humanity, and seek to make wise moral decisions to help humanity.

And what is your moral foundation? The writings of ancient sheep herders and fishermen? OK, those ancients often had good moral advice but sometimes, not so much. For instance, we have looked at Luke 6:30. That tells us to give to everyone that asks. When I pointed that out to you, you mentioned that acting wisely overrides the letter of the command in Luke 6:30. I agree. Acting wisely is better than following the letter of the law that was written in ancient times.

When you say to act wisely in moral decisions, you are basically telling me to do what Humanists teach--act wisely.

You keep on asking me if I have a good reason to be opposed to the Holocaust. Do I have a good reason to oppose it? Absolutely! The Holocaust devastated millions of people. As one who loves people, and builds my moral foundation on love for people, the Holocaust goes against everything I value.

What about you? What is your reason for opposing the Holocaust? Do you have a better reason than me for opposing it? If so, please state why you are opposed to the Holocaust, and why you think your reason is better than mine.

And if you say because the Bible condemns it, then what about all the verses in the Bible that approve of events that resemble the Holocaust. For instance, I Samuel 15:2-8 says:

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley.

6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

Do you think that this is a good and moral way to treat people? Do you approve of this command to kill infants and nursing children?

Ed1wolf · Dec 5, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
I too was talking about animals before humans. They had developed the ability to communicate with others. Those who knew what the truth was; who tried to communicate the truth; and who tried to understand if they were told the truth, were better at surviving compared to those who didn't understand the concept of truth.

But if recognizing truth does not promote survivability among all the animals prior to humans then we would never reach that point.

Ed1wolf · Dec 5, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
↑ed: Atheists believe there is an objective reality but dont have a rational basis for believing in it. And the only reason modern atheists believe in an objective reality is because they were raised or influenced by Christian culture which teaches that there is an objective reality and which had invented modern science long before widespread modern atheism came into existence.

dm; Again, the Greeks and classical Romans had a thriving science long before Jesus. So no, it is not because of Christians that we have science.

No, the greek and roman intellectual elite believed that engaging in manual labor was only for slaves, so they never engaged in systematic scientific experimentation. Conducting experiments would have been considered manual labor and beneath their station in life. So ongoing self correcting systematic experimental science was not invented until biblical Christianity became widespread in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries

dm: And when Christians took over the Roman empire, beginning with Constantine, science was set back for the next 1000 years. If Christianity is the key to good science, why did science get set back so far when Christians dominated?

No, it wasn't set back for 1000 years, but under the corrupt Roman Catholic leadership they restricted reading of the Bible. After the Reformation when the bible became more widely available it inspired the study of nature and that is why modern science primarily was inspired by the more biblically based Protestant Christianity.

ed: No, most polytheistic and animist religions believe in gods that are shape shifters and play with nature, and turning into animals, rocks, and plants. There is no basic unchanging natural laws by which they can do experiments and make consistent observations.

dm: Actually, there is good evidence that many primitive cultures are atheistic.

What evidence? Even if true, it obviously did not inspire the development of modern science either and probably for the same reason, they could not see how random nothingness could produce an intelligible and orderly law based universe either.

dm: And animism is not about gods inhabiting rocks. It is based on the simple observation that we exist and are driven by an inner spirit, so animals, rocks and rivers must be driven by their own inner spirits. That in no way prevents one from studying nature. For instance, most primitive tribes have found every practical use for every plant in their environment. They realize that some plants cure diseases, some can be made into ropes, etc. It is all about recognizing the patterns in nature and using those patterns.

If even rocks and rivers have inner spirits then that can cause them to behave in erratic and irregular ways, so that also would discourage conducting scientific experiments. Because you couldn't be sure you could replicate the experiments.

doubtingmerle · Dec 6, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
But if recognizing truth does not promote survivability among all the animals prior to humans then we would never reach that point.

And if developing a long giraffe neck does not promote survivability among all the other animals prior to giraffes, then they would never reach that point? That is simply not how it works. Evolutionary forces work different ways in different animals, leading some to have a long neck, some to have sonar, some to have the beautiful feathers of a peacock, and some to have a concept of truth. The forces work different ways in different species.

Again, I explained the development of human cognition at the opening post of Why are there still apes? | Christian Forums . There was a step by step process that led to humans. Why didn't it happen to all other animals? Because they did not go through all of the preliminary steps that made the future steps possible. Please read and reply to that post.

doubtingmerle · Dec 6, 2020

Ed1wolf,

The process you are referring to is called methodological naturalism. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Methodological naturalism requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify. It is a self-imposed convention of science.

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. Source: Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I find it interesting that you credit Christianity with promoting methodological naturalism. Actually it is the opposite. Among atheist scientists, methodological naturalism flows naturally from their naturalistic world view. Christians that are scientists use prayer and the spiritual world on Sunday, and methodological naturalism on Monday. It works, but sometimes the cognitive dissonance between Sunday and the rest of the weeks can tug at their souls.

I know. I used to be a Christian. I experienced the thrill of Sunday. But Monday was always a drag, switching my mind from the Sunday mode to the Monday mode. There is an unsettling cognitive dissonance between the two worlds.

Nevertheless, you not only say Christians can easily practice methodological naturalism, but you somehow credit Christians with the concept.

Ed1wolf said:
No, the greek and roman intellectual elite believed that engaging in manual labor was only for slaves, so they never engaged in systematic scientific experimentation. Conducting experiments would have been considered manual labor and beneath their station in life. So ongoing self correcting systematic experimental science was not invented until biblical Christianity became widespread in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries

True, the Greeks were more interested in mathematics and theory rather than experiments. And true, the experimental method did not become widely used in Europe until the 16th and 17th century. And true, the rise of the experimental method correlates with the rise of Protestant Christianity.

But correlation does not prove causation. I contend that the cause for both Protestantism and experimental science was the widespread use of the printing press. The printing press allowed a wide dissemination of information--we could perhaps call it Internet 1.0--and this led to a rapid expansion of ideas. Science and Protestant Christianity were two of the ideas that got a big boost. But I don't think you can say the rise of Protestant Christianity caused methodological naturalism to be more prevalent. Rather, both had the same cause, the printing press.

No, it wasn't set back for 1000 years, but under the corrupt Roman Catholic leadership they restricted reading of the Bible. After the Reformation when the bible became more widely available it inspired the study of nature and that is why modern science primarily was inspired by the more biblically based Protestant Christianity.

Huh? Science was not set back 1000 years in the Middle Ages, but under the corrupt Catholics in the Middle Ages, science was set back 1000 years?

Whatever, science was set back during the Middle Ages, a time when Christianity dominated. Saying yes, but those Catholics were not really Christians, does not resolve that problem.

What evidence? Even if true, it obviously did not inspire the development of modern science either and probably for the same reason, they could not see how random nothingness could produce an intelligible and orderly law based universe either.

Our posts are crossing. I gave you a link with the evidence for unbelief in native tribes: Ethnographic Evidence for Unbelief in Non-Western Cultures: Unbelief in Latin America | Free Inquiry (secularhumanism.org)

Ed1wolf · Dec 6, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
ed: No, you cant earn rights. They are endowed on us by our creator. No, marriage is biological, it is an organic unity between two persons, homosexuals cannot unite organically as I demonstrated earlier so they cannot marry.

ia: Endowed on us by our Creator?
Prove it.

If the Christian God exists and I have demonstrated that He probably does, then we have rights endowed by God.

ia: "Marriage is biological"? Sounds like a nonsensical statement. Not that marriage doesn't involve two biological beings, it's just that saying "marriage is biological" is like saying "painting it biological."

No, our bodies are designed for marriage biologically, we are not designed biologically for painting.

ed: I am not, I demonstrated earlier in this thread that only the consummation of heterosexual marriage can biologically and organically unite two persons. This has always been the behavioral definition of marriage.

ia: Relying on "It must be right because we've always done it that way" is just another losing argument.

That is not the crux of my argument, the crux is biologically.

ed: That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing how do we recognize that God is good, not where our moral conscience comes from, those are two very different questions. We can move on to that question too if you want, but that is not what you asked.

ia: A novel approach. Losing the argument, so you pretend you were never having it.

How am I losing the argument? We have never discussed where our moral conscience comes from. But of course, it is more rational that it comes from a preexisting morality, rather than from an amoral impersonal process.

↑

ed: I can provide many examples of me experiencing Him helping me, but of course I cannot prove it with certainty just like you cannot prove that your wife loves you.

ia: Good. So, you lose.

Non sequitur, I never made that claim.

↑

ed: Such aspects of personal relationships cannot be proven with certainty.
ia: True. so, please stop claiming them if you have no way of backing them up.

Never made the claim that we could prove with absolute certainty that God is good in this life.

ed: See above about personal relationships. I never claimed I could prove that God is good with absolute certainty.

ia: Good. @doubtingmerle and I win, then. You say God is the essence of goodness, but you can't prove it. It's just an unsubstantiated, and therefore meaningless, claim.

It is not unsubstantiated because there is a great deal of evidence that He is good. Just not enough to produce absolute certainty, which I never claimed so you there was no argument for you to win.

↑

ed: Yes but generally they are weeded out by human behavior and attraction. Most people are not attracted to mentally unstable people.

ia: Irrelevant. The point is, you're claiming a double standard. You say that gay people should not be allowed to marry because its bad for society, but have no trouble with other people whose marriage would also be bad for society getting married.

Since generally such people do not get married without any specific laws about it, there is no reason to make laws about it. We have enough laws.
↑

ed: If marriage is just based on letting people be happy, why do you limit it to two people? Why do you limit it to humans?

ia: Already answered, in considerable detail. It is not my job to help you remember these things.

I remember you stating that only two can make a marriage but I dont remember you ever explaining why.

ed: I have been debating atheists on websites like these for over 20 years and have noticed that atheists that post on these sites are much more skeptical than atheists I have talked to in the real world.

ia: Well, they would be, wouldn't they? These are places where atheists and Christians come to debate beliefs.
Regardless, the point is: what you call over-skepticism is nothing more than common sense set in contrast to your illogical arguments.

No, I think it has more to do with the anonymity. Just like other social media.

ed: It is the most important part because it is the only human behavior that can organically unite two persons.

ia: Hmm. So a penis going into a vagina is the most important part of a marriage?
I've already explained, at length, why this is nonsense.

Since we are spiritual beings, it is more than that. When man and woman are united physically, they are also united spiritually.

doubtingmerle · Dec 7, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
If the Christian God exists and I have demonstrated that He probably does

I missed it. Where did you show that the Christian God probably exists? If the Christian God "probably exists", what are the odds that he does exist?

All I have seen from you is that certain ancient writers say that the Christian God exists. When I ask you how you know they were telling the truth, you tell me that 1) they had accurate science; 2) they had accurate prophesies; and 3) they were early proponents of methodological naturalism. Even if all 3 of your claims are true, that is hardly proof that the writers were probably correct when they said the Christian God exists.

Regarding your claims, 1) Muslims also make claims that their book has highly accurate science. Both claims of highly accurate science are dubious. When I asked you about this, I saw no response. 2) The Bible is notorious for unfulfilled prophesies or dubious claims of fulfilled prophesies (see Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled (infidels.org) ). 3) The Bible is not a leading proponent of methodological naturalism. For instance it credits demons with creating diseases, and credits Yahweh with locust invasions.

Ed1wolf · Dec 7, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
↑
ed: The organic uniting of two persons reinforces personhood. Gay sex cannot organically unite persons as I have demonstrated earlier.

ia: This is just an empty claim and, as such, can be ignored.

Nevertheless a true scientifically founded claim that stands unrefuted.

ed: By reinforcing persons society spreads mental and emotional stability. Mental and emotional stability produces successful and strong societies.

ia: Double standard. Explained already.

Having a successful and strong society benefits all members no matter what their sexual orientation.

↑

ed: Which rule?

ia: There's a rule on Christian Forums that you are not allowed to speak of homosexuality in approving terms.

Really? Even in the threads that involve debating non Christians? I didnt know that.

ed: Science has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a cause. That cause according to the rules of logic has to have the characteristics of the Christian God in order to produce a universe like ours.

ia: A much-debunked apologetic argument, answered already ad nauseum.

Fraid not, it has never been refuted. And there is more evidence for it being discovered for it almost every day.
↑

ed: I never said I could, that is a straw man.

ia: Good dodge! You claim it's true, but decide you don't need to prove it.

Even though I cant prove it, nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence for it.
↑

ed: No, this response was to your claim that the Bible did not teach what I was arguing. I was just stating that contrary to your claim about the Bible it does. My argument regarding homosexuality is based on biology as I demonstrated above.

ia: Honestly, I doubt it. I do think that you are aware that showing your argument is based on the Bible is a losing move, so you've been working very hard to avoid it. But since all of your arguments have been shown to be empty, I just have to assume that your entire stance is based on religious faith.

Fraid not, see above.

ed: No, it is no more circular than defining what a dog is and making that definition the standard for what a dog is.

ia: In order to define a dog, you must define it in terms of relating it to other things. But in your definition of God as goodness itself, you have nothing else to relate it to. Goodness is therefore completely arbitrary. God could say that anything was good, and it would be, because He said it was so.

No, we can recognize goodness not perfectly but enough to recognize it when we see it, just like we can recognize a dog after we hear a description of one.

ed: Yes, God is who He is, in fact He himself said, I am Who I am.

ia: The definition of circular reasoning.

No, He is just saying that He is a brute fact. He is who He says He is. He is being itself.

↑

ed: We have a moral conscience to determine if He is good.

ia: How did we get it? Either we developed it on our own, in which case there is no need for a God, or God gave it to us, in which case it cannot be used to prove Him.

It is a consequence of being created in His image. It is more rational to believe that our moral conscience came from a pre-existing morality than that it came from a random amoral process.

ed: No, As soon as you commit the genetic fallacy you lose.

ia: A good general rule, but you can't apply it to Creationists. They've simply been proved wrong too many times, retreating from one iteration to another, desperately chasing a version of their religion that can survive in the courts.
Now, if you claim to be a creationist, you automatically lose.

I think You only say that because you cant refute it.

doubtingmerle · Dec 8, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
It is more rational to believe that our moral conscience came from a pre-existing morality than that it came from a random amoral process.

And where did that pre-existing morality come from? Is it turtles all the way down?

My morality is based on love. As I look inside myself I see love: love for myself, for my family, for my community, for all. Based on that love, I react in moral ways to other people.

That seems to me like a very good basis for morality.

And what is your basis for morality? Is your morality simply based on whatever God says to do? OK, suppose you were to someday hear what the Bible says that Abraham heard. Suppose that you were to hear a voice claiming to be God and telling you to kill your son. What would you do? I would strongly recommend that anybody who hears such a voice to not obey that command. If there is no physical explanation for the voice, probably he should see a doctor. But he should not obey a voice from heaven telling him to sacrifice his son on an alter. How would you react to that situation?

Evolution has led many species to develop cooperative relationships. It is one of the things evolution does, and does quite well.

Ed1wolf · Dec 8, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
If God is 3 persons, what does John 3:16 mean when it says God sent his son? Does it mean all 3 persons sent their son? Was Jesus his own son? Did Jesus have 3 fathers?

No, He only had one "biological" father and one adoptive father.

dm: And what does it mean when it says the Word was God? Does it mean the Word was all 3 of the persons? Or does it mean that he was one of the three gods?

No, the Word is God the Son. As I stated before there is only one divinity, not three. There are three persons but not three gods.

dm: And is a fertilized egg also a person? How is it that one can define the Holy Spirit and a fertilized egg both as persons?

Yes, a fertilized human egg is a human person. They are both persons in that both have minds, wills, emotions, and consciences. Except that the fertilized egg has these characteristics in a different form.

Ed1wolf · Dec 9, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
The point is that Luke 12:47-48 takes it for granted that "servants" who don't do what their master wanted will be beat with many stripes. That sounds more like slavery than employment. And yet the New Testament acts as though this kind of slavery is normal.

Indentured servitude and slavery were normal in the first century. Jesus is using a common and normal relationship in the society at the time to give a metaphorical lesson on being prepared for His second coming.

dm: And you think it was wrong for the masters to beat their servants? Then why does Luke say God will beat people up just like masters beat their servants? If it is wrong for people, why is it right for God?

No, see above, this was a metaphor of people who dont believe in Him and are not prepared when He returns and will be punished. But as far as beating servants, we covered this earlier in this thread when we dealt with OT slavery that it was ok for them to beat their servants if they committed a serious enough offense to justify it according to a Lex talonis ruling from a hebrew judge.

doubtingmerle · Dec 9, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
No, He only had one "biological" father and one adoptive father.

You missed the point. The point is that, the New Testament speaks of a "person" called God and a "person" called Jesus. When I read the word "God" in the New Testament, it seems to refer to a person who is different from the person called Jesus.

You have already admitted that, in John 3:16, when it says God loved the world, it does not mean the triune God loved the world. It means that one "person", God, sent another person, Jesus.

Look at some more examples. In all these verses the word God means a person distinct from Jesus. It does not mean the three persons.

Mar 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luk 2:52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Jhn 13:3
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

Act 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Rom 1:7
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

1Ti 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

It is obvious to me that these writers thought God and Jesus were different "persons". They would not have written like that if they thought "God" was the combination of three persons.

Ed1wolf · Dec 9, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
John 3:18 says, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "

Do you agree that an infant does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God?

I think John 3:18 is wrong when it says all who do not believe are condemned.

Yes, but the reason infant does not believe is not because of sin, but rather because he does not have the ability to believe. But once you have the ability to believe you will be held accountable if you do not, because once you have the ability to believe you also have the ability to sin. On what basis do you believe that John is wrong?

Ed1wolf · Dec 9, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
Ah, so some places in the New Testament when I read the word "God" it is referring to one of the three persons in the trinity, the one you call God the Father.

Other places when I read the word "God" it is referring to the combination of two persons.

Other places when I read the word "God" it refers to all three persons.

How confusing. How are we supposed to know what it means?

Here is a list of all verses in the Bible that have both the word "Jesus" and "God" in them: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

It is pretty obvious to me. The writers thought there was a "person" called God and a "person" called Jesus. They never refer to the three "persons" collectively as "God".

You have to look at the language used especially the original language and the context to determine. There is a person called God the Father and a person called Jesus who is God the Son and a person called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence. Although they never explicitly call all three persons collectively as God, it can be logically deduced from their words and actions that this is the Nature of the Being called God or Yahweh.

Ed1wolf · Dec 9, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
How many times has our sitting President been taken to court and convicted of crime? Zero. That is because Presidents generally are not prosecuted. Impeachment is the legal remedy, and that has been done. Of course there was no way that the Republican Senate was going to convict him, but that in no way clears him of the charges of a crime in his dealing with Ukraine.

His other probable crimes? Where do I begin? Tax fraud, bank and insurance fraud, campaign finance violations, bribery, negligent homicide, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few. See Losing Could Expose Trump to Prosecution for Any Number of Crimes.

Give a specific example of where he committed each.

doubtingmerle · Dec 10, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Give a specific example of where he committed each.

I gave you a link with specific examples of the crimes that Trump is likely guilty of. Once again, How Donald Trump Is Vulnerable to Prosecution (theintercept.com) .

doubtingmerle · Dec 10, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Yes, but the reason infant does not believe is not because of sin, but rather because he does not have the ability to believe. But once you have the ability to believe you will be held accountable if you do not, because once you have the ability to believe you also have the ability to sin. On what basis do you believe that John is wrong?

When we point something out to you in the Bible, it seems that you keep adding things that we don't find there. For instance, when I point out the years that Genesis indicates were between the flood and Abraham, you throw in 2 million additional years out of whole cloth. When I point out the Bible says to give to every man that asks of you, you throw in the clause that we are to do so only when wise.

Now we turn to John. Here is John 3:18 with the words that you appear to be adding shown in red: "He that believeth on him is not judged: he that [ 1) hath the ability to believe; and 2) hath the ability to sin; and 3)] believeth not[,] hath been judged already, because he hath [the ability to believe and also he hath] not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Once again the words in red are words that I need to add to get this verse to say what you claim it says.

May I make a suggestion? You may want to make your own version of the Bible which includes all the things you add to it.

The Bible says those who don't believe will be judged. Infants don't believe. I think the Bible is mistaken. Infants will not be judged.

doubtingmerle · Dec 10, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
You have to look at the language used especially the original language and the context to determine. There is a person called God the Father and a person called Jesus who is God the Son and a person called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence. Although they never explicitly call all three persons collectively as God, it can be logically deduced from their words and actions that this is the Nature of the Being called God or Yahweh.

What an odd way to write a book. Sometimes the authors use the word "God" to mean one of the three persons, and sometimes they use it to mean "all three persons collectively"? And it never occurred to them that they should mention what they are doing?

Suppose a man writes your biography. Sometimes when he says Ed1wolf he is referring to you. Sometimes he is referring to your wife. Sometimes he is referring to both of you together. Suppose he never tells us he is using this convention. If he wanted to be clear in his writing, is this a good way to do it?

Perhaps the authors actually meant what they said. Perhaps they believed in one God that had at least two emanations, Christ and the Holy Spirit, by which the one God revealed himself.

You say, "There is a person called God the Father and a person called Jesus who is God the Son and a person called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence. " Suppose a person teaches, "There is a God called God the Father and a God called Jesus who is God the Son and a God called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence. " Is that person teaching heresy? What is the difference between the two statements, other than the choice of wording? Is this nothing more than an argument of linguistics, an argument that condemns people as heretics for using the wrong noun to describe something?

InterestedAtheist · Dec 10, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
If the Christian God exists and I have demonstrated that He probably does, then we have rights endowed by God.

As @doubtingmerle said - I must have missed where you did that.
Perhaps you mean that you have demonstrated that God exists to your own satisfaction.

Ed1wolf said:
No, our bodies are designed for marriage biologically, we are not designed biologically for painting.

Our bodies are designed for marriage biologically? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Our bodies are certainly designed to have sex and produce children. Is that what you believe the definition of marriage is?

Ed1wolf said:
That is not the crux of my argument, the crux is biologically.

When you make the claim that we should keep doing something because we've always done it before, expect to have your illogical argument highlighted.

Ed1wolf said:
How am I losing the argument? We have never discussed where our moral conscience comes from. But of course, it is more rational that it comes from a preexisting morality, rather than from an amoral impersonal process.

The argument is about whether or not you are able to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. Since you can't, you are unable to justify the foundations of your morality. You try to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma by saying that goodness is simply God's nature, but since this is a tautological statement, it fails.
Therefore, you have lost the argument.

Ed1wolf said:
Non sequitur, I never made that claim.

You claimed that you could answer Euthrphro's Dilemma, but of course you can't.

Ed1wolf said:
Never made the claim that we could prove with absolute certainty that God is good in this life.

So God might be evil? I'd say that counts as losing the argument, for a Christian.

Ed1wolf said:
It is not unsubstantiated because there is a great deal of evidence that He is good. Just not enough to produce absolute certainty, which I never claimed so you there was no argument for you to win.

Euthyphro's Dilemma, remember?
Are you now willing to admit that you are unable to resolve it and so have no foundation on which to base your morality?
No?
It doesn't matter. We don't need you to admit that you're wrong to see that you're wrong.

Ed1wolf said:
Since generally such people do not get married without any specific laws about it, there is no reason to make laws about it. We have enough laws.

I think some laws stating that gay people are allowed to get married are a good idea, because otherwise we get people like you trying to stop them from doing so, even when these people cannot explain why.

Ed1wolf said:
I remember you stating that only two can make a marriage but I dont remember you ever explaining why.

I don't believe that only two can make a marriage. Polygamy is not necessarily an immoral act, though I can see that it is likely to have more complications than monogamy. If three or more people genuinely love each other and wish to get married to each other, I'm fine with that.

Ed1wolf said:
No, I think it has more to do with the anonymity. Just like other social media.

Since that doesn't seem to address my answer in any way, I'll just re-state it:
"Regardless, the point is: what you call over-skepticism is nothing more than common sense set in contrast to your illogical arguments."

Ed1wolf said:
Since we are spiritual beings, it is more than that. When man and woman are united physically, they are also united spiritually.

Sounds like a lot of unfounded religious claims to me.
First, prove that we are spiritual beings.
Next, prove that sexual relations between a man and a woman produces "spiritual unity."
Finally, please prove that sexual relations between two men or two women do not produce "spiritual unity."

Ed1wolf said:
Nevertheless a true scientifically founded claim that stands unrefuted.

In what way is "the organic uniting of two persons reinforces personhood" a "true scientifically founded claim that stands unrefuted"?

Ed1wolf said:
Having a successful and strong society benefits all members no matter what their sexual orientation.

Having freedom to marry the person you love rather than being denied it benefits a society even more.

Ed1wolf said:
Really? Even in the threads that involve debating non Christians? I didn't know that.

I'm afraid so. There is a rule in Christian Forums that we are not allowed to endorse or support homosexuality.

Ed1wolf said:
Fraid not, it has never been refuted. And there is more evidence for it being discovered for it almost every day.

The cosmological argument has been refuted many times, simply by pointing out its logical inconsistencies. In a nutshell, just because we don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, that does not mean we can simply make up an answer.

Ed1wolf said:
Even though I cant prove it, nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence for it.

Probably only Christian apologists consider it to be "evidence".

Ed1wolf said:
Fraid not, see above.

'Fraid so. See above.

Ed1wolf said:
No, we can recognize goodness not perfectly but enough to recognize it when we see it, just like we can recognize a dog after we hear a description of one.

Okay then. Explain how we know that God is good.
If your answer is "because He does good things," then please explain how we know what goodness is, so that we can recognise this.
If your answer is that we know because of our moral sense, then please explain where this moral sense came from. (From God? Then you are engaged in special pleading. You cannot use a moral sense originating from God as a judge of anything when it is God's morality that we are trying to evaluate in the first place).

Ed1wolf said:
No, He is just saying that He is a brute fact. He is who He says He is. He is being itself.

Sure, let's accept that. Now, if we accept that God is real, how do you go about proving that morality can be based upon Him?

Ed1wolf said:
It is a consequence of being created in His image. It is more rational to believe that our moral conscience came from a pre-existing morality than that it came from a random amoral process.

Then where did that pre-existing morality come from?

Ed1wolf said:
I think You only say that because you cant refute it.

I'll go with a very, very long history of legal battle that have established that creationism is not science in any way, shape or form. The battle has already been fought many times, and each time creationism lost it.

Ed1wolf · Dec 10, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
ed: Several of Moses writings have been confirmed by science

dm: You write this in response to my question, "What evidence do you have that Moses and Jeremiah spoke God's words?

I am seeing this logic here:

Moses wrote something confirmed by science.

All writings confirmed by science are God's words.

Therefore Moses was writing God's words.

Substitute Newton, Franklin, or Muhammed in the above, and you find they were all writing God's words. This logic is errant.

Premise 2 is not mine. My point is that Moses revealed knowledge that no one else had at the time and did not until over 3000 years later it was discovered by science.

dm: Many years ago a Muslim woman argued with me that, since the Koran refers to bees that we now know are female as "she", that therefore the Koran was God's words. You can see the error in her argument, yes?

Her only mistake is saying that that one statement proves the Koran was Gods words, I would agree that it may be evidence that the Koran is Gods words. But the Koran has many more serious problems that point to it not being from God.

dm: Oh, and "Moses" goofed when he said the earth was flooded and that millions of Israelites trekked through the desert.

Maybe, but I gave some evidence for a global flood earlier in this thread though I admit there is not a great deal of evidence because it was primarily a supernatural act. Some scholars believe the number of Isrealites is a copying error, numbers in hebrew are very easy to miscopy. But even if there were millions, nomads which is what they were in the desert dont leave many permanent artifacts after 3500 years.

dm: Luke 6:30 contradicts other verses, therefore it does not mean what it says?

No, it is a rabbinic hyperbole, He is teaching an attitude not meant to be literal, ancient historians know this is how ancient jewish rabbis taught.

dm: Just curious. Suppose I am reading the Bible and find a verse that contradicts other verses. Am I allowed to change its meaning so it matches up with everything else?

No, you study the verse in the grammatico-historical context of the bible as a whole to determine its actual meaning and then see if it actually does contradict other verses, most orthodox Christian scholars using this method (which is how to understand any text not just the bible) have determined there are no real contradictions in the bible only some apparent ones.

Where's God?

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads