Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

Mark Quayle said:

But that isn't what he said. I don't doubt he wanted to hint at the fact that some Christians are whacko, and I know they are, but he needs to be more specific if that's his point. He left it wide open for him to be able to do the gotcha! of "So if God told you to kill you would kill, regardless...".

Click to expand...

I point to post 324, where he said, "What if Abraham was mistaken? What if he rammed his knife down through Isaac's chest, only to hear the voice say, "Ha! The jokes on you. I told you to kill Isaac, but I'm not actually Yahweh. I'm an imposter. April fools. Gotcha!"

(Emphasis mine.)

He made that clear in post 350 as well, that it was an imposter.

There is a way. God does not contradict himself. That is one reason why we use the Bible for an 'anchor' to our minds. God will not contradict it. If I hear a voice telling me something God would not tell me, it is not God.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of contradictions about God in the Bible.

Does God have a body?

Yes, God has a body.

God walks and talks with a voice that can be heard.

• And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Genesis 3:8

He spoke to Moses face to face.

• And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Exodus 33:11

Which is strange since no one can see God's face and live.

• And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exodus 33:20

God let Moses get a peek at his back parts.

• And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Exodus 33:22-23

And he stood next to Moses on Mount Sinai.

• Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there. Exodus 34:5

He told the Israelites to cover up their excrement so that he wouldn't step in it.

• And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.... Deuteronomy 23:12-13

Ezekiel saw God's loins, which appeared to be on fire.

• And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward.... Ezekiel 1:27
• Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward.... Ezekiel 8:2

God has horns coming out of his hands.

• God ... had horns coming out of his hand. Habakkuk 3:3-4

No, God is a bodyless spirit.

• God is a spirit. John 4:24
• For a spirit hath not flesh and bones. Luke 24:39

Does God respect anyone?

God has respect for some people.

God had respect for Abel (because he killed and sacrificed some animals for him), but not for Cain (who only offered God some veggies.)

• Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. Genesis 4:3-5

He had respect for the Israelites.

• And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. Exodus 2:25
• And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. For I will have respect unto you, and make your fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. Leviticus 26:9
• The children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. 2 Kings 13:23-25

And he has respect for the lowly.

• Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect for the lowly. Psalm 138:6

God respects no one.

• For the Lord your God ... regardeth not persons. Deuteronomy 10:17
• For there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons. 2 Chronicles 19:7
• God is no respecter of persons. Acts 10:34
• For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:11
• God accepteth no man's person. Galatians 2:6
• Neither is there respect of persons with him. Ephesians 6:9
• There is no respect of persons. Colossians 3:25
• And if ye call upon the Father, who without respect of persons, jugeth according to every man's work. 1 Peter 1:17

There are plenty more. No doubt you will now start explaining why my interpretation of these passages is wrong. However, what we get in the Bible is exactly what we'd expect if they were just a collection of legends gathered together. There's no reason to expect them to be consistent.

Clizby WampusCat said:

I disagree as I have said many times. Just because something is reasonable to believe does not mean it is true.

Click to expand...

Then you're rejecting a rule of logic and therefore you are a misologist. That's all on you.

Clizby WampusCat said:

I am not forcing doubt. I truly do not believe your premise has been substantiated.

Click to expand...

You do not believe in spite of the reason that has been presented. That is forced doubt. Admit it, you hate logic.

Clizby WampusCat said:

But that is not your argument that I am objecting to is it.

Click to expand...

It actually is my argument. It's PSR shoved into a modus ponens.

Clizby WampusCat said:

All I have said is that flat earthers are convinced by the evidence they evaluate.

Click to expand...

First you claim they have evidence to begin with. That was your 1st mistake. Then you deliberately omitted the fact that their "evidence" is based on a previous presupposition that the Earth is "not round." It's based on a negative claim. You did that every-single-time you repeated yourself. You never admitted where their process truly begins.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Just because you and I are not convinced does not make them all of a sudden disbelieve a flat earth.

Click to expand...

Because they really don't care about evidence. It's all about their will. And that's my point. This is the exact same reason why atheist brains are the same as flat-earthers'. They have convinced themselves that "being convinced" is more important than any evidence. It's about subjective will alone. Nothing else.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Ok

Click to expand...

^ Here, you continue to stall any correction on the purported "true" knowledge of the nature of belief. Show your work.

Clizby WampusCat said:

You are confusing belief and actual truth. You are absolutely wrong here. If someone says I do not believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket that are not saying there are an odd number. If you think about this I think you will get it.

Click to expand...

I am appealing to justified belief alone (or belief based-on truth). Only justified belief matters. No one else. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not. Get it?

If someone says they do not believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket, there can be only one other rational conclusion: Odds. <-- Any (3rd) ambiguous position is fallacious.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Most words have different meanings. I told you which definition I was using. You are playing games.

Click to expand...

No. Go back and look. There's only ONE definition. NOT TWO. "1. the state of being without or not having enough of something." <-- That ONE DEFINITION is deliberately ambiguous, due to the "or." Some words are like that. Therefore, you are deliberately ambiguous.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Ho hum. Again you attempt to tell me what I believe.

Click to expand...

It's based on the evidence that you're not an existential absurdist, nor a Nihilist. You simply want it all without any regard for the necessary give and take here. You can't have it both ways.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Nope, I dealt with tis above, you are a one trick pony I am afraid.

Click to expand...

Oh, I happily admit that. But it's one really amazing trick, regardless. You may have dismissed it, but you never objectively refuted anything. "Convincing" means "something that will force itself through my subjective incredulity." Persuasion is subjective. Evidence is objective. Prove anything (anything!) beyond any doubt whatsoever, and I guarantee that someone can still slam their "nuh-uh" arbitrary doubt, mistrust, or suspicion against it. But that's how it works. That's why I brought up flat-earthers to begin with, because that's what they're doing. The most hilarious bit is how you defend them.

Clizby WampusCat said:

You cannot possibly know that. I was a true believer for 18 years. I know that scares the hell out of you.

Click to expand...

A true believer would acknowledge 1 John 2:19, and walk out quietly as such. A true believer would know that God knows the heart from eternity past (Romans 9:18-21, Ephesians 1:4). Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a true believer or an apostate. You can't be both. I can only conclude you were a true CHRINO for 18 years; nothing more. And while that honestly concerns me, it doesn't "scare the hell out of me."

John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me."

Clizby WampusCat said:

Then you need to give good evidence that your premise is true, that god exists, or your argument is not sound.

Click to expand...

That's still moving the goalposts. The initial argument assumed the God of the Bible. I know my boundaries here. You cannot suddenly change them without opening up an entirely different argument.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Why don't you ask instead of assuming all kinds of things about me? I became a Christian as an adult. I lost my belief because of studying for once to see if my beliefs were true. I became unconvinced during the process.

Click to expand...

Still awkwardly vague on your part. No ^ details at all. I'm sure if you had them to begin with, you'd simply hit me with them right away. My conclusion remains unchanged. If you really used to be a Christian "for a long time," then you'd have known that General Revelation necessarily precedes Special Revelation. If you didn't, then I blame the garbage pastoral staff who was trusted to your spiritual care.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Can I ask why you are so hostile? Can you just have a conversation?

Click to expand...

It's simple: Because easily 95% of atheists are here to try to personally deconvert others. Nothing more. They are usually here under false pretenses, and often under the guise of woke politics; painting us all as patriarchal oppressors and Dominionist bogeymen. They don't care at all about truth or logic (you already proved as much). They are wolves in liberated clothing. They have a systematized agenda and propaganda campaign to deconvert nominal or weak professing Christians. <-- The little lambs. But Thomism is making a comeback. You will not dominate the narrative.

And the other 5%? Tough love. Consuming love. I stood on that same existentialist ledge once, and now I'm trying to passionately talk them down from it. An absurdist anomie is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. It's a slow self-inflicted death. And it's the only conclusion a smart atheist can make. But most atheists aren't on the same level as say, a Camus or Sartre. Most atheists think they can have it all (truth, morality, meaning, justified existence, and atheism), when they really can't. There are atheists out there that I truly love, but they behave very differently.

Kylie said:

I point to post 324, where he said, "What if Abraham was mistaken? What if he rammed his knife down through Isaac's chest, only to hear the voice say, "Ha! The jokes on you. I told you to kill Isaac, but I'm not actually Yahweh. I'm an imposter. April fools. Gotcha!"

(Emphasis mine.)

He made that clear in post 350 as well, that it was an imposter.

Click to expand...

I don't know in which post I mentioned that somehow the terms have shifted. I can't help but think he says things this way and that, like a trial lawyer trying to trap someone. He has an agenda. He's not just asking questions.

I know I have a bad habit of assuming a person means sometihing they don't, but when he has all along been postulating God saying to do something God has always said not to do, then came up with the one you are defending as him saying it was an imposter, I may have missed something, but to me he was there restating THE SAME question as before, embellishing it a little, by saying that God (unstated in that particular post) was now jeering and claiming to be an imposter.

If he was saying that it was not after all God, with whom Abraham was dealing, then I wish he has introduced his new scenario with something like, "suppose it was NOT God, but an imposter that ....." But maybe to you he did basically do just that. Maybe I am wrong about him. But then he turns around and asks Paulomycin what makes him think God must be Omnipotent. to me that is him returning to his original absurd question.

But maybe I'm just too defensive. I'll admit the possibility.

Mark Quayle said:

How is that NOT absurd? "What if God is not God?"

Click to expand...

Good observation. The question itself assumes "God," but then immediately contradicts itself. Then he'll certainly follow-up with insisting that he didn't contradict himself. Which compounds one ridiculous absurdity upon the next. If you think about it for any length of time it's just a complete trainwreck.

Kylie said:

I point to post 324, where he said, "What if Abraham was mistaken? What if he rammed his knife down through Isaac's chest, only to hear the voice say, "Ha! The jokes on you. I told you to kill Isaac, but I'm not actually Yahweh. I'm an imposter. April fools. Gotcha!"

Click to expand...

Is this what they're teaching on the atheist blogs and/or activism seminars? What year did you people start resorting to desperate "what if" speculation?

Kylie said:

Yes, God has a body.

Click to expand...

God is not limited to any particular empirical form, such as burning bush, cloud by day, or pillar of fire by night (or "dove"). Any empirical form naturally limits God's fully omnipotent glory.

Thus, your perceived contradiction was just a solvable paradox.

Kylie said:

God has respect for some people.

Click to expand...

You're conflating "respect" of innate qualities vs. grace. Your examples are all grace, which is defined as "un-merited favor."

Also, we're not KJV-onlyists (at least I hope we're not). So Exodus 2:25 for example would only mean that he acknowledged them. It doesn't mean God's showing special favoritism. Which is what "respecter of persons" means.

Kylie said:

There are plenty of contradictions about God in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Kylie: Does God have a body?

Yes, God has a body.

God walks and talks with a voice that can be heard.

• And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Genesis 3:8

He spoke to Moses face to face.

• And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Exodus 33:11

Which is strange since no one can see God's face and live.

• And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exodus 33:20

God let Moses get a peek at his back parts.

• And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Exodus 33:22-23

And he stood next to Moses on Mount Sinai.

• Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there. Exodus 34:5

He told the Israelites to cover up their excrement so that he wouldn't step in it.

• And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.... Deuteronomy 23:12-13

Ezekiel saw God's loins, which appeared to be on fire.

• And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward.... Ezekiel 1:27
• Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward.... Ezekiel 8:2

God has horns coming out of his hands.

• God ... had horns coming out of his hand. Habakkuk 3:3-4

No, God is a bodyless spirit.

• God is a spirit. John 4:24
• For a spirit hath not flesh and bones. Luke 24:39

Mark: Omnipotence is not limited to form. But he does have the ability to take on any appearance he wishes. Not only that, but to even, as Jesus, be both God and human, and therefore visible as that human.

If an innocent dog or bird might see him in all his holiness, they would not be afraid, I don't think, but if a human saw him, our own realization of unholy corruption would kill us. "Woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips!"


Kylie: Does God respect anyone?

God has respect for some people.

God had respect for Abel (because he killed and sacrificed some animals for him), but not for Cain (who only offered God some veggies.)

• Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. Genesis 4:3-5

He had respect for the Israelites.

• And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. Exodus 2:25
• And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. For I will have respect unto you, and make your fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. Leviticus 26:9
• The children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. 2 Kings 13:23-25

And he has respect for the lowly.

• Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect for the lowly. Psalm 138:6

God respects no one.

• For the Lord your God ... regardeth not persons. Deuteronomy 10:17
• For there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons. 2 Chronicles 19:7
• God is no respecter of persons. Acts 10:34
• For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:11
• God accepteth no man's person. Galatians 2:6
• Neither is there respect of persons with him. Ephesians 6:9
• There is no respect of persons. Colossians 3:25
• And if ye call upon the Father, who without respect of persons, jugeth according to every man's work. 1 Peter 1:17

Mark: Not that there aren't at least two meanings to "respect", but even if I take them to mean the same thing, their place in each of these citations show a difference in application or use. When God says he has no respect, the context shows he doesn't consider one person better than another in and of themselves, nor (in another place) that there is anything about mankind to in and of themselves recommend them to God.

Every instance where you show he respects someone, see the close relationship to God's choice of and plan for a person, nation etc. It is still not a matter of the the value of the respected, in and of themselves, but a granted position, and that, for God's own sake.


Kylie: There are plenty more. No doubt you will now start explaining why my interpretation of these passages is wrong. However, what we get in the Bible is exactly what we'd expect if they were just a collection of legends gathered together. There's no reason to expect them to be consistent.

Mark: I've seen many such lists. So far every one of them I have seen poses no real puzzlement, except in how to make the questioner understand --in fact, I would be willing to bet that were you so inclined, you could explain how the examples you show here don't contradict after all. It doesn't require confirmation bias. Though to be honest, it seems to me that the 'contradictions' are assumed to be contradictions because of confirmation bias.

Mark Quayle said:

Omnipotence is not limited to form. But he does have the ability to take on any appearance he wishes. Not only that, but to even, as Jesus, be both God and human, and therefore visible as that human.

If an innocent dog or bird might see him in all his holiness, they would not be afraid, I don't think, but if a human saw him, our own realization of unholy corruption would kill us. "Woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips!"

Click to expand...

Then since he can do that, it's not accurate to say that he doesn't have a body, is it?

Not that there aren't at least two meanings to "respect", but even if I take them to mean the same thing, their place in each of these citations show a difference in application or use. When God says he has no respect, the context shows he doesn't consider one person better than another in and of themselves, nor (in another place) that there is anything about mankind to in and of themselves recommend them to God.

Every instance where you show he respects someone, see the close relationship to God's choice of and plan for a person, nation etc. It is still not a matter of the the value of the respected, in and of themselves, but a granted position, and that, for God's own sake.

Click to expand...

Funny how the "But you're not looking at the context!" argument only comes up with passages that don't paint God in a favorable light.

I've seen many such lists. So far every one of them I have seen poses no real puzzlement, except in how to make the questioner understand --in fact, I would be willing to bet that were you so inclined, you could explain how the examples you show here don't contradict after all. It doesn't require confirmation bias. Though to be honest, it seems to me that the 'contradictions' are assumed to be contradictions because of confirmation bias.

Click to expand...

Yes, I probably could come up with explanations. But just because someone can come up with explanations doesn't make those explanations true. And when it comes to understanding how reality works, I don't think making up explanations just so you can maintain your beliefs the way you want them is a good way to find the truth.

(Also, can you please use quote tags in the future? Makes it a lot easier to only respond to your responses.)

Paulomycin said:

Then you're rejecting a rule of logic and therefore you are a misologist. That's all on you.

You do not believe in spite of the reason that has been presented. That is forced doubt. Admit it, you hate logic.

Click to expand...

Believe what you want but I know you are wrong about these two items.

First you claim they have evidence to begin with. That was your 1st mistake. Then you deliberately omitted the fact that their "evidence" is based on a previous presupposition that the Earth is "not round." It's based on a negative claim. You did that every-single-time you repeated yourself. You never admitted where their process truly begins.

Click to expand...

Of course there is evidence for a flat earth just like there is evidence for a God. The problem is that the evidence for both is not convincing.

Because they really don't care about evidence. It's all about their will. And that's my point. This is the exact same reason why atheist brains are the same as flat-earthers'. They have convinced themselves that "being convinced" is more important than any evidence. It's about subjective will alone. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

You are still under the mistaken impression that you get to decide for everyone else what evidence is convincing.

^ Here, you continue to stall any correction on the purported "true" knowledge of the nature of belief. Show your work.

Click to expand...

Start a new thread and ask me whatever you want to ask. I will respond.

If someone says they do not believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket, there can be only one other rational conclusion: Odds. <-- Any (3rd) ambiguous position is fallacious.

Click to expand...

Nope. Any claim is either true or not true. There are three responses to any claim: I believe it is true, I do not believe it is true or I don't know if it is true or not true. You are saying that the I don't know position does not exist. That is false.

No. Go back and look. There's only ONE definition. NOT TWO. "1. the state of being without or not having enough of something." <-- That ONE DEFINITION is deliberately ambiguous, due to the "or." Some words are like that. Therefore, you are deliberately ambiguous.

Click to expand...

The "or" makes it two definitions. And I clarified what I meant. This is ridiculous.

A true believer would acknowledge 1 John 2:19, and walk out quietly as such. A true believer would know that God knows the heart from eternity past (Romans 9:18-21, Ephesians 1:4). Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a true believer or an apostate. You can't be both. I can only conclude you were a true CHRINO for 18 years; nothing more. And while that honestly concerns me, it doesn't "scare the hell out of me."

John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me."

Click to expand...

Again, I know I was a true believer.

That's still moving the goalposts. The initial argument assumed the God of the Bible. I know my boundaries here. You cannot suddenly change them without opening up an entirely different argument.

Click to expand...

No it is not. If your argument begins with assuming the god of the bible then that premise needs to be substantiated to believe any conclusion that argument leads to.

It's simple: Because easily 95% of atheists are here to try to personally deconvert others. Nothing more. They are usually here under false pretenses, and often under the guise of woke politics; painting us all as patriarchal oppressors and Dominionist bogeymen. They don't care at all about truth or logic (you already proved as much). They are wolves in liberated clothing. They have a systematized agenda and propaganda campaign to deconvert nominal or weak professing Christians. <-- The little lambs. But Thomism is making a comeback. You will not dominate the narrative.

And the other 5%? Tough love. Consuming love. I stood on that same existentialist ledge once, and now I'm trying to passionately talk them down from it. An absurdist anomie is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. It's a slow self-inflicted death. And it's the only conclusion a smart atheist can make. But most atheists aren't on the same level as say, a Camus or Sartre. Most atheists think they can have it all (truth, morality, meaning, justified existence, and atheism), when they really can't. There are atheists out there that I truly love, but they behave very differently.

Click to expand...

So calling people names and telling them what they think and believe is "tough love"? Notice I have not reciprocated this to you. I think we are better together meaning theists and atheists can work together to make the world a better place, but that will not happen when people on both sides have prejudices about the other side as you have shown here. It is not us vs them, we have too much of this, we need to exist together on this planet.

Mark Quayle said:

How is that NOT absurd? "What if God is not God?"

Click to expand...

You misunderstood the question. No problem. I will repeat it.


This is the Christian Apologetics section. Are you here to make an apologetic for your religion or not?

If anyone hears a voice from heaven telling him to kill his son, should he set out to do it? I say the answer is no.

If you say also say no, then that means Abraham was wrong to do what he did, yes?

All you can seem to do is complain that you don't want to answer the question.

Mark Quayle said:

There is a way. God does not contradict himself. That is one reason why we use the Bible for an 'anchor' to our minds. God will not contradict it.

Click to expand...

Ok, so then he could not have written the Bible, which is full of contradictions.

Paulomycin said:

The problem is that your "morality" only applies to those living with subjectivism.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but the basis of your morality is totally subjective. You have the subjective opinion that the words of the Bible are objective truth. That is only your subjective opinion.

If the commands of the Bible are objective truth, then please note that Luke 6:30 say, "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." Is this command an objective moral truth? If so, then I will ask you to please give me everything you have.

I, on the other hand, have an objective basis that you ignore. Again.

But you will just clamp your hands over your ears and claim that you cannot hear me, yes? And then you will claim I never said this, yes?

Mark Quayle said:

I don't doubt he wanted to hint at the fact that some Christians are whacko, and I know they are, but he needs to be more specific if that's his point.

Click to expand...

Please, I was not making an attempt to say that some Christians are whacko.

Again. You say Abraham heard a voice telling him to kill his son, so Abraham set out to do it. How did Abraham know that the voice he was hearing was God? That is the question.

He left it wide open for him to be able to do the gotcha! of "So if God told you to kill you would kill, regardless...".

Click to expand...

It's not a gothca. Its a real question. If you had been living in Abraham's day, and heard a voice claiming to be God and telling you to kill your son, would you kill your son?

If I hear a voice telling me something God would not tell me, it is not God.

Click to expand...

Would God have told people like Abraham to kill their sons?

Paulomycin said:

"Some other convincing being," would have contradicted it.

Click to expand...

...unless this convincing being was very clever. How did Abraham know that the being that told him to kill his son was not a clever being imitating God?

Again, this is a single consistent and integrated message of redemption. Therefore, that consistency demonstrates one source.

Click to expand...

If the message is so consistent, why is there so much confusion here about what is needed for salvation? Does one need to call on God? Do good works? Repent? Get baptized? Keep the commandments? Give to the poor? Accept the Lordship of Christ? Invite Jesus into your heart? Pray the sinners prayer?

Ask any Christian, you will get a different answer. How is that consistent?

You're not ignoring the answer, but you are ignoring "how" it was stated. So to drag out your intentional redundancy, I'll continue repeating myself further:

1. I already stated that Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself. <-- This already acknowledges and agrees that it is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I asked the question, "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

And your answer is: "Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself." which is your way of saying "yes"?

It would have been a lot simpler if you had just said, "Yes."

Ok, so we both agree that Abraham was doing a bad thing when he set out to kill his son. The problem is that you say God told him to do this bad thing.

2. Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic. Why? Because atheists have no objective standard of right or wrong. <-- This continues to be a very real problem for you that cannot be blithely dismissed.

Click to expand...

First this is false. You have been told that many times and ignore it. My morality is not based on what Judea-Christians tell me, but is based on reason. But you will just ignore that and say, "Oh, so your morality is based on what Judea-Christians tell you".

Second, even if it is true, it in no way was an answer to the question about whether Abraham was wrong to do what the story says he does.

(b.)

Click to expand...

Historical evidence of the Resurrection (see Gary Habermas) would determine, "If Jesus were truly resurrected, then it would confirm everything He said about Himself, as well as scripture. It would prove that Jesus Christ is God incarnate." Jesus was an orthodox Jew. Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophesy. Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, the Bible is objective truth.

Click to expand...

First, you have no good evidence that Jesus resurrected.

Second, even if he did, it would not prove he was God incarnate. The Bible says many people resurrected on Easter. Were they all God incarnate?

Abraham had spoken to God on previous occasions. He understood that this was the Higher Being he (Abraham) called 'God'.

Might Abraham have this awesome supernatural Being confused with some other Higher Being? Sure. Thats possible. But how's that helping the case for atheism?

By the way, there's plenty of evidence for the Resurrection.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Believe what you want but I know you are wrong about these two items.

Click to expand...

You insist you "know," but you can't "show." I'm only concerned with what you can demonstrate.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Of course there is evidence for a flat earth just like there is evidence for a God. The problem is that the evidence for both is not convincing.

Click to expand...

You just admitted there is both evidence for a flat earth (!) as well as God. Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. <-- "Convincing" is always the latter.

Clizby WampusCat said:

You are still under the mistaken impression that you get to decide for everyone else what evidence is convincing.

Click to expand...

You are still under the mistaken impression that your personal incredulity alone counts for something. Again, evidence is objective and persuasion is subjective. <-- "Convincing" is always the latter.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Start a new thread and ask me whatever you want to ask. I will respond.

Click to expand...

It's obvious that don't care enough to start your own. I'm pretty sure this is because you can't even come up with a coherent thesis.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Nope. Any claim is either true or not true. There are three responses to any claim: I believe it is true, I do not believe it is true or I don't know if it is true or not true. You are saying that the I don't know position does not exist. That is false.

Click to expand...

"I don't know" is never a substitute for actual knowledge. "I don't know" is not even a knowledge claim.

Clizby WampusCat said:

The "or" makes it two definitions. And I clarified what I meant. This is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It's one (1.) definition. The "or" doesn't magically make it into (1.) and (2.). There is no 2nd defintion. Some words are deliberately ambiguous. This is one of them, on account of the "or" within the singular definition alone.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Again, I know I was a true believer.

Click to expand...

A true believer would at least acknowledge 1 John 2:19. A true believer would know that God knows the heart from eternity past (Romans 9:18-21, Ephesians 1:4). Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a true believer or an apostate. You can't be both. I can only conclude you were a true CHRINO for 18 years; nothing more.

John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me."

Clizby WampusCat said:

No it is not. If your argument begins with assuming the god of the bible then that premise needs to be substantiated to believe any conclusion that argument leads to.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Atheists make arguments assuming the God of the Bible all the time.

Clizby WampusCat said:

So calling people names and telling them what they think and believe is "tough love"?

Click to expand...

"Name-calling" is a personal accusation that can be reported to mods. Show the post with the verbatum quote.

Clizby WampusCat said:

I think we are better together meaning theists and atheists can work together to make the world a better place, but that will not happen when people on both sides have prejudices about the other side as you have shown here. It is not us vs them, we have too much of this, we need to exist together on this planet.

Click to expand...

If you really believed this, then you'd stop propagandizing. Your very signature marks you as an activist atheist. You're merely the personification of what I've observed. You're not hiding it very well at all.

doubtingmerle said:

Excuse me, but the basis of your morality is totally subjective. You have the subjective opinion that the words of the Bible are objective truth. That is only your subjective opinion.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not a presuppositionalist. I'm referring to objective truth, which is itself an objective moral fact at the same time.

Not the Bible. <-- Pay attention here. This does not give you license to inanely repeat yourself.

doubtingmerle said:

I, on the other hand, have an objective basis that you ignore. Again.

Click to expand...

You cannot derive a value from an objective fact of nature.
You cannot derive a value from an objective fact of nature.

You cannot derive a value from an objective fact of nature. Also note your (oopsie) "if" clause. You can't get away from personal preference. A preference is not a moral "ought."

Implying that those rules can be suspended or removed altogether at whim.

Stop conflating societal ethics with morality. Ethics are completely different from morality.

doubtingmerle said:

But you will just clamp your hands over your ears and claim that you cannot hear me, yes? And then you will claim I never said this, yes?

Click to expand...

You were thoroughly answered. But you will just clamp your hands over your ears and claim that I never invoked the classical "Is-Ought" problem of Empiricism. <-- Thanks atheists!

doubtingmerle said:

...unless this convincing being was very clever. How did Abraham know that the being that told him to kill his son was not a clever being imitating God?

Click to expand...

Again, the consistency of the message. But I'm just answering this due to blind arbitrary redundancy.

doubtingmerle said:

If the message is so consistent, why is there so much confusion here about what is needed for salvation?

Click to expand...

Pride gets in the way. Sometimes people demand that they take their presuppositions along with them, in spite of the fact that it creates confusion.

doubtingmerle said:

Does one need to call on God? Do good works? Repent? Get baptized? Keep the commandments? Give to the poor? Accept the Lordship of Christ? Invite Jesus into your heart? Pray the sinners prayer?

Click to expand...

It's not works. It's Grace. Grace means "un-merited favor." You literally can't do anything to be saved.

doubtingmerle said:

Ask any Christian, you will get a different answer. How is that consistent?

Click to expand...

Because you can't tell the Christians from the CHRINOs. Grace is consistent with the text. Ephesians 2:8-9 . <-- "For you have been saved by grace through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God; 9 not as a result of [your] works [nor your attempts to keep the Law], so that no one will [be able to] boast or take credit in any way [for his salvation]."

Otherwise, you have something to boast of, and thus contradict much scripture. That's where the confusion comes from.

doubtingmerle said:

And your answer is: "Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself." which is your way of saying "yes"?

Click to expand...

I said it was sin. You don't believe in sin. You have a real problem on your hands.

doubtingmerle said:

It would have been a lot simpler if you had just said, "Yes."

Click to expand...

lol, it would have been simpler for you!

doubtingmerle said:

Ok, so we both agree that Abraham was doing a bad thing when he set out to kill his son. The problem is that you say God told him to do this bad thing.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you don't believe it was a sin, because you don't believe in sin. You can't flip-flop the narrative. I'm not appealing to your non-existent "secular morality" here, that you have zero evidence to support.

doubtingmerle said:

First this is false. You have been told that many times and ignore it. My morality is not based on what Judea-Christians tell me, but is based on reason. But you will just ignore that and say, "Oh, so your morality is based on what Judea-Christians tell you".

Click to expand...

I'm just ignoring it and saying, "Oh, so you're being even more deliberately dodgy and vague." You have no proof or evidence of a purely secular morality. And it's "Judeo-Christian." Get it right. You look pretentious.

doubtingmerle said:

Second, even if it is true, it in no way was an answer to the question about whether Abraham was wrong to do what the story says he does.

Click to expand...

Because your hangup with sin. I get that.

doubtingmerle said:

First, you have no good evidence that Jesus resurrected.

Click to expand...

Habermas' Minimal Facts Argument taken from secular non-believing scholars is really good historical evidence.

doubtingmerle said:

Second, even if he did, it would not prove he was God incarnate. The Bible says many people resurrected on Easter. Were they all God incarnate?

Click to expand...

You're confusing the resurrection with what happened in Matthew 27:52-53, which was during the crucifixion. <-- Pay attention, that was clearly not "on Easter."

How about instead of desperate atheist "gotcha" games, we have a real discussion for once? Hmm?

Kylie said:

There are plenty of contradictions about God in the Bible.

Click to expand...

And every-single-one of them has been answered ad nauseum. It's been well over a decade since skepticsannotated went online. Why pretend that Christians never stepped up?

The author of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible answered (berenddeboer.net)

Again, omnipotence is never limited to any particular empirical form.

Again, you're equivocating "respecter" to make your presupposed contradictions fit your confirmation bias.

Paulomycin said:

You insist you "know," but you can't "show." I'm only concerned with what you can demonstrate.

Click to expand...

You are correct, I cannot show you my thoughts. Sorry.

You just admitted there is both evidence for a flat earth (!) as well as God. Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. <-- "Convincing" is always the latter.

Click to expand...

Yes there is evidence for big foot as well. You seem to think all evidence is equal. It is not. We must evaluate all evidence to see if it convinces us. Evidence for a flat earth when put together is unconvincing and contradictory and the evidence for a spherical earth is convincing.

You are still under the mistaken impression that your personal incredulity alone counts for something. Again, evidence is objective and persuasion is subjective. <-- "Convincing" is always the latter.

Click to expand...

All I said is that you don't get to decide what other people think is convincing evidence. Or do you think you get to judge for everyone what the believe?

It's obvious that don't care enough to start your own. I'm pretty sure this is because you can't even come up with a coherent thesis.

Click to expand...

You are right I don't care enough. Nothing is stopping you though?

"I don't know" is never a substitute for actual knowledge. "I don't know" is not even a knowledge claim.

Click to expand...

It is appropriate when you don't know something. It is also a catalyst for knowledge. Do you know everything?

A true believer would at least acknowledge 1 John 2:19. A true believer would know that God knows the heart from eternity past (Romans 9:18-21, Ephesians 1:4). Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a true believer or an apostate. You can't be both. I can only conclude you were a true CHRINO for 18 years; nothing more.

John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me."

Click to expand...

So the no true Scotsman fallacy then.

Look, it would be beneficial to me personally to believe. My wife, kids and friends are believers so it has been a hard road at times losing my belief. I want to know what is true and what is not true. The evidence for God is not convincing, that is all.

Wrong. Atheists make arguments assuming the God of the Bible all the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, when the person they are debating believes the God of the bible is real.

"Name-calling" is a personal accusation that can be reported to mods. Show the post with the verbatum quote.

Click to expand...

I don't care to report to the mods. I think open discussion is more important than censuring that kind of thing. At least when it is against me.

Jesus was harsh to people, but notice he was harsh to the believers, not the sinners/non believers. He was harsh with his disciples and Pharisees that were putting undue burden on people and just did not get it. Why do you think telling unbelievers what they think and what they know, calling them insane and telling them what they believe is how Jesus handled unbelievers?

If you really believed this, then you'd stop propagandizing. Your very signature marks you as an activist atheist. You're merely the personification of what I've observed. You're not hiding it very well at all.

Click to expand...

I am not propagandizing I am discussing why the evidence for God is unconvincing.

doubtingmerle said:

You misunderstood the question. No problem. I will repeat it.

How did Abraham know that the voice he was hearing was God? If he was hearing a deceiver, then he was wrong to set out to kill his son, yes?​

This is the Christian Apologetics section. Are you here to make an apologetic for your religion or not?

If anyone hears a voice from heaven telling him to kill his son, should he set out to do it? I say the answer is no.

If you say also say no, then that means Abraham was wrong to do what he did, yes?

All you can seem to do is complain that you don't want to answer the question.

Click to expand...

So you are no longer pushing for an answer to your first question? You are morphing it a little here a little there, til it's a new question? I thought you were working on showing me the first was not absurd, and to push for an answer with which to 'gotcha'.

If I hear a voice at all, from inside my head or out, telling me to murder, it is not God --I will not do it.