Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because I find a personal god paradoxical, and a watchmaker god is consistent, logically. Plus, we may never know if there is a watchmaker since he would just start the universe and never interact with it again.
What about a personal god do you find paradoxical?
It is summed up in the Euthyphro dilemma.
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
Add in that this is a god that is taking personal attention and action in the world because of people's prayers and actions...and I see nothing like that happening. There are no miricals, even small ones that uphold to examination, there are no sudden changes that can be accounted for prayer alone.
God, as in regards to the maker of the universe, makes every bit as much sense as the big bang theory.
I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?
How much cheese is God's angel wings?
Seriously, sense is something you discuss at the end of a conversation, not in the middle of one.
Unless you want to object that God attacks the possibility of any sense, in which case, show proof.
The biblical "accounts" are the claims. They aren't evidence. Evidence of these claims must necessarily be extra-biblical or it's circular reasoning.
The Bible is evidence for my claims that God has moved in history.
Is there extra biblical evidence that the authors of the Bible accurately recorded history? That's a different question.
But the Bible is a fair piece of evidence for my claims of God's work in history.
No. Because your god-claims are a direct result of what you (or other people who've told you) read in the bible.
What if someone were to ask a question like: "Is there such a person as God and has He made himself known at any time in history?"
How would they answer a question like this?
Perhaps they would examine the historical data.
If they did they would find a multitude of historical accounts on the subject.
How can this be discounted as evidence?
If the one answering the question is a rational and reasonable person, he will answer with "there is no evidence or any data suggesting that such a being exists".
Because claims aren't evidence or data. They are just claims.
But there is no such data... And if you wish to refer to the bible as an example of such "data", then why single out the bible? There's scripture filled with claims of thousands of (mutually exclusive) religions and gods out there.
No. They'ld find a multitude of claims on the subject. None of which are supported by any evidence.
Consider this then.... how about asking question about alien abduction? You could point to the MANY people (many of which still live today - you could actually meet up and talk to them) who claim to have been abducted and sexually abused on a space ship. Would you consider that evidence that there is such a thing as aliens and that they visit this planet and abduct people to perform sex experiments on them?
How about bigfoot? The Lochness monster? Elvis still being alive? Bush being a Reptillian from the planet Niburu?
Pointing to people who believe claims without evidence is not evidence that those claims have any truth value.
I think that the Euthyphro dilemma is simple enough. Morality is rooted in the person of God himself. Good behavior imitates God. Therefore it's not a standard outside of God that even he must submit to. But neither is it arbitrary such that it could change on God's slightest whim. It's unchanging -- rooted in his person and character and thus not arbitrary. But it's not an impersonal standard outside of himself.
Dilemma solved in my book.
I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?
Why dismiss what evidence of miracles? What somebody wrote in a book 2000 years ago?
What if today, in some remote part of the world, a group of several hundred people came forward and claimed their messiah had been crucified and then was risen from the dead a few days later and they all saw him. Would you believe these people?
How would you go about considering whether the claim was true?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?