I don't, I just meant that I tell my students to sign thier work, amazing how often they will forget to put thier name on something before handing it in!
Ahhhh, that makes sense. You didn't answer my question about what you teach.
I see why it would look that way from your perspective since you start with the belief that God exists. Here is how it appears to me... We know that the natural world exists with its laws of physics etc. Every time we have been able to observe or discover the proximal cause of anything it has turned out to be a natural one in accordance with the laws of physics etc. So when we come across a new phenomenon that we don't understand the most parsimonious (we will all know how to use this word for life... Thanks AC!) avenue is to assume only that this explanation will be a natural one like all the others. The specifics of it might be new or they might advance our understanding of those laws but ultimately the assumption is a simple one. The case of this thing will be natural like it has been every other time. Conversely your hypothesis needs to assume an entire other spiritual realm with no evidence for it, as well as a specific spiritual being that has specific desires and a range of qualities and powers that make it possible for this non physical being to shape our physical world. This is a huge list of extra assumptions that make your hypothesis, not the parsimonious one.
You of course see it from your perspective which starts with an a priori belief that God doesn't exist. Your position which is based on the natural world being the only realm that exists begs the question as you yourself have admitted. Considering we live in the natural world and the natural world works according to the laws of physics you then assume that because we can understand how the natural world works that that explanation provides a basis to conclude that it works all by itself. This seems like a logic way to view it all but if you take it from another perspective and the universe as vast and incredible as it is shrinks down to a bauble on a cat's collar it would be like this:
There is no way a life form within this universe would be aware there was a whole different realm that existed outside of it. All the workings in that natural world contained in the globe would explain how all the natural world worked but all the information is just about the natural world and can only have a natural explanation due to the laws or rules established therein. Now this life form may be very validated by attributing all in this natural world to natural causes due to it being a physical and natural world but they would be ignoring some very striking elements within that natural world if they took certain things like laws of physics and other principles for granted. Its all understandable and completely keeping with the way the world works to assume that this world is all there is, but there are those things that don't seem logical to assume they arise from the natural world and need explanation as well and it is here where you and I hold opposing views. So you may feel that it is more parsimonious to claim one explanation...the natural, I find it more parsimonious to claim one explanation...God. From here in these opposing views we strive to give valid and cohesive arguments based on our own worldviews.
Are you joking? I asked, how have you disproved ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES. You said that you have. This was not about possibilities you were aware of or that had empirical data to support them. You said flat out that you had disproved all other possibilities.
You did not ask me how I've disproved all other possibilities. I did not flat out say that I had disproved all other possibilities.
Here it is again (from your post, as I didn't go back and get it)
Athee said: "That said, the question I actually asked you to respond to was
how have you ruled out all other possible explanations to conclude that your explanation is necessary and not simply sufficient. How have you done this?"
I said
: I have. The only one that even remotely comes close to explaining life without God (and only for life on earth)is an intelligence outside of our own solar system such as a superior alien existence.
Now in yours as you see you didn't ask how I've
DISPROVED all other possibilities. That was my issue with what you are now claiming. You didn't ask how I disproved anything. I never claimed I've ever
DISPROVED all possibilities.
Granted I didn't say all known possible explanations so you have a point there, I was thinking that of course but I doubt you read minds so I stand corrected on that point but I hope you see that you were mistaken and I didn't claim I had disproved anything.
I have given you the Ed hypothesis. So either you have already disproved it, as your own words said or you have not.
See above.
In the latter case you are now aware of it so how would you prove that it is false like all the others you say you have investigated.
I think you know that you can't falsify the Ed hypothesis which is why you keep dancing around it and asking for evidence etc.
First of all I have not danced around it. You were claiming I said something that I didn't. Secondly, when one looks at possibilities it is necessary to have information to examine to determine whether it is valid or not. Considering there is no information other than your personal testimony which you have already told me is terrible evidence I feel this possibility holds no validity.
The point of the Ed hypothesis is that all the data we have of the universe, the Bible, the human condition etc can all be explained just ad well by the Ed hypothesis as by the Yahweh hypothesis.
Either conceed that it is possible that the ed hypothesis is correct and that you can't be sure therefore that the Yahweh hypothesis is correct...
Or, as I have asked you many times to do...
Provide a counterfactual to the Ed hypothesis that demonstrates that it is flawed.
Ed doesn't have a Bible in which he is identified as god. He doesn't have any other sources that name him. He didn't have any witnesses that lend credibility of him. Having no Bible we have nothing to compare the universe with to show whether Ed exists.
Ed is a very famous hypothesis by a different name. It is related to the Cartesian deamon thought experiments and more recently Stephen Law is well know for his evil God hypothesis.
So lets look at this evil god Ed. If He is evil, where does the good arise? We understand that with God evil is the absence of good or exists by God withholding His goodness. I don't believe that goodness is the withholding of evil. There has to be a source of the good. God being all good if He withholds that goodness, then evil can exist but if Ed being all evil has no goodness it can't exist. The absence of evil can not be goodness because evil has no morality. Without morality, there is no goodness.
Right.
So to be clear you don't believe that Adam was made from actual dust and Eve was not made from an actual rib. In other words this is a myth that contains what you believe to be truths about the idea that God created humans without being actual history. If this is the case how do you decide which parts of the story are historical and which are myth?
I didn't say that I didn't believe that Adam was made from the dust, nor that Eve was not made from an actual rib. I said that I didn't know what all that entailed but Adam and Eve were the first humans to have a soul.
Oh it is remarkable, I just meant that people who read about this stuff wouldn't be as surprised as those who encountered the idea for the first time.
I see.
I guess... We would also know that the consequence of most of God's image bearers going to hell is not serious enough for God to be willing to override free will. In other words God is more concerned with his own glory than with saving the souls of the people he created. What a swell guy!
Well you are more than welcome to have your own opinion but as of yet you haven't shown that having a choice is a bad thing nor that God is more concerned with His glory than His creations.
I think so? What I said was that in some situations the most moral action to take can be one that would be considered appalling in another situation.
So we agree. But you believe that God taking a moral action that might appear appalling is cruel and has no moral reason? Am I understanding your position correctly?
Fair enough I guess. So I think this brings us to a stalemate. You have no support for your belief that God can't make created beings not have a sin nature while also having the ability to make choices. On the other hand I have no way to prove that he can (especially since I do think he exists). Such is the difficulty of arguing about an invisible magical being that is defined as being so above us that we can't even understand (except that believers claim to understand things a the time).
I think that you meant you don't think He exists or have you changed your mind?
I think support for we not being able to have a sinless nature rests in the fact that the only sinless Being is God and that we are not God. God didn't create Himself, thus He being the only Being sinless would support the common sense conclusion that only God can be sinless and created beings not being God could not be sinless. What prohibits this conclusion?
To be clear you are conceding that the result of God's plan is that most (whatever that specific percentage turns out to be) of the souls made in God's image end up in a hell not even made for them.
Correct?
Yes, but after conceding that point I realized that it didn't mean that only a few were called but that all are called but only a few will accept it. So, is it wrong for God for allowing us a real choice in whether or not we spend eternity worshiping Him?
I am not understanding your argument here. How are they different in this context, can you give me an example?
To intervene is to occur in time between events while subvert is to overturn or or overthrow. In the case of Pharaoh, his will we know was against God and even when God allowed it to return, Pharaoh went after the Jews and tried to kill them all. He didn't have to subvert the will, He knew that the will was weakened but still bent against God. God intervened and hardened his heart for a time when he would have relented for a weakened moment but would have restrengthened it as he did in the end.
Now this is something I hadn't thought about until now, if God were not to intervene with everyone's free will no one would be saved according to what it says in the Bible. By our very nature we rebel against God. If He were not to intervene by giving us subtle nudges and whatever else He will do then none of us would chose God because we like our sin nature too much and our own autonomy. So you and others like you have had experiences which nudged you towards Him but your own autonomy won out.
You should write a book!
I am fortunate to have my children realize that the things I've done were done for their best interest. They also know if they mess up I'm the first one there for them.
Matthew 5 makes it clear you are still to obey the OT law but that it is no longer a salvation issue.
Ahhh. What Jesus is saying is that all laws hang on two commandments: In Matthew 7:12 He says:
12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Matthew 22:39
And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
In essence the laws were these two commandments and they are fulfilled in Christ.
How is that not subverting it? If I want to go for a drive right this moment but God steps in and makes me change my mind how is that not overriding my free will in that moment. The fact that he let's me go for a drive later when it suits his purpose does not negate the fact that he removed free will from me in that instance.
He intervened as shown above.
Is there any record of Yahweh making covenants with other groups at the time and promising to love them and cause them to flourish? He picked one group to prosper. That this would come at the detriment of the surrounding groups is obvious. God planned to fight in the side of his chosen group against the other surrounding groups. God tells his people that he is with them and to go slaughter men women and children of a neighbour group, this is as clear a demonstration as I can think of for God loving one group and not the other.
Being God's chosen was hardly a walk in the park. They have been a target themselves throughout history. Do you think the few times that God commanded them to kill compared to the times others have attacked them and tried to wipe them out is very lopsided. Hitler killed 40 million of them. I hardly think that they have been shown any more love than any other group.
Luckily Yahweh is like superman in that he has a secret kryptonite... God the creator of the universe can be defeated in battle if you have chariots of iron! I have one on order for the apocalypse myself, just in case
And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 ESV
I wouldn't count on it, there are plenty of examples where the chariots didn't win.
Yes absolutely, the problem is that you keep comparing humans to God (see what I did there!), I agree that sometimes the best a human can do with a given situation is still a bad choice. You believe, however, that God is so all knowing and so powerful that he has not only created a universe but prior to that event was able to know everything that would happen in it and tie all those zillions of details together, including people ( not to mention Satan) not doing what he wants them to do, into a perfect, glorious and harmonious plan, not only for humans but for all creation. You also think it is beyond his power to come up with a solution to babies growing up to be bad that does not involve killing them. How do you make sense of that cognitive dissonance?
I do see what you did there.
I've already said that by God having them killed saved their souls. God also is the giver of life and has the sole right to take it. Saving their souls is the main point.
This is exactly the problem! The greater plan is that God will be glorified and to do so he is willing to drown millions, kill infants and foetuses and order genocides. All for the great good is guess...GOTT MIT UNS!
This is not the reason that God brought the flood. No where in the flood narrative does it say it was done for the glory of God.
Yes I agree. If the Bible is all true (good luck demonstrating that!) then God is all knowing and never deceives people (except when he does:
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ESV
http://bible.com/59/2th.2.11-12.ESV
).
We talked earlier about God's punishment or carrying out His justice when someone has hardened their hearts towards Him. This is a very unique time in the history of mankind. This is when Satan is believed to be God. The lie that Satan gives mankind and for those who believe that lie and who have taken the mark of the beast have sealed their fate. This delusion is part of that judgement. You are aware of this scenario, I would think that most of humanity at this point in time are aware of it and still they will chose to believe Satan even though they have been warned for over 2,000 years. Their fate is sealed with taking the mark and afterward God sends this delusion so that they have no return available to them. He provides no escape from judgement any longer.
Right, so God specifically made evil people to use as tools to help accomplish his plan... I guess that's why it is OK to toss them into the eternal fiery forge, they are just tools after all.
You are confusing making them evil rather than using their evil for His purpose.
So the good and moral God, who you seem to be saying believes like you do, that slavery is wrong, thought that detailing the correct moral position on sea food, mixed fabrics, animal sacrifices etc was important but that he just sort of forgot to tell them not to own people as property? I mean fair enough, he was a busy guy, he did manage to come up with approximately 613 laws and if slavery didn't manage to crack to top 613 of important thing so for his people to know... Such is life!
I have Scriptural support to believe that.
You are avoiding the obvious again. He made a law to govern the situation in which a slave is beaten. Within the bounds of that law, my leg breaking example is perfectly all right.
In the free man example there would be a consequence, the aggressor would have to pay for the man's time while he healed.
That isn't the point you are making. You are not claiming that the slave didn't get payment for the leg but that he/she is beaten. The free man was beaten. So slave and free have been beaten. Is God saying breaking the free man's leg is ok? Does God condone breaking legs? You seem to think that its ok to break the leg of the free man since he gets money for it. So you seem to be saying it is ok to break legs as long as one pays compensation.
If there are no examples of a thing then how can you say it exists in any sense?You don't seem to have a very clear understanding of what you believe about morality. Mayne this is why you were never able to answer the modified euthyphro dilemma that I put to you.
Is God's nature good because he says it is or because it aligns with some external concept of good?
Interesting. You were fine leaving this with quite a few other topics for another time but now you claim I was never able to answer it? Do you feel this is an honest appraisal of the situation?[/Quote][/Quote]
Even if it's infinitesimal. It's just that the odds are so small that it's not even worth speaking of, in my opinion.
