World with Deism vs World with Christianity?

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why wouldn't reason be valid in Deism? Remember, in Deism you have a prime mover that has set things in motion and just left the world to spin on it's own.

As I mentioned before, Reason that is not noumenal, but phenomenological, cannot be held to be valid. If the mere fact of matter determines that I think A thus B, then if differently constituted, A could follow to C. We cannot establish validity and therefore our reason is not veridical.

I was born in the USSR. Believe me there is Selfishness in the US and it is what's driving the world economy. Remove selfishness, and you are toast. I still don't get what you experience that I don't experience?

I have no control over your experience or perception. I know only my own, my own qualia. So I don't know what you experience and how it differs from my own, but as I said, I experience the world as substantially Good, even if flawed a bit, and I cannot see how this could be the case in Deism.

Ah... it's impressive that you are a doctor. But I think your definition of 'miracles' needs to be refined. I define a miracle as something that just doesn't happen medically. For instance, a person with rigger mortis coming back to life. Have you seen that happen? How about a person with amputated limbs one day having their limbs growing back. Have you seen that happen?

If not, your definition of miracles makes anything a miracle. In other words, I woke up today (just as I had done yesterday, and the day before and the day before that, etc...), what a miracle!

Well, as I stated, it depends upon what axioms you hold. Think of the 10 plagues of Egypt or the parting of the Reed Sea, if you would grant me the luxury of assuming their historicity for the sake of argument. These can be completely described by naturalistic means, as winds and locusts, red tides, etc. Is this then not a miracle if it occured?

So likewise, if a patient in florrid renal failure, with very poor prognosis, suddenly turns around in 24 hrs, I would consider that miraculous. Generally, a miracle is an extraordinary event that is not explicable by the normal turn of events, and I would include things that are potentially possible but so unlikely as being functionally inexplicable by naturalistic means. This is a bit of an involved argument that I don't feel like going into now, but it involves teleological purpose, too. If you look at data and always deem that whatever naturalistic argument you can concoct, no matter how improbable or involved, is always the most plausible, then you would never see the miraculous right in front of you.

Besides, Life is a miracle. That you or I or anything else exists in this soup of matter we call the Universe is nothing short of miraculous. Every morning you wake up is a miracle to thank God for, in my opinion, even if we think it isn't by our simple assumption that it is quotidian. The sheer physics forces, homeostasis and 'fine-tuning' (for lack of a better term) required is legion.

 

[BigV]

As I mentioned before, Reason that is not noumenal, but phenomenological, cannot be held to be valid. If the mere fact of matter determines that I think A thus B, then if differently constituted, A could follow to C. We cannot establish validity and therefore our reason is not veridical.

I guess I am not understanding why ONLY a personal God had to create Reason as you defined it.

I have no control over your experience or perception. I know only my own, my own qualia. So I don't know what you experience and how it differs from my own, but as I said, I experience the world as substantially Good, even if flawed a bit, and I cannot see how this could be the case in Deism.

The world is what we make of it, I suppose. If you live in an area devastated by wars, I suppose your opinion will differ from someone who lives on a personal island and has little limitations. And, of course, there is everyone else in between.

I judge Christianity by it's Holy Book. The Bible is not conducive of a generally good living, for it condones slavery, it encourages genocide and gives less rights to women. So, if there is a generally good world, it cannot be designed by the God of the Bible.

Well, as I stated, it depends upon what axioms you hold. Think of the 10 plagues of Egypt or the parting of the Reed Sea, if you would grant me the luxury of assuming their historicity for the sake of argument. These can be completely described by naturalistic means, as winds and locusts, red tides, etc. Is this then not a miracle if it occured?

So likewise, if a patient in florrid renal failure, with very poor prognosis, suddenly turns around in 24 hrs, I would consider that miraculous. Generally, a miracle is an extraordinary event that is not explicable by the normal turn of events, and I would include things that are potentially possible but so unlikely as being functionally inexplicable by naturalistic means. This is a bit of an involved argument that I don't feel like going into now, but it involves teleological purpose, too. If you look at data and always deem that whatever naturalistic argument you can concoct, no matter how improbable or involved, is always the most plausible, then you would never see the miraculous right in front of you.

Besides, Life is a miracle. That you or I or anything else exists in this soup of matter we call the Universe is nothing short of miraculous. Every morning you wake up is a miracle to thank God for, in my opinion, even if we think it isn't by our simple assumption that it is quotidian. The sheer physics forces, homeostasis and 'fine-tuning' (for lack of a better term) required is legion.

In case of a renal failure, just so I am understanding your example, are you also implying that the patient in question was not given any medicine to treat their condition? And if they were given medicine/treatment, how did you determine that a miracle took place rather than medicine/treatments simply worked as intended, without a supernatural agent?

I have defined what I would deem miraculous. Again an amputated limb regrowing, a person with rigor mortis coming back to life, I will also add a Down's Syndrome person recovering from their syndrome and becoming a non-Down's syndrome. These things I would consider genuine miracles. Anything else is just an improbable event.

Life is a miracle? I think you have low standards for miracles.

Just look at how many babies were born today:

The World Counts

What would it take for you to consider Life to be a non-miracle? Also, I suggest you listen to Sean Carroll who said (and I paraphrase) that since God is a powerful being, there is no reason why he should be limited by fine tuning to create life. Why couldn't God create life that could survive in outer space without any special protective suits?

 

[Ed1wolf]

I guess I am not understanding why ONLY a personal God had to create Reason as you defined it.

Because only personal beings know what reason is and have that characteristic by definition. So an impersonal cause could not create reason by definition.

bv: I judge Christianity by it's Holy Book. The Bible is not conducive of a generally good living, for it condones slavery, it encourages genocide and gives less rights to women. So, if there is a generally good world, it cannot be designed by the God of the Bible.

Nowhere does the bible condone involuntary slavery except for POWs. Nowhere does it encourage genocide or give less rights to women.

bv: In case of a renal failure, just so I am understanding your example, are you also implying that the patient in question was not given any medicine to treat their condition? And if they were given medicine/treatment, how did you determine that a miracle took place rather than medicine/treatments simply worked as intended, without a supernatural agent?

I have defined what I would deem miraculous. Again an amputated limb regrowing, a person with rigor mortis coming back to life, I will also add a Down's Syndrome person recovering from their syndrome and becoming a non-Down's syndrome. These things I would consider genuine miracles. Anything else is just an improbable event.

Life is a miracle? I think you have low standards for miracles.

Just look at how many babies were born today:

The World Counts

What would it take for you to consider Life to be a non-miracle? Also, I suggest you listen to Sean Carroll who said (and I paraphrase) that since God is a powerful being, there is no reason why he should be limited by fine tuning to create life. Why couldn't God create life that could survive in outer space without any special protective suits?

There are different kinds of miracles, miracles of natural law suspension like the ones you refer to and then there are timing miracles where no law suspension occurs. An example is the parting of the Red Sea it is miraculous because it happened at the just right time to free the Hebrews and destroy the Egyptian army. A similar event happened in American history when a fog rolled in right when Washington crossed the Delaware to escape certain total army destruction by the British.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I suggest you listen to Sean Carroll who said (and I paraphrase) that since God is a powerful being, there is no reason why he should be limited by fine tuning to create life.

The evidence is that He would be limited to fine tuning if His goal was to create a primarily natural law universe with free will beings. The Bible covers a period of 13.8 billion years and the number of law suspension miracles is extremely low if you count them. Probably 99.9% of events occur by natural law.

bv: Why couldn't God create life that could survive in outer space without any special protective suits?

Why should he? One reason He may have not done so is to limit the expansion of sin. If we could travel through space so easily sin could easily have expanded throughout the universe, rather than being kept localized to one small planet. God is very concerned about reducing sin and evil, not increasing it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I guess I am not understanding why ONLY a personal God had to create Reason as you defined it.

The Rational cannot proceed from the Irrational. Any argument starting from an irrational proposition will always remain irrational in toto.

I judge Christianity by it's Holy Book. The Bible is not conducive of a generally good living, for it condones slavery, it encourages genocide and gives less rights to women. So, if there is a generally good world, it cannot be designed by the God of the Bible.

Firstly I disagree it says what you say it does. If anything, Christian societies are the only societies ever to get rid of slavery, so that argument holds no water.
But regardless, we have facts to examine on whether it is conducive to a good life. Religious people are healthier, both physically and mentally, as well as happier, than atheist peers of similar culture and socio-economic status. These types of studies are heavily weighted to Western countries though, so mostly tje effect was noted from Judaeo-Christian religious traditions. So, Modern Medicine largely disagrees. I made a thread on it before, with links: Atheism and Health

In case of a renal failure, just so I am understanding your example, are you also implying that the patient in question was not given any medicine to treat their condition? And if they were given medicine/treatment, how did you determine that a miracle took place rather than medicine/treatments simply worked as intended, without a supernatural agent?

I have defined what I would deem miraculous. Again an amputated limb regrowing, a person with rigor mortis coming back to life, I will also add a Down's Syndrome person recovering from their syndrome and becoming a non-Down's syndrome. These things I would consider genuine miracles. Anything else is just an improbable event.

Life is a miracle? I think you have low standards for miracles.

Just look at how many babies were born today:

The World Counts

What would it take for you to consider Life to be a non-miracle? Also, I suggest you listen to Sean Carroll who said (and I paraphrase) that since God is a powerful being, there is no reason why he should be limited by fine tuning to create life. Why couldn't God create life that could survive in outer space without any special protective suits?

As I said, I wasn't talking about the Fine Tuning argument, hence I said for lack of a better word. It is mathematically highly improbable that we continue to exist from moment to moment, not just that the world seems suited to us.

Anyway, I am not going to argue the miraculous with you. As I said, it is an axiomatic problem, and I already stressed that if you always see the naturalistic as primary, no matter how improbable, you can excuse any miracle. You could even argue a limb regrew, or such. It is impossible to argue a position if one side axiomatically starts by refusing to reconsider their own. Miracles are rare, anyway.

Good day sir.

 

[BigV]

The Rational cannot proceed from the Irrational. Any argument starting from an irrational proposition will always remain irrational in toto.

We were arguing about Deism vs Theism, no? Why would a Deistic God be irrational or create irrational that would result in a rational?

Firstly I disagree it says what you say it does. If anything, Christian societies are the only societies ever to get rid of slavery, so that argument holds no water.
But regardless, we have facts to examine on whether it is conducive to a good life. Religious people are healthier, both physically and mentally, as well as happier, than atheist peers of similar culture and socio-economic status. These types of studies are heavily weighted to Western countries though, so mostly tje effect was noted from Judaeo-Christian religious traditions. So, Modern Medicine largely disagrees. I made a thread on it before, with links: Atheism and Health

The slavery is part of the Bible. In fact, some Christians in the Southern US justified their slavery with their Bibles.

Christian societies created slavery before they got rid of it too. So lets remember that bit.

Health is subjective. I would argue that people hearing God telling them to kill their children are not healthier than Atheists, but to each their own.

 

[BigV]

Because only personal beings know what reason is and have that characteristic by definition. So an impersonal cause could not create reason by definition.

The burden of prove is on you to show how reason could not happen under Deism.

Nowhere does the bible condone involuntary slavery except for POWs. Nowhere does it encourage genocide or give less rights to women.

At least you acknowledge POWs. Genocides were committed against entire people, such as Amalekites.

As for women, we find that a woman was obligated to marry her rapist as long as:
1) she was a virgin when raped, and
2) her father was paid 50 shekels.

In Exodus 21 we read that even when a Hebrew slave was given a wife by his master and the wife bore him (i.e. slave) children, when it came time for the Hebrew slave to go free, his wife and kids had to remain with his master because they belong to the master. Slaves were property.

Come on, it's all in the book.

There are different kinds of miracles, miracles of natural law suspension like the ones you refer to and then there are timing miracles where no law suspension occurs. An example is the parting of the Red Sea it is miraculous because it happened at the just right time to free the Hebrews and destroy the Egyptian army. A similar event happened in American history when a fog rolled in right when Washington crossed the Delaware to escape certain total army destruction by the British.

Well, if you are willing to let miracles be highly improbable events, then anything is a miracle, and I'm a miracle worker too. And, I'd grant you that if Jesus was making these improbable events happen, he wasn't much of of a miracle worker himself them.

The evidence is that He would be limited to fine tuning if His goal was to create a primarily natural law universe with free will beings. The Bible covers a period of 13.8 billion years and the number of law suspension miracles is extremely low if you count them. Probably 99.9% of events occur by natural law.

Very strange that a God who desires worship from anything and everything would limit himself to be worshipped only from a single dot in the Universe.

Why should he? One reason He may have not done so is to limit the expansion of sin. If we could travel through space so easily sin could easily have expanded throughout the universe, rather than being kept localized to one small planet. God is very concerned about reducing sin and evil, not increasing it.

Well, I suspect you haven't read the Bible. If God was concerned with evil, he should not have demanded murdering people for breaking the Sabbath, such as in Numbers 15. Perhaps gathering sticks on a Saturday is an evil offence, but killing that guy for it?!? And this is coming from someone concerned with limiting the expansion of sin?

And then notice how eager for killings this God was. It's hard to find an offense that was NOT to be punishable by death!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We were arguing about Deism vs Theism, no? Why would a Deistic God be irrational or create irrational that would result in a rational?

You asked why it had to be a personal God. You assumed a divinity that just started everything and leaves. Unless that 'everything' is endowed with rationality, then it is merely irrational still. I can programme a computer to deliver answers I consider rational, but it does not mean that computer therefore reasoned them.

Christian societies created slavery before they got rid of it too. So lets remember that bit.

Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, then slavery disappeared in mediaeval Europe. The Norse converted to Christianity, then slavery disappeared amongst them. The Slavs converted to Christianity, then slavery disappeared. The Europeans went to the New World, and the Churchmen like Las Casas tried to limit enslavement but failed from economic necessity, yet a few centuries later, Slavery disappeared. The powers of Christendom stopped the Atlantic slave trade and later the Indian ocean and trans-Sahara trade, led and encouraged by abolitionist Churches, while the enlightenment intellectuals were lukewarm or actually engaged in slave-trading. Western powers forced its end in Japan, Korea and China by gunboat diplomacy and Westernisation.

So wherever Christianity went, slavery disappeared. Repeatedly. No other society has ever abolished slavery, and the first European post-Christian regimes of the 20th, the Nazis and Soviets, both reinstituted it in work camps. The Trans-Atlantic Slave trade was an aberration, forced by the economic necessity of tropical diseases decimating Europeans and European diseases Native Americans, and OPPOSED by the Churches, till politics forced a grudging, but let us note temporary, acquiescence.

The historic pattern is clear on this point, again and again Christianity stopped slaving, while no one else ever did - so let us remember that bit.

Health is subjective. I would argue that people hearing God telling them to kill their children are not healthier than Atheists,

Well, not in this case. We have clear Empiric end points of lower morbidity and mortality. This is of course a game of statistics, so sure someone will go insane and have religious delusions and be miserable, but on average the religious are both happier and healthier than the non-religious: Simple statistical and Evidence Based Medical fact.

 

[BigV]

You asked why it had to be a personal God. You assumed a divinity that just started everything and leaves. Unless that 'everything' is endowed with rationality, then it is merely irrational still. I can programme a computer to deliver answers I consider rational, but it does not mean that computer therefore reasoned them.

You need to prove that only a personal God can create rational beings. Unless you are able to prove that, I will not concede your point here.

The historic pattern is clear on this point, again and again Christianity stopped slaving, while no one else ever did - so let us remember that bit.

The Bible is a Holy Book of Christians, and the Bible is not anti slavery. It is also a book that subjugates women in both Testaments. So, even if Christians got rid of slavery, even if I conceded that point, these Christians acted contrary to the Bible.

In fact, many Christian slave owners justified slavery with the Bible, as I've stated previously.

Well, not in this case. We have clear Empiric end points of lower morbidity and mortality. This is of course a game of statistics, so sure someone will go insane and have religious delusions and be miserable, but on average the religious are both happier and healthier than the non-religious: Simple statistical and Evidence Based Medical fact.

I would also argue that kids who believe in Santa are happier than kids who know better. Sometimes ignorance is a bliss. And that goes for the religious too.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Under deism, intercessory prayer would necessarily have no effect. Under Christianity... opinions may differ.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You need to prove that only a personal God can create rational beings. Unless you are able to prove that, I will not concede your point here.

I feel I already did just that. You haven't really presented any counter-argument.

The Bible is a Holy Book of Christians, and the Bible is not anti slavery. It is also a book that subjugates women in both Testaments. So, even if Christians got rid of slavery, even if I conceded that point, these Christians acted contrary to the Bible.

In fact, many Christian slave owners justified slavery with the Bible, as I've stated previously.

As I said, I disagree the Bible says that. For instance, Paul says to treat the slave as your brother and that we are all slaves to Christ, and thereby free; and women should be regarded as Christ regards the Church - which is again one of the utmost care and love.

Regardless, actions speak louder than words, and Christian societies are the most anti-slavery in history bar none. Likewise, foreign writers such as Chinese, Japanese or Muslims, always commented on the great freedoms of Christian women. This simply holds no water.

I would also argue that kids who believe in Santa are happier than kids who know better. Sometimes ignorance is a bliss. And that goes for the religious too.

Well, that is just your opinion. You stated the Bible was not 'conducive to good living' but this is empirically and observably false by evidence-based means. Generally there is no evidence that delusions result in this, actually quite the contrary from psychology, so...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because only personal beings know what reason is and have that characteristic by definition. So an impersonal cause could not create reason by definition.

bv: The burden of prove is on you to show how reason could not happen under Deism.

We know from all of human experience that only personal beings can reason and can create rational machines, ie computers. Do you have an example of something impersonal doing such things? Which is more rational to believe? That something personal created the ability to reason since it already could or something impersonal could do so? My argument may not prove it, but it shows it is extremely unlikely and is the only scenario that makes sense.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nowhere does the bible condone involuntary slavery except for POWs. Nowhere does it encourage genocide or give less rights to women.

bv: At least you acknowledge POWs. Genocides were committed against entire people, such as Amalekites.

No, genocide is the wiping out of a group because of WHO they are like the Nazis did to the jews. God commanded the destruction of Amalkites because of WHAT they DID, ie evil. This was capital punishment for sin. Not genocide.

bv: As for women, we find that a woman was obligated to marry her rapist as long as:
1) she was a virgin when raped, and
2) her father was paid 50 shekels.

No, rape was covered in Deuteronomy 22:25-27. It was a capital offense.

bv: In Exodus 21 we read that even when a Hebrew slave was given a wife by his master and the wife bore him (i.e. slave) children, when it came time for the Hebrew slave to go free, his wife and kids had to remain with his master because they belong to the master. Slaves were property.

By voluntarily becoming a slave, and accepting a wife from his master, he loses some control of his famly. And his wife did lose some of her freedom. But this of course, did not apply to free women. And even though the text says forever, he and his family could be free in the next year of Jubilee in six years. Also, if he didnt like this master he and his family could escape to a sanctuary city and not be sent back to his master.

bv: Come on, it's all in the book.

Not exactly, as I have shown above.

 

[BigV]

We know from all of human experience that only personal beings can reason and can create rational machines, ie computers. Do you have an example of something impersonal doing such things? Which is more rational to believe? That something personal created the ability to reason since it already could or something impersonal could do so? My argument may not prove it, but it shows it is extremely unlikely and is the only scenario that makes sense.

Well, humans are rational, and yet a Deist God (if Deism is true) created us. Are you suggesting it is impossible for Deism to be true?

No, genocide is the wiping out of a group because of WHO they are like the Nazis did to the jews. God commanded the destruction of Amalkites because of WHAT they DID, ie evil. This was capital punishment for sin. Not genocide.

This is genocide because it's talking about wiping out Amalekites throughout generations. Bible is not just talking about killing those who have caused Israel harm, but killing them in a future, people's kids and then their kids. This is what a textbook genocide is.

No, rape was covered in Deuteronomy 22:25-27. It was a capital offense.

You stopped short of one verse:

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

By voluntarily becoming a slave, and accepting a wife from his master, he loses some control of his famly. And his wife did lose some of her freedom. But this of course, did not apply to free women. And even though the text says forever, he and his family could be free in the next year of Jubilee in six years. Also, if he didnt like this master he and his family could escape to a sanctuary city and not be sent back to his master.

They would have to be able to make it to the sanctuary city first, however, the laws as dictated by God, placed slavery over the institution of marriage! Let that sink in.

And this is only talking about Hebrews. These rules did not apply to non-Hebrews who could be enslaved without an opportunity to go free.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, humans are rational, and yet a Deist God (if Deism is true) created us. Are you suggesting it is impossible for Deism to be true?



This is genocide because it's talking about wiping out Amalekites throughout generations. Bible is not just talking about killing those who have caused Israel harm, but killing them in a future, people's kids and then their kids. This is what a textbook genocide is.




You stopped short of one verse:

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.





They would have to be able to make it to the sanctuary city first, however, the laws as dictated by God, placed slavery over the institution of marriage! Let that sink in.

And this is only talking about Hebrews. These rules did not apply to non-Hebrews who could be enslaved without an opportunity to go free.

I doubt that.

 

[BigV]

I feel I already did just that. You haven't really presented any counter-argument.

If a Deistic God can create rational human beings, then a Deistic God is not limited to creating non-rational beings.

Besides, there are even Christians who argue that the evolution has been proven to the same level as gravity has been shown to be true.

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
"Collins: Why this scientist believes in God", editorial, CNN (April 6, 2007)

But evolution does not require a personal God, does it? I'm amazed you think you have disproven a Deistic God.

As I said, I disagree the Bible says that. For instance, Paul says to treat the slave as your brother and that we are all slaves to Christ, and thereby free; and women should be regarded as Christ regards the Church - which is again one of the utmost care and love.

Regardless, actions speak louder than words, and Christian societies are the most anti-slavery in history bar none. Likewise, foreign writers such as Chinese, Japanese or Muslims, always commented on the great freedoms of Christian women. This simply holds no water.

But Paul did not abolish slavery. In fact, he called on believing slaves to serve their masters as they serve the Lord. (1 Tim 6)

And you are picking and choosing your Christian behavior. There were plenty of Christian slave owners who had no problems owning slaves and beating them.

Women were told to keep silent and to this day they cannot be pastors or hold leadership position in most Christian churches simply because they are females.

Well, that is just your opinion. You stated the Bible was not 'conducive to good living' but this is empirically and observably false by evidence-based means. Generally there is no evidence that delusions result in this, actually quite the contrary from psychology, so...

Ignorance is a bliss.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are different kinds of miracles, miracles of natural law suspension like the ones you refer to and then there are timing miracles where no law suspension occurs. An example is the parting of the Red Sea it is miraculous because it happened at the just right time to free the Hebrews and destroy the Egyptian army. A similar event happened in American history when a fog rolled in right when Washington crossed the Delaware to escape certain total army destruction by the British.

bv: Well, if you are willing to let miracles be highly improbable events, then anything is a miracle, and I'm a miracle worker too.

What miracles have you done and what kind? The natural law suspension kind or the timing kind?

bv: And, I'd grant you that if Jesus was making these improbable events happen, he wasn't much of a miracle worker himself them.

Well most of Jesus' miracles were the natural law suspension kinds, like raising people from the dead and healing someone blind from birth. Also, Creating enough food for 5000 people from basically nothing and healing someone who basically had no legs and recreating them so they could walk. Among other things.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The evidence is that He would be limited to fine tuning if His goal was to create a primarily natural law universe with free will beings. The Bible covers a period of 13.8 billion years and the number of law suspension miracles is extremely low if you count them. Probably 99.9% of events occur by natural law.

bv: Very strange that a God who desires worship from anything and everything would limit himself to be worshipped only from a single dot in the Universe.

Actually we dont know that for certain. There theoretically could be other personal beings in the universe that worship Him, though so far the evidence says that we are alone.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Why should he? One reason He may have not done so is to limit the expansion of sin. If we could travel through space so easily sin could easily have expanded throughout the universe, rather than being kept localized to one small planet. God is very concerned about reducing sin and evil, not increasing it.

bv: Well, I suspect you haven't read the Bible. If God was concerned with evil, he should not have demanded murdering people for breaking the Sabbath, such as in Numbers 15. Perhaps gathering sticks on a Saturday is an evil offence, but killing that guy for it?!? And this is coming from someone concerned with limiting the expansion of sin?

Ancient Israel was held to a higher standard than we are today after Christ came He brought mercy and forgiveness but under the old Covenant many more laws were capital offenses, though a judge could turn it into a fine by their decisions except for murder.

bv; And then notice how eager for killings this God was. It's hard to find an offense that was NOT to be punishable by death!

He is not eager for killings, that is why He sent His son that that we may have forgiveness and life. But as I stated above, judges could change the sentence to a fine except for murder. Read Numbers 35:31.

 

[BigV]

He is not eager for killings, that is why He sent His son that that we may have forgiveness and life. But as I stated above, judges could change the sentence to a fine except for murder. Read Numbers 35:31.

He absolutely IS eager for killings. Numbers 15, the penalty for gathering sticks on a Saturday resulted in a death penalty. So, by your own admission, the judge could have created a fine or any other punishment short of killing someone, and yet, this judge resorted to killing.

Ancient Israel was held to a higher standard than we are today

In some ways, you are right. We can work on a Sabbath and no punishment will be due for it. However, we cannot be raping virgins and paying their fathers 50 shekels. And we don't typically commit genocides, killing everyone while keeping the virgins for ourselves. And slavery is illegal too.

Also, we don't venerate people sacrificing their kids to God, because God asked them to.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If a Deistic God can create rational human beings, then a Deistic God is not limited to creating non-rational beings.

This is a circular argument on your part, as I am arguing a deistic god cannot make rational beings, and if he did, he is no longer a deistic god, but interventionist.

Besides, there are even Christians who argue that the evolution has been proven to the same level as gravity has been shown to be true.

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
"Collins: Why this scientist believes in God", editorial, CNN (April 6, 2007)

But evolution does not require a personal God, does it? I'm amazed you think you have disproven a Deistic God.

Evolution is a complete red herring here, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. Reason that is wholely phenomenological, cannot be valid per defitionem.

But Paul did not abolish slavery. In fact, he called on believing slaves to serve their masters as they serve the Lord. (1 Tim 6)

And you are picking and choosing your Christian behavior. There were plenty of Christian slave owners who had no problems owning slaves and beating them.

Once more, Christian societies are the only societies ever to abolish slavery, and not just once, but repeatedly. Actions speak more clearly than words.

Women were told to keep silent and to this day they cannot be pastors or hold leadership position in most Christian churches simply because they are females.

I don't understand your point? Modern female suffrage can be traced directly back to Christian conceptions of men and women being equal before God:

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Women today enjoy unprecedented historic freedoms on account of Christianity, not in spite of it. Look to societies not historically Christian, and you'll find the Christian or post-Christian ones invariably regard women higher.

Ignorance is a bliss.

Nothing but an a priori argument, which as I stated, is in opposition to the empiric data. You are being remarkably silly.

 

[BigV]

This is a circular argument on your part, as I am arguing a deistic god cannot make rational beings, and if he did, he is no longer a deistic god, but interventionist.

No, argument is not circuilar. Deistic God, if he exists, could have started the evolutionary processes that ultimately resulted in rational beings. You have the burden of proof here to show that evolution is not capable or producing rational beings.

Evolution is a complete red herring here, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. Reason that is wholely phenomenological, cannot be valid per defitionem.

Nope, it's not. If evolution is capable of producing rational beings, then your need for a theistic God fails.

Once more, Christian societies are the only societies ever to abolish slavery, and not just once, but repeatedly. Actions speak more clearly than words.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that actions of Christian slave owners speak more clearly than words or actions of Christians who worked to abolish slavery speak more clearly than words? Because the Bible itself is not against slaves. In fact, as (once again) I showed based on Exodus 21, God had placed slavery in a higher category than marriage. It is amazing that you think your Bible is anti slavery!

I have a feeling that the next argument you will be making is that the Bible supported gay rights all along and God was never against gay people marrying.

Women today enjoy unprecedented historic freedoms on account of Christianity, not in spite of it.

Exactly in spite of Christianity and religion in general, women today enjoy unprecedented freedoms. When your religion ruled, women were oppressed and slavery was the norm.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Exactly in spite of Christianity and religion in general, women today enjoy unprecedented freedoms. When your religion ruled, women were oppressed and slavery was the norm.

My religion is responsible for the end of Slavery and the freedoms enjoyed by women today, so try again. Please show me another culture that did any of this. Look at any society before the arrival of Christianity and then after it, and both slavery and the lot of women would have been ameliorated. You are just making statements without backing it up with evidence or example beyond the anecdotal - but what do I expect, just as you showed only contempt for empiric evidence earlier in the thread.

No, argument is not circuilar. Deistic God, if he exists, could have started the evolutionary processes that ultimately resulted in rational beings. You have the burden of proof here to show that evolution is not capable or producing rational beings.

An irrational process cannot suddenly become rational. A deistic god cannot create a rational creature from an irrational cosmos; unless he creates a rational cosmos or logos within it, which is functionally then itself the demiurge and transforms the deistic god into a high god. You are not even bothering to pay attention to what I am saying. Whether man arrives here then by evolution or not is completely irrelevant. It is up to you to show how the rational could arise from the irrational; as there is literally no example of this ever occuring anywhere (barring a priori assumption), nor does it make logical sense to expect it to.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that actions of Christian slave owners speak more clearly than words or actions of Christians who worked to abolish slavery speak more clearly than words?

You are clearly not being serious, so I am done with this discussion.

Good day to you.