Theists, Some Vexing Follow-up Questions?.?.?

[POI]

In a recent topic ---- > here (viewtopic.php?t=38559&start=60), I posed the following question:

"when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or, god himself?"

Placing this into context, the interlocutor argues that God's moral don't change, but the assigned punishment does --- for whatever reason (undefined).... The above question has yet to be answered or addressed by my debate opponent. So I thought I would offer it here.

For debate:

1) Let's suppose God's morals do not change. Okay, great... Then why in the heck does god command that a priest's daughter is to be burned to death, if she loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father, with NO caveats?

2) If there exists caveats, why are they not mentioned?

3) Was this command ultimately issued/inspired by God, or humans? And how do you know?

4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

5) How can you distinguish if any passages, at all, are inspired by any god?

[brunumb]

Why would a species evolve that it has a sexual desire for children?

You are saying that it is a warped mind, but how is such a warped mind possible?

<groan>

You can't figure that out but, demons and answered prayers and god-magic are not a problem for you.
I give up.

[AquinasForGod]

Why would a species evolve that it has a sexual desire for children?

You are saying that it is a warped mind, but how is such a warped mind possible?

<groan>

You can't figure that out but, demons and answered prayers and god-magic are not a problem for you.
I give up.

I do not see why they should be. It is not like we have evidence against a metaphysical world.

[Clownboat]

Why would a species evolve that it has a sexual desire for children?

You are saying that it is a warped mind, but how is such a warped mind possible?

<groan>

You can't figure that out but, demons and answered prayers and god-magic are not a problem for you.
I give up.

I do not see why they should be. It is not like we have evidence against a metaphysical world.

This reads as:
You can't show that these unprovable and undetectable claim are false, therefore my belief in them is justified.

Do we have evidence against Vishnu, Zeus, fairies or unicorns? Is belief in them also justified in your opinion? The reasoning would seem to be the same and would be a slippery slope leading to all sorts of false beliefs.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #73]

Do we have evidence against Vishnu, Zeus, fairies or unicorns? Is belief in them also justified in your opinion? The reasoning would seem to be the same and would be a slippery slope leading to all sorts of false beliefs.

If my reason for believing in anything metaphysical was only because we have no evidence against it, then yes, that would be horrible reasoning.

However, even what I said wasn't that. I said I have no problem with what some might call magical beings, which I call metaphysical, which differ from magical, but whatever. That is not that important. One reason I have no problem with such beings existing (if they do) is that they haven't been shown to be impossible. That could be done with reasoning alone, btw. No science is necessary.

But that is not my reason for believing of course. That is just a reason for not feeling like I must outright deny their existence.

Vampires could possibly exist also, so I have no problem with them existencing, however, I reject their existence.

[brunumb]

However, even what I said wasn't that. I said I have no problem with what some might call magical beings, which I call metaphysical, which differ from magical, but whatever. That is not that important. One reason I have no problem with such beings existing (if they do) is that they haven't been shown to be impossible.

But, have they ever been shown to be possible?

[POI]

I might make a syllogism argument from evil to God's existence soon.

And once given, any atheist, who then remains an atheist, would then demonstrate being illogical? Is this something you just thought about? Or, have you had this winning "syllogism" in your back pocket, all along?

Do you actually think god needs your help to demonstrate his existence? Maybe he does? He apparently ain't doing it himself.

[AquinasForGod]

However, even what I said wasn't that. I said I have no problem with what some might call magical beings, which I call metaphysical, which differ from magical, but whatever. That is not that important. One reason I have no problem with such beings existing (if they do) is that they haven't been shown to be impossible.

But, have they ever been shown to be possible?

Yes. For example, look at the arguments for mathematical realism. You might be wondering what that has to do with souls, well the argument if that math is a metaphysical thing that exists independently of the mind. If it is possible for metaphysical things to exist, then it is possible for metaphysical things to exist like the metaphysical soul, or metaphysical demons.

Also, look at the argument for panpsychism.

Then there are arguments like hylomorphism for the immortal soul- here -

Remember, you asked have they been shown to be possible and not have they been shown to be true.

[AquinasForGod]

I might make a syllogism argument from evil to God's existence soon.

And once given, any atheist, who then remains an atheist, would then demonstrate being illogical? Is this something you just thought about? Or, have you had this winning "syllogism" in your back pocket, all along?

Do you actually think god needs your help to demonstrate his existence? Maybe he does? He apparently ain't doing it himself.

I have been contemplating how to formalize an argument that God exists based on the fact evil exists the way is does in the world for at least a year now.

Does God "need" me. No. God needs nothing. Can I help some people come to God? Yes. Can God use me to help others come to God? yes. Have I helped any atheists come to God? Yes.

If I were to speak like a skeptic, if God exists, then it is possible that God used me to bring those atheists to God. If that is the case, then you are incorrect in saying God isn't demonstrating his existence to anyone. What does seem true is that God isn't showing you that he exists, or maybe he has but you rejected it.

Maybe I would take your view more seriously if atheism made up a higher percent of the world population, but it doesn't. You guys are the few.

It seems God might very well be showing himself to the majority of humans, which might be why they believe.

[Clownboat]

I have been contemplating how to formalize an argument that God exists based on the fact evil exists the way is does in the world for at least a year now.

Does God "need" me. No. God needs nothing. Can I help some people come to God? Yes. Can God use me to help others come to God? yes. Have I helped any atheists come to God? Yes.

So when an atheists becomes a Hindu, is that evidence that the Hindu's are serving the correct god concept?

If I were to speak like a skeptic, if God exists, then it is possible that God used me to bring those atheists to God. If that is the case, then you are incorrect in saying God isn't demonstrating his existence to anyone. What does seem true is that God isn't showing you that he exists, or maybe he has but you rejected it.

So the Hindu god, Christian god, Muslim god and on and on all show their existence in the very same way. How is that impressive and how does it help to know which of the god concepts is real if any?

Maybe I would take your view more seriously if atheism made up a higher percent of the world population, but it doesn't. You guys are the few.

I think we all know what logical fallacy this is that you are commiting here.

It seems God might very well be showing himself to the majority of humans, which might be why they believe.

Why do you pretend that humans around the world worship the same god? It doesn't help your credibility. Furthermore, this is a major problem due to the fact that we have religion by geography on this planet. Odd that it would show itself as the Hindu gods in one part of the world isn't it. Then we have Hindu's bringing atheists into Hinduism, which further, according to you points to its Hindu existence.

The exact time when humans first became religious remains unknown, however research in evolutionary archaeology shows credible evidence of religious-cum-ritualistic behavior from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45200 thousand years ago).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... ears%20ago).

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #79]

So when an atheists becomes a Hindu, is that evidence that the Hindu's are serving the correct god concept?

No, but I am not sure how that is relevant. I said I brought them to God, not to atheism, and not God in general, but specifically to Classical Theism. I don't consider anything else God. God is purely actual or not existent.

To make more clear my point, let me ask myself a question and answer. So when a atheists becomes a Christian, is that evidence that the Christian is serving the correct god concept? No. Many Christians in fact serve the wrong god concept.

So the Hindu god, Christian god, Muslim god and on and on all show their existence in the very same way. How is that impressive and how does it help to know which of the god concepts is real if any?

If they come to the God of classical theism, then they have come to God, which is impressive because they are not atheists.

Maybe I would take your view more seriously if atheism made up a higher percent of the world population, but it doesn't. You guys are the few.
I think we all know what logical fallacy this is that you are commiting here.

But it is not. I am not saying that atheism is false because they are few. In the context of God convincing people he exists, it seems far more likely he is convincing the many that he exists. If there were that many humans so convinced of God's existence, then the atheists might have a point in saying it seems like God is not convincing people.

Why do you pretend that humans around the world worship the same god? It doesn't help your credibility. Furthermore, this is a major problem due to the fact that we have religion by geography on this planet. Odd that it would show itself as the Hindu gods in one part of the world isn't it. Then we have Hindu's bringing atheists into Hinduism, which further, according to you points to its Hindu existence.

They don't need to. Catholics all serve the God of classical theism, as well as orthodox (mostly) Lutherans, Calvinist, some Muslims (Ismaili and the philosophical type sunni), and Orthodox Jews. I do not care your religion. If you serve the divinely simple God then you serve the right God even if in ignorance, but we all serve God in some level of ignorance. Aquinas shows why that must be the case.

The exact time when humans first became religious remains unknown, however research in evolutionary archaeology shows credible evidence of religious-cum-ritualistic behavior from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45200 thousand years ago).

The timeline is not that important to me. At some point, God gave evolving humanoids a rational soul and they began to believe.