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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1049 times

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

Post #1

Post by 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?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1049 times

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

Post #81

Post by POI »

AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am 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.
Well hurry up already :) Will such an argument demonstrate us atheists as being unreasonable, if we remain atheists after this given argument?
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am 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.
All you could demonstrate, is that <maybe> you have gotten (some) people to change what they believe.?.?.? Or, they could be like Lee Strobel, and were already on their way in anyways....
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am 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.
Or maybe you simply got people to believe like you, and god does not exist. This happens all the time, for all types of positive beliefs, which are still likely not true.
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am If that is the case, then you are incorrect in saying God isn't demonstrating his existence to anyone.
Well, it's likely not the case.... I don't think god is demonstrating his existence to anyone.
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am What does seem true is that God isn't showing you that he exists, or maybe he has but you rejected it.
Ah, so either:

a) He opts not to reveal himself to me, even though i asked in earnest for decades
b) I'm lying now.

How about a much more plausible answer:

c) god is imaginary
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am 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.
Hahaha... This argument is horrible....

Atheism has risen over time, this must mean you take us more seriously, as the numbers grow.
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:15 am It seems God might very well be showing himself to the majority of humans, which might be why they believe.
Or it has to do with evolutionary biology, in that most continue to invoke type 1 errors, or false positives. Some quickly stop committing identical ones, some take longer, and some never stop.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #82

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #77]

None of that demonstrates that it is actually possible for gods to exist. But, never mind.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #83

Post by brunumb »

AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 11:27 am 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.
God is not doing anything. Religious beliefs propagate through indoctrination. No gods necessary.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

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

Post #84

Post by AquinasForGod »

[Replying to POI in post #81]
Well hurry up already :) Will such an argument demonstrate us atheists as being unreasonable, if we remain atheists after this given argument?
Many atheists are irrational right now, based on the arguments they do comprehend. If I am going to claim that someone is unreasonable, I need to know why they reject God. For example, Joe Schmid, a philosopher says that morals make more sense under theism, but he might also think that evolution makes more sense under naturalism. That washes out, so he remains agnostic. He argues also that atheism is not a defensible position. He says we all ought to be agnostic.
All you could demonstrate, is that <maybe> you have gotten (some) people to change what they believe.?.?.? Or, they could be like Lee Strobel, and were already on their way in anyways....
I don't see how Lee Strobel was on his way to theism. He wanted to disprove the resurrection so his wife would stop being Christian.
Or maybe you simply got people to believe like you, and god does not exist. This happens all the time, for all types of positive beliefs, which are still likely not true.
That was implied in my statement.
Well, it's likely not the case.... I don't think god is demonstrating his existence to anyone.
You sort of have to say that otherwise your position of being an atheist is compromised. You cannot even give in a little bit and say well maybe God is showing himself to a few people, because by doing so you destroy your position. I can however grant that okay, maybe God only reveals himself to very few people and it doesn't destroy my position. In fact, I could go as far as to say God doesn't reveal himself to anyone and God could still exist, although that would destroy Christianity.
Ah, so either:

a) He opts not to reveal himself to me, even though i asked in earnest for decades
b) I'm lying now.

How about a much more plausible answer:

c) god is imaginary
It doesn't have to be that you are lying. It could be that God just hasn't revealed himself to you yet. But it could also be that God did reveal himself to you but you rejected it, meaning you did not recognize God was revealing himself to you. You might have brushed it off as something else. My mind is just playing tricks on me. No one else saw or heard that, so maybe it was just my brain.

It was just a coincidence, etc.
Hahaha... This argument is horrible....

Atheism has risen over time, this must mean you take us more seriously, as the numbers grow.
It wasn't an argument. Because so many come to God and so few are atheists, it seems more likely that God is revealing himself than not at all. Atheism will never grow. The non-religious grows. Secular theism grows. Atheism doesn't grow because even highly intelligent philosophers can see it lacks and so they are agnostics, although there are a few highly intelligent atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy, but he also thinks spontaneous existence is believable.
Or it has to do with evolutionary biology, in that most continue to invoke type 1 errors, or false positives. Some quickly stop committing identical ones, some take longer, and some never stop.

Like I said to someone else. People raised in secular societies raised by atheism parents still come to believe in God, but no adults, even if brainwashed as children come to believe in Santa. Unless, there are some clinically insane people that claim Santa is real. That is possible.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1049 times

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

Post #85

Post by POI »

AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am Many atheists are irrational right now, based on the arguments they do comprehend. If I am going to claim that someone is unreasonable, I need to know why they reject God. For example, Joe Schmid, a philosopher says that morals make more sense under theism, but he might also think that evolution makes more sense under naturalism. That washes out, so he remains agnostic. He argues also that atheism is not a defensible position. He says we all ought to be agnostic.
I currently conclude the 'moral argument' gets you no closer to demonstrating a 'god', and even less to a YHWH. Please raise your given argument (when you think of it), in a new thread, to demonstrate why (some) atheists are irrational/illogical.
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am You sort of have to say that otherwise your position of being an atheist is compromised. You cannot even give in a little bit and say well maybe God is showing himself to a few people, because by doing so you destroy your position. I can however grant that okay, maybe God only reveals himself to very few people and it doesn't destroy my position. In fact, I could go as far as to say God doesn't reveal himself to anyone and God could still exist, although that would destroy Christianity.
You have not been able to demonstrate why my given position is unreasonable.
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am It doesn't have to be that you are lying. It could be that God just hasn't revealed himself to you yet. But it could also be that God did reveal himself to you but you rejected it, meaning you did not recognize God was revealing himself to you. You might have brushed it off as something else. My mind is just playing tricks on me. No one else saw or heard that, so maybe it was just my brain.

It was just a coincidence, etc.
So your argument is maybe that I'm too stupid to see that he did...

I tried for decades for him to reach me. My counter, to your above claims, are either:

a) If he knows how to reveal himself to me, he would do it...
b) he's not there to begin with...
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am It wasn't an argument. Because so many come to God and so few are atheists, it seems more likely that God is revealing himself than not at all.
Evolutionary biology has weeded out most/all humans who prefer type 2 errors over type 1 errors. This is why we have more god believers.
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am Atheism will never grow.
I would re-think this answer.... But, my point is, that is does not matter regardless, as it relates to what is actually 'true'.
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am Like I said to someone else. People raised in secular societies raised by atheism parents still come to believe in God, but no adults, even if brainwashed as children come to believe in Santa. Unless, there are some clinically insane people that claim Santa is real. That is possible.
You've missed my point. Allow me to elaborate. We all commit type 1 errors. But some just commit the exact same type 1 error, over and over again, and still retain such an error. Why? Because no fatal consequence is applied for doing so; maybe aside from the <threat> of a later unproven consequence -- like 'hell'.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

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

Post #86

Post by AquinasForGod »

[Replying to POI in post #85]
I currently conclude the 'moral argument' gets you no closer to demonstrating a 'god', and even less to a YHWH. Please raise your given argument (when you think of it), in a new thread, to demonstrate why (some) atheists are irrational/illogical.
That is not the argument I said I am working on. Also, I don't need an argument to show that some atheist are not logical. They can take this simple logic test and not get 10 out of 10 - https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/misc/quiz-valid.php

But also, it is obvious that some atheists are not logical, because not ALL atheists are logical thinkers.
You have not been able to demonstrate why my given position is unreasonable.
I don't see how that has anything to do with what you replied to. Also, this depends on what position you are talking about as I am sure you hold many positions and have shared some here.
So your argument is maybe that I'm too stupid to see that he did...
Why would you conclude that based upon what I said? There are many reasons why you might write something off as a coincidence without being stupid.
I tried for decades for him to reach me. My counter, to your above claims, are either:

a) If he knows how to reveal himself to me, he would do it...
b) he's not there to begin with...
A doesn't follow. If he knows how to reveal himself to you, doesn't me he would reveal himself to you. I know how to draw an apple, but that doesn't mean I will draw an apple. Knowing something doesn't entail doing it. That was a display of saying something that doesn't logically follow. That doesn't mean you are completely illogical though. Maybe you just made a mistake.
You've missed my point. Allow me to elaborate. We all commit type 1 errors. But some just commit the exact same type 1 error, over and over again, and still retain such an error. Why? Because no fatal consequence is applied for doing so; maybe aside from the <threat> of a later unproven consequence -- like 'hell'.
You clearly are not talking about statistical hypothesis testing, so you must mean type 1 error in the laymen sense, like when we conclude something is true by chance, i.e. we assume something is true when it fact it is false, vs concluding something is false when in fact it is true, a type 2 error.

Can you lay out the case where through human evolution, humans mostly made type 1 errors? If not, then I can just ignore this altogether.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #87

Post by brunumb »

AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am But it could also be that God did reveal himself to you but you rejected it, meaning you did not recognize God was revealing himself to you. You might have brushed it off as something else. My mind is just playing tricks on me. No one else saw or heard that, so maybe it was just my brain.
What sort of a god tries to reveal itself to someone, but fails? Surely God would know what it would take for any particular individual to not mistake him for a trick of the mind. Or, tricks of the mind are just that and there is no God doing anything.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #88

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:03 pm
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:21 am But it could also be that God did reveal himself to you but you rejected it, meaning you did not recognize God was revealing himself to you. You might have brushed it off as something else. My mind is just playing tricks on me. No one else saw or heard that, so maybe it was just my brain.
What sort of a god tries to reveal itself to someone, but fails?
Not an omniscient kind of god.
Such a god would already know the pointlessness of doing so, and so wouldn't try, which in itself could not be viewed as a failure on the part of the god.
Surely God would know what it would take for any particular individual to not mistake him for a trick of the mind.
I think this aligns well with what I was messaging re the short "Atheistic Thinker" narrative.
William: Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?

GM: Row your own boat! I AM Will Navigate!

Atheistic Thinker: Nothing I've learned since the decision I made that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional, has changed my mind, but if a god being made itself known in some way that was convincing to me ... I'd be happy to flip.

William: I myself doubt that this could ever be achieved for you, due to your making it the way that it is, through your own decisions, rather than through any god failing to pay you a visit.
Narrative wrote:Any god-being: Okay Atheistic Thinker - I have risen to your challenge. You see me now. Are you ready to flip?

Atheistic Thinker: Of course not! You are simply a product of my brain which obviously is having some kind of malfunction which has caused this delusion.

Any god-being: What if I stripped you naked, pinched you by the scruff and dangled you over the everlasting hellfire and threatened to drop you in it. Would you consider flipping then?
GM: Necessity is The Mother of Invention

William: I would argue that Atheistic Thinker would continue arguing that his brain was being delusional. That even if he felt the pinch of his neck, the rising heat of the hellfire doom, the pooh running down his legs - he would cling to the belief that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional and that he would wake up from the nightmare eventually - when his brain settled down again...and remain content not to flip...{SOURCE}
Since writing that, I have been contemplating exactly what type of experience an atheistic thinker would have to have in order to be convinced - if not directly about any particular religious idea of what 'god/GOD' is - then simply that they are experiencing a created thing...


Or, tricks of the mind are just that and there is no God doing anything.
"Tricks of the mind" is a theory which involves the brain being a separate sentience to the consciousness of the sentient individual personality linked with the brain - involving the one [brain] being able to somehow trick the other [personality].
As such, it is no different to the theory of demons and gods influencing human personalities, as far as I can presently tell.

"Tricks of the mind" fits with the idea of "delusions"

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

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

Post #89

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

POI wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:29 pm Now I place the question right back to you.... By 'what standard' did you use to determine such a god's judgement is 'righteous'? Thus far, your response is basically "might makes right".
Perhaps you can answer my question first, since I posed it to you FIRST.

What makes your standards of what is good and what is evil the correct standard, by which you use to judge God's actions as to whether or not God's actions meets your presupposed standards.

You've identified where your standards came from, now I am asking how are you able to objectively determine that your standards are the correct standards as opposed to anyone else's.
POI wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:29 pm
(POI) Great, so we agree that having some all powerful agency, gets us no closer to 'objective morality'.
If there are no objective moral standards, then your attitudes towards God's actions as stated in the Bible are....SUBJECTIVE :lol:

And you know what subjective means, correct?
This is why I stated prior, that it's funny when theists bring up the 'moral argument' at all. But only when confronted with 'vexing' or "uncomfortable" questions in defense of their invisible agency's commands....
I didn't bring up the moral argument, though.
(POI) Nah, I have no problem answering your "redirecting" question(s). But I find it funny that these types of questions are only posed from theists, in 'defending' some of their god's decisions.
I don't recall defending God's decisions...but I do recall attacking your position.
Prior to debating a theist about some of these commands, I exchanged with plenty about 'good/bad' topics, and never once was this type of ploy introduced.
I am a different monster than the average theist you've debated.
It would be like you and I debating about who is considered rich and poor, and you bringing up the "Monopoly board game guy, on the box" to settle the score. ;)
Is that what it is like?
POI wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:29 pm
(POI) Repeated from above... Great, so we agree that having some all powerful agency, gets us no closer 'objective morality'.
I don't recall agreeing to that.
And like I also stated prior... Without demonstrating 'might makes right' alone, please justify why your god's command, to (burn fornicating daughters), is a morally 'good' thing?
I'd like my question answered first, please.
POI wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:29 pm
(POI) Already explained above.
If you believe in objective moral values/duties, then you must believe in an objective moral lawgiver.

If you do not believe in objective moral values, then morality is subjective and your views on how God conducts his business is no more subjective than you disliking God because he likes pineapples on his pizza while you have a distaste for it.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #90

Post by William »

By 'what standard' did you use to determine such a god's judgement is 'righteous'? Thus far, your response is basically "might makes right".
I think that 'might is right' may be a valid standard, if it were explained why.

For example, if a god's judgment is right because the god is omniscient, and omnipotent, then 'might is right' would apply...

The difficulty for those who propose such a god, is in explaining any know evil actions humans have done, of which any such god is claimed to have supported while showing why the god would support said actions re its omniscience, and omnipotence...

Post Reply