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?

[AquinasForGod]

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.

This question assumes that God wants to overide our will. He wants us to willingly come to him, not force himself upon us so that we have no choice but to believe.

[POI]

That is not the argument I said I am working on.

I know. I'm speaking about the argument you are working on. Please present it, and demonstrate why if we do not follow, that we are illogical in retaining atheism.

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.

God is most likely imaginary. You are most likely talking to yourself in prayer.

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.

Because I am unable to draw such a 'connection'. I'm either too "dumb", in denial/lying to myself, other?

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.

Ah, but the Bible god wants you to seek him, right? I did so for decades. He either ignored/denied me (because he continues not to reveal himself), or he is not there.

And what about option b)? (i.e.) he's not there to begin with...

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.

When receiving stimuli, you first want to rule out some conscious intentional force. Often times, it is not intentional.

When you hear a noise, in the dark, you first look out for someone/something out to intentionally hurt you. If you are wrong, no real harm. if you are mistaken. This is a type 1 error.

When something, for which you deem good happens to you, you first apply an intentional agency. (i.e.) You are in a car wreck with 3 others. The other 3 die, and you are spared. "God saved me". Since this conclusion cannot be falsified, and is not a fatal mistaken, you may likely retain this conclusion.

Type 1 error - You first assume intentional agency, but are mistaken. No real consequence....
Type 2 error - You do not first assume intentional agency, but are mistaken. Possible fatal consequence...

If you need further explanation, feel free to ask.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #92]

Because I am unable to draw such a 'connection'. I'm either too "dumb", in denial/lying to myself, other?

Suppose you ask God for some evidence, then the next day a random person hands you a piece of paper that simple read, I AM real. You might think, that was weird and write it off as a coincidence. That would not make you stupid.

Ah, but the Bible god wants you to seek him, right? I did so for decades. He either ignored/denied me (because he continues not to reveal himself), or he is not there.

And what about option b)? (i.e.) he's not there to begin with...

Option B is not much of an option for me, but I can see why it is an option for you. Option B for me is maybe 1%.

When receiving stimuli, you first want to rule out some conscious intentional force. Often times, it is not intentional.

When you hear a noise, in the dark, you first look out for someone/something out to intentionally hurt you. If you are wrong, no real harm. if you are mistaken. This is a type 1 error.

When something, for which you deem good happens to you, you first apply an intentional agency. (i.e.) You are in a car wreck with 3 others. The other 3 die, and you are spared. "God saved me". Since this conclusion cannot be falsified, and is not a fatal mistaken, you may likely retain this conclusion.

Type 1 error - You first assume intentional agency, but are mistaken. No real consequence....
Type 2 error - You do not first assume intentional agency, but are mistaken. Possible fatal consequence...

If you need further explanation, feel free to ask.

I did not ask what the errors are but for your evidence that we made type 1 errors more than type 2 errors.

You do NOT hear a noise in the dark so you say all is well, I am safe, then a panther eats you.

You get in a car accident and everyone but you dies, so you are suffering, because it was your wife and kids, so you conclude that God doesn't exist, but suppose God does exist.

You take a covid test. It says negative, so you don't wear a mask around your wife, but it turns out the test was wrong and you get your wife sick.

God did not answer my prayers, so God is not real, yet it turns out God is real.

[POI]

(VM) Perhaps you can answer my question first, since I posed it to you FIRST.

(POI) Oh, okay. My standard does not derive from an unfounded and asserted invisible agency, who's commands are correct because he can destroy me, torture me, or punish me, because I disagree. You know, the whole 'might makes right' thingy....

(VM) If there are no objective moral standards, then your attitudes towards God's actions as stated in the Bible are....SUBJECTIVE

(POI) Right. But you are missing my point, entirely. You are continuing to harp in this side-show, so you do not have to answer as to why god commands to burn fornicating priest's daughters. It's more likely that you cannot 'justify' why it is, or was ever, 'right'. Hence, you hide behind this ploy of an argument.

(VM) I didn't bring up the moral argument, though.

(POI) So you did not say... "When you say "bad" stuff, you are presupposing "good" stuff. So, your standard of what you consider "bad", who gave you this standard and how is this standard objectively bad?" ???...?.?.?.?

(VM) I don't recall defending God's decisions...but I do recall attacking your position.

(POI) Great. Why was it, or why is it still 'good', to command to (burn alive) fornicating priest's daughters?

(VM) I am a different monster than the average theist you've debated.

(POI) So far, you are falling right in line with many other theists, when asked uncomfortable questions You issue a redirect.

(VM) Is that what it is like?

(POI) Pretty much, yes.

2nd request...Without demonstrating 'might makes right' alone, please justify why your god's command, to (burn fornicating daughters), is a morally 'good' thing?

(VM) 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.

(POI) How do you determine 1) how much to tip a waiter, 2) how high is too high to fly a plane, 3) if you are making enough money for a particular job, etc....? (Do not answer yet, until you read to the bottom)....

You starting to get my drift? It's likely, all this 'smoke screening', is only to present a ploy.

You likely do not have a 'valid' reason/excuse to substantiate burning promiscuous daughters. Otherwise, you would have answered. Just like, if I had asked you the above (3) questions, you would have alternative answers

How much punishment is not enough, or too much punishment, for fornicating daughters?

[brunumb]

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.

This question assumes that God wants to overide our will. He wants us to willingly come to him, not force himself upon us so that we have no choice but to believe.

What does your response have to do with God already having revealed himself to me?

[POI]

Suppose you ask God for some evidence, then the next day a random person hands you a piece of paper that simple read, I AM real. You might think, that was weird and write it off as a coincidence. That would not make you stupid.

Are these the types of 'connections' which convinced you?

Option B is not much of an option for me, but I can see why it is an option for you.

I did not ask what the errors are but for your evidence that we made type 1 errors more than type 2 errors.

You can make as many type 1 errors as possible, and remain alive. Type 2 errors, not-so-much. This is my point. Evolution has weeded out the ones who perpetually preferred no intention, verses intention. This is one reason why we have more god believers, verses not. Mix this up with some indoctrination, and these type 1 errors remain. Sure, you can say they are not errors. But you would never know, because they are unfalsifiable.

God did not answer my prayers, so God is not real, yet it turns out God is real.

Wrong... God objectively does not answer ANY requests to reverse cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, and amputations. (Unless you live in the Ozarks, or are really faithful but cannot prove he answered, or he certainly does not answer because he wants to remain hidden). But god has no problem sometimes addressing conditions/requests, which can be addressed with no need for god.

[We_Are_VENOM]

(VM) Perhaps you can answer my question first, since I posed it to you FIRST.

(POI) Oh, okay. My standard does not derive from an unfounded and asserted invisible agency, who's commands are correct because he can destroy me, torture me, or punish me, because I disagree. You know, the whole 'might makes right' thingy....

Yeah, but where your moral standard comes from (an impersonal agency), that in itself does not make it any more right or virtuous than mines or anyone elses.

First, you have to establish why your standard is objectively right/superior than all other standards...and THEN once that is established, you can move forward with weaving out who is/isn't living up to that standard.

Until then, welcome to subjectivity.

(POI) Right. But you are missing my point, entirely. You are continuing to harp in this side-show, so you do not have to answer as to why god commands to burn fornicating priest's daughters. It's more likely that you cannot 'justify' why it is, or was ever, 'right'. Hence, you hide behind this ploy of an argument.

I already addressed this. First off, the quick answer is..

POI: Why God commands to burn fornicating priest's daughter?

WAV: Because the fornicating priest's daughter committing a capital offense against God.

That is the quick, simple, easy answer.

Now, if you have beef with that answer, then I will ask you why.

Then you will proceed to give personal, subjective reasons why you feel the punishment does not fit the crime...which is so subjective that it is laughable.

And then we are right back to square one with me pushing you to provide a rational case as to why your standard of justice is more superior than anyone elses, a case of which you cannot begin to give without appealing to your own subjectivity.

So again, right back to square one.

(POI) So you did not say... "When you say "bad" stuff, you are presupposing "good" stuff. So, your standard of what you consider "bad", who gave you this standard and how is this standard objectively bad?" ???...?.?.?.?

But that isn't the moral argument, though.

That is just attempting to get you to realize that you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

(POI) Great. Why was it, or why is it still 'good', to command to (burn alive) fornicating priest's daughters?

It is "good" because a holy God is purging sin away from his people, and his land.

2nd request...Without demonstrating 'might makes right' alone, please justify why your god's command, to (burn fornicating daughters), is a morally 'good' thing?

My answer above stands...that, followed by the fact that no answer is going to be good enough to suit your fancy.

So it is what it is.

Lets just face it, the Bible says what it says...and it is not going to change.

So just accept the fact that Bible belief and Bible God worship isn't for you.

No need to pry, sensationalize, and over-analyze on things that you will never let yourself come to terms with.

(POI) How do you determine 1) how much to tip a waiter, 2) how high is too high to fly a plane, 3) if you are making enough money for a particular job, etc....? (Do not answer yet, until you read to the bottom)....

You starting to get my drift? It's likely, all this 'smoke screening', is only to present a ploy.

You likely do not have a 'valid' reason/excuse to substantiate burning promiscuous daughters. Otherwise, you would have answered. Just like, if I had asked you the above (3) questions, you would have alternative answers

How much punishment is not enough, or too much punishment, for fornicating daughters?

Again, no answer is going to be good enough for you. God doesn't exist (according to you), and the Bible is false. So asking questions about a God and Book that you don't believe in (or want to believe in), is pointless.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #93]

You can make as many type 1 errors as possible, and remain alive. Type 2 errors, not-so-much. This is my point. Evolution has weeded out the ones who perpetually preferred no intention, verses intention. This is one reason why we have more god believers, verses not. Mix this up with some indoctrination, and these type 1 errors remain. Sure, you can say they are not errors. But you would never know, because they are unfalsifiable.

But you still are not showing that we made more type 1 errors. I gave 3 types of examples of type 2 errors that do not endanger our life.

false positives can harm us.

A cancer test says we have cancer, but is wrong. We don't know it is wrong so we kill ourselves.

Instead of a cancer test giving us a false positive the medicine man way back when serves the same purpose. We kill ourselves because of a false positive he gave us.

Wrong... God objectively does not answer ANY requests to reverse cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, and amputations. (Unless you live in the Ozarks, or are really faithful but cannot prove he answered, or he certainly does not answer because he wants to remain hidden). But god has no problem sometimes addressing conditions/requests, which can be addressed with no need for god.

That did not contradict what I said, so it was not worth typing and it is repetitive because you said it before and here it doesn't even apply.

[POI]

(POI) (Disclaimer): Why do I continue to chase the rabbit trails...? I guess, in the hopes for others, who read along, to see what Venom is doing here... Which is basically, not honestly answering the question. I'm asking HIM, not "god". Just like if I was to ask him how much I should tip the waiter? He would not run me off on this tangent. He is playing games, and he knows it... I'm going to get to the meat and potatoes here, as to not bore the readers..... Okay, on we go....

(VM) Yeah, but where your moral standard comes from (an impersonal agency), that in itself does not make it any more right or virtuous than mines or anyone elses.

First, you have to establish why your standard is objectively right/superior than all other standards...and THEN once that is established, you can move forward with weaving out who is/isn't living up to that standard.

Until then, welcome to subjectivity.

(POI) You are fooling yourself then..... Your argument gets you no closer to "objectivity". Why? You are presented with two options, and not really any more, under your brand of 'objective morality'. --> "Because God says so". And as soon as He gives any reason, outside of this command, God is no longer necessary, as God appeals to a reason outside His own given command of "because God says so". And either position has flaws applied, which have not been reconciled in the world of philosophy for ~2k years. So I doubt you will come along and do any better. But, fingers crossed....

(VM) It is "good" because a holy God is purging sin away from his people, and his land.

(POI) So is it good because God commanded to burn these daughters (or) does God command burning daughters because it is "good"? It cannot be both....

(VM) Again, no answer is going to be good enough for you. God doesn't exist (according to you), and the Bible is false. So asking questions about a God and Book that you don't believe in (or want to believe in), is pointless.
[/quote]

(POI) Your honest answer will suffice. The one given above, is the one you perceive or guess God gave.

So again, if all morals are subjective and arbitrary, then why would I likely never hear a theist present this 'finding', (about good/bad), if I ask a theist's opinion about how much to tip the waiter -- where we might not agree?

[POI]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #93]

You can make as many type 1 errors as possible, and remain alive. Type 2 errors, not-so-much. This is my point. Evolution has weeded out the ones who perpetually preferred no intention, verses intention. This is one reason why we have more god believers, verses not. Mix this up with some indoctrination, and these type 1 errors remain. Sure, you can say they are not errors. But you would never know, because they are unfalsifiable.

But you still are not showing that we made more type 1 errors. I gave 3 types of examples of type 2 errors that do not endanger our life.

false positives can harm us.

A cancer test says we have cancer, but is wrong. We don't know it is wrong so we kill ourselves.

Instead of a cancer test giving us a false positive the medicine man way back when serves the same purpose. We kill ourselves because of a false positive he gave us.

Allow me to elaborate further... I keep saying this is why evolutionary biology has weeded out all the type 2 error makers. Long ago, many/most were weeded out. And yes, your points are noted, but they do not address what I'm speaking about. And yes, we still commit both. However, my point is to answer your statement, that there will never be a huge increase in atheism. However, being we now 'know' more, atheism may grow....

However, my personal atheism came from NO LONGER invoking 'intentional agency', where I continually underwent identical situations. I ultimately had to let it go. And one of the reasons I stayed longer, was due to indoctrination.