1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySurely the asininity is in things like seeking to compare yourself to Christ, claiming "human criticism" does not concern you, constantly copy pasting quotes in which you appear to cast yourself as "virtuous" and "humble" and those who disagree with you as "arrogant" and "emotional", portraying your viewpoint as the "divine viewpoint" and those whose beliefs differ from yours as having a "human viewpoint", endlessly copy pasting long unoriginal repeated wall-o-texts about "fools" as if they are properly realized responses to what has been put to you in a discussion, resorting to similar copy pastes from cod psychology blogs or book in an effort to frame dissent and criticism of your demeanour as rooted in some sort of psychological problems, and soon and so forth?
Confessing to another human being is the height of stupidity and the depth of asininity personified.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
So then you would admit that the fool, or the windbag, might possibly be yourself?
BDP, Bobby commits sins as do all human beings including Presidents, Prime Ministers, Emperors, Popes and everybody else. Why? We're depraved because of an old sin nature inherited from Adam. We all have personal areas ...[text shortened]... t we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." New American Standard Bible
3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
^ Matthew 7:3-5 New King James Version ^
"My study bible notes, "We ought to know our own sins better than those of others. The hypocrite sees the errors of others, ignoring his own, because he loves himself above all else." We remember that the word hypocrite in Greek (see Your father who is in the secret place) comes from the word for "actor." This is the inauthentic person, dishonest with himself and others - the one whose righteousness is a form of play-acting, not sincere. To know ourselves thoroughly - or to seek to do so - is an essential part of our teaching on what it is to be a righteous person. Jesus has preached earlier in this sermon about the essential knowing of the heart - "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
We are to know ourselves, and to find correction for ourselves - without this effort we are mere hypocrites and our righteousness is inauthentic. This involves the practice of humility, rather than the self-centered arrogance of the hypocrite who lives for appearance and image before others - and whose worship (treasure) of false front or public/social image is a form of idolatry that leads to projection onto others. It all depends on what our highest priorities are - what is our treasure." http://dailyexegesis.blogspot.com/2010/05/plank-in-your-own-eye.html
Interesting passage you chose, BDP. Thank you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGiven you sell yourself as an intellectual, perhaps you would grace us all with
Remember one thing, BigDoggProblem: These stinging words are from the Word of God verbatim; they're not mine.
your insight and analysis of the argument in the OP.
Show us all where we are going wrong.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt doesn't matter how "all" of you are shown wrong: you'll simply deny the plain and obvious issues with the argument.
Given you sell yourself as an intellectual, perhaps you would grace us all with
your insight and analysis of the argument in the OP.
Show us all where we are going wrong.
Nothing like an objective discussion, right?
Originally posted by googlefudge
Given you sell yourself as an intellectual, perhaps you would grace us all with
your insight and analysis of the argument in the OP.
Show us all where we are going wrong.
Originally posted by LemonJello (OP)
What follows below is an interesting inductive version of the evidential problem of evil, as taken directly from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/. It's an inductive argument in virtue of the move from (8) to (9).
For theists out there, I am interested to know [b]which premise(s) you reject and why. In particular, I am interested if there are those who would deny the move from (8) to (9) and why.
------
1.Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.
2.Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.
3.An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur.
4.An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur.
5.If a being allows something to take place that he knows is about to happen, and which he knows he could prevent, then that being intentionally allows the event in question to occur.
Therefore:
6.If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are cases where he intentionally allows animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.
7.In many such cases, no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of both apply to the case in question, and also are sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristic.
Therefore:
8.If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.
Therefore it is likely that:
9.If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of—that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.
10.An action is morally wrong, all things considered, if it has a wrongmaking characteristic that is not counterbalanced by any rightmaking characteristics.
Therefore:
11.If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that are morally wrong, all things considered.
Therefore:
12.If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being both intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so.
13.A being who intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so, is not morally perfect.
Therefore:
14.If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being is not morally perfect.
Therefore:
15.There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
16.If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
Therefore:
17.God does not exist.
If "God does not exist" why devote so much time and space and ink attempting to prove what you've already concluded?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour points so far have only been 'plain and obvious' to yourself. To the skeptics, it just seems like you're not understanding the argument.
It doesn't matter how "all" of you are shown wrong: you'll simply deny the plain and obvious issues with the argument.
Nothing like an objective discussion, right?
There are two possibilities. Either you're just so much more intelligent than all the skeptics that you are defeating the whole group of us with 'obvious' rebuttals we just don't get, or we have defeated you with an argument that is going over your head, despite your egotistical trash-talk to the contrary.
Regardless of which possibility is correct, I think both sides would agree that further engagement with you is a waste of time.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe argument is understood exactly as stated, as demonstrated by the objections put forth.
Your points so far have only been 'plain and obvious' to yourself. To the skeptics, it just seems like you're not understanding the argument.
There are two possibilities. Either you're just so much more intelligent than all the skeptics that you are defeating the whole group of us with 'obvious' rebuttals we just don't get, or we have defeated you ...[text shortened]... is correct, I think both sides would agree that further engagement with you is a waste of time.
If the objections were unrelated to any of the premises, I'd say you have a leg to stand on.
But since the objections are directly related (and relevant) to the premises, you simply have a leg up and are doing your usual business.
The initial premise has been challenged on a couple fronts, but the few but very enthusiastic atheist supporters continue to dodge, evade and obfuscate the topic.
It's like watching former president Clinton try to squirm out of getting caught with his pants around his ankles by invoking the famous "it depends on what your definition of is is."
The absurdities to which the supporters will go is down-right adorable.
Using double-speak vernacular, the argument offers the clear-as-mud wrongmaking characteristics of an action, which--- according to the supporters--- isn't bad, per se.
Hell, they can't even acknowledge that it is deficient, even though the argument retroactively bestows that (okay, something like that) designation on it when it announces no rightmaking characteristics of an action could be found to counterbalance it.
I don't live in a world where a non-thing requires counterbalancing.
Perhaps you do.
But the supporters know full well that they cannot admit the straight-forward meaning of the words and phrases of the argument and its individual phrases, otherwise they will be faced with huge discrepancies... in addition to the flaring problem of premise one.
Namely, no justification has been made for original assertion of premise one in terms of its wrongmaking characteristics nor any presentation of other more preferred/desired states--- let alone justifications for these states in terms of reasonable expectation(s).
And that's just in premise one...
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou ought to have a look at Thread 157451.
If "God does not exist" why devote so much time and space and ink attempting to prove what you've already concluded?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI would even go so far as to say that premise 1) is utterly non-controversial, and anyone who actually wants to reject P1 is a chucklehead. 😛
The argument is understood exactly as stated, as demonstrated by the objections put forth.
If the objections were unrelated to any of the premises, I'd say you have a leg to stand on.
But since the objections are directly related (and relevant) to the premises, you simply have a leg up and are doing your usual business.
The initial premise has ...[text shortened]... ons for these states in terms of reasonable expectation(s).
And that's just in premise one...
1 edit
LemonJello and Others,
As hard as it may be for someone to suffer human death, even Christ was tortured before He gave up His human life. Except for Christ's human life, human life is corruptible and will not survive into eternity. The destruction of human life is not eternal, it is destroyed and gone.
Human beings' souls are what are important. Based on the bible, we are given a choice to put faith in Christ for our eternal life. Based on the bible, if we reject Christ with our free wills which God gave us, then we cannot blame God for letting us reap what is there for us to reap. The Creator cannot be judged or understood unless our Creator reveals Himself to us, to explain "why?"
The Creator is over us regardless of our desires. We do not have control of our futures, the Creator has control of where we go into eternity. Debating the goodness or value of the Creator will not change the Creator's Sovereignty. We have no choice of control over us. Stop debating that we do have control. Stop judging the Creator, and accept the Creator's sovereignty. Fighting the Creator's purpose is a futile plight. It has no eternal value.
King James Version
=============
Matthew 10: 28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 25: 31 - 34
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThis is what passes as refutation for the atheist.
I would even go so far as to say that premise 1) is utterly non-controversial, and anyone who actually wants to reject P1 is a chucklehead. 😛
I challenged premise one on some very precise, exceedingly specific technical terms and your broad-brush reaction is the very bland "utterly non-controversial" (naturally, without support) and name calling.
How do you expect anyone to take you guys seriously?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBecause you are a self deluded moron who's 'arguments' were total bunk,
This is what passes as refutation for the atheist.
I challenged premise one on some very precise, exceedingly specific technical terms and your broad-brush reaction is the very bland "utterly non-controversial" (naturally, without support) and name calling.
How do you expect anyone to take you guys seriously?
and have been multiply refuted.
And it really doesn't matter that you are too blind to see that.
Anyone capable of understanding the argument will be able to see how bad
your arguments were and understand the refutations given and come to their
own conclusions. About you and the argument.
You have been proven wrong, your 'points' dealt with, and now your simply being
messed with for entertainment because your evidently incapable of understanding
the arguments. Which would be cruel if you didn't so thoroughly deserve it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGive me someone who knows how to make a worthy counter-argument, and then I will start caring whether someone on the other side takes me seriously.
This is what passes as refutation for the atheist.
I challenged premise one on some very precise, exceedingly specific technical terms and your broad-brush reaction is the very bland "utterly non-controversial" (naturally, without support) and name calling.
How do you expect anyone to take you guys seriously?
Because right now, it doesn't matter. This thread has been a severe disappointment. There is apparently no one left to engage this type of argument on behalf of theism for RHP.