tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post7257140393928038247..comments2022-08-23T09:25:08.174-07:00Comments on Soli Deo Gloria: The Dilemma of ManStephen Feinsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-2591470731720114492014-05-20T14:50:36.772-07:002014-05-20T14:50:36.772-07:00Taking into consideration Brian Orr's comments...Taking into consideration Brian Orr's comments on French Engineer's "smoking gun" of ToE, I would have to say that if one were to read through this whole exchange from start to finish, they would notice a few things. First, every single argument that French Engineer provided was logically answered and in some cases evidentially answered. <br /><br />On the other hand, French Engineer simply chose not to address many arguments made against his position. He was philosophically shut down at every turn, and it totally shows throughout this exchange. For anyone reading it for the first time, make special note of all his arguments and then note when they are addressed by myself or Brian. Then look at my arguments and count how many of them French Engineer simply chose to duck. There are a lot of points he did not even address. I guarantee this had nothing to do with him not finding them worthy. No, instead they shut down his arguments. His recourse was simply to ignore them. I find this ironic since he is the one that talked a lot of trash on his way out. Then again, I have seen this happen a lot as a high school teacher when teenagers get in fist fights. As the one who lost is getting pulled away by school proctors, he shouts, "You're lucky they broke us up, because I was about show you what I really can do." <br /><br />It really comes back down to this. They cannot reason without foundations, but they choose to ignore such foundations because their worldview cannot account for them. Every statement he made required an absolute standard, and yet that is something that his belief system cannot produce. Only the Christian worldview accounts for such things. <br /><br />Truly, I am glad that he started this exchange because it illustrates what Francis Schaeffer was writing about. French Engineer is a man who is below the line of despair, and he thinks in the terms of someone that lives below this line. However, he cannot come to grips with the true nihilistic consequence of this, and so he embraces a form of mysticism that gives him an absolute standard that shifts to his arbitrary needs and assertions. Whether his mystic absolute standard is scientific theory, humanism, cultural relativity, or logic, these things still need an absolute ground to have any meaning. So a man with no real absolutes tried to make absolute arguments, and he lost because of this. This was a great lesson indeed.Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-91180101841417297192014-05-20T12:41:52.307-07:002014-05-20T12:41:52.307-07:00Two individuals whose DNA are too different cannot...Two individuals whose DNA are too different cannot produce living, fertile offspring through sexual reproduction (just like you can't produce a car with half the plans of a pinto and half the plans of a school bus)<br />Once the two populations that are split from the same one are too “far apart” genetically, they interbreed successfully more and more infrequently until they can't do it anymore and form two different species.” <br /><br /><i>(Again, in what civilization has this been demonstrated and documented in?)</i><br /><br />This is what the ToE says, simplified a bit. Do you dispute any of these points? Because all of these points have been observed and documented both in the lab and in the field. Do you have any scientific evidence for any other process being involved in the diversity of life as we observe it today? Will you try and shift the goalposts to abiogenesis or cosmology or any other field that has nothing to do with evolution at all?"<br /><br /><i>What you have given is again a theory.... Ok. But the question is why? Why is it the way you have attempted to explain it? So, it has been observed that random mutation exists, which if I recall mutations are never beneficial to an organism, always detrimental (except on a few occasions). You never answer the why question. It’s not hard to list all of the processes we have discovered over the years. It does not prove anything. You are just stating what is there. You want to lean on science as your standard for attaining truth, but science is ultimately the wrong method when it comes to the issues we are discussing. Furthermore, in order to do science you have to have a toolbox containing absolutes that have to be in existence before you can even attempt to do sound science. Laws of logic, uniformity of nature, mathematical universals, and a truthful scientist sticking to the results and not fudging the data to fit the conclusion he wants to find. Absolutes cannot be accounted for in a random-chance, mutating, “may or may not be,” type of universe. That is what you hold to when it comes to origins, but what we see is actually the opposite. <br /><br />You are still holding to an arbitrary position. You are sitting on God’s lap attempting to slap his face. He hold’s you up while you deny he exists. </i><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09142461823195928691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-2911118227560133122014-05-20T12:40:10.098-07:002014-05-20T12:40:10.098-07:00Such new traits may improve, reduce, or be neutral...Such new traits may improve, reduce, or be neutral in regards to the odds of survival and reproduction of the individual in its environmental <i>(There is no definitive answer here; you are just covering you self by saying “may” and giving categories that can happen. Not really scientific, more speculation)</i><br /><br />Traits that reduce the odds of survival and reproduction tend to be passed less than the others, because the organisms carrying them tend to reproduce less <i>(and this has been observed over millions of years as species have transitioned into new species producing only the best? That’s right, it is speculation again. We have not been around long enough to actually test this theory and actually get it into the fact category.)</i><br />Over generations, amongst a given population, the gene pool (as in, the set of genes present in the individuals of this population) varies slowly as a result of these mutations spreading or not. Sometimes, populations are split for a long time, by geography or by another circumstance <i>(What are the other circumstances?)</i><br /><br />During that times, different random mutations appear in the two populations (since the odds of the same mutation happening twice is about 1 in 3,234,830,000 too). <br /><i>(Have these mutations actually occurred in people that we know of and have documented, tagged, and then matched up to see if reproduction was actually possible?</i><br />Over the generations, the gene pools of the two different populations become more and more different, since they change according to what random mutations happen and the different environments they are subject to.<br /><i>(So, is there physical evidence for humans changing from Chinese to Caucasian? Now, if you are referring to a male/female blended couple producing offspring that are mixed is not the same. I am talking about from the beginning of human evolution, has this been observed? If we all came from the same ancestor, why the randomness and change in production leading to different races? You will say adaptation, which I will give you that, for that has been an observable, documented account of trait changes for adaptation. However, a species changing into another species has not been. You cannot start with mankind and say there has been changes based on some unknown circumstance either do to genetics or environment and make your theory as proof of ToE; rather, you must start out at the beginning as your view ultimately posits and explain the evolution from the original primordial soup we supposedly began from to the human race. You cant because everything is just speculation based on probabilities)</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09142461823195928691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-29540286494814013062014-05-20T12:23:32.307-07:002014-05-20T12:23:32.307-07:00“Living beings reproduce
(Why? How did they come ...“Living beings reproduce <br /><i>(Why? How did they come to be able to produce? What came first, male or female? How did nature know mankind needed to be male and female to produce? Trial and error? Did a bunch of males evolve first, then were dying out because of a lack of reproductive abilities, then nature noticed this deficiency and began causing mutations to occur to bring about females to help restore and further evolve mankind? Or was it females first? Why did anything come first?)</i><br /><br />DNA (and the biological machines that read it and produce proteins according to it) constitutes a sort of blueprint for the organism. <br /><br /><i>(How does a biological machine have the ability to read? And produce proteins? Did you say blueprint? How does something without the ability to think, create, and articulate ideas and concepts make a blueprint? If it was embedded in its design, how did that happen?)</i><br /><br />The reproduction process entails an imperfect replication of DNA (as well as a recombination in the case of sexual reproduction). The imperfections in the replication process are random <i>(that’s right evolution is time + random mutation + chance + matter + energy = everything. I thought you were giving us the “real ToE” ?)</i> and theoretically reversible (insertion, deletion and substitution), <i>(Why are they random?)</i> but the odds against an error happening exactly in the opposite way on the same gene are about one in 3,234,830,000 (for a human, since it is approximately the number of base pairs in the human genome)). The imperfections in the replication of DNA may (or may not, since not all genes are expressed) lead to the apparition of new traits, just as if you change the plans, the product will be different. <i>(the may or may not phrase, which means you have no idea, just speculation)</i><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09142461823195928691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-42375652567854452552014-05-19T10:35:09.265-07:002014-05-19T10:35:09.265-07:00Finally, as far as his defense of macro-evolution ...Finally, as far as his defense of macro-evolution goes, I simply shake my head. The points he offered are not evidence for macro-evolution. And there clearly is a HUGE difference between change within a species (mirco) and the change of one species into something completely different (macro). I have read more on this than he will give me credit for, and I know if he was actually honest, he would search out some good scientific creationist sites that talk about each of the “evidences” that he mentioned. It was not my purpose to enter a debate with him over history, archeology, and science. He has yet to demonstrate himself qualified to speak in these fields. <br /><br />He also felt the need to claim that the U.S. is a laughingstock over the issue of evolution. I am guessing that he is from Australia. The funny thing about this is the U.S. is the most productive, wealthy, scientifically advanced, and affluent society the world has ever known. It was built off of the Protestant Work-Ethic and the Judeo-Christian worldview. The nations of Europe (and Australia too) with all achievements combined cannot hold a candle to what the U.S. has accomplished in only two centuries. Why would we ever care if you laugh at us? Furthermore, we hold our view that Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory that is not very scientific and it is a philosophical theory that is riddled with problems. We are the only ones truly free enough to think for ourselves and allow both sides to present evidence. In the end, our free and democratic society demands more proof and evidence. All we get from evolutionists is rhetoric, lawsuits, and slander. These are all signs of the losing side. These are signs of those who are brainwashed. <br /><br />So with that all said, if anyone wants to jump in and deal with French Engineer’s unsatisfying arguments, then feel free. I am done wasting my time with him. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-28913910603202733962014-05-19T10:34:55.279-07:002014-05-19T10:34:55.279-07:00Well, I must say that I am not surprised at the la...Well, I must say that I am not surprised at the lack of argument that French Engineer had throughout this. I posted his last arguments and chose not to respond to them so that the reader can see that he did not actually answer anything I raised. Instead, he simply declared victory for himself and claimed that I am irrelevant to him. Who cares if a snobbish political liberal finds me relevant? Furthermore, he said I filled his logical fallacies bingo card, but where has he listed these fallacies? <br /><br />At the end of the day, he raised no real arguments and he offered nothing that could be seen as evidence. Furthermore, he showed an utter lack of philosophical precision and even greater theological ignorance. In terms of his “defense of Islam,” he did not distinguish between the Qu’ran and the Hadith, showing even more ignorance. I wonder if he even realizes there is a surah in the Qur’an that explains why Muhammad could do no miracles. Yet, he ignorantly claimed that the Qu’ran recorded Muhammad doing miracles. What he was referring to were various Hadith written centuries later. <br /><br />As far as biblical prophecies go, I suppose he is unfamiliar with Daniel’s prophecies, or Jeremiah’s, or Isaiah’s, or Micah’s, or any other that were detailed and spanned many centuries. If French Engineer was serious, he could find resources online that map each of these detailed prophecies out. Some prophecies were similar to what he described (i.e. being predicted and fulfilled within the same book), but there are hundreds that are not this way at all. The clairvoyants of other religions have not produced historically accurate and verifiable concrete predictions of the future. But French Engineer does not really care about this. Thus, I am not going to waste my time on a guy who never entered this discussion in good faith to begin with. <br /><br />I also find his claim that the Bible has historical errors to be another sign of his unqualified status to comment on these subjects. I would have hoped that he would have known that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence against a particular claim. We have little tangible evidence for the vast majority of the events that we think happened in ancient history. So if he were to be consistent, he would have to say that we know very little about history prior to the Industrial Revolution. He would have to claim all that we think we know about the Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, Chinese, etc., is all hogwash. But I doubt he would say this. He clearly is biased only against Christianity. That was evidenced in his positive portrayal of Islam. Why is he this way? It goes back to Romans 1:18-20. They are all on the same side. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Going back to the historical evidences, does he not know that 100 years ago, the experts said that the Bible was wrong on the following accounts: existence of Hittites, evidence of an Exodus, existence of David, existence of Pontus Pilate, and so on? Does he not know that now there is undeniable proof for these events and people? Of course, the Bible was proof enough, but my point is people like French Engineer always make fools out of themselves when they argue that the absence of evidence is actually evidence against the biblical claims. It seems like every month new archeological discoveries in Israel are yielding more corroboration to the biblical account. <br /><br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-4688924110435407372014-05-19T05:56:07.020-07:002014-05-19T05:56:07.020-07:00And now I'm afraid you have allowed me to comp...And now I'm afraid you have allowed me to complete my logical fallacies bingo card. Given that none of your 25 registered readers has seen fit to jump in in your defense and that you have proven you are not in possession of any new or convincing arguments, I'm afraid you have reached the point where you are irrelevant to me again. Feel free to claim victory after the fact, as like for the last debate you will be the only one to consider it meaningful.french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-31868814231014353502014-05-19T05:52:45.080-07:002014-05-19T05:52:45.080-07:00And you know this, how? What observable experiment...<b>And you know this, how? What observable experiment done in time and space reveals that this part of our brain was so useful that it somehow got hardcoded into us? </b><br /><br />Do you dispute that knowledge can, and is, hard-coded in our DNA? Because I can give you a lot of examples of behaviors that are exhibited from birth, before learning has had any time to be done (such as walking in most animals, pain avoidance, swimming for human babies who cannot support their weight, and so on). And these include reacting to acts of bullying negatively, and to acts of kindness positively, or the rudiments of moral behavior.<br /><br />As for macro-evolution not existing... Well I'm going to be charitable here. I'm going to assume that you simply repeat what people you agree with claim. I'm going to tell you something. You are living in the only developed country where the church has successfully cast any doubts on the veracity of evolution in the minds of the public. Your country's gullibility on this topic is a subject of laughter. The very arbitrary and non-scientific distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution is a sign that you do not, in fact, understand the theory of evolution you reject. For future reference, here is what the ToE actually says, in a vulgarized form. Feel free to point out which point you object to.<br /><br />Living beings reproduce<br /> DNA (and the biological machines that read it and produce proteins according to it) constitutes a sort of blueprint for the organism.<br />The reproduction process entails an imperfect replication of DNA (as well as a recombination in the case of sexual reproduction). The imperfections in the replication process are random and theoretically reversible (insertion, deletion and substitution), but the odds against an error happening exactly in the opposite way on the same gene are about one in 3,234,830,000 (for a human, since it is approximately the number of base pairs in the human genome)).<br />The imperfections in the replication of DNA may (or may not, since not all genes are expressed) lead to the apparition of new traits, just as if you change the plans, the product will be different.<br />Such new traits may improve, reduce, or be neutral in regards to the odds of survival and reproduction of the individual in its environmental<br />Traits that reduce the odds of survival and reproduction tend to be passed less than the others, because the organisms carrying them tend to reproduce less.<br />Over generations, amongst a given population, the gene pool (as in, the set of genes present in the individuals of this population) varies slowly as a result of these mutations spreading or not.<br />Sometimes, populations are split for a long time, by geography or by another circumstance.<br />During that times, different random mutations appear in the two populations (since the odds of the same mutation happening twice is about 1 in 3,234,830,000 too).<br />Over the generations, the gene pools of the two different populations become more and more different, since they change according to what random mutations happen and the different environments they are subject to.<br />Two individuals whose DNA are too different cannot produce living, fertile offspring through sexual reproduction (just like you can't produce a car with half the plans of a pinto and half the plans of a school bus)<br />Once the two populations that are split from the same one are too “far apart” genetically, they interbreed successfully more and more infrequently until they can't do it anymore and form two different species.<br /><br />This is what the ToE says, simplified a bit. Do you dispute any of these points? Because all of these points have been observed and documented both in the lab and in the field. Do you have any scientific evidence for any other process being involved in the diversity of life as we observe it today? Will you try and shift the goalposts to abiogenesis or cosmology or any other field that has nothing to do with evolution at all?french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-33092698825928500602014-05-19T05:51:08.901-07:002014-05-19T05:51:08.901-07:00Once again, you prove that you cannot argue with m...<b>Once again, you prove that you cannot argue with me unless the Christian worldview is true, for it alone can provide the preconditions and standards you need to make any argument meaningful. </b> Once again, you reject any “preconditions and standards” that do not agree with you without justifying this rejection. <br /><br /><b>Furthermore, I have all of the evidence I need. God has declared this to be the case, He has inspired a book that predicts the future accurately hundreds of times as verified by history, and I have personally experienced God’s transformative power in my own life and regularly fellowship with many others who have experienced the same power. You are the only one entering this discussion without evidence. </b><br /><br />Notice how you shift gears here. Now the evidence you claim is no longer good enough to convince any reasonable person, it is just good enough to convince you. God having declared you to have the evidence is clearly begging the question, the Book you claim He inspired is no more supernatural than any other “holy books”, and subjective evidence such as the “transformative power” you claim has been claimed by the followers of every religion (and none) since about the time we have been keeping records (that we know of, of course, it certainly happened before).<br /><br /><br /><b>Just like your kids inherit your traits, we inherited Adam’s. </b> And here is a perfect example of a decision made by God (who decided that the sinnature would be inheritable) that if it had happened would have been responsible for the suffering of pretty much every being capable of suffering. Ever.<br /><br />If you want to claim that it was a good and moral decision, have fun.<br /><br /><b>Your problem with this is you think that God should have made Adam sterile and then started over with new humans. </b><br /><br /> Or, if you remember, make a sin nature not inheritable, or any dozen of other solutions.<br /><br /><b>God’s plan was to allow Adam to procreate after the Fall so that God would carry on with His predetermined plan to save His elect. </b> <br /><br />Which means God's plan necessitated the fall and all the suffering that resulted from it. Not making your case here. Plus, it makes your God look like a kid playing at crashing electric trains together so he can use his superman action figure to “save” the passengers.<br /><br /><b>You might not like what God has done, but this is far different from your caricature above. The kids were not punished for Adam’s sin directly, but instead they simply were born as Adam was after the Fall. They will end up being punished for their own sins willfully committed. Your insistence on free will for this to be true is a philosophically weak one. </b> <br /><br />And once again, you are the one insisting that it is not possible for people not to sin, any more than it is possible for people not to breath (as in, it is possible to refrain from doing so for a while, but ultimately you will do it). Punishing people for something they can not refrain from doing might be just in your book, but I don't think I 'm the one on philosophical thin ice herfrench engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-87071039394219106222014-05-19T05:50:38.020-07:002014-05-19T05:50:38.020-07:00Please show me the objective standard that allows ...<b>Please show me the objective standard that allows you to insist on this definition as though it has any real meaning </b><br /><br />As I have predicted, you reject any definition of morality that is not your own. If you want morality to be objective, maybe you should read the definitions of objectivity, and see whether they apply. I went to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective<br /><br /><i>Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. </i><br /> <br />Pain being inflicted can be detected, it is not based on opinion. The agency of the person inflicting it can be detected too, or at least inferred.<br /><br />On the other hand, according to you God makes His judgments based on His wrath and/or mercy, which are personal feelings<br /><br /><br /><i>intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. </i><br /><br />I gave you a definition of evil that was based on the inflicting of pain, which is external to the mind. You claimed that morality derived directly from a mind.<br /> <br /><i>being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ). </i><br /><br />Once again, pain being inflicted is something that the subject suffers, not something that is part of him or her. Your God, however, has so far no evidence of existing outside of the minds of the believers.<br /><br /><i>of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. </i><br /><br />I hope that you will concede that pain and the people inflicting it are part of objective reality. However, I still am not convinced that your God is.<br /><br /><b>In an atheistic universe why should I care what “any commonly accepted definition of greater good” would be? Such definitions would change over time from one culture to the next, and ultimately if we are just molecules in motion with no higher purpose, then any definitions would be nothing other than arbitrary non-sense. </b><br /><br />Well, then please continue to believe in your God. If you are unable to find purpose or motivation for altruism without the confines of your religion, please continue to adhere to those. Of course, those of us who recognize that happiness is necessarily dependent on the happiness of others, and that purpose is something you ultimately give yourself (even if you abdicate it by simply conforming yourself to a book you have arbitrarily decided was axiomatically true) wll go on doing just that. It is just a bit sad that you are unable to do so.french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-9580013139492675672014-05-19T05:49:58.205-07:002014-05-19T05:49:58.205-07:00Prior to getting any degree in theology, my degree...<b>Prior to getting any degree in theology, my degree was in history. So this is something that I know a great deal about. Do you?</b><br /><br />Hey, another argument from authority!<br /><br /><b>So the long story short of this is that your scenario does not work as a critique of biblical Christianity.</b><br /><br />It does not for you only because you accept, arbitrarily, arguments for Christianity that you reject for other religions (and vice versa), as I have shown. <br /><br /><b>It was simply an unoriginal adaptation of something David Hume once said, and it does not hurt my position at all. It does hurt Islam’s, but for some reason I doubt you go to Islamic blogs to start arguments. If you are so committed to your atheism, then perhaps you should. </b><br /><br />I have several internet personae, so I would be very curious to know what makes you think I do not in fact argue similarily against islam ans I do christianity.<br /><br /><br /><b>Once again, justify this by your own worldview. Perhaps one day you will see that comparing God to men is philosophically dishonest.If God is the judge of the universe, and a whole nation of people achieved such a level of wickedness that He deemed it right to remove them, then He is the one with the authority to do so.<br /> No human has such authority as we are all ontologically equal with one another. But then again, based on your argumentation so far, I am seeing more and more that you do not understand this. </b><br /><br />And here you are, claiming that I only disagree because I do not understand you. The thing is, in order to “justify” your God's actions, you have to define morality in a way that it cannot be applied to your God (ie, all actions can be judged as moral or immoral accirding ot a certain set of rules, except for the actions of your God that are automagically deemed moral without being subject to these rules). It is special pleading, and someone who claims to know anything about philosophy should be able to recognize so blatant a fallacy.<br />french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-4207106722307261162014-05-19T05:49:30.246-07:002014-05-19T05:49:30.246-07:00Furthermore, the Qu’ran was the work one man. The ...<b> Furthermore, the Qu’ran was the work one man. The Bible was the work of around 40 men over many generations, comprised of many genres. </b><br /><br />And each of them having the texts from the ones before. If JK Rowling's kid were to write a sequel to Harry Potter, or Tolkien's to the Lord of the Rings, would that be a point in favor of the existence of elves and wizards?<br /><br /><b>It accurately predicts the future,</b><br /><br />So far, you have not provided convincing predictions.<br /><br /><b> it provides the preconditions of intelligibility</b><br /><br />The only precondition of intelligibility is self-consistency, and your Bible certainly does not provide that.<br /><br /><b> and numerous undeniable miracles happened.</b><br /><br />Still not convinced of that. So far, I have not seen a single convincing account of a miracle that can't be accounted for by being made up or by science. Will you trot out the faith-healers, any one of whom could simply go to work in a hospital if his or her healing was genuine? The miracles that were allegegly performed by Jesus in a book that claims the stars are pinned to a canopy, and therefore was clearly either wrong or, to be charitable, embellished ? Coincidences that happened right after praying to people who pray all the time? Really, I'd like you to show me one of these miracles. And when you do, I'll go see Randy and claim my million dollars.<br /><br /><b>Furthermore, much of its content is corroborated by the contemporary history of its own time, and archeological discoveries of our own. </b><br /><br />Just like the Dresden files series are corroborated by the existence of Chicago.french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-18437952571780351982014-05-19T05:48:55.872-07:002014-05-19T05:48:55.872-07:00Furthermore, your scenario actually has happened. ...<b>Furthermore, your scenario actually has happened. It is called Islam. Muhammad claimed to have an angelic visitor telling him the supposed words of God. Yet the book makes no prophecies, it confines itself to only one genre of human literature (poetry), it contradicts itself left and right with no good theological explanation, and no miracles were performed at all.</b><br /><br />Muslims would say that their book makes many prophecies (as a simple “islam prophecies” google search would have shown you, which makes me wonder it you are deliberately lying or just too unconcerned with the truth of your claims that you don't bother to check them), that the Kuran is not confined to poetry, but that it manages to be universal without compromising stylistic integrity as the Bible does, that there are no contradictions in the Kuran (and they use the same kind of logic you use to whisk away the contradiction in the Bible), and that miracles, including prophecies, were performed up to and including Mohammed going to heaven on a winged horse (and then, they wisely say that the Kuran itself is a miracle to end all miracles and don't try, as Christians do, to claim miracles that can't be proven to occur).<br /><br /><b> Furthermore it is filled many verifiable historical errors (of the kind that will not turn out to be overturned at a later date).</b><br /><br />Like a survey that would require people to go back to their cities of birth, but did not leave any documentation in the empire that supposedly demanded that survey? Like a Roman governor demanding all children under a certain age be slaughtered? Like a tribe of Hebrews being held in slavery in Egypt? I love how you imply (without saying it and without bothering to justify it) that all the historical “errors” that disagree with your text will be overturned, while those that disagree with the other texts won't be. Special pleading rarely gets any more blatant than this.<br /><br /><b>This type of thing is exactly what you would expect to see in the scenario that you painted.</b><br /><br />And as I have shown you, it holds no difference from the scenario you believe in.french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-65382394072710555052014-05-19T05:48:18.252-07:002014-05-19T05:48:18.252-07:00Rather easily. First, a non-omniscient and non-omn...<b>Rather easily. First, a non-omniscient and non-omnipresent being would be confined to time and would be unable to declare the future.</b><br /><br />What makes you say that? There are many claims of clairvoyance in many religious traditions, and there is no logical bar to entities being clairvoyant without being omniscient. Even we, humans, are able to predict with a certain degree of accuracy the weather a few days from now, without having to rely on an omniscient being to tell us.<br /><br /><b>Yet, the God of the Bible declares the future many times.</b><br /><br />Yeah, about that. Leaving aside that many gods in many religious traditions predict the future, I am not really impressed with your God's so-called predictions. See, they are usually in one of three categories : the predictions from chapter one fulfilled in chapter three, the predictions that are so vaguely-worded and/or trivial that several events could fulfill them, all of these events adding to a virtual certainty that the prophecy would be fulfilled one day whatever happened, and prophecy not yet fulfilled (you know, like Jesus returning before the people listening to the writer were all dead).<br /><br />All in all, the claims of prophecy from your religion are no more, and maybe a little less, compelling than the claims of prophecy from other religions (that being said, I have not any claim to clarvoyance that I feel is compelling)<br /><br /><b> Second, dying on the cross was a lot more than just a crucifixion.</b><br /><br />So your religion claims. It would be nice if any of you could prove it convincingly.<br /><br /><b>Jesus also absorbed and paid for the full eternal wrath of God for each person that would ever believe on Him.</b> <br /><br />And there we have the crux of your belief, and another example of your God exhibiting behavior that you would call unjust on any other being and call just in this case. If one judge condemned a person to death, and an innocent man demanded to be killed in his place, would you call the judge just if he accepted?<br /><br />Moreover, according to your belief system the punishment for one lifetime of sin is an eternity in Hell. According to that, Jesus (who spent at most three days dead, according to your myth) did not fulfill the punishment for even one sinner, let alone all those that believe in Him. Which makes your God's justice not absolute any more, since different people get different sentences according to who they are, not what they did. Wherever you turn you find incoherence in your belief system, incoherence so deep that you have to revert to epistemological nihilism (“you can't know nor judge anything unless you agree with me”) to try and turn attention away from them.<br /><br /><b>This is what the three hours of darkness meant when He was on the cross.</b><br /><br />According to your interpretation of a book I don't find any more authoritative than any other book.french engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345626247891361250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-7632392645892224642014-05-18T20:03:07.626-07:002014-05-18T20:03:07.626-07:00"And you, if the past is any indication, will..."And you, if the past is any indication, will not try to justify your assumptions (like the fact that your God is a necessary precondition for intelligibility) and not accept any justification except the one you have already presupposed must be true - your God. That, by the way, is the presup script."<br /><br />I know you read the debate between myself and Russell Glasser. In the third response, I went to great length to show why a necessary being is in fact necessary. Russell never even came close to refuting the logic there, simply because it is irrefutable. So if you need a refresher on my justifying God as the precondition of all intelligibility, then go back and review that. The presupp script actually accomplishes a lot more than you think. So it either has went over your head, or you have ignored it. Only you know which is true of you.Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-27734417227050889032014-05-18T19:58:59.699-07:002014-05-18T19:58:59.699-07:00“That would rather depend on your definition of &q...“That would rather depend on your definition of "exists", would it not? When you look really close, even matter only seems to be a lot of nothing and a litle bit of energy in stable form. So you'd have to add energy to the list. Then the behavior of these entities can be said to "exist" for given values of "exist". Some parts of these behaviors are repeatable enough that patterns of behaviors emerge, and one could say that these patterns (laws, concepts, emotions, processes, etc) also exist, for a given value of exist that is different from the first and second values of exist.The thing is, there are too many different meanings to the word to make a list. firing in your brain as in mine.”<br /><br />So I was right, you are a materialist. The interesting thing is how arbitrary everything you said was. We are only beginning to learn about the properties of energy and matter as quantum physics is beginning to uncover more information. Concerning your notion that repeating patterns indicate that laws, concepts, etc. exist is interesting. Are these things possible if the ultimate ruling principle is chaotic randomness? I understand that you probably posit an accidental universe that somehow is governed by order, but to me that is a far harder pill to swallow than special creationism. I think Plato would run circles around you on this since you seem to think that time-affected matter creates unchanging laws and principles. The very impossibility of this is why he thought there had to be a world of universals behind the world of particulars. I am curious how you would refute his logic. Everything within time and space is in constant motion and is therefore subject to change, especially when left to its own. Therefore, nothing in material existence can account for unchanging patterns, laws, etc. You are arguing that the universals actually come from the particulars! If you have no idea what I am talking about, then go and study some basic philosophy and read the works of Plato. He was wise for noticing this to be a deathblow for materialism. It is folly to assume changing particulars give rise to universals. Universals are the basis of the particulars, and in order for universals to exist, they cannot be bound in this material universe of changing particulars. If materialism is true (and yes, your answer shows you to be a materialist as I originally suspected), then there can be no true discernible patterns, laws, or even logic. Yet these things exist, and they allow us to navigate through this material world successfully. Therefore, there must be something more than just matter that actually directs and determines much, if not all, that exists within the material universe. This is basic stuff. Since you only believe in the world of particulars, you have absolutely no objective unchanging standards by which you can make any arguments. That is why the moment you started to argue with me, you already lost. Thank you for showing this to all who may read this. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-13038366039900391942014-05-18T19:44:52.175-07:002014-05-18T19:44:52.175-07:00“If my memory serves, I used a three letter word o...“If my memory serves, I used a three letter word once, and you cut my comments for that use. I then pointed out to you the many instances where that three letter word has been used in the Bible. But hey, if you are more offended by a three letter words than by an entity that condemns people to an eternity of torture, I'd say it shows your priorities. Your joke did not offend me, by the way, but it did... Well, it lowered my expectations of you a bit. Which was, I admit, something of an achievement.”<br /><br />I love the insult at the end. This is common for people who are obviously losing an argument. Thanks for the indication. <br /><br />I am astounded by this one. If you are suggesting that a three letter word used in a Middle English document that only meant “donkey” in AD 1611 shows that the Bible cusses, then I do say you are not qualified to speak of anything that pertains to history. In Modern English, that same word refers to the anus. So for you to assume the modern meaning, and then to force that same meaning to a translation from 400 years ago, and from this try to justify your use of it now shows that you are just plain ignorant. <br /><br />Concerning your judgment about my priorities, wouldn’t you need an objective moral standard for this? Without it, your words are meaningless. Furthermore, your attitude that God is wrong for sentencing people to Hell reminds me of the typical criminal who thinks society is unjust for sentencing him to prison. Many in the prisons see themselves as innocent victims, or they think their actions do not deserve the judgment they received. You sound just like them. But then again this makes sense. All unrepentant sinners are cosmic criminals who have committed cosmic treason. And like regular criminals, they do not think this is a crime worthy of punishment. The judge who sets the standard says otherwise. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-42877503471759922732014-05-18T19:37:23.036-07:002014-05-18T19:37:23.036-07:00“How would you differentiate the experiences of th...“How would you differentiate the experiences of that species from the experiences that you claim prove that the Bible is the written word of the creator of the universe?”<br /><br />Rather easily. First, a non-omniscient and non-omnipresent being would be confined to time and would be unable to declare the future. Yet, the God of the Bible declares the future many times. Second, dying on the cross was a lot more than just a crucifixion. Jesus also absorbed and paid for the full eternal wrath of God for each person that would ever believe on Him. This is what the three hours of darkness meant when He was on the cross. Furthermore, your scenario actually has happened. It is called Islam. Muhammad claimed to have an angelic visitor telling him the supposed words of God. Yet the book makes no prophecies, it confines itself to only one genre of human literature (poetry), it contradicts itself left and right with no good theological explanation, and no miracles were performed at all. Furthermore it is filled many verifiable historical errors (of the kind that will not turn out to be overturned at a later date). This type of thing is exactly what you would expect to see in the scenario that you painted. Furthermore, the Qu’ran was the work one man. The Bible was the work of around 40 men over many generations, comprised of many genres. It accurately predicts the future, it provides the preconditions of intelligibility, and numerous undeniable miracles happened. Furthermore, much of its content is corroborated by the contemporary history of its own time, and archeological discoveries of our own. Prior to getting any degree in theology, my degree was in history. So this is something that I know a great deal about. Do you? So the long story short of this is that your scenario does not work as a critique of biblical Christianity. It was simply an unoriginal adaptation of something David Hume once said, and it does not hurt my position at all. It does hurt Islam’s, but for some reason I doubt you go to Islamic blogs to start arguments. If you are so committed to your atheism, then perhaps you should. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-49248739605407765612014-05-18T19:33:42.037-07:002014-05-18T19:33:42.037-07:00“And it is exactly by this standard that the ten p...“And it is exactly by this standard that the ten plagues, the ordering of all the genocides in the old testament, the leaving a loaded fruit where Adam could reach it an leaving it unsupervised, the writing the rules so that everyone is guilty by default make God evil.”<br /><br />Once again, justify this by your own worldview. Perhaps one day you will see that comparing God to men is philosophically dishonest. If God is the judge of the universe, and a whole nation of people achieved such a level of wickedness that He deemed it right to remove them, then He is the one with the authority to do so. No human has such authority as we are all ontologically equal with one another. But then again, based on your argumentation so far, I am seeing more and more that you do not understand this. <br /><br /><br />“You trying to equate “sin” with “evil” is reductive of the concept of evil (the willful harming, commanding to harm or allowing to harm others without necessity)”<br /><br />Please show me the objective standard that allows you to insist on this definition as though it has any real meaning. More and more you are simply just showing the readers of this that your position is hopeless. You can’t have an objective standard in an atheistic universe, but this crusade of yours centers upon you insisting that your opinion is the objective standard and by your authority and opinion alone, God must be evil since He does not operate within the confines of your arbitrary and meaningless standard. I think if you really believed half of what you say you do, you would realize you wasted everyone’s time. Yet, I know why you act as you do. You cannot escape the imago dei within you, but you seek to suppress it (Romans 1:18-20). In so doing, you need the very worldview preconditions that you claim to reject in order to proceed. <br /><br />“And, of course, you have no evidence to present that all evil works towards the greater good, nor even a description of that greater good that would fit any commonly accepted (by anyone regardless of religion, for example) definition of greater good.”<br /><br />In an atheistic universe why should I care what “any commonly accepted definition of greater good” would be? Such definitions would change over time from one culture to the next, and ultimately if we are just molecules in motion with no higher purpose, then any definitions would be nothing other than arbitrary non-sense. Once again, you prove that you cannot argue with me unless the Christian worldview is true, for it alone can provide the preconditions and standards you need to make any argument meaningful. Furthermore, I have all of the evidence I need. God has declared this to be the case, He has inspired a book that predicts the future accurately hundreds of times as verified by history, and I have personally experienced God’s transformative power in my own life and regularly fellowship with many others who have experienced the same power. You are the only one entering this discussion without evidence. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-4533613369050102412014-05-18T19:29:44.158-07:002014-05-18T19:29:44.158-07:00“The incoherence is in God punishing all of Adam&#...“The incoherence is in God punishing all of Adam's descendents for the actions of Adam, while saying in Ezekiel that children would not be punished for the sins of their parents. The rules God set forth on that specific point (should sin and its consequences be inherited?) are inconsistent, since He did exactly the opposite thing on two different occasions.” <br /><br />God did not directly punish all of Adam’s descendents for the actions of Adam. He simply allowed the consequence of Adam’s sin to be passed on. In other words, since Adam now had a new nature of mortality, blame shifting, and sin-covering, all of his descendents would be born as he was after this change in condition. Just like your kids inherit your traits, we inherited Adam’s. Your problem with this is you think that God should have made Adam sterile and then started over with new humans. God’s plan was to allow Adam to procreate after the Fall so that God would carry on with His predetermined plan to save His elect. You might not like what God has done, but this is far different from your caricature above. The kids were not punished for Adam’s sin directly, but instead they simply were born as Adam was after the Fall. They will end up being punished for their own sins willfully committed. Your insistence on free will for this to be true is a philosophically weak one.<br /><br /><br />“We intrinsically know that the one who does evil is the one who is evil. Yes, we do, because it's a part of our brain that has been so useful for such time that it has become “hard-coded” in most of us.” <br /><br />And you know this, how? What observable experiment done in time and space reveals that this part of our brain was so useful that it somehow got hardcoded into us? Let me see. Oh, I will use the same line of reasoning you do later. You appeal to a non-existent authority (macro-evolution) as your final trump card. How predictable … and disappointing. I hope you do see how entirely ludicrous you sound. I claim that we intrinsically know good and evil since we are made in the image of God, and you then respond that we know it because of evolution made us this way. And for some reason, people in your camp think their blind faith is reasonable. Are you guys really so easily deceived by your arbitrary use of academic language? Please look back over what you wrote, and you should see that when you remove the verbiage all you said is, “we innately know good and evil because evolution made us this way.” In fact, any question we can give your camp that you can’t answer leaves you guys shouting the word “evolution” on blind faith alone. So what makes us different? The Christian worldview explains ALL preconditions of intelligibility, whereas macro-evolution, if true, actually destroys them. The fact that intelligibility exists proves your view wrong. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-88567788346287334322014-05-18T19:19:21.267-07:002014-05-18T19:19:21.267-07:00“You should evaluate my arguments alongside those ...“You should evaluate my arguments alongside those of the men who wrote the Bible, and decide on the merits of the arguments, not on the basis of who said what.” <br /><br />Your words are not equal to theirs for yours are not inspired. Please show me that you can predict the future hundreds of times in advance with perfect accuracy and maybe I would listen. Please show me that you can describe reality in a way that accounts for all preconditions of intelligibility: Inductive inference, deductive inference, moral absolutes, etc. Please show me that you and 40 other authors from numerous different professions over a period of 1,400 years can write an anthology in three different languages that presents a unified and coherent worldview. Divine inspiration explains this. Do you have the historic credentials to argue against this? <br /><br /><br />“Ah, your argument is simply “God sets the rules”... Well, either these rules also apply to God, or they are not universal. Since God on numerous occasions perform acts that would be immoral if performed by anyone else, apparently you do not believe morality to be universal, there's always a codicil “unless God wants to” at the end of each rule.” <br /><br />Once again, you are dropping God to the same level as creatures. This shows that you absolutely do not understand the creator/creature distinction, namely the definitional difference between a necessary and contingent being. This is stuff that Aquinas, and Aristotle before him, had figured out. So what you are showing me is that you are unable to grasp what Aquinas understood 800 years ago, and what Aristotle understood 2,300 years ago. You really should not be boasting of your philosophical skill if ancient men could run circles around you. Furthermore, you act as though moral standards are a standard independent of God. That is not the Christian position. The Christian position is that these things cannot exist apart from God, and as such they are not greater than Him. Instead, these standards exist as a reflection of His character. However, given that He is an infinite being with total sovereignty in the universe, certain exercises of power and dominion that are appropriate to Him are not appropriate to us. For example, it is appropriate for the president of the USA to command the Army to invade a hostile country since he is commander-in-chief. It is not appropriate for me to command the Army to do the very same thing. The U.S. Constitution does not present shifting moral standards in this, but instead it is a single standard that applies to different extents based on the office of the person in question. Likewise, God exercising power and dominion in a way that is appropriate for Him, but inappropriate for us, has nothing to do with shifting moral standards. Instead there is a single standard that is based on the nature and character of God, but that standard applies in different ways to different extents to different beings depending on where they are at on the ontological scale creation. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-82521771601879110702014-05-18T19:07:42.865-07:002014-05-18T19:07:42.865-07:00“You assert that I need God in order to classify s...“You assert that I need God in order to classify something as wrong. I have given you several examples where the God you claim is the source of morality acted in ways that are immoral, such as punishing someone for acts he could not know were wrong punishing people by endowing them with a sin nature for actions committed by another person (even if they were present “seminally”, a sperm is not responsible for the actions committed by his father. Even the most die-hard religious fundamentalists argue that life begins at conception, not before) punishing people for acts they could not avoid committing, because of that sin nature that infringed on their free will on this matter.”<br /><br />You have not shown this at all. You simply asserted it while lacking the objective standard to be meaningful in your assertion. All you have shown is that you have either no knowledge of epistemology, or instead you have no respect for it. I have adequately addressed each thing you said here in other parts of my response.<br /><br /><br />“So are you (a mere mortal with a 3 pound brain), and so were the authors of the Bible. I'd even argue that the authors of the bible had a worse grasp of philosophy than I do, if they believed that God killing all the first-born of Egypt was an acceptable way of forcing a head of state to change a political decision that God hardened pharaoh's heart against (hey, another example!). We would call such an action a terrorist act nowadays.”<br /><br />I am sorry, but this one is difficult to stomach. The authors of the Bible were divinely inspired to write God’s truth with inerrancy (an easy thing in an open-universe). Your grasp of philosophy is nowhere near what theirs was. Moses was a prince of Egypt. Paul, a philosopher par excellence instructed in the best schools of Judaism and Hellenism. They at least understood the role of presuppositions. They at least understood epistemology. They at least understood what sin is. They at least understood that there are differences between a necessary and contingent being. They understood that the Creator has the right to create His own standard and hold His creation to it. Apparently, they had a much better grasp on philosophy than you do. I dare say even Plato and Aristotle have a better grasp than you do, and they were pagans. Furthermore, the last part of your rant is one more example of you dropping God down to a human level, and it is another example of you not understanding the point of a given biblical text. The plague was not about changing the decision of a head of state. It was punishing a whole nation for its horrid treatment of another nation for 400 years. Even more than that, it was God demonstrating His sovereignty over all nations and reminding all humanity of its obligation to obey all commands of the Creator. These actions are perfectly appropriate for a necessary being to do to contingent beings, since they owe Him allegiance. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-61265121368744455132014-05-18T19:04:17.497-07:002014-05-18T19:04:17.497-07:00“Can you actually show how any of the solutions to...“Can you actually show how any of the solutions to the problem of original sin I proposed would have been worse than the one your God allegedly chose? Because so far you have not.” <br /><br />Let me tell you what I have shown. I have shown that in order for you to declare that your solutions are better than God’s, you would have to point to an objective standard by which such a judgment could be made. You have no such standard. You are simply assuming objectivity because it is impossible for you to live and think apart from the Christian worldview. It is as if you are saying that air does not exist all the while you are breathing in air to form the very words that you use to deny it. Since God is the foundation of objective standards, your appeal to a standard by which you claim that God has done wrong is actually impossible. God, being the foundation of the standard has declared that this all works for good (Romans 8:28). He is omniscient and knows all data. You do not. Therefore, you are not in a position to claim that His ways are wrong and that yours are better. You do not have the information that He has, nor do you have the infinite attributes that He has. So you are operating off of less information and infinitely less intelligence. Furthermore, without Him you cannot meaningfully say something is wrong. With that beings said, you have two options: 1) Deny the existence of an objective standard and thus admit that you wasted your time and mine with this argument, or 2) Realize that God is the foundation of objectivity and thus His own standard when rightly applied cannot show Him to have done anything wrong.<br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-8532103790487804712014-05-18T19:01:34.993-07:002014-05-18T19:01:34.993-07:00“I believe the human notions of justice are the re...“I believe the human notions of justice are the result of a part of our brain that evolved alongside the rest of us and flourished because they make living as part of a complex society easier (or even possible in the first place), and large societies that do not self-destruct give each individual a better chance of survival and reproduction.” <br /><br />You do realize this is a faith-based explanation? There is no tangible evidence for this, and it is actually impossible to test or falsify. This is typical to people like Dawkins who try to explain all unexplainable phenomenon by saying, “Evolution did it.” They offer explanations, which amount to stories shrouded in scientific vocabulary, but they are no closer to reality than Greek mythology. <br /><br />“Moreover, I have evidence that points towards this interpretation. The studies that have shown that babies react to stylized acts of bullying negatively, and to stylized acts of altruism positively, tends to show that morality is innate in its simplest forms.” <br /><br />I hope you are not serious with this. How is this evidence? I could just as easily say that morality is innate in humans because we were made in the image of God. Therefore, prior to such tests being done, I would have every expectation on the basis of my worldview to expect the exact same results. The mere fact that morality is innate does not answer why it is innate. It does not answer how or even why evolution would produce this in us. Any attempt to even try to say, “Evolution saw fit to produce morality in humans for such and such a function,” is actually to commit the fallacy of reification. The fact that you advanced this argument does not surprise me, and I am glad that you did. It is one more point that exposes your arguments for what they are. <br /><br />“The fact that other animals have similar notions of “justice” and punishment as we do, especially the great apes, that are closest to us genetically, whose brains resembles ours, and that form societies like we do, tends to confirm that the existence of a notion of justice is correlated with the existence of complex social interactions and societies.”<br /><br />Really? They have societies like ours? They have justice? Of all of the reports I have ever read on this, I have never seen nor heard of anything that resembles what you are talking about here. Human beings are the only creatures that think in terms of “what ought to be.” Justice by its very nature and definition depends on this type of reasoning. Furthermore, for it to have any meaning whatsoever, there must be language to communicate “what ought” over against “what is.” I am telling you, the more I read of your arguments, the more disappointed I am becoming in them. At least you are exposing just how fragile and weak atheistic reasoning truly is. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4634195652853481060.post-39128479286231514872014-05-18T18:55:38.357-07:002014-05-18T18:55:38.357-07:00“The “justice system” we have does not hold people...“The “justice system” we have does not hold people accountable for “sins”, and I am very glad of it, since apparently your God holds thoughtcrimes as “sins” and any government that tries to do that is rightly called tyrannical. The justice system we have is an elaborate, and imperfect, system designed to deter the voluntary harming of others. It is a mechanism of self-preservation on the level of society itself. Your God's system does not do that. Your God's system, if you believe that salvation is by grace alone or by the result of an action of God,not Man, declares everyone guilty and deserving of an eternity of torture on the basis of rules which your God knows very well we are incapable not to break (because of another rule God put into place) and calls not torturing people for all eternity on the basis of whatever you believe God's basis for admitting any person into heaven is, mercy.”<br /><br />Well, this is pretty convoluted for sure. Humans cannot hold people accountable for thought crimes because we cannot know each other’s thoughts. But if we could display all of your thoughts on a TV screen for all of your friends and family to see, it would be a different matter. If your best friend saw you imagining sleeping with his wife, would he not no longer wish to hang out with you? Would he allow you to ever be alone with his wife? No. You would certainly be held accountable for your thoughts. God knows all thoughts, and our rebellious thoughts are still sins, thus they are justly held accountable. So just because you don’t like the idea of being held accountable for your thoughts, this does not make it an adequate argument against the goodness of the biblical God. Furthermore, you once again fail to make a distinction between a necessary and contingent being. The mere fact that we are contingent and that God is necessary means there will be some things that are appropriate to Him that are at the same time inappropriate to us. This is why governments that arrest people for thoughts are tyrannical. This is inappropriate for humans since we cannot read thoughts. However, for God, the exact same thing is perfectly fine. Your constant insistence on judging God at the same level as you judge humanity really betrays any true understanding of philosophy. And finally, your so-called argument here still requires an objective standard for it to have any meaning. Please show me where you get this standard. Once again, if it is derived from your own subjective and relativistic opinion, then it is meaningless for anyone else. <br />Stephen Feinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689436336234089969noreply@blogger.com