Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24 30 31 32 33 34
Results 661 to 674 of 674
  1. #661
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am suggesting that a communication medium that is easily duplicated/manipulated...
    As compared to what? Pointing out drawbacks of one form of communication doesn't have much impact unless there is another medium with all the same benefits and fewer of those drawbacks.

    Its a bit like pointing out that it would seem an odd thing to do to take chemotherapy that causes massive toxicity, hair loss, weight loss, is hard on the kidneys and liver, and can kill patients.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You get sooo carried away Skippy.
    i can always tell I've made a good point when you give me a nickname :-) We should play poker some time. ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    If life on Earth was just a progression since it appeared (evolution) and humans were just another animal (that God added sentience to) it would probably read that way. As it is, man is said to be created different from other animals which as different words were used for the creation of each. And again, Eve was created differently than Adam and other animals (per your source) so your idea that Genesis is saying man came from already existing animals makes little sense.
    I think the distinction here, again, is that what makes the creation of adamah different isn't his animalistic qualities (this is seen again when the animals are reviewed for a "suitable helper" highlighting adamah's difference from anaimals isn't a physical one, but a relational one), but his sentience. What God imparts on him in that creation, the highlight of the creation, and the action to which the verb that is different refers is to God imparting His likeness to adamah. Not to his creation of arms, or legs, or walking upright. The section of the story is about the reception of sentience, that there are other animals is somewhat unremarkable, they are referenced all over the place. What makes adamah more remarkable than the "things that creep on the earth" is his selection by God for sentience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Whether Adam and Eve were created separately from other animals, or was just part of the evolution of life on Earth is hardly a "technical point" and has ramifications of its own.
    This point relies on assuming the two aspects of creation are the same thing. That the animalistic evolution of homosapien is the same thing as the creation of adamah. My point here has been to highlight that they aren't really discussing the same subject in a lot of ways. This goes back to the difference between biological anthropology and philosophic anthropology. The evolution of life on earth from one creature to another is a biological anthropology subject. The creation of adamah is a philosophic anthropology subject. It would be more concerning if Genesis conflated those two subjects than that it, correctly, doesn't. If you go back and read the first two chapters, you'll notice that Genesis isn't describing a progression of plants and animals from predecessor to successor specifically. It is referencing their relative complexity in its ordering (which happens to match the evolutionary line, but isn't the same thing); so to have it suddenly switch over to a point about genetic lineage would be an odd insertion. Maybe it is a good subject to talk about, but it wasn't the point of that work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Your "citation" clearly says Eve is created of/from/a piece of Adam. She can not be part of the natural progression (evolution) of life on Earth.
    That assumes it is talking genetic lineage when, as I pointed out, it clearly isn't, it is talking about complexity and holiness. Insisting that all forms of ordering must occur along genetic lineage is unwarranted. If point out that the United States took a part of Rome, a part of Judaism, and a part of England in its formation it doesn't mean I am arguing that it is a genetic descendent of those things. I'm talking, in this case, about its formation of a legal code from those three sources. You'll have to offer a better reason to read genesis through a genre it wasn't written as for this point to hold up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I am not seeing how Adam and Eve in Heaven, then being cast down to Earth fits with your narrative here.
    Adam and Even were in Heaven?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Look Professor, there is certainly a time for exactness, but we are not building a nuclear bomb here, this is pretty simple, basic stuff.
    Oh? I wouldn't call it basic stuff to be conflating genetic descent and philosophic anthropology. You've brought up the nature of mankind, about a subtle and deep of a subject as we get here. You've raised hermeneutic issues that involve cross language tree comparisons and the nature of other possible worlds.

    The questions might seem simple on first blush, but the concepts you are invoking are anything but.

    To stretch your analogy, maybe we are just talking about how to make a rock go boom; but the underlying concept is how to get unstable nuclei to convert into fissile material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I did read it in high school, and to this day am TOTALLY amazed that "double think" is so prevalent in our society!
    I don't remember the "project" you reference though, sorry...
    Winston's secondary job in 1984 is to help edit the standard dictionary used. The idea is to remove all complex concepts and simplify the language. Hence double think rather than cognitive dissonance. "Double plus good" rather than fantastic. Orwell very blatantly points out that the simplification of the language is meant as a tool of suppression. Its hard, after all, for people to think about subtle concepts like liberty, human rights, autonomy, and rebellion when they don't have any of the language to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Save complex language for complex thoughts/ideas/concepts. How man was "created" does not require, nor is enhanced by:
    Really? The nature of human kind, its existence, meaning, and role are not complex questions? I mean, we've only been struggling with them for twenty thousand years, you'd think we would have solved such a simple problem by now. Even from a purely materialist view this is hardly a simple idea. There are entire journals dedicated to this subject (human evolutionary biology) involving incredibly complex concepts and, correctly, invoking some complex language. It would seem unlikely that once we move beyond the crude matter and into the metaphysical realm of humanity that it would get more complex, not more simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Point is, God has done lots of things that defy natural law.
    This might also be a rabbit hole, but I don't think this is correct. The laws of nature describe what would happen in any given circumstance given a set of assumptions (all natural laws have basic assumption criteria in them, ie ceteris paribus clauses). For example, Newton's laws predict what will happen assuming we aren't moving very fast or with a very massive object. Einsteinian relativity makes clear predictions as long as we aren't talking about very small things. Etc., Etc.

    To use an analogy. Let's say there is a machine. Now, if a blue ball enters that machine it will roll down a ramp and be painted green. There is a sort of natural law at work there, "If a blue ball enters it will exit green." We can make predictions on it, test it, etc. However, that law doesn't apply if the ball is red when it enters. We wouldn't say "the law is wrong" if the ball came out red still after it went through the machine. The ceteris paribus parameters of that law weren't met (just like relativity doesn't work when we are talking about photons). Likewise, if I were to reach into the machine and pull off the blue ball before it enters the paint spray it isn't as if the machine law was violated, a condition was invoked that doesn't meet the ceteris paribus parameters.

    So I wouldn't define miracles (and I think my definition is consistent with philosophic literature here) as violations of natural law, but rather situations where natural law doesn't apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    If I see a bridge I believe will fall down if traffic is allowed to travel on, I really don't think I need to design a "better" bridge to make that assumption...
    But your conclusion isn't of that sort. You aren't saying "I think the bridge will fall down" you are saying "I think there should be a better bridge." To translate those to our discussion, your analogy would literally translate to "I think there are people who will not be saved" (agreed). But your argument is "there should be a situation where everyone can know God." If you are going to argue that there is a possible bridge that won't collapse, you'd need to show that there is. Simply showing something has flaws does not show that there is a feasible better state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I am suggesting some simple truths being available to be known....
    Except, you are using as evidence that they aren't available to be known the fact that not everyone accepts them. It follows then that the only way to satisfy your criteria for evidence that those simple truths exist is that everyone accepts them as truth. And that leads to a conclusion that it isn't really a free choice if no one chooses otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Sure we must have some initial assumptions (like "I exist").

    How does this comment of yours relate to a foundation for religious belief?
    This was a specific response to your comment in post 657 in which you implied that "faith" was an unsteady foundation, and thus any set of learning or growth based on it would be unsuitable (maybe unconsciously channeling Matthew 7:24-26? ;-) ). I don't think that conclusion was correct because all human knowledge is based on some set of assumptions. Religion is no different than math in that aspect. The question is, do we have valid warrant for accepting those assumptions? Are they "properly basic?" Are their evidentiary reasons for them? Is there deductive reasoning that leads to them? I would put forward the KCA, Fine-Tuning, Moral, Ontological and other arguments as underlying support for the warrant of that assumption.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I must say this comment is just soo off your usual style...

    You seem to be saying at the moment we get to "choose what is true". With regards to truth, in what sense are you ever "freely able to choose it?"?
    Would it make it clearer if I clarified that the position is that you "choose what you accept as true?" I would argue that truth is an objective feature, but whether we recognize truth...


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. I was positing God making His existence available to be known. Not that every single human that ever lived must be instructed it is so.
    This would be called, in theological terms, general revelation. Do you believe that there isn't general revelation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2. Even if God were to make His existence known "in such overwhelming, compelling, irresistible terms that no one could doubt it" so what?? Why/how is that possibly a free will issue?
    If there was only one possible outcome from a roll of the dice, would you argue it is still a game of chance? If I can only possibly end up in a single state, how did I have any part in a decision?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    If you hit your head with a rock, it hurts (most people anyway...). That is a truth. Now that you know that, what part of your free will has been robbed/taken from you?
    There was no free will involved in that example. The simple availability of objective truths doesn't affect free will, it would (at least) need to be relevant to an exercise of free will. Like whether or not I chose to give you my wallet. The knowledge that the rock will hurt certainly affects how free I am to choose to not give you my wallet. If the knowledge was so overwhelming and so painful that no person ever could choose to not give you his wallet, would they really be freely choosing to do so?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #662
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As compared to what? Pointing out drawbacks of one form of communication doesn't have much impact unless there is another medium with all the same benefits and fewer of those drawbacks.

    Its a bit like pointing out that it would seem an odd thing to do to take chemotherapy that causes massive toxicity, hair loss, weight loss, is hard on the kidneys and liver, and can kill patients.
    Look Capt. Extreme,
    I don't see the "art" of medicine really equating to the OMNI trying to communicate with us. Cancer cells grow fast. Kill all fast growing cells and maybe you can kill the cancer. God could/would/showed be able to clearly communicate is He so chose.
    or
    Why would God not be able to do this if He so chose


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    i can always tell I've made a good point when you give me a nickname :-) We should play poker some time. ;-)
    I enjoy talking with you. I think your confidence may exceed your britches, but that is kinda a guy thing I think also. We all (guys) suffer from it to one degree or another
    Plus, I like humor, love to play, and think it helps when talking with people you are disagreeing with.

    I have never really played poker much, but would give it a whirl if ya like


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think the distinction here, again, is that what makes the creation of adamah different isn't his animalistic qualities (this is seen again when the animals are reviewed for a "suitable helper" highlighting adamah's difference from anaimals isn't a physical one, but a relational one), but his sentience. What God imparts on him in that creation, the highlight of the creation, and the action to which the verb that is different refers is to God imparting His likeness to adamah. Not to his creation of arms, or legs, or walking upright. The section of the story is about the reception of sentience, that there are other animals is somewhat unremarkable, they are referenced all over the place. What makes adamah more remarkable than the "things that creep on the earth" is his selection by God for sentience.
    Ya...., maybe, but adding sentience to one of the apes doesn't sound like a different creation to me. That there are other animals is unremarkable. That one of them was selected specifically for sentience and a destiny in Heaven definitely is.
    Another point to the odd column.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This point relies on assuming the two aspects of creation are the same thing. That the animalistic evolution of homosapien is the same thing as the creation of adamah. My point here has been to highlight that they aren't really discussing the same subject in a lot of ways.

    Adam had to be put into a deep sleep. He had marks on his side. Eve was created from the tissue of Adam (and God's will).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Adam and Even were in Heaven?
    I made this mistake earlier in the thread in my hurried ways. I would thought you would have remembered...…

    Eden, sir. I meant the Garden of Eden.

    Adam and Eve living in the Garden. Sinning. Being cast down to Earth in shame.
    vs
    evolution of life on Earth as we understand it.


    Need to go now. Until next time you "hairy dolphin"

  3. #663
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Look Capt. Extreme,
    I don't see the "art" of medicine really equating to the OMNI trying to communicate with us. Cancer cells grow fast. Kill all fast growing cells and maybe you can kill the cancer. God could/would/showed be able to clearly communicate is He so chose.
    or
    Why would God not be able to do this if He so chose
    Alright, I made another good point! ;-)

    Of course communication isn't literally medicine. That is why it was an analogy. The relevant part of that analogy was that any particular course of action (regardless of field) will have drawbacks. Simply pointing out those drawbacks without actually discussing what the reasonable alternatives are is not a valid form of criticism.

    If we are really going to maintain that a course of action shouldn't have been taken it is a bare requirement of that argument to show that another, better option was available.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I enjoy talking with you. I think your confidence may exceed your britches, but that is kinda a guy thing I think also. We all (guys) suffer from it to one degree or another
    I have bad news for you. I work remote quite a bit now so I'm not usually wearing britches. ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ya...., maybe, but adding sentience to one of the apes doesn't sound like a different creation to me.
    Let's explore this a bit. Can you expand on this thought? Why wouldn't the existence of a sentient creature be very different from the existence of a non-sentient creature?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Adam had to be put into a deep sleep. He had marks on his side. Eve was created from the tissue of Adam (and God's will).
    Well, he didn't actually have a mark on the side, that is one of those aprocrphylic ideas that arose in the 1800s, it isn't mentioned in Genesis, but that isn't really your point. I think your point is that you are reading it as a specific biological act, that a piece of tissue was removed from Adam. The problem is that that isn't what is meant by that term and most Bibles have a footnote giving a little bit of context. The Hebrew (much like the English) is much broader than a literal rib. It can mean side, like a side chamber of a building, or the side of a box. Or a rib of a door (a term used for the frame), or the rib of a ship. Can you read that simplistically as meaning a physical piece of adamah? Sure I suppose. But I think it is pretty clear from the narrative that this isn't about flesh. This follows the review of physical animals to be adamah's helper, which makes no sense unless we are talking about how they are different from us, and flesh isn't the answer to that question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Adam and Eve living in the Garden. Sinning. Being cast down to Earth in shame.
    vs
    evolution of life on Earth as we understand it.
    Do you think the narrative of being cast out of the garden of eden is about biological progression? I think the generally accepted view is that it is about separation from God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Need to go now. Until next time you "hairy dolphin"
    Ok, well I'm off for the weekend, its all you.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #664
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Alright, I made another good point! ;-)
    It makes me happy you get a chuckle out of my sense of humor. This is one quality ODN has always lacked in my humble opinion..
    Probably because I was not here in the earlier days


    Everybody is always about "you committed this or that fallacy etc.
    Sure, I want to have a real, meaningful conversation, but that does not mean you can't have fun/enjoy yourself doing it

    But to the point at the moment:
    You did not answer why God could not clearly communicate His message to any individual that wished to hear/know. You can not deny that most human's have not gotten the message, and a larger percentage believe the wrong message!

    Clearly, if the majority of humans have not got on board, the message has not been communicated effectively. That more souls have been lost than saved shows this message is testimony that this form of communication is inadequate.

    A thought, why did God quit communicating in this manner as that would pretty much rest my objection..
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 25th, 2019 at 05:43 PM.

  5. #665
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Of course communication isn't literally medicine. That is why it was an analogy.
    The relevant point of my comment was, the practice of medicine is an "art". God suffers no such limitation with regards to possible communication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The relevant part of that analogy was that any particular course of action (regardless of field) will have drawbacks. Simply pointing out those drawbacks without actually discussing what the reasonable alternatives are is not a valid form of criticism.
    1. Perhaps, but this would not limit an OMNI like it would a human when making decisions.
    2. If I see a construction crane has fallen over at a jobsite I don't have to design a better, safer crane to know there was something wrong.
    2a. If you could show this is the best possible method to have communicated I will concede the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If we are really going to maintain that a course of action shouldn't have been taken it is a bare requirement of that argument to show that another, better option was available.
    I don't think that is true in all cases.
    However,
    God has directly communicated with humans numerous times.
    God used to show that He existed through physical works.
    God used to walk among us and talk directly with us as a person would.

    I see a lot less room for misunderstanding with these, and they can't be duplicated nor manipulated...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I have bad news for you. I work remote quite a bit now so I'm not usually wearing britches. ;-)
    Uh...ya...uh...I see...oh thank god I don't actually see!

    I bet you tell your wife your little finger is 6" too



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's explore this a bit. Can you expand on this thought? Why wouldn't the existence of a sentient creature be very different from the existence of a non-sentient creature?
    Where did I say anything like this?

    I said taking one of the existing ape families and giving it sentience does not sound like a whole different kind of creation. Further, since Eve was created differently than Adam, and Adam different than other animals your bucket is leaking water all over the place...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, he didn't actually have a mark on the side, that is one of those aprocrphylic ideas that arose in the 1800s, it isn't mentioned in Genesis, but that isn't really your point. I think your point is that you are reading it as a specific biological act, that a piece of tissue was removed from Adam.
    I think not, as "flesh" was used to heal the wound. Per your source:

    "21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh. 22And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him. 23And the man said:
    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for out of man she was taken.”

    She is literally called "woman" because she is "out of"/came from/made from a part of Adam per you!


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The problem is that that isn't what is meant by that term and most Bibles have a footnote giving a little bit of context. The Hebrew (much like the English) is much broader than a literal rib. It can mean side, like a side chamber of a building, or the side of a box. Or a rib of a door (a term used for the frame), or the rib of a ship. Can you read that simplistically as meaning a physical piece of adamah? Sure I suppose. But I think it is pretty clear from the narrative that this isn't about flesh.
    Except they actually use the word "flesh"??
    The "rib" of a door or side of a box still easily equates to a human "rib" in metaphor BTW.
    Physical objects that are part of the structure.

    You are bailing water out of your leaking boat with a bucket that has no bottom....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you think the narrative of being cast out of the garden of eden is about biological progression? I think the generally accepted view is that it is about separation from God.
    Eden is not an actual place and only shows a separation from God?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, well I'm off for the weekend, its all you.

    I'll see what I can do to keep you busy when you get back...

  6. #666
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It makes me happy you get a chuckle out of my sense of humor. This is one quality ODN has always lacked in my humble opinion..
    Probably because I was not here in the earlier days
    Well obviously. It has had some elements of humor at different times, but everyone here, even in the golden days was too intellectually prickly to be too funny. Still, the days with Syl and her gang had some good levity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Clearly, if the majority of humans have not got on board, the message has not been communicated effectively. That more souls have been lost than saved shows this message is testimony that this form of communication is inadequate.
    The point here is exactly that simply noting a drawback to one effort doesn't show that there was a better, feasible alternative. This reminds me of the ACA discussions where the fact that some number of Americans didn't have health insurance was bandied about as something that showed the healthcare system needed to be "fixed" when no one really asked "is there a feasible alternative and what is that alternative. Clearly, several years on we see that monkeying in the system a la the ACA wasn't the right answer.

    Likewise here, noting a drawback to the chosen form of communication doesnt' really give us a compelling reason to think that there was a better form available for choosing. That was the point of the chemotherapy analogy. Chemo has some significant, dangerous drawbacks. Those drawbacks don't necessarily mean that doctors are wrong for using it; we need to consider the alternatives. We would need to compare Chemo to doing nothing, accupuncture, diet changes, immunotherapy, etc. Likewise, we need to actually compare the current special revelation to alternative proposals to really make the kind of analysis you want to conduct here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. Perhaps, but this would not limit an OMNI like it would a human when making decisions.
    Can you expound on this? Why wouldn't God have to tackle tradeoffs in His decision making?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2. If I see a construction crane has fallen over at a jobsite I don't have to design a better, safer crane to know there was something wrong.
    True. But no one is arguing that something hasn't gone wrong here. That is the central theme of Judaism and Christianity. We live in a broken world. The crane has very much fallen over. The question you are asking though is, "if the crane was really built by an enginer, it shoudln't have fallen over" which doesn't account for the negligence of the crew, hostility of bad actors (say the mob broke the crane or terrorists knocked it over to kill civilians), or a thousand other factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2a. If you could show this is the best possible method to have communicated I will concede the point.
    If I recall correclty, this was your objection, not mine. I think, though that what you are asking me to do is a bit difficult in the sense that I would be attempting to "prove" something vis a vis your personal belief on the subject. It isn't the kind of objection where you are saying "X has a nature of Y which necessitates A, but we don't see A" it is a bit fuzzier than that. That you feel something should be better than it is, that something feels off in the outcome. That isn't something can formulate a clear argument for until the why it feels off is detailed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    However,
    God has directly communicated with humans numerous times.
    God used to show that He existed through physical works.
    God used to walk among us and talk directly with us as a person would.
    And look what happened, we ignored those messages. God came down in a pillar of fire and the Israelites created a golden calf like a year and a half later. God walked on water, healed the sick, and was shown transfigured in glory and Peter denied Him three times out of fear. People aren't perfect and it seems unlikely that any method of communication is going to be perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I said taking one of the existing ape families and giving it sentience does not sound like a whole different kind of creation.
    That's how I read what I asked in my last post. That you are implying because the same "stuff" was used between a pre-hominid and a sentient human being that they really aren't different creation events. Why wouldn't we evaluate the types of creation by what they actually create? At the risk of being crude, I would argue that the act of male masturbation is a very different act than the act of sexual intercourse. Both involve the same male contribution as it were, but they are very different acts with very different results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I think not, as "flesh" was used to heal the wound.
    But that isn't what it says. The word for wound (petsa`, http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexic...gs=H6482&t=NIV) isn't used. Rather, the term you are quoting comes from the roots cagar and basar (http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?...&t=NIV#conc/21). Which mean to close up or make right or to mend. And the word that can mean flesh, or body, or mankind. Basar can mean literally flesh, but it is used more often in the old testament to refer figuratively to flesh, especially when talking about mankind. See Gen 2:24 a few verses later, which is clearly metaphorical. Or in the telling of Noah the word is used a lot to refer to classes of things (essetially living things that are material rather than spiritul). See especially Gen 6:12-13, which invokes the New Testament usage of the term Flesh to refer to base, non-holy, predilections.

    But here is where you argue that you shouldn't have to do these kind of hermeneutics in order to understand the Bible. To which I point out two things, a) if you want to ask deep questions you need to use deep tools and b) you don't need to use hermeneutic to see what I'm talking about, a simple reading of the text in context gives you that. We use a similar phrasing (which we got from Hebrew) "you are my flesh and blood." We obviously don't literally mean that our children are part of our flesh, but that they have, in thier origin us, their parents.

    Remember, this verse comes right after all the animals are paraded before adamah to see if they could be a helper. All of them came male and female, in their pairs, (and man isn't in a pair) and none of them were created with God's breath (again a figurative imparting) as we just saw like 10 verses earlier. So we get a section where he is making a suitable partner for adamah that is like him, ie is similar to him in a way that the animals we just read about aren't. There is aboslutely no point to the preceding verse if we are reading this as a literal piece of flesh being removed; that is after all how we are similar to animals, not different.

    We start the verse with adamah (mankind) and end with man and woman. The words, even in our translation, change indicating that a we are seeing something that has come out of the general category of mankind into man and woman.

    Whats more, Gen 2:25 makes no sense if this is literally a rib being removed. Why would I want to marry a woman just because she has a piece of my flesh? (I actually have to bone implants from a donor, so the literally interpretation of how you are reading that, it doesn't imply a romantic drive) The point clearly here is that seperated as man and woman rather than as adamah (mankind) we have a longing for unity and joining because we are parts of a whole. That context makes it clear we are being somewhat metaphorical (given that it uses metaphorical language immediately aftewards and an idiom in the middle of the passage).

    So I don't think that you need to analyze the Hebrew to get to this point (but it does help if you are serious about the text's meaning), simply reading the verse in context matters. A good rule is to never read a section of the Torah in less than Parsha length. It was written with those divisions in mind, the verses come later

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    She is literally called "woman" because she is "out of"/came from/made from a part of Adam per you!
    Yes, that is what I said as well. She comes from, originates out of adamah (not Adam btw Adam is a biological male human, adamah is more properly used as man from the word mankind, it isn't gender specific, but refers to us as a class of entities different from other entities), but that doesn't necessarily mean she came from a rib. Executive power used by the Justice Department comes out of the President. That doesn't mean it is a literal thing that is taken out of the President, we mean that it has is origin or source in the President. Just as Eve (and Adam for that matter) have their source in mankind (adamah).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Eden is not an actual place and only shows a separation from God?
    Uhh, well Eden is traditionally taken as a state of communion with God. IE the place where mankind freely interacted with God without the seperation caused by our failure. I think the reading of the account makes it pretty clear that the point of Eden is that we lose that communion with God due to our actions. Eden isn't really described in detail, it simply serves as a backdrop for the story rather than as a physical place.

    If you want to go a little bit deeper, it is interesting to note that the only parts of the account that would indicate that Eden is a literally geographical place (rather than a state of being with God) are its description as bounded by rivers. And that discription reads, even in English as kind of odd. It doesn't really fit the narrative of the rest of the account. It is far more specific than any other part of the first couple of chapters and reads as the narrators' direct speaking. So why is it there? Because the references are specifically referring to places Isralites would recognize and making specific references to creation accounts from Summer and Babylon. The odd aside about good gold, for example, is a specific polemic against the creation account from Summer. Gold is something created and in the ground rather than magical and grown by the gods as in the old account. We can go into that deeper, but it is a bit off track.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #667
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well obviously.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It has had some elements of humor at different times, but everyone here, even in the golden days was too intellectually prickly to be too funny. Still, the days with Syl and her gang had some good levity.
    Well, the crowd here when I first started reading was not like who you would meet at a Walmart's Coffee shop to be sure. Which of course is why I stayed and eventually....., started posting myself. I read arguments here that I agreed with, that after being challenged, didn't seem to me to hold up anymore.
    I lot of great thoughts have been written here, but humor definitely hasn't been utilized much. I think Ronald Reagan showed that humor can be very effective in helping people to listen when you are trying to convey a message they think they don't agree with.
    (IOW, he had tons of democrat support and used humor in part, to help get it)


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point here is exactly that simply noting a drawback to one effort doesn't show that there was a better, feasible alternative.
    When dealing with humans, agreed. God ain't that. He would already know all the ends to all alternatives. You are saying that there is no way any more humans could have been saved/received the message/whatever? That would be a very strong claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This reminds me of the ACA discussions where the fact that some number of Americans didn't have health insurance was bandied about as something that showed the healthcare system needed to be "fixed" when no one really asked "is there a feasible alternative and what is that alternative. Clearly, several years on we see that monkeying in the system a la the ACA wasn't the right answer.
    I'm sure you are mistaken here. ANY time the federal gov't gets involved, things improve dramatically.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise here, noting a drawback to the chosen form of communication doesnt' really give us a compelling reason to think that there was a better form available for choosing. That was the point of the chemotherapy analogy. Chemo has some significant, dangerous drawbacks. Those drawbacks don't necessarily mean that doctors are wrong for using it; we need to consider the alternatives. We would need to compare Chemo to doing nothing, accupuncture, diet changes, immunotherapy, etc. Likewise, we need to actually compare the current special revelation to alternative proposals to really make the kind of analysis you want to conduct here.
    "Drawback"?? It appears the goal is not being reached, that is a bit farther than a "drawback"....

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Can you expound on this? Why wouldn't God have to tackle tradeoffs in His decision making?
    Well, trade offs yes, but He would not have to try something, and wait years to see how it went. He would know prior to action what the outcome is.
    It seems either the majority of humans being "saved" was either not a goal or so far it is failing .

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    True. But no one is arguing that something hasn't gone wrong here.
    I think we are looking at a different "something" here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is the central theme of Judaism and Christianity. We live in a broken world. The crane has very much fallen over. The question you are asking though is, "if the crane was really built by an enginer, it shoudln't have fallen over" which doesn't account for the negligence of the crew, hostility of bad actors (say the mob broke the crane or terrorists knocked it over to kill civilians), or a thousand other factors.
    The "crane" here is knowledge. God knows each of us individually better than we know ourselves. He would know that a book that is easily forged/copied/otherwise used for nefarious purposes would not "save" most humans.
    He has shown He can clearly communicate to any given human He so chose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If I recall correclty, this was your objection, not mine. I think, though that what you are asking me to do is a bit difficult in the sense that I would be attempting to "prove" something vis a vis your personal belief on the subject. It isn't the kind of objection where you are saying "X has a nature of Y which necessitates A, but we don't see A" it is a bit fuzzier than that. That you feel something should be better than it is, that something feels off in the outcome. That isn't something can formulate a clear argument for until the why it feels off is detailed.
    Why? Pretty much that is what we are doing here is you trying to get me to feel a different way about the subject matter?

    God's goal of humans being saved do not appear to be fulfilled with this method of communication.
    It does not help showing God's exists right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And look what happened, we ignored those messages. God came down in a pillar of fire and the Israelites created a golden calf like a year and a half later. God walked on water, healed the sick, and was shown transfigured in glory and Peter denied Him three times out of fear. People aren't perfect and it seems unlikely that any method of communication is going to be perfect.
    So what? There will always be people that see the moon and argue it's not there or made by aliens (per you I think it was...). The Bible doesn't seem measurably better in outcome than those and again,
    those examples can't be duplicated nor manipulated like a book/written word can.

    I didn't ask for perfect communication (though, I would expect that it is possible for God. I see no reason why not, but that is not my main issue. I have not argued for "perfect communication" yet, but thinking about it now, I may well in the near future so get ready. And if you are going to attempt "free will" please sharpen your pencil this time cause so far that argument has failed miserably by anyone I have ever heard invoke it). I just expect an OMNI to have "reached" a majority of the population he seeks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That's how I read what I asked in my last post. That you are implying because the same "stuff" was used between a pre-hominid and a sentient human being that they really aren't different creation events. Why wouldn't we evaluate the types of creation by what they actually create?
    I don't think so?
    Adding a soul to a monkey does not sound like a different type of creation to me. He could have added it to a dolphin could He not?
    Your explanation does not explain Eve's difference from Adam


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that isn't what it says. The word for wound (petsa`, http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexic...gs=H6482&t=NIV) isn't used. Rather, the term you are quoting comes from the roots cagar and basar (http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?...&t=NIV#conc/21). Which mean to close up or make right or to mend. And the word that can mean flesh, or body, or mankind. Basar can mean literally flesh, but it is used more often in the old testament to refer figuratively to flesh, especially when talking about mankind. See Gen 2:24 a few verses later, which is clearly metaphorical. Or in the telling of Noah the word is used a lot to refer to classes of things (essetially living things that are material rather than spiritul). See especially Gen 6:12-13, which invokes the New Testament usage of the term Flesh to refer to base, non-holy, predilections.
    Look. It was YOUR source I am quoting. I am not going to argue its veracity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But here is where you argue that you shouldn't have to do these kind of hermeneutics in order to understand the Bible. To which I point out two things, a) if you want to ask deep questions you need to use deep tools and b) you don't need to use hermeneutic to see what I'm talking about, a simple reading of the text in context gives you that. We use a similar phrasing (which we got from Hebrew) "you are my flesh and blood." We obviously don't literally mean that our children are part of our flesh, but that they have, in thier origin us, their parents.
    No, here I will argue if I/we were as sure that God existed (as we are that the Earth exists for instance) in the first place, this would make a ton more sense.

    Just kidding, I will still argue that it isn't the clearest way to communicate. If the Bible was written in VERY plain easy to understand Amurican, there would still be nuances to explore Stinky.
    ;0
    I still think the onus is on you to show this is clearly an effective way for God to achieve His goal/s as apposed to a variety of ways combined or any particular method in general (not because of debate rules, just cause you are the positive side of a perfect being)


    I will try to finish the rest shortly

  8. #668
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well, the crowd here when I first started reading was not like who you would meet at a Walmart's Coffee shop to be sure. Which of course is why I stayed and eventually....., started posting myself. I read arguments here that I agreed with, that after being challenged, didn't seem to me to hold up anymore.
    I lot of great thoughts have been written here, but humor definitely hasn't been utilized much. I think Ronald Reagan showed that humor can be very effective in helping people to listen when you are trying to convey a message they think they don't agree with.
    (IOW, he had tons of democrat support and used humor in part, to help get it)
    Its hard, kind of like public speaking, humor is one of the areas they recommend you stay away from because if you don't pull it off just right it is really a show stopper. I agree that when done well, it is masterful though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    When dealing with humans, agreed. God ain't that. He would already know all the ends to all alternatives.
    Agreed, including which ends aren't feasible. God doesn't unilaterally pick what our decisions are so there are some situations where we will choose otherwise to how He would have liked us to have chosen. God wouldn't, for example, put you in exactly the same life circumstances as you have now with exactly the same history, but have you be a card-carrying socialist. Not without abridging your free will. We have to initially recognize that there are certain outcomes that aren't feasible for God to implement given those constraints.

    And just so burden is clear, you are raising the presence of non-believers as an objection. It's your burden to show that there is a better state and God just didn't choose it for your argument to be coherent. I agree with you that this is a pretty heavy load to bear since we aren't really in a position to know all the alternative outcomes of the universe. The fact that we don't know those outcomes is exactly why we should be skeptical of the genre of "God should have..." argument you are employing in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I'm sure you are mistaken here. ANY time the federal gov't gets involved, things improve dramatically.....
    Remember Reagan's nine most terrifying words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    "Drawback"?? It appears the goal is not being reached, that is a bit farther than a "drawback"....
    There is a difference between a feasible and unfeasible goal. Microsoft's aspiration would be to have 100% of all computers run windows, but that isn't really feasible. A more feasible goal might be 50% or 80% or whatever. Sticking with our chemo example, there are plenty of times when an oncologist will perscribe chemo even knowing that it is unlikely to kill off all the cancer. It just isnt' feasible to kill all the cancer with radiation in some cases because it will kill the patient. But neither the fact that it won't kill all the cancer, nor the fact that it has drawbacks are reasons to argue that chemo isn't the best available course of action.

    Bringing this back to the debate. Sure, this method doesn't achieve God's want that no one be lost, so what? Would we rather He not take any course of action? Again, the fundamental question and tripping point for the style of argument you are employing is the hidden assumption that there is a better option for Him to select, but that is an assumption we need some kind of support or rationale for. Let's concede for a moment, for the purposes of debate that the method of revelation we have is absolutely horrible (and for the record I don't think that is a very defensible position), what is the form and method of revelation that should have been chosen?

    Related side question. Have you ever read the Exodus account? If so, did you ever wonder what was meant when God 'strengthened Pharoah's heart?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well, trade offs yes, but He would not have to try something, and wait years to see how it went. He would know prior to action what the outcome is.
    I don't disagree, but when did He do this? And are you sure that that scenario was God seeing how it went or providing us with an object lesson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I think we are looking at a different "something" here?
    How so? As I understand your argument (and I might completely miss where you are going), it is that it seems unlikely that God exists because the world isn't in a state of affairs we should expect if He were to exist. To stick to the analogy you raised, we should doubt an engineer was involved because the crane has fallen over, but the engineer (just like God) doesn't have the full vote. We too have free will, so we can't look at all the wrong things in the world and simply ascribe them to God, we have agency to do bad (and pretty frequently do). This applies both to our actions and our choices about accepting knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    The "crane" here is knowledge. God knows each of us individually better than we know ourselves. He would know that a book that is easily forged/copied/otherwise used for nefarious purposes would not "save" most humans.
    He has shown He can clearly communicate to any given human He so chose.
    Does God know who would free choose relationship with Him given whatever form of communication He chose? Yes. Does that mean that He could create a situation where all or virtually everyone freely chose to be saved? I don't know, but I don't see any reason to assume that it is the case.

    God has shown that He can use a variety of forms of communication from Isaiah's small whisper, to a direct manifestation of presence in the wilderness, to Christ incarnate, to the Holy Spirit indwelt. One of the interesting themes in the Bible is the consistency of human reaction to the variety of God's methods. We pretty much screw it up every time. Why was Isaiah on the mountain to hear God's whisper? Because he had grown overconfident from God's direct presence in his life and chosen to do things his own way. God directly manifests Himself to the Israelites in about the best I imainge you would ask for. What do they do? They build a golden calf almost immediately and refuse to take care of themselves insisting God take care of everything. God literally walks amongst us and we respond by crucifying Him. The Holy Spirit indwells our very being and we turn it to an excuse for an obviously money grabbing inquisition, or to insist we have "individual revelation" and create cults.

    Can God chose different methods? Sure, but I don't see a particularly good record of us responding. And this should strike us as true as well given how odd humans have responded to other sources of information across a variety of mediums. I think the mistake in your argument is the assumption that there is a set of methods God could use which would result in everyone or virtually everyone being saved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I didn't ask for perfect communication
    Ok, so what is the objectively correct percentage of the population that God should have reached and why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Adding a soul to a monkey does not sound like a different type of creation to me. He could have added it to a dolphin could He not?
    I'm not sure what you are asking here. Could he? Sure why not, but how is that relevant? The point is that the creation of Entity X with a soul and Entity Y without a soul are fundamentally different types of creation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Look. It was YOUR source I am quoting. I am not going to argue its veracity.
    But you weren't quoting it, which is my point. The text doesn't say "wound" or use the Hebrew word for wound. All I'm asking is that if we are going to look into what is literally meant by the text, let's also look into what the text literally says. If we are going to discuss the ontology of what these words in practice meant, we have to do a little bit of homework. Same as we would do with any other source of knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I still think the onus is on you to show this is clearly an effective way for God to achieve His goal/s as apposed to a variety of ways combined or any particular method in general (not because of debate rules, just cause you are the positive side of a perfect being)

    The issue with that kind of burden shifting though is that it doesn't really make much sense. I don't see the drawbacks you see, nor do I have an issue with the results as you do. So for me to argue that this form overcomes the drawbacks I don't know and doesn't result in the issues I don't see is a bit difficult. It would be like asking me to prove to you that red was the best color. I don't know why you think it is or isn't. It makes a lot more sense for you to put forward an argument (since this is your contention) so that I understand what you are getting at and can respond to your actual objection rather than whatever it is I dream up is your objection.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #669
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And just so burden is clear, you are raising the presence of non-believers as an objection. It's your burden to show that there is a better state and God just didn't choose it for your argument to be coherent.
    A simple majority sounds preferable state. A variety of methods makes sense as we are dealing with variety of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Remember Reagan's nine most terrifying words.
    I was kidding, you should know I am skeptical of gov't involving themselves in our daily life...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There is a difference between a feasible and unfeasible goal. Microsoft's aspiration would be to have 100% of all computers run windows, but that isn't really feasible.
    I have said nothing like this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Bringing this back to the debate. Sure, this method doesn't achieve God's want that no one be lost, so what? Would we rather He not take any course of action? Again, the fundamental question and tripping point for the style of argument you are employing is the hidden assumption that there is a better option for Him to select, but that is an assumption we need some kind of support or rationale for. Let's concede for a moment, for the purposes of debate that the method of revelation we have is absolutely horrible (and for the record I don't think that is a very defensible position), what is the form and method of revelation that should have been chosen?
    Probably multiple, but certainly contemporary lines of communication. Relying on the distant past, using a dead language, and a combination of metaphor and literal is a recipe for misunderstanding is it not?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Related side question. Have you ever read the Exodus account? If so, did you ever wonder what was meant when God 'strengthened Pharoah's heart?'
    God is affecting Pharaoh's free will.

  10. #670
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A simple majority sounds preferable state.
    So if it was, say, 50.5% you wouldn't have this objection to the media used?

    That doesn't seem a bit arbitrary of a number to you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I was kidding, you should know I am skeptical of gov't involving themselves in our daily life...
    Don't worry, the sarcasm came through clearly :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I have said nothing like this...
    What do you mean? Don't get overly focused on the 100% number, that was simply part of the analogy. The point is that there is kind of a two criteria test for your objection to have warrant. A) the number you pick isn't arbitrary and B) that it is feasible. This was about that latter point. The Seahawks scoring 53 points against the 49s is certainly better than them scoring 35 points, but it isn't always feasible for a variety of reasons (ability, game plan, opposing offense type, etc).


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Probably multiple, but certainly contemporary lines of communication. Relying on the distant past, using a dead[ language, and a combination of metaphor and literal is a recipe for misunderstanding is it not?
    What kinds of "contemporary lines of communication?" Obviously people still read books, the Bible being one of them so I'm not sure it wouldn't fit that request. If you mean something like TV or YouTube, how does God do such a thing believably? We don't exactly have an abundance of trust in those lines of communication currently.

    More interestingly, wouldn't that condemn a larger segement of the historical population who wouldn't have access to contemporary lines of communication?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    God is affecting Pharaoh's free will.
    More like reinforcing Pharaoh's free will, God's actions were so manifest as to be coercive.



    Just a couple of points from the last response I was hoping you would get to;

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well, trade offs yes, but He would not have to try something, and wait years to see how it went. He would know prior to action what the outcome is.
    I don't disagree, but when did He do this? And are you sure that that scenario was God seeing how it went or providing us with an object lesson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I think we are looking at a different "something" here?
    How so? As I understand your argument (and I might completely miss where you are going), it is that it seems unlikely that God exists because the world isn't in a state of affairs we should expect if He were to exist. To stick to the analogy you raised, we should doubt an engineer was involved because the crane has fallen over, but the engineer (just like God) doesn't have the full vote. We too have free will, so we can't look at all the wrong things in the world and simply ascribe them to God, we have agency to do bad (and pretty frequently do). This applies both to our actions and our choices about accepting knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    The "crane" here is knowledge. God knows each of us individually better than we know ourselves. He would know that a book that is easily forged/copied/otherwise used for nefarious purposes would not "save" most humans.
    He has shown He can clearly communicate to any given human He so chose.
    Does God know who would free choose relationship with Him given whatever form of communication He chose? Yes. Does that mean that He could create a situation where all or virtually everyone freely chose to be saved? I don't know, but I don't see any reason to assume that it is the case.

    God has shown that He can use a variety of forms of communication from Isaiah's small whisper, to a direct manifestation of presence in the wilderness, to Christ incarnate, to the Holy Spirit indwelt. One of the interesting themes in the Bible is the consistency of human reaction to the variety of God's methods. We pretty much screw it up every time. Why was Isaiah on the mountain to hear God's whisper? Because he had grown overconfident from God's direct presence in his life and chosen to do things his own way. God directly manifests Himself to the Israelites in about the best I imainge you would ask for. What do they do? They build a golden calf almost immediately and refuse to take care of themselves insisting God take care of everything. God literally walks amongst us and we respond by crucifying Him. The Holy Spirit indwells our very being and we turn it to an excuse for an obviously money grabbing inquisition, or to insist we have "individual revelation" and create cults.

    Can God chose different methods? Sure, but I don't see a particularly good record of us responding. And this should strike us as true as well given how odd humans have responded to other sources of information across a variety of mediums. I think the mistake in your argument is the assumption that there is a set of methods God could use which would result in everyone or virtually everyone being saved.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #671
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    God is affecting Pharaoh's free will.
    I was wondering how the heck I got into this conversation!

    Just a quoting thing I see. But ya I agree, God totally subverted free will. Furthermore, he did it so he could show how mighty he was by slaughtering babies among other things. The morality of this story is just awful to me. Anyhow, I don't want to debate in this one, but to comment on the confusion of seeing my name here and I had to make some kind of argument to go with it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #672
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So if it was, say, 50.5% you wouldn't have this objection to the media used?

    That doesn't seem a bit arbitrary of a number to you?
    A majority would make considerable more sense but I don't see it as a requirement.
    Also, He used numerous methods in the past. Now the only method left is the Bible and no way of knowing it is the word of God. As we have no way of discerning if the Bible is God's word, we actually have nothing but hope/faith...

    Not to be semantic here, but no it doesn't seem arbitrary to me at all. There are valid reason one might expect more fallowers given God's resources.

    It seems stranger to me that you saying God can not reach more people than He has and still protect free will (which again, He has violated it in the past so I don't see a valid objection here anyway).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What do you mean? Don't get overly focused on the 100% number, that was simply part of the analogy. The point is that there is kind of a two criteria test for your objection to have warrant. A) the number you pick isn't arbitrary and B) that it is feasible.
    Not really picking a number. Would we expect that:
    God is only capable of achieving the limited result we currently observe (granting free will).
    Since man is created inherently flawed there is no reason to expect 100% nor have I suggested any such thing.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What kinds of "contemporary lines of communication?" Obviously people still read books, the Bible being one of them so I'm not sure it wouldn't fit that request. If you mean something like TV or YouTube, how does God do such a thing believably?
    Skippy, I meant communicating yesterday/today/tomorrow....you know, so we don'[t have to rely solely on 2000 yr old writings.
    I surely did not mean God should send a blanket text message to a given area code. I deserve a bit more credit than such simplistic nonsense for an argument


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    More like reinforcing Pharaoh's free will, God's actions were so manifest as to be coercive.
    Interesting concept, though seemingly impossible to actualize....

    I spent ten minutes reading the definitions of "coercive" online. They kind of amount to:
    https://www.yourdictionary.com/coercive
    "The definition of coercive is something related to the act of convincing someone through threats, force or without regard to what they want to do."

    You agree God has affected Pharaoh's free will. Even if He just made Pharaoh more resolute in his existing beliefs, this makes Pharaoh less likely to be able to change his mind.

    Clearly, free will isn't as free as you are typically putting forward.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't disagree, but when did He do this? And are you sure that that scenario was God seeing how it went or providing us with an object lesson?
    This makes no sense to the quote???


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Does God know who would free choose relationship with Him given whatever form of communication He chose? Yes.
    Does God know that to date using only the Bible for communication is going to result in the majority of humans not being saved,...yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    God has shown that He can use a variety of forms of communication from Isaiah's small whisper, to a direct manifestation of presence in the wilderness, to Christ incarnate, to the Holy Spirit indwelt.
    Why would He stop using these methods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    One of the interesting themes in the Bible is the consistency of human reaction to the variety of God's methods. We pretty much screw it up every time.
    Fail.
    We are still "screwing it up" with just the Bible as our only resource. Why pick it as the exclusive?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Can God chose different methods? Sure, but I don't see a particularly good record of us responding. And this should strike us as true as well given how odd humans have responded to other sources of information across a variety of mediums. I think the mistake in your argument is the assumption that there is a set of methods God could use which would result in everyone or virtually everyone being saved.
    So your argument is God should just give up these other methods because not enough people believed/fallowed them?

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But you weren't quoting it, which is my point. The text doesn't say "wound" or use the Hebrew word for wound.
    BTW, your source:
    http://torahmeansteacher.com/tmt-147-genesis-218-223/
    "19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
    21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh. 22And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him. 23And the man said:
    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for out of man she was taken.”

    I DID quote your source!
    Literally part of Adam was taken to make Eve. Not "mankind" as you suggested. Adam was put in a deep sleep. There was a wound. A piece was taken out. The wound was replaced with flesh.
    So now you are saying your own source is not translating Hebrew correctly but has the other stuff right.....
    and
    Eve is a "suitable helper" not the pinnacle of creation you are suggesting.

  13. #673
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A majority would make considerable more sense but I don't see it as a requirement.
    Hmm, ok, then what is the objective standard that God should meet to overcome this criticism? It seems more of a nebulous unease with His method rather than any specific objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Also, He used numerous methods in the past. Now the only method left is the Bible
    It is? We've already talked about general and specific revelation, so that wouldn't seem to be the case. This thread began with a discussion of apologetic arguments which would seem to be another access to knowledge of God. The Holy Spirit is held by Christians to be a direct interaction with God to provide inspiration and ministry.

    I'm not sure your argument that we are completely left unable to analyze the Bible holds either. We've already done it a bit in this thread and there are plenty of analyses (both apologetic and historiography based) that cover its veracity and content. I don't think anyone here is asking you to make a complete blind leap of faith. What I'm asking is that if you have specific objections, let's detail and address them. If it is a just a general sense of disbelief or skepticism, that is a very different topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Not really picking a number. Would we expect that:
    God is only capable of achieving the limited result we currently observe (granting free will).
    Since man is created inherently flawed there is no reason to expect 100% nor have I suggested any such thing.
    Ok, so we agree, at least in principle, that there are some limits on God's ability to actualize states of affairs given certain conditions (such as free will). So if we agree that there are limits, where exactly does that leave your point? If you agree that it shouldn't be perfect, but it should be better than it is, the question is why? Why do you maintain that it is feasible for it to be better than it is? What is the argument, data, whatever that would leave you to hold that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Skippy, I meant communicating yesterday/today/tomorrow....you know, so we don'[t have to rely solely on 2000 yr old writings.
    Don't give me grief over that interpretation, it was your language. ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Interesting concept, though seemingly impossible to actualize....You agree God has affected Pharaoh's free will. Even if He just made Pharaoh more resolute in his existing beliefs, this makes Pharaoh less likely to be able to change his mind.
    Let's try an example. Your neighbor asks for your wallet. You make a decision not to give it to him. I think we would both agree that your decision here is yours, made freely. Now, let's say the neighbor produces a gun and aims it at you or some sufficiently dear target that you are compelled to give him your wallet. We would both agree that that decision was not made freely. But, lets add me (as a sufficiently amazing communicator ;-) ) and I say something that gives you resolve to overcome that fear. That you are able to hold out and not give him your wallet. Does that mean your initial decision was not free?

    I don't think we would argue that it is, only that I am counteracting the coercive effect of the gun and ensuring the outcome is in accordance with your freely made choice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    This makes no sense to the quote???
    Perhaps I misunderstood your quote then.

    You said:
    Well, trade offs yes, but He would not have to try something, and wait years to see how it went. He would know prior to action what the outcome is.

    This would seem to say that God wouldn't need to experiment and see what the outcome is, is that not what you are saying?

    Alternatively, we seem to agree above that there are limits to God's actualization ability given free will so this point might be moot now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Does God know that to date using only the Bible for communication is going to result in the majority of humans not being saved,...yes.
    Sure, and alternatively does God know that any other form of communication would be less ideal or result in a worse outcome? I would imagine so. We certainly aren't in a place to make the argument that it wouldn't, which is what your objection relies on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Why would He stop using these methods?
    Who said He did?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    We are still "screwing it up" with just the Bible as our only resource. Why pick it as the exclusive?
    Again, who said He did, and that was kind of the point of the last response. The theme of the work (and to be honest of our every day experience with a whole host of topics) is that humans are pretty terrible at setting aside what they want to be true for what is true. This isn't just a religious point, we can thank politics for showing it to us essentially every day. People base their understanding of the affects of policies, or heck even the very facts themselves, on their group identification rather than objective measurable standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    BTW, your source:
    http://torahmeansteacher.com/tmt-147-genesis-218-223/
    "19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
    21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh. 22And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him. 23And the man said:
    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for out of man she was taken.”

    I DID quote your source!
    Literally part of Adam was taken to make Eve. Not "mankind" as you suggested. Adam was put in a deep sleep. There was a wound. A piece was taken out. The wound was replaced with flesh.
    So now you are saying your own source is not translating Hebrew correctly but has the other stuff right.....
    and
    Eve is a "suitable helper" not the pinnacle of creation you are suggesting.

    Except, reread that quote, then reread my reply:
    he text doesn't say "wound" or use the Hebrew word for wound. All I'm asking is that if we are going to look into what is literally meant by the text, let's also look into what the text literally says. If we are going to discuss the ontology of what these words in practice meant, we have to do a little bit of homework. Same as we would do with any other source of knowledge.

    You have a very interesting method of reading my responses here, in some places ignoring that I am making a structural point and insisting on literal translation and in others ignoring literal translation for your interpretation of what is being said.

    Let's take these points in turn.

    Nowhere have I argued that God was not using "part" of adamah. The critique I made was that you interpreted it to be a literal rib, which isn't what the text says or what any respected commentator thinks. The word, again just as we use it, means a lot of things beyond literally a bone covering vital organs in the chest. It is telling that no rabbinical and precious few Christian sources have interpreted this as a literal rib, but rather as representing a part of adamah.

    Please note that nowhere did I say that it literally says she was the pinnacle of creation. I said that was a narrative point, one that I think it is hard to overlook given the previous chapter. God creates things in an order of increasing complexity, that much is indisputable I think. When God creates adam it is the only time he doesn't create an animal in a pair. He then goes on to parade all the animals in front of adam to show that they are different. That action only really makes sense if He is showing a distinction between animals and humans. That we are different and that animals are not suitable help mates for humans, ie inadequate. That implies a hierarchy or order of creation. Also note that the serpant talks to Eve, not Adam. It makes no sense unless she is God's highest material creation. This fits well with the rest of the Tanach given the relative demerits male icons have and the lack of such demerits female icons have.


    ONLY NOT CREATED IN PAIR, WHY ANIMALS PARADE, HER NATURE
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #674
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hmm, ok, then what is the objective standard that God should meet to overcome this criticism? It seems more of a nebulous unease with His method rather than any specific objection.
    It's just not what one would expect of a perfect Omni falling so short of His desires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is?
    Pretty much from what I am able to discern...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This thread began with a discussion of apologetic arguments which would seem to be another access to knowledge of God.
    Unless they are incorrect and there is currently no way to know with much certainty or faith would not be required.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The Holy Spirit is held by Christians to be a direct interaction with God to provide inspiration and ministry.
    Now THIS would clear EVERYTHING up for me!!

    Do you have a web address or phone #. I would even love to just get a fax #!
    Perhaps a personal visit, but I don't want to be pushy, just making sure the offer is out there


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure your argument that we are completely left unable to analyze the Bible holds either. We've already done it a bit in this thread and there are plenty of analyses (both apologetic and historiography based) that cover its veracity and content. I don't think anyone here is asking you to make a complete blind leap of faith. What I'm asking is that if you have specific objections, let's detail and address them. If it is a just a general sense of disbelief or skepticism, that is a very different topic.
    Hmmmm...ok.

    What about the Bible is divine in nature and how can we discern the same?

    You have spoken to its accuracy for instance, but no one has ever (to my knowledge) shown that it is clearly the word of God.

    Apok had a thread about how unique the Bible is.
    Um, ok.
    That does not show divinity (Apok also said this in the thread as it was not his point).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, so we agree, at least in principle, that there are some limits on God's ability to actualize states of affairs given certain conditions (such as free will). So if we agree that there are limits, where exactly does that leave your point? If you agree that it shouldn't be perfect, but it should be better than it is, the question is why? Why do you maintain that it is feasible for it to be better than it is? What is the argument, data, whatever that would leave you to hold that?
    You could make this same point if only one person in a million or a billion was saved. Odd for such a caring entity to know most of his most prized creation would not be saved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Don't give me grief over that interpretation, it was your language. ;-)
    Just cain't hep meself sometimes it seems

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's try an example. Your neighbor asks for your wallet. You make a decision not to give it to him. I think we would both agree that your decision here is yours, made freely. Now, let's say the neighbor produces a gun and aims it at you or some sufficiently dear target that you are compelled to give him your wallet. We would both agree that that decision was not made freely. But, lets add me (as a sufficiently amazing communicator ;-) ) and I say something that gives you resolve to overcome that fear. That you are able to hold out and not give him your wallet. Does that mean your initial decision was not free?
    You are asking more than you think you are I think

    Initially, yes: freewill decision
    after the gun is introduced: no, not free will
    after you are introduced: still no, not free will


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think we would argue that it is, only that I am counteracting the coercive effect of the gun and ensuring the outcome is in accordance with your freely made choice.
    God interacted in a way that you can not. He "communicated" directly with Pharaoh and Pharaoh was completely unaware of the coercion.
    Pharaohs free will has been compromised.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Who said He did?
    Most humans that ever lived not to mention the ones that lived during the time of Christ and disagree with the history Christians forward (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, for instance...).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except, reread that quote, then reread my reply:
    he text doesn't say "wound" or use the Hebrew word for wound. All I'm asking is that if we are going to look into what is literally meant by the text, let's also look into what the text literally says. If we are going to discuss the ontology of what these words in practice meant, we have to do a little bit of homework. Same as we would do with any other source of knowledge.
    Your whole rebut is going to rely on "wound"?
    (good lord, semantics again...)
    Let's try again then a point at a time to see where we go wrong:

    1. No suitable helper for Adam
    2. Adam is out into a deep sleep
    3. Part of Adam was removed and God "closed up the area" and where the part was taken from, was "closed up with flesh".
    4. Eve was made from the piece of Adam that was removed.

    The final quote there you didn't respond to was:
    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for out of man she was taken.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You have a very interesting method of reading my responses here, in some places ignoring that I am making a structural point and insisting on literal translation and in others ignoring literal translation for your interpretation of what is being said.
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please note that nowhere did I say that it literally says she was the pinnacle of creation.....
    …...
    It makes no sense unless she is God's highest material creation...….
    I know of no other time a "helper" is considered the "highest"/etc....

 

 
Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24 30 31 32 33 34

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 06:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 09:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 06:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •