Recent Comments
- Shawn: Sounds a bit like ‘torture until you agree with... on Let’s Hope The Mormons Are Wrong…
- Donny Pauling: Pay attention to the sign, gentlemen. The part where my name is... on Let’s Talk About …
- UrsaMinor: Practically anything that is covered in beer batter and deep-fried is... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- FO: Awesome animals. Also, they apparently taste good and I’d be curious... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- PamBG: Facetious. No, there is no free will in heaven, because everyone knows that... on John Piper and Divine Command
- Len: So you’ve met my ex. on Can I hear an Amen?
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
I found Jesus. He was hiding behind the couch.
Are you sure? Cos I think he was in my apple pie as well.
No, that was just the virgin Mary.
Did he get your order of tacos wrong?
Must’ve seen the daleks coming.
My friend told me that “He found Jesus!”
I thought; “Wow, you are gonna be rich!”
-old joke
I like your website.. er the graphical interface, not the content.
I would argue that its design and my comprehension and appreciation of it, is evidence of the very thing you oppose.
Its quite humorous that the satirical title of the psot may in fact, ironically, be true.
(may- your perspective, is- my perspective)
“I would argue that its design and my comprehension and appreciation of it, is evidence of the very thing you oppose.”
Care to expand on why that’s evidence?
Yes, Yuriy has keenly picked up on something, I see what he/she is saying. C’mon Jabs, listen with your heart, not your head man, it gets in the way every time! :)
Listen with your heart! The book of Mormon is the Word of God!
Ok D funny, but your ‘real’ heart which is divinely tuned to the frequency of the truth (since that same frequency is our true origins). You can know, yes you can.
Listen with your “real” heart — Allah is the one true God!
Be sure to tell your local Imam ’bout your epiphany, eh? He’ll be overjoyed.
Technically he’s your good too, JC, since Allah is just a word for the xtian god… much like the portuguese ‘Deus’.
My “real” heart is a pump and has nothing intelligent to say.
No, he meant “real” as in not real. Hope that helps.
“I see what he/she is saying.”
Well as yuriy seems to have been a drive by (there’s a surprise) maybe you could enlighten us to what he is saying as listening with you heart sounds very much like code for if you believe it’s true to start with, then you’ll see the evidence for why it’s true and therefore it is true. Firstly it’s not the most convincing of arguments (it barely struggles to even reach the level of an argument) and secondly it’s increbibly easy to replace your version of god with someone else’s and claim exactly the same thing. Do you believe that if you let your heart do the listening then you will see Allah’s handiwork all around us?
You missed have missed your answer to this one John … yet another surprise.
Wow Daniel, your mad design skills are evidence of God.
Should we start to worship you now?
Please make out a check to “Unreasonable Faith Baptist Church” and God will take care of your needs!
Possibly – but then we’d have to find you staggering drunk out of a gay bar or ‘hiking’ in Venuzuala….
Yes………… I stepped in some Geebus when I was walking my dog this morning!
Big Daneil whats up man.. I dunno how else to contact you so figured i’d throw this out there.. what do you do with a person like Heidi Bakers ministry and her claims..
To me, the cognitive and emotional appreciation of this beautiful website speaks loudly. If the universe should have been made by chance, order should not exist, and silly things like the order and arrangement of this site that contribute to its perfect beauty would be unfathomable.
Basically, the intelligence with which you write is more evidence for a Creator than anything else. It is impossible that such magnificent logic can be the byproduct of a closed system with no contribution of intelligence.
As far as Allah, the book of Mormon and etc, I would wager that the validity of something is more confirmed than denied by numerous theories and speculations.
If God were real we would expect to see a grand amount of hypotheses attempting to explain the infinite with finite understanding.
If God were not real and the universe had no meaning we should not expect to see that people have a desire to formulate theories for existence.
I think every mormon, buddhist, muslim, & pagan is another bit of evidence that an infinite God must exist.
…and every atheist, agnostic, and skeptic is another bit of evidence that an infinite God doesn’t exist, I guess?
Not quite Senior Florien.
If Yuriy’s statement that the ‘magnificent logic’ of the contributors here, and the existence of all of the believers is evidence of intelligence, then we must balance that against all the non-intelligent things in the universe. Like stars, black holes, pulsars, asteroids, dwarf planets, vacuum, et al.
The universes non-intelligent mass is significantly larger than its intelligent mass. Thus the universe must have been made by a mostly non-intelligent source!
I love pseudo logic. You can play with it like play dough, and form it into any shape you like!
My oh my, That is akin to saying language does not exist because there are more speechless rocks than intelligent beings with the ability to communicate.
In that case we win ;)
To be more serious, I think every atheist, agnostic, and skeptic, is created partly in response to thee ludicrous ideas people often use to quantify God.
Atheism tends to attract individuals with a higher intellect than the average person, that I think, results from their inherent intelligence logically rejecting the manmade plethora of inconsistent ideas people use to describe God (being physiologically unable to comprehend Him).
In turn, they, atheist, turn to atheism, associating any and every idea about God with the crazy TV-evangelist.
Or, much more likely, it is the rational response to the complete and utter lack of evidence to support the existence of such a creature. Also, to the total superfluousness of the god theory. God explains nothing about the universe, and in fact merely creates an infinite number of useless questions.
“complete and utter lack of evidence”
In my humble opinion I think you presume too much. For example I did state that mankind’s natural, yet often misguided, tendency to believe in a higher power seems to be evidence. Then the order within the universe, the existence of laws, logic and intelligence conveys more evidences.
You claim there is a complete lack of evidence towards the existence of God, I can quite easily and assuredly state there is even less evidence God does not exist.
It all depends on who is claiming facts to support what theory.
I dont think either is a fair and honest argument.
And for the record (though it proves nothing) I think this statement is more true:
Atheism “explains nothing about the universe, and in fact merely creates an infinite number of useless questions”
Religion is supposed to be the crutch that answers unanswerable questions… right?
It’s a crutch all right.
You contradict yourself in that.
A crutch would explain everything about the universe, and in fact answer an infinite number of useless questions.
That doesn’t make much sense, Yuriy.
It seems that the main reason atheist accuse theists of “inventing” religion is to answer questions that cause confusion and fear, such as purpose, life-after-death, and etc.
Then it seems the argument switched into saying the idea of God is even more confusing than being an atheist. Why would someone invent something that leaves more questions than the condition it was created to resolve?
Therein lies the contradiction.
Like I said, it proves nothing either way…
Because it didn’t happen all at once. It wasn’t that one day a guy woke up in an atheist world with a splitting headache and Monotheism sprang from his head.
These things started with the simple terrors (where does the wind come from, why is Bobby not moving anymore, and just WTF are those violent flashes in the sky when there’s a rain storm?) and sufficed for a while, until questions were asked about those explanations.
The guy who made up the answer probably did not realize or did not care that the answer raised other questions with which he was less concerned. And so on and so forth; the history of religion is essentially one long line of beta patches.
I applaud you for seriously telling me the history of religion as fact, even though you just made it up because thats what makes sense with your presuppositions (which is fair.)
You must admit, “the guy who made up the answer” is not documented anywhere except in your imagination.
Thats the best you’ve got? People have imaginations therefore god is real?
Thanks for playing moron, please collect your no-prize as you drive by post away.
Gosh, is THAT how we distinguish between truth and misinformation? The drive by posters are always morons and wrong?
Thank you!! If only I had know this sooner ;)
I think it was more or less: people all have a tendency to believe in an intelligent creator as opposed to an unintelligent creator.
Wishful thinking isn’t truth.
When you have some truth instead of the misinformation you seem to be handing out from a bottomless well of insipidity, you let me know.
can you verify or support anything that you just wrote?
Can you?
I shortly mentioned the website as (humorous) evidence of an intelligence behind our cognitive ability.
Sunny Day merely responded by stating I’m a moron who hands out misinformation from a bottomless well of insipidity.
Every single vapid post you make supports me. Thanks for proving me correct.
Is this how it works? If I mock everything you write I win?
Gee. thanks!
Yes, that’s precisely how it works, numbnuts.
Dude, chill out…. no need to get angry.
Get used to it, gotta have thick skin to hang around here with a disparate viewpoint my friend…literally.
Yuriy, I would love to join in this fun fest, but I just see nothing of substance from your position.
Please tell us who you worship. What are his/her characteristics? Does he/she intervene in this world? Did he/she leave a holy text for us to read?
We need some specifics to grab on to here. Remember, atheists don’t disbelieve all possible gods, we only disbelieve the ones we have been exposed to that fail to meet any criteria of evidence.
Please, enlighten us as to the real universal truth. Let us then decide if your argument is worth hearing.
I believe the Bible was inspired by God.
When I was younger I read some material that claimed the bible was full of errors and contradictions, It made me quite atheistic for a year, then I came across Dr. Norman Geisler’s book and that answered and harmonized every question about biblical inerrancy that was posed. This story of course proves absolutely nothing, exactly like the Mr. Florens history, but I thought it would be fun to include since the question is about me.
I have read many fancy lists of “biblical contradictions” and though I’ll admit every once in a while there is a point that was valid (not a contradiction but meaning some things in my doctrine needed rethinking,) however, almost all are out of context and/or answerable quite easily. The few remaining are are names/numbers that are copyist errors.
Before we spin off into a debate about the bible, I think we can all agree there is no magic bullet. There is no super “contradiction” that cannot and has not been resolved with an academic and logical examination of the text.
There are heaps of sites listing “bible errors.” There are heaps of apologetics websites harmonizing these “errors”.
I’ll be honest and say its a stalemate, its of little use re-debating a topic that has hundreds of books written from both sides.
My main point point was that everything that exists (and its design, including web design) is to me evidence of theism.
Yuriy, you said “My main point point was that everything that exists (and its design, including web design) is to me evidence of theism.”
Would your everything that exists include child rape, birth defects, Hitler etc?
Those fancy lists you’ve read…..you know us atheists are all for that fancy book learnin’.
You also say “The few remaining are are names/numbers that are copyist errors.”
Even if there is just 1 error, no matter the source, kinda shoots down you’re inspired by god theory don’t you think? Why would god allow his inspired (and some say inerrant) word be manipulated in any way at all?
I think if there were no God, we should not expect to have an inherent morality which states rape or Hitler is bad vs good. It would all be about survival and producing offspring (and then technically rape could be a good thing.)
As far as copyist mistakes, heres an idea. If God were to keep every copy of the scriptures exact that would mean accidental and deliberate attempts to copy it wrong would not succeed. If you sat down and tried to write a few verses wrongly it would not work. It would be verifiable scientifically that there is no way to write an error, it would be concrete proof of God instead of evidence, and I think the created thing itself would become the object of reverence as opposed to the Creator.
I hate to include a link.. but since you asked:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/links/contradictions.html
Yuriy, we dont have an inherent morality which states rape is bad.
Your own bible shows that!
How can you not see that?
If God and the Bible states rape is bad and we see rape exists and is harmful to people, that is consistent.
If God and the Bible states killing sentient rainbow polka dot mushrooms is bad and they do not exist then the bible is inconsistent.
Therefore the existence of immoral behavior that the Bible forbids is perfectly consistent, though I think its a inconsistent jump to morality from arguing design.
We were debating whether design and cognition is evidence of a creator. By stating all things that exist, I was referring mainly to nouns not verbs.
Yuriy, the bible doesn’t state that rape is bad. It lays down specific rules for when its good, and how to go about it.
It doesn’t forbid slavery either.
It doesn’t forbid child abuse.
It doesn’t forbid polygamy.
We don’t have an innate moral truth. Morality is subjective, not objective. It varies from society to society. Why can’t you see that? It’s present in your own holy book!
Wait a minute!
Then why judge God so harshly? Why ask questions like when is it moral for God to do things? Or say God is bad because He did so and so…?
Especially since you say morality is subjective for mankind….. should a omnipotent God, the Head Honcho, the Creator of all things & etc not get at least the same leeway ;)
Yuriy, yes he should get all the leeway he wants, if he exists. I wouldn’t begrudge the creator of all things his rights, I just think he is a fairy tale.
No one is judging ‘god’ here. Judging the relative morality of fictional characters is not the issue. No one here is an atheist because they think god is a bad guy.
What people are doing is pointing out the idiocy in the claim that all morality comes from god/s.
Revylution thanks for the honesty ;)
But serious, cmon, you cannot tell me you have not seen the thousands of youtube videos claiming God is bad and immoral. How can that judgement be made if morality is subjective?
Granted comparing what the bible says can be different from what some silly unicorn loving, rainbow wearing, always smiling, “christians” say… that I believe.
If morality is subjective sure.
If morality is objetive, it must come from a God or external source.
Pointing out that god is immoral isn’t an attempt to illustrate that god is evil.
It’s an attempt to point out that the god of the bible is inconsistent with the morality preached by Christians today.
All those Youtube videos are trying to point out how ludicrous it is to have the murderous, vengeful god of the Old Testament be the same as the gentle meek god of the New Testament.
And yes, morality is subjective. You cannot give me an example of an action that one society finds amoral that another finds perfectly moral.
The Spartans with baby killing. Romans considered rape perfectly moral, if the victim were a slave or non-citizen. Most societies have exemptions for murder. Some societies do not have the concept of personal property, so theft is impossible. Etc. Morality is subjective, and always changing.
So If I am loving and kind and then shoot & kill a rapist breaking into my kids room Im inconsistent?
Or If I love my children, then punish them for a mistake?
Incredible…
“You cannot give me an example of an action that one society finds amoral that another finds perfectly moral.” <- I assume u made a mistake….
But anyway, I agree different societies had different rules and laws, as do different people. That does not constitute morality. I think we are working with different definitions of morality.
By man having morality I meant mans thinking which moralizes things and claims them as good vs evil, as opposed to profitable vs unprofitable for me in an evolutionary sense.
If you dont believe in an inherent morality from an external source, and that some things are just good or just evil, there is no way you can ever make an absolute statement about the morality of about God, Christianity or absolutely anything. Everything becomes subjective and a person down the road can state the exact opposite and its exactly and equally correct. That is illogical.
For example, when speaking of the murder of an innocent and undeserving person it is universally accepted as immoral, meaning inherently evil. Even though many cultures, nations, and people have done it, that does not negate it as 'evil.'
If you say morality is subjective and therefore its not evil to murder innocents, 99.999% of the worlds population would label you as evil.
In that majority I would say, dwells an inherent morality, an inherent condition to view things as universally wrong or right.
If we dont speak of morality as evil vs good, we speak of temporary laws that benefit persons in society and exist ONLY for as long as they provide selfish goals.
Morality by definition often requires one to be unselfish and follow laws from an external source, even though they benefit not the person.
Your’e just being pedantic.
There is no practical difference between morality and laws. Laws are just codified morality.
I didn’t make a mistake when i wrote “You cannot give me an example of an action that one society finds amoral that another finds perfectly moral’
The wording is a bit convoluted. Ill rephrase it.
There is no action that one society considers amoral that another society at some time has considered perfectly moral.
Your example of killing a rapist is perfectly moral to me. I have no problem with it. To the Dalai Lama, your actions are amoral. He considers the taking of life to be always wrong, there is no justified killing. I think that defending innocents through force is perfectly justified. This is another excellent example of how morals are subjective, not objective.
You then said that 99.99% would label me as evil if I thought it was ok to kill innocents. The twin tower bombings prove you wrong, and thats just one example in the past 10 years. There were millions of people who cheered on the actions of the 9-11 bombers, and they killed almost exclusively innocent people. Those who cheered them on considered the actions moral and just. I considered them immoral and unjust. Subjective morality again.
(do not most atheists agree the 911 bombings were a result of a christian war on the muslim world, and thereby we deserved it…?)
Why were the tower bombings immoral? from your subjective veiwpoint?
My point is that if morality is subjective, there is no morality, society just has rules that are set up to aid us in our selfishness (which are discarded as soon as they fail to be of personal narcissistic benefit.)
If I have a law that says A B
Both cannot be true laws, only opinions.
People have had subjective opinions ON what is moral. That is not proof morality IS subjective.
If I think its moral to kill you for fun, and you think its immoral.
Either one of us is wrong or its perfectly fine to kill you for fun.
If I say A in this context is bad.
You say A in said context is good.
We argue, never agreeing.
Thus we cannot use terms like good or bad, right or wrong.
We can speak in terms I think this will benefit and in such a way.
There is no way to determine good and evil.
Those by definition are not subjective.
You really should be embarrassed about this grade school level philosophizing your doing. You have a lot of reading to do before you’re able to have the discussion you are trying to have here.
Seriously.
Eh… dang html editing screwed that up… twas supposed to be A < B and B < A
Mr Ty "You really should be embarrassed about this grade school level philosophizing your doing. You have a lot of reading to do before you’re able to have the discussion you are trying to have here."
Did I prove everything now?
Nope. If you think this entry level “all morality is subjective!” crap is going to stump anyone who has actually put any thought into their beliefs, then your ignorance is truly epic.
Ty you do recognize sarcasm right? ;)
Geez, I’ve never ever read any of THOSE websites you linked. Who knew those even existed?
Really? You give us a link that includes Answers in Genesis and you expect us to take you seriously?
The topic was biblical contractions.
If someone was a splendid doctor and wrote textbooks, and his textbooks were crap, that does not make his medical work any less valuable.
A splendid doctor who wrote textbooks would likely have editors to make certain that his/her work wasn’t absolute rubbish. Further, it is one’s expectation that a splendid doctor who has bothered to educate him/herself will take much care in knowing his/her field BEFORE putting ideas to paper, so as not to make him/herself a laughingstock in their field.
Perhaps, but those are all assumptions you make about doctors based on your perception of what constitutes a “splendid” doctor and a crappy textbook writer, maybe by crap I merely meant his writing style ;)
Either way you ignore the allegory.
If you were a moron biology but brilliant in geology, I would not use your silliness in the former to discredit the latter.
I would love to see a list that harmonizes all of the contradictions in the bible. Please provide!
All I’ve ever seen is a lot of hand waving and ‘works in mysterious ways’ quotes.
Just give me two answers. When is it ever moral and good to smash little babies against rocks, and why was Jepthtah rewarded for sacrificing his daughter, then burning her corpse? I wont bring up any more, since I doubt Daniel has enough bandwidth to support a full list of the biblical contradictions.
Also, you earlier mentioned
“I think every mormon, buddhist, muslim, & pagan is another bit of evidence that an infinite God must exist.”
That seems to be in contrast to your belief in the word of god. By definition, if your belief is true, then all others are false.
Ok so by what grounds can you judge anything to be moral or immoral?
Tell me, unless an extra-human source revealed the guidelines for morality, where does it come from?
If morality comes from humans, you cannot judge killing babies as immoral, because another person can judge the opposite and there is nothing that gives either one of you more leverage. Both are humans, both relying on self to create morality.
As soon as you answer me as to what makes it immoral, I will answer your question about why its not immoral for God.
As for Jepthtah, it does not say in the text she was killed. God forbids human sacrifice in the Law, Jepthtan knew this and would not make a vow that might force him to break it.
The hebrew word for ‘and’ used in that verse does not always have the meaning ‘and’, but is also used for OR (Lexicon: Koehler/Baumgartner 1953, s.v. 6). E.g.: this man OR his wife (Genesis 26:11); his father OR his mother (Exodus 21:17); whose word will stand, Mine OR theirs? (Jeremiah 44:28).
The correct translation could be: “… it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lords, OR I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
“And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.” Judges 11:39
This only refers to her staying single and never getting married, which would mean she became the Lords sacrifice in terms of serving in the temple as a virgin.
Morality is the aggregate of the individuals morality in a society. That morality must benefit the society in some way, or it will fail. Your example of killing babies is illustrated nicely in Spartican society. They would exterminate any infant that showed signs of birth defect. This morality worked well for them. In our society, we have determined that the mind is more valuable than the body, this morality works well for us.
Are you seriously trying to say Jephtah DIDNT kill his daughter?
Here is the line in question from Judges
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. 36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon. 37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
And the Jews still celebrate the holiday of Jephthah the Gileadite every year by allowing their daughters to mourn for his. What part of ” did with her according to his vow” his vow that says “when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering’” are you not understanding? The Jews (remember, its their book first) all assume that Jephtah killed his daughter and offered her as a burnt sacrifice.
In the first place, EVEN if, in fact, Jephthah offered a human sacrifice, he did something that was strictly forbidden by Mosaic law and that is repugnant to God (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). It would be a bit bizarre for Jephthah to think that he could elicit God’s favor in battle by promising to offer Him a human sacrifice, that is, to do something that was in direct violation of the will of God. Such a proposal would be equivalent to a person requesting God’s blessing and assistance by offering to rape women or rob banks. God certainly would not approve of such an offer—though He may go ahead and assist the individual (11:32). God allows people to make wrong choices, even while He works out His own higher will in the midst of their illicit actions. He can even use such people to achieve a higher good (consider, as one example, Judas). When Israel clamored for a king—in direct opposition to God’s will—He nevertheless allowed them to proceed with their intentions, and even lent His assistance in the selection (1 Samuel 8:7,18-19; 10:19; 12:19; Psalm 106:14-15; Hosea 13:11; Acts 13:21).
Second, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a human sacrifice, no indication is given in the text that God actually approved of the action. The Bible records many illicit actions carried out by numerous individuals throughout history, without an accompanying word of condemnation by the inspired writer. We must not assume that silence is evidence of divine approval. Even the commendation of Jephthah’s faith in the New Testament does not offer a blanket endorsement to everything Jephthah did during his lifetime. It merely commended the faith that he demonstrated when he risked going to war. Similarly, the Bible commends the faith of Samson, and Rahab the prostitute, without implying that their behavior was always in harmony with God’s will. Abraham manifested an incredible level of faith on several occasions, and is commended for such (Romans 4:20-21). Yet he clearly sinned on more than one occasion (Genesis 12:13; 16:4; 20:2ff.).
Third, Jephthah’s action may best be understood by recognizing that he was using ‘olah in a figurative sense. We use the term “sacrifice” in a similar fashion when we say, “I’ll sacrifice a few dollars for that charity.” Jephthah was offering to sacrifice a member of his extended household to permanent, religious service associated with the Tabernacle. The Bible indicates that such non-priestly service was available, particularly to women who chose to so dedicate themselves (e.g., Exodus 38:8). Even in the first century, Anna must have been one woman who had dedicated herself to the Lord’s service, since she “did not depart from the temple” (Luke 2:37).
Several contextual indicators support this conclusion. First, the two-month period of mourning that Jephthah granted to his daughter was not for the purpose of grieving over her impending loss of life, but over the fact that she would never be able to marry. She bewailed her virginity not her death (11:37). Second, the text goes out of its way to state that Jephthah had no other children: “She was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter” (11:34). For his daughter to be consigned to perpetual celibacy meant the extinction of Jephthah’s family line—an extremely serious and tragic matter to an Israelite (cf. Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1ff.). Third, the sacrifice is treated as unfortunate—again, not because of any concern over her death, but because she would not become a mother. After stating that Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed,” the inspired writer immediately adds, “and knew no man” (11:39). This statement would be a completely superfluous and callous remark if she had been put to death.
God is omnipotent, thus he knew beforehand that Jepthah would sacrifice his daughter. He then allowed Jepthah to win in battle. He then later allowed him to serve as a king of Israel.
Then in the lineage of judges, Ibzan succeed Jepthah, so was probably his son.
If god knew that Jepthah was going to commit a forbidden sin, then why did he allow him to win in battle? Why allow him to be a Judge of Israel? Why allow him to have a son Ibzan?
If the god of the Jews is just, he doesn’t seem like it by his actions. If he is unjust, why worship him?
It seems you are saying “If an infinite, omnipotent being exist, then I must be able to fully understand every motivation for his/her actions, If I lack comprehension that is clear evidence of no God.”
I’m sorry but it seems incredibly arrogant and selfish and based on your SUBJECTIVE analysis.
Are you sure you wanna go there, using the exact same method any fool can deny anything.
Why worship Him? Who is making you?
Worship naturally flows out of enjoyment. I am Christian Hedonist, I find complete and full enjoyment in God, not in created things (unless merely as a reflection of God)
I find the text very clear as to what was the end of Jephthah’s doughter. An all powerful god could have tripped her so the first out the door will be a sheep, as he obviously assumed when making the vow. He could also stop him at the last second like he did when he was pranking Abraham into BBQing his son. Anyway since according to the thinking of ancient Israelites only a son can continue his father’s name Jephthah’s line was extinct regardless of what happen to his daughter.
You are the one who came here to say that the bible was logical, clear and non contradictory.
Im just countering your claims Yuriy. If you just worship for the Hedonistic joy, then we can switch to that argument if you like. If you worship because its correct, then thats something else entirely.
And no, I’m not saying anything about the nature of God, im just responding to your claims about him, and what the text actually says.
“Im just countering your claims Yuriy. If you just worship for the Hedonistic joy, then we can switch to that argument if you like. If you worship because its correct, then thats something else entirely.”
I think you make it seem the two cannot coexist, which may explain why you perceive Christianity so negatively ;)
I think the very defining factor of Christianity is that they must.
I don’t see Christanity negatively at all. I just see it as imaginary. Its the same for all religions with me.
I am not an apostate from any faith. I grew up non-religious. I don’t doubt that both joy and logic can be found in a belief system, I was just highlighting the point of our discussion.
“I find the text very clear as to what was the end of Jephthah’s doughter.”
I dont. But, like I previously said, EVEN if it did happen, it proves nothing.
“An all powerful god could have tripped her so the first out the door will be a sheep, as he obviously assumed when making the vow.”
He could have done anything in the world, even make us polka dotted flower people. Can you honestly presume to state that if an infinite God exists we would perfectly understand and predict all of his intentions? (Lol, I cant even figure women out.)
“He could also stop him at the last second like he did when he was pranking Abraham into BBQing his son.”
He can roast us anytime as well. He hasnt thus far. This proves zilch.
“Anyway since according to the thinking of ancient Israelites only a son can continue his father’s name Jephthah’s line was extinct regardless of what happen to his daughter.”
The family name was gone, but Jephthah at least had some hope to see little rascals running about the house… before giving his daughter as a sacrifice to the Lord that is.
“I don’t see Christanity negatively at all. I just see it as imaginary. Its the same for all religions with me.”
I see atheism as imaginary.
I see atheism as imaginary.
Then quit wasting your time on this blog and get about to worshipping your invisible sky daddy.
Im sorry Roger, my intention was not to cause trouble.
my intention was not to cause trouble.
Riiiiiiiight…
Is that subjective? Because I disagree ;)
“The correct translation could be:”
Not very inspired (or inerrant) if you are questioning the translation now is it?
straw man…
No, not really.
You said, and I quote: “I believe the Bible was inspired by God.”
In another post you then question the translation of the bible.
If something was inspired by god, how could it even be considered open for translation? There should be no doubt, no ambiguity about everything contained therein. Especially if you live your life based on the contents. Not very insprational if you read it one way and someone else reads it another.
Dude. Serious?
If a scientist has his writings copied with false additions, does that make ‘his’ writing untruthful…?
C’mon you presume (out of thin air?) that if God is real and sovereign His writings will never be contorted in copies?
Scientits writings are true or false based on testing. If the words are changed so that testing proves the hypothesis false, then yes, the writings become untruthful. A scientist is not trusted in anyway. All his writings are tested and retested before they are ever put in textbooks.
We assume that all ancient writings are severly contorted in copies. That’s why we don’t believe in the bible Yuriy. Your’e getting closer, just keep thinking.
Yuriy – Yes I am serious.
If any writing has fasle additions, that could call into doubt the entire work. Depends what was added. That’s the problem with the bible. No one knows what exactly was added, deleted or altered or when it was changed. To base your life on a document like that is delusional.
“C’mon you presume (out of thin air?) that if God is real and sovereign His writings will never be contorted in copies?”
Really read what you wrote here. You are agreeing with me that “his” writings were contorted in copies. How do you know what parts are the true word of god?
Well, you guys convinced me!
I know realize everything I’ve learned about history is a lie!
There was obviously no Hebrews,Greeks, Romans! History is contorted! All history textbooks are false. We cannot trust anything. Everything listed in a textbook that claims to teach history is completely and fully wrong.
To base your life on your subjective experience is delusional.
C’mon, you know how its done. Documents upon documents are compared to each other, 95% agree on everything, the few differences are minor and in no way affect doctrine or salvation.
If it were a textbook we were looking at, the differences would not change what was taught.
Understanding the process does not make it any less beautiful and supernatural. Knowing the physiological actions that cause a thought does not cease to leave me amazed at cognition.
Amazement at human cognition is not proof of the existence of any supernatural entities.
“Amazement at human cognition is not proof of the existence of any supernatural entities.”
It is not proof against.
The complexity of cognition is evidence for an intelligent designer as opposed an accumulation of random mutations increasing in intelligence.
The complexity of cognition is evidence for an intelligent designer as opposed an accumulation of random mutations increasing in intelligence.
That is absurd. If an “intelligent designer” exists, then our cognitive capacities should be able to detect its existence–in other words, the existence of an “intelligent designer” should be clearly available to all minds and our senses. What you imagine is not necessarily real. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster imagined the figure Superman. Millions of people around the world have seen Superman in the form of comics, movies and television shows. By your (il)logic, our ability to cogitate such a figure means he exists.
Nope. Thats was a separate argument, nothing to do with the complexity of cognition and consciousness.
The argument you are mixing in is that intelligence is always a byproduct of intelligence.
Cognition and consciousness could not exist unless there was a cause that brought them into existence.
And therefore that Cause must also have been intelligent.
Again, an absurd argument. If you’re arguing that consciousness only exists because someone brought it into existence, then what brought that consciousness into existence? Let’s clear the decks, shall we? You’re trying (badly) to make an argument for your “God” using the pathetic and easily dismissed “first cause” argument–an argument which has been slapped down so many times, it boggles the mind that people continue to trot it out as though no one has heard it before.
So. Who or what created your “intelligent designer”?
Well I could just go the route you take and say a big bang 12 mil years ago created God who created us, now what? ;)
Seriously though, the bible describe God as not being constrained by time, which therefore would mean He is outside of time.
Now within our confines of time this first cause argument is true. (If its is not, I would appreciate it if you corrected me.)
Yet God, not belonging to a temporal closed system, is not affected.
“So. Who or what created your “intelligent designer”?”
Lets examine this statement:
The universe had a beginning.
God does not have a beginning.
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
God did not begin to exist so he needs not a cause.
The Bible does not at all describe “God” as being unconstrained by time. Rather, your alleged “God” only acts in time. Your deity is clearly affected by time (the creation story alone disproves your wishful thinking). The only way you can have a “god” who doesn’t require a cause is to invent some nonsense that has no basis in recognized science. Hence, your assertion “God does not have a beginning,” which you simply cannot prove. First, you can’t prove the existence of your god–you can only postulate what you imagine to be its existence (which, frankly, is more wishful thinking than it is hard evidence).
Finally, if God didn’t need a cause, then why does the universe itself require a cause?
“in the beginning” (written from our perspective, in time) “God created” (this references to the fact that God already was in existence at the beginning of time.)
“invent some nonsense that has no basis in recognized science”
No Way!! An infinite being outside of time has no basis in ‘recognized’ science? What a mega argument! Dude, your brain neurons had no basis in yesterdays recognized science.
“you can’t prove the existence of your god”
Neither can you prove the nonexistence of God (duh,) which is why we look at evidence and draw conclusions as to the probability of either alternative.
“Finally, if God didn’t need a cause, then why does the universe itself require a cause?”
I will be fair and assume you missed or misunderstood the explanation. I don’t want to discuss other verdicts which would imply your lack of intelligence.
The universe HAD a beginning. (according to science; the theory could change but for now its quite solid)
God does NOT have a beginning. (according to biblical writings, which we shall assume to be true to test the hypothesis; they cannot be definitively proven or disproven, but they the best information we have as to the nature of God, if you know something more about God than the Bible teaches please enlighten me as to your sources.)
Everything that BEGINS to exist MUST have a cause. (according to a combination of logic and the equivalent of all of human history, science, & experimentation.)
God did NOT BEGIN to exist so he NEEDS NOT a cause. (a derivation of the same logic as used above.)
I think this is a strong argument about the plausibility of God. It is not intended to definitively prove God, but hey you cannot definitively disprove God.
We know the universe began to exist (at least in its present, post-Big Bang form). However, we don’t know that God has always existed – or that he indeed exists at all – those are mere assertions on your part, and as such I fail to see it as a strong argument. It’s a tautology, based on no evidence at all.
Secondly, even though you assert God has no beginning, you still have to deal with the main counterargument to the First Cause argument. Instead of asking “who created God” we must now ask “where did the infinite complexity which comprises God come from when nothing existed”? You have the same problem as before, really.
Special pleading makes me queasy.
Of course we don’t ‘know’ that God exists, we likewise don’t ‘know’ that he doesn’t exist. We dont even ‘know’ if you exist, I could be on drugs and hallucinating. (Insert your joke here.)
The word “know” in this argument only detracts the focus from the points we are discussing.
The argument has two points:
1. It gives a higher probability that there is a intelligent first cause versus no first cause and no intelligence.
A. Everything that exists has a cause.
B. The universe began to exist.
C. Nothing finite can cause itself. (We have no evidence as to the infinite)
D. Therefore the universe has a cause outside of this universe.
That coupled with the intelligence and design we see everywhere, is evidence in favor of the fact that this first cause is/or contains intelligence.
2. God as defined by the Bible is timeless and outside of “everything” that began to exist. This makes the Biblical God a very favorable candidate for a First Cause, for your sake I’ll add if He is real.
Infinite complexity that is outside of time, outside of our universe, & has no beginning, therefore not needing a to be caused by something. The first cause argument applies to our FINITE universe, we cannot turn around and apply it to a INFINITE being.
If it is not a infinite, timeless, Force outside of our universe, then we can be led to believe there is an infinite chain of causes, which leads us right back into the infinite.
Overall it is a good argument for the rationality of belief in God and name calling cannot diminish it.
Yuriy friend you said “Of course we don’t ‘know’ that God exists”…
Yes we can ‘know’ (that word implies intimacy) that God exists, in fact that same ‘knowing’ is actually, according to Christ the real meaning of the phrase ‘eternal life’ which is a kind and quality of life in the here and now since God (who is spirit) is not limited by, exists outside the bounds of temporal time.
JC said ‘this is eternal life’ that you ‘know’ the Father and the Son (paraphrased) John 17:3. This ‘eternal life’ is that very kind of life man lived ‘from’ in the beginning, is that which was lost in the fall. All the best
B. The universe began to exist.
How do you know this? Prove that time didn’t always exist. If you can, then you have a promising career as a particle physicist, because none of them can answer that question.
John you are absolutely right, I should have explained more. By ‘know’ I meant to have empirical proof that can be shared and verified.
I know with all of my being that God exists and is my Creator and Redeemer. Just as I know that my brother exists; if we were alive 300 years ago, and living on different continents, and there were no ways to bring him over, I still would personally know he exists, but have no way to prove that to you.
Revyloution – B is the best consensus that physicists have reached, its been what, a 100 years since anyone thought the universe was eternal?
@Yuriy:
Your Kalam argument says nothing about who the supposed God ought to be. It’s as much an argument for Bible God as it is for Allah, Vishnu, Papa Grasshopper, and any number of other gods which you are unwilling to accept as gods. Every creator god is implicitly (and usually also explicitly) assumed to exist outside of its creation, so Bible God is nothing special in that regard.
Besides, the argument hinges on premise A, “Everything that exists has a cause”. To the best of our knowledge, this is simply false. Quantum phenomena are intrinsically stochastic. Radioactive decay, virtual particles, quantum tunneling, these are examples of phenomena that appear to happen in a truly random way, meaning they have no cause.
Also, your refusal to apply the argument to an infinite being isn’t merited by anything. You just state that it can’t be done, and so implicitly accept that your assumption about an infinite state of complexity, which you choose to call God, is correct. However:
a) You offer no reason why the argument can’t be applied to God – except that it would of course make it useless, so you prefer not to do so.
b) Even if the argument can’t be applied to infinity/God, it doesn’t mean your assumption about the existence of such a thing is valid to begin with. You use the alleged paradox to explain God, but you create the paradox yourself through specious or unverifiable premises.
Yuriy, you are making a common false assumption by many people (not just theologians) about the implications of the Big Bang and all the observations that go along with it.
Our current models only accurately predict what happened at one Plank Second on of the expansion. We don’t know anything prior to that. We don’t know if two objects smacked into each other, or if it was just fluxuations in quanta as TRJ mentioned.
Most cosmologists have abandoned the Steady State universe (which is what I assume you mean by eternal), but that doesn’t imply that all of everything came into being at the moment before expansion occurred. The real answer is ‘We don’t know’.
And if your basing your theology on incomplete cosmology, thats a clear logical fallacy called ‘God of the Gaps’.
So, a science-fictional “outside of time” excuse sounds more plausible to you than the increasing diversity and intelligence of humans and other animals? I mean, if you assert a creator, the first thing you’re going to do is give him powers greater than we’re able to comprehend, which is the only quality that actually makes him possible. That’s called “magic.” Without the addition of magic, nothing makes any sense to you.
However, if someone (we’ll call god “someone” for lack of a more accurate term, for instance, “no one”) exists outside of time, how does he decide that there needs to be time? When does he decide to start his project? If he’s outside of time, how does he know when he’s got an idea to start this nifty endeavor? How does one plan ahead if there is no time? I suppose it wasn’t on his calendar. Does he have anything else on his “to do” list? Did he make heaven and hell first, you know, to get ready? I guess he had to wait for sin… alas, I see my mistake there. You can’t make something first if time is the first thing you decide to make. So, he made some days, so he could keep on schedule, but went ahead on the fly, because planning requires time.
For a guy outside of time, I think this is a really odd way to go about it. Why did he hurry if he was outside of time, with no plans, making it up as he went along? I think getting all the big stuff done in 6 days, for a guy who doesn’t even wear a watch, is kind of unnecessary, and not more than a little evident of poor work style. I mean, he can’t have done this before. He doesn’t have any experience at it. And then resting on the 7th day? I thought the idea was he was going to be attentive, how did he know when he was tired, how did he know when his break was over? I bet when Eve ate that apple, the first thing god said was, “Already??? This is why we can’t have nice things!!!”
For a guy outside of time, he’s sure in a rush to make a nice place for everyone and then for it to get screwed up so quickly. Right off the bat, that’s not a god I have confidence in. Come on now, I think you have a rather whimsical imagination to prefer this god person to reality.
Yuriy S
Is there some way to know other than to ‘know’?
2:20
Good Grief, I said ‘if’! I meant when he comes!! I’m dooomed!
-”So, a science-fictional “outside of time” excuse”
Yesterdays science fiction is today’s science ;)
-”sounds more plausible to you than the increasing diversity and intelligence of humans and other animals?”
Yes it does. Why would there be an increasing intelligence instead of entropy unless energy is being imported?
-”I mean, if you assert a creator, the first thing you’re going to do is give him powers greater than we’re able to comprehend, which is the only quality that actually makes him possible.”
If there was an omnipotent and infinite creator, he most assuredly would have powers greater than you or I could comprehend, thats the part of the definition of God. We should expect that.
“That’s called “magic.” Without the addition of magic, nothing makes any sense to you.”
I think it requires magic to believe that random chance created everything I see. I think it requires magic to believe that the universe which began to exist created itself and everything in it.
-”However, if someone… exists outside of time, how does he decide that there needs to be time? When does he decide to start his project? If he’s outside of time, how does he know when he’s got an idea to start this nifty endeavor? How does one plan ahead if there is no time?”
Fair question, albeit simplistic. We live in time, therefore its impossible for us to really comprehend timelessness. Its like the story they teach in physics about flat-world, and how people residing in a 2D world cannot comprehend a third dimension, regardless of how hard they try.
-”For a guy outside of time, he’s sure in a rush to make a nice place for everyone and then for it to get screwed up so quickly. Right off the bat, that’s not a god I have confidence in.”
Nice little straw god you made. ;)
I think it requires stupidity to believe that god created everything I see. I think it requires foolishness to believe that god which began to exist created itself and the Universe in it.
Oh snap.
You didnt just write ‘Entropy’ did you?
I think its time to pull some Princess Bride on you and say
“I don’t think you know what that word means.”
lmao!
As far as me, I wager that the cognitive and emotional appreciation of this beautiful website shews credit upon the magnificent logic of its creator. Nay, also unto its contributors. The intelligence with which they write is credit to the unfathomable wit of the people themselves. Their grand amount of hypotheses and formulated theories and numerous theories and speculations contain enough logic backing them up to be another bit of evidence for human intelligence. I can quite easily and assuredly state that Yuriy’s ASSumptions presume too much. Slinging too egregiously many polysyllabic words around with nary a break does not abstruse and perspicacious badinage make. Unfathomably, *gerk* I would have lost my lunch, but, fortuitously, it has been a while since I ate.
If its logic you believe, and that is what I perceive,
Just one thing prove, and your words I shall receive.
Use the scientific method to prove logic exists.
Oh and perhaps avoid repetitive sentences yourself if you accuse me of such ;)
(And it was a joke, I understand logic cannot be proved because its circular)
SUPERNATURALISTS BEG THE QUESTION OF GOD’S ATTRIBUTES , SO ONE CAN ASK WHAT MADE OR DESIGNER HIM. S WE DON’T BEG THE QUESTION OURSELVES WHEN WE ASK THOSE QUESTIONS1
Holy capitalization, Batman!
POW!