Richard Dawkins' Hypocritical & Self-Promotional Excuse for Avoiding William Lane Craig:
Friday, October 7, 2011
the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins' Hypocritical & Self-Promotional Excuse for Avoiding William Lane Craig:
Richard Dawkins' Hypocritical & Self-Promotional Excuse for Avoiding William Lane Craig:
Thursday, October 6, 2011
FacePalm of th Day #132 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will?
It seems that you are somewhat overambitious in calling this a face-palm, judging by your continual question-begging annotation. For example, you first comment on evil, without really defining it, says that we would never exist if evil did not exist. I take it, then, we don’t exist in heaven – it’s empty (d’oh, facepalm!).
Evil doesn't make it heaven (double facepalm). The point of Jesus dying on the cross and being born-again is to get rid of the evil in our souls. I also find it interesting that Johnny P didn't define evil. As a Christian, I can define it but without God I don't think anyone can define what evil is. It would be amusing to see Johnny P try. In case he responds to this (or anyone) I'll save my full definition. Instead let me explain what I am meant that without evil we would not exist. I wrote: This line of argumentation has never impressed me because who says that we can determine when God should deal with evil. The argument also fails to take account that if God destroyed all evil now, we would all be destroyed. If God had destroyed all evil at any time in the past, we would never exist. Instead God has a plan in mind and everything is in place to bring that plan to fruition - even evil. Because obviously Johnny P didn't understand, let's restate it. The statement was in reference to the evil and sin that permeates humanity. If God destroyed evil without cleaning evil from our lives, we would all be destroyed. When we say that God should get rid of evil and punish sin, we usually mean those people over there - apart from us and not recognizing that we are no better than they are. We deserve hell just like they do. You don't earn your way to heaven - it's by grace.
“I really wish that when people raise this objection would really argue without the arrogance of assuming that we know just how much suffering there should be in order to get the "best possible world". “
Er, I think you entirely miss the point. It’s not about what we know, it’s about the notion that God knows. And as such, in order to earn he title of omnibenevolent and perfect, this MUST be the most perfect world. It’s got nothing to do with what we know. We simply make evidential observations about the amount of suffering and people like you try and harmonise it with your God claiming that it is not gratuitous. This does, indeed, beg the question. It is logically possible, but this by no means that it is logically probable or plausible.
Johnny P missed the point I raised. God does know perfectly everything. And we don't. The Bible does not tell us that his world is perfect. It tells us that the world is decaying because of our sin and evil. I quoted Romans 8:19-25. Guess he missed it. Let me be clear. Johnny P's presumptions are wrong. Even if you don't think the Bible is correct, you have got to admit that he is making arguments based on claims that the Bible does not make.
“Why would we expect the universe and reality to be different?”
Well, for starters, I would be clever enough to create a life-sustaining planet that didn’t have plate tectonics that killed millions of people throughout history. I think that’s fairly obvious. Especially since no theodicy that you could offer says anything about the billions of animals and ecosystems destroyed in the 2004 tsunami.
I don't need to. Paul answered that: Romans 8. Also he ignored the rest of the argument. How do you know that the world would be better without plate tectonics, As far as we can tell, life as we know it is impossible without plate tectonics. No people. John Lennox discussed this really well. As for Tsunami, Jesus offered the best theodicy.
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5
Your next set of comments lead onto the larger argument over whether free will can be a potentiality only.
“Doing the maximally loving thing at all times is hardly limitation if you don't want to do anything otherwise”
If God can’t WANT to do anything else, then what the hell do you define as free will?
I didn't say "can't" I said "doesn't" and watch your language. .
I would say that this is simply determinism. To analogise, this would be exactly the same as espousing determinism in humans – we act because we are who we are, in our nature. If you studied free will (I have written a book on it) you would see that, if God was always to act in a particular way, you are denying the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.
What is the title of this book? According to the Bible telling us that we are hopelessly imprisoned in sin, terminated in total separation from God, I don't see how we have the ability to make choices free of sinful influence without God. That's not free will. I don't deny that there is such things as free will. I'm saying that only God has it. And yes, that mean there aren't alternate possibilities outside of what God has already "bound" or "loosed". (Matthew 16). God always acts in a particular way - the way he chooses.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-12
As for your criticism of my tax man analogy, you don’t really say much but a simple assertion that it is a bad analogy (it is a synopsis of a much longer analogy).
Maybe Johnny P missed it. I offered a different analogy. Here is again: It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your punishment of death as well.
“The problem is that we don't know that the maximally loving options are or even what "love" really is in all situations. We have an idea, but we don't really know exhaustively”
Exactly the same issues as mentioned before.
Which Johnny P again misses that giving our ignorance we don't know what the perfect world even looks like.
And your worst moment comes here:
“The Creation did not fall short of perfection before the fall.”
Oh dear, you believe in Original Sin. Too many criticisms of this to even begin.
Bring it.
“Again do you or anyone of know what the whole plan is? Do we know what the best for us in the world is? I don't. If you think you do, then you are really dishonest. If you don't know what maximally good and perfect are, how do you know that there is no purpose for the suffering we witness? You don't.”
Again, pretty poor reasoning. As I asked God in my last book:
If my child was to walk on the flowers in my garden, trampling them, it would be immoral to punish him without telling him what he had done wrong. This would communicate to my child his misdemeanour so that he would not do it again. What have we done wrong to deserve cancer, malaria, the tsunami, the Holocaust, disability, cholera etc., and is it right that you have not communicated to us why we have had these ‘punishments’?
God told us what we did to deserve all of this. The books of Job, Habakkuk, and most of the Bible deal with this. Johnny P said that he asked God this question in his last book as if God did not answer. He did..
The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death. - Proverbs 10:!6
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
You special plead God’s master plan on behalf of God, but any responsible and loving parent, teacher, society TELLS PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED. Whether it be tsunamis, malaria, cancer of whatever, The almighty God can’t be bothered to tell us why these things are necessary to make a better world, but instead relies on you to tell us through ad hoc, implausible reasoning! Outstanding. No, my friend, the facepalm is all yours.
Considering Johnny P fails to understand the answer given in the Bible or even offer and objection - I see two facepalms
And as for arrogance, you are attempting to speak for an almighty and all-loving God. I’m sure he could get off his throne and do it himself.
I'm not speaking for God out of pocket. I'm only saying what the Bible say. I didn't write it. If you don't believe it prove it wrong. Johnny P makes several assertions without a single basis. It's arrogant to criticize a design and not know the specs, which is all Johnny P had done. If you want to demonstrate arrogance on my part Johnny P has to do one of two things. Show how I have misrepresented what the Bible has said or show that the Bible is wrong. He has done neither.
"So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is."
This, again, is poor. My ideas about what God is follow necessarily from the rather arrogant and unsupported ideas of what his characteristics are. You circularly use the bible to maintain your opinions and then accuse others of misrepresenting your god when you ad hoc harmonise everything about your god.
Using the Bible is no circular reasoning. I maintain that the only way you can know much about who God is, is by revelation. The Bible gives us that revelation. Unless you can show that the Bible is wrong there is no reason to throw it out as a source of knowledge.
As for Middle Knowledge, I did not say that WAS the mechanism, so thanks for building the straw man. Go back and read the sentence.
I didn't say Johnny P did. I was saying that Johnny P seems to think that the Christian position is Middle Knowledge by default. I know Johnny P is an atheist and does not accept Middle Knowledge. Neither do all Christians. The straw man is his.
This was a logical argument that you have treated rather illogically.
Sim,ply[sp] put:
1) God is perfect
2) a perfect being cannot create imperfectly
C) this universe is a perfect creation.
What do you disagree with there? That was my argument, and it then follows that:
The Bible does not support your premise: "this is a perfect universe" You should agree. That's the point you are making. God did not create imperfectly. It was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned and our sin perpetuates the problems. Your premises fail.
1) this is a perfect universe
2) we have tsunamis, malaria, cancer etc
3) these things exist in a perfect world
C) these things must be necessary for a perfect world
It's not a perfect world (see Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible). Therefore Johnny P's conclusions are flawed because we don't know what the "perfect world" is. His argument is that if there was a perfect world things like tsunamis, malaria, cancer, and etc would not exist. God agrees. It's not perfect. The Bible does not tell us it is with sin running rampant. When God purges sin, and according to the Bible He will, then it will be perfect again.
All you have done in you 'critique' is waffle on about not much, and NOT address the argument!
Johnny P has been consistent in his inability to answer what God has said about the questions he raised. I did address the argument because God has addressed and it was put to rest 2000 years ago. Just read your Bible for a change. Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard. Revelation is need. And you can't argue against Christianity without understanding what the Bible says and Johnny P shows no understanding. Double FacePalm.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #129 - Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?
Westboro Baptist Church Picketing Steve Jobs’ Funeral Is Just Ridiculous | Crushable
Image via CrunchBaseI hate tIhat people think that Westboro Baptist Church is an example of what being a Christian is. It's Th not. Apparently they are going to protest Steve Jobs' Funeral! It's crazy and stupid and picket a funeral - to say nothing of rude and in bad-taste. It's not what Jesus has commanded us to do or to be. According to this article the following tweet went out.http://twitter.com/#!/MargieJPhelps/status/121733810231590912
Natalie Zutter wrote:
She's right. Not only does it not make since but it's just plain not Biblical or even factual. I'm not aware of Jobs spreading sin, anymore than anyone else. Zutter is kinder than I because I can't even call their thoughts "reasoning".
Mere hours after Steve’s passing, Fred Phelps‘ daughter Margie Phelps took to Twitter to announce that WBC will be picketing Steve’s funeral. Their reasoning? He served himself, not God; and “he had a huge platform,” which probably means that they consider his worldwide influence as a way that he used to disseminate his sinful ways. Or something. It’sbullshit.
A small consolation: Twitter noted that Margie’s tweet came from her iPhone, so at least we can add “hypocrite” to the list of insults about these insane cultists. (Margie’s defense: Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell. God created iPhone for that purpose! :) …That doesn’t even make sense!)
Westboro Baptist Church Picketing Steve Jobs’ Funeral Is Just Ridiculous | Crushable
Want to see Matthew Flannagan debate John W. Loftus in America? | MandM
Want to see Matthew Flannagan debate John W. Loftus in America? | MandM
Seems like John Loftus is also excited about the prospect. Given what I've seen about Loftus in debate - oral and written - I don't think Dr Flannagan has a thing to be concerned about. All he has to do is be prepared. In his post Loftus said:
And check back for more details. It's only a month away. I plan to trash him [Flannagan]. ;-) - John Loftus
As if that would happen...lol.
A Debate With Dr. Matthew Flannagan is in the Works
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Goodbye, Steve Jobs [1955-2011]
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
-Steve Jobs [1955-2011]
I remember back in 2000, I was a laughing stock for wanting a Mac at home instead of a Windows based machine. Apple was about to die. But Steve Jobs and people he put around in key positions changed all of that through new marketing strategies and innovative products. Not one of us saw it coming, except maybe Steve Jobs.
Goodbye, Steve Jobs [1955-2011]
Sandpeople In The Bible - G4tv.com
Remember that famous footsteps in the sand picture? Here is a Star Wars bent. No surprise now that Jedi is a recognized religion now! See here. Science Fiction gone awry? Yup! There is only one God and God is not an impersonal force. Sandpeople In The Bible - G4tv.com
Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs
Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #131 - Debunking Christianity: Atheists...What if You're Wrong?
There are a couple of things missing from his reasoning.
1. Yes, God is all-loving and all-knowing, but what about justice? Why should sin go unpunished or ignored? What about God's Holiness and purity? How can the fact we not holy not be addressed? How does God know? He set each of us up in the best possible circumstances so that we can best find Him.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ - Acts 17:24-28
2. God does indeed know us each better than we know ourselves. God knows all our rationalizations. Our opinions. Our Reasoning. That is why we stand condemned.
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:18-25
3. What about repentance? This guy says he read the Bible. Did he understand it? He complains that if the Bible is right, he is going to hell because he does not believe, but Child molesters and rapist are going to heaven if they believe. He forgot, believing that there is a God is not enough.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. - James 2:19
We've got to repent - turn from our sins. No one is going to heaven without repenting. If this guys ends up in hell it won't be because he was skeptical. It will be because he rebelled against God and ignored the salvation God offered him. We repent because we believe.
This is the Gospel in the Bible:
21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21
4. Finally, this guy seems to think that he is good enough even thinks that God is pleased with him and the way he has lived his life. The Bible tells us different. All have sinned and deserve hell.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
God is not pleased with us. None of us. We deserve hell. God has provided a way out. A way we can have peace with God. We don't have to go to hell. Because of who God is, sin must be punished. It's not one-to-one or equal. Just like the punishment is more than what we can imagine, so it is the gift of heaven. We earned the punishment but God is giving you a gift.
I don't think he answered the question. As an atheist, standing before God, having lived your life without concern for God or his plan for you, what do you say when you look into Jesus' face? I don't think you are going to be able to say anything. I agree with this guy. At that time, there will be no excuses or anything anyone can say in defense. All that will be enough:
By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. - Isaiah 45:23
God is in control. If I were this guy I would be concerned that God does know me better than anyone else. He knows why we deserve hell. He knows our sins and issues. Throwing yourself on God's mercy on Judgement Day is too late. Do it now. It's not just about trying to avoid hell or gain heaven - that's gravy. It's about getting to know who God is and to know him personally! It's about finding your purpose in Him. God's purpose is not for our comfort or just what is best for us. The point is for us to glorify Him. It's not vanity or ego. God deserves it. It is who God is. This guy does not know the God of the Bible but he can know Him. Reach out because He is not far from anyone of us.
Debunking Christianity: Atheists...What if You're Wrong?
Questions Steve Ray Thinks "Bible Chrisians" Can't Answer - Answered
1) "Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?"
2) "Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?"
3) "Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?"
4) "some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?"
5) "Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)? (And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)"
6) "If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?"
7) "Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?"
8) "How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?"
9) "On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?"
10) "Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)"
11) "How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?"
12) "How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?"
13) "Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?"
14) "Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?"
15) "If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?"
16) "If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?"
17) "Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?"
18) "Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?"
19) "Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?"
20) "How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?"
21) "Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?"
22) "Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?"
23) "Why do Protestants follow postapostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?"
24) "How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?"
25) "If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?"
26) "How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?"
27) "If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?"
28) "If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?"
29) "If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?"
30) "If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?"
31) "The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?"
32) "If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?"
33) "Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?"
34) "If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?"
35) "Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church's leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?"
36) "The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?"
37) "How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?"
38) "What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?"
39) "Where does the Bible say God created the world/universe out of nothing?"
40) "Where does the Bible say salvation is attainable through faith alone?"
41) "Where does the Bible tell us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?"
42) "Where does the Bible provide a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?"
43) "Where does the Bible provide a list of the canonical books of the New Testament?"
44) "Where does the Bible explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”?"
45) "Where does the Bible tell us the name of the “beloved disciple”?"
46) "Where does the Bible inform us of the names of the authors of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?"
47) "Where does the Bible [tell us] who wrote the Book of Acts?"
48) "Where does the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity?"
49) "Where does the Bible tell us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn't infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete)?"
50) "Where does the Bible that the church should, or someday would be divided into competing and disagreeing denominations?"
51) "Where does the Bible that Protestants can have an invisible unity when Jesus expected a visible unity to be seen by the world (see John 17)?"
52) "Where does the Bible tell us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father?"
Questions Steve Ray Thinks "Bible Chrisians" Can't Answer - Answered
Monday, October 3, 2011
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Debunking Christianity: Militant Atheist?
John Loftus posted the following image:
I think the point of image is to point out that Militant Christians and Muslims are violent while Atheists are not. Let's examine the term "militant".
Debunking Christianity: Militant Atheist?
I think the point of image is to point out that Militant Christians and Muslims are violent while Atheists are not. Let's examine the term "militant".
mil·i·tant
[mil-i-tuhnt]
Show IPA
adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting. link
So does this make sense the way the word is being applied. Let's grant that for a moment and ask the question "Is the picture of the 'militant atheist' the only picture that would suffice? Why not one of these?"
Now, let's ask about the so-called "Militant Christian"? Anyone who would pray for or take joy in the death of anyone can't be a consistent Christian. They ain't following God!
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.- Ezekiel 18:21-24
The picture doesn't work.
Debunking Christianity: Militant Atheist?
Most Americans Don't Believe Nation Is Economically Divided - Politics - GOOD
But while the so-called 99 Percenters take it to the streets, a new study from the Pew Research Institute says most Americans are not on their side. Despite the fact that all signs suggest rich people in the United States are getting vastly wealthier than everyone else, a majority still doesn't believe there's an economic divide between "haves" and "have-nots."
I sure hope people wake up and make changes before desperate people begin to do desperate things.
Most Americans Don't Believe Nation Is Economically Divided - Politics - GOOD
Ruuuuuuuuunnnnnnn!!!!!! BigDog Now Has a Big Brother!
The AlphaDog Proto is a lab prototype for the Legged Squad Support System, a robot being developed by Boston Dynamics with funding from DARPA and the US Marine Corps. When fully developed the system will carry 400 lbs of payload on 20-mile missions in rough terrain. The first version of the complete robot will be completed in 2012. This video shows early results from the control development process. In this video the robot is powered remotely. AlphaDog is designed to be over 10x quieter than BigDog.
Ruuuuuuuuunnnnnnn!!!!!! BigDog Now Has a Big Brother!
Saturday, October 1, 2011
FacePalm of th Day #129 - Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?
JohnnyP has post the following article on Debunking Christianity and there are several...problems....with it. I've annotated his post in red.
Let us assume the triple properties of the classical approach to God: that he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In terms of the classic Problem of Evil argument, if there is too much evil in the world, God knows what to do about it, is powerful enough to do it, and is loving enough to want to do something about it. This argument has been around since the days of Epicurus and still remains one of the most hotly debated theological issues in modern times, causing many believers to leave the fold due to its evidential power.
This line of argumentation has never impressed me because who says that we can determine when God should deal with evil. The argument also fails to take account that if God destroyed all evil now, we would all be destroyed. If God had destroyed all evil at any time in the past, we would never exist. Instead God has a plan in mind and everything is in place to bring that plan to fruition - even evil.
19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:19-25
However, logically, the theist can still defend their belief in God and the accusation that either God does not exist, or God does not possess one, two or any of those properties. They do this, more often than not, by employing the ubiquitous ‘God moves in mysterious ways’ or ‘You cannot know the mind of God’. What this equates to, is the a priori claim that God does have those three characteristics, and that, therefore, all the pain and suffering in the world is not gratuitous but part of the grander plan and vision of an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful Superbeing.
I really wish that when people raise this objection would really argue without the arrogance of assuming that we know just how much suffering there should be in order to get the "best possible world". We don't. We don't know know that "Best possible world is". That's like telling an engineer that the car he's designed is a failure and not knowing what the specs are! We wouldn't do judge a design (at least sane people wouldn't) and not know what the design specs and goals are. Why would we expect the universe and reality to be different?
Although it is very difficult to logically disprove this defence, it does have some rather serious ramifications for the Christian theist. Because God is claimed as being all-loving it means that any decision that God makes, any actualisation of events and matter and so forth, must be the most loving that can be. It means that every decision made must be the most caring or loving decision that could possibly be made in terms of some criteria, or some outcome.
Again, we don't know what the criteria or outcome is so how do you judge that God is not making the most loving decision possible? Do we even know what "love" is? How would you explain what "love" is to a five year-old. My Daughter is five and she just asked me that question about half-a-week ago. How would you answer? Without God the question can't be objectively answered in any meaningful way.
Since God is omniscient, and given the possibility of Middle Knowledge or any other mechanism for divine foreknowledge, God knows every possible outcome for every actualisation of every possible world. And God, evidently, chose this one.
I reject "Middle Knowledge" because I can find no Biblical nor scientific evidence that convinces me that is how God handles time and space. I would not say that God picks a possible reality to exist. He "knows the end from the beginning" because He has determined it. I agree he knows all other possibilities but he's not bound by our will or what we will or will not do. I've posted a lot about Middle Knowledge on this blog and can read them by following this link.
First of all, the ramifications are fairly clear for God’s own free will. Since he must do what is maximally loving at all times, he cannot do otherwise. One could argue, then, that God does not have free will himself. Without the ability to act contrary to his omnibenevolence, he has only one course of action that he can possibly take, or courses of action that contain equal quantities of ‘lovingness’ (for want of a better term). A theist could argue that God could do otherwise but chooses not to.
Doing the maximally loving thing at all times is hardly limitation if you don't want to do anything otherwise. Can square want to be round? I agree that God cannot do otherwise because to do otherwise is to choose to be imperfect - equals sin. It's against God's nature and character not a limitation and is not a denial of God's free will.
This is akin to the taxman analogy. This goes as follows. A taxman assesses your business. He says you have a tax bill for $25,000. He gives you the choice of paying it or not paying it. The free choice is yours. However, by not paying it, you will go to prison (or to make the analogy more powerful, you will be sentenced to death). Thus you have a free choice where you can exercise your free will, but one choice will result in your imminent imprisonment or death. What will it be? You can argue, perhaps, that you have free will, but you can also argue that this is an effective denial of free will.
It's a bad analogy. It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your punishment of death as well. The problem is you are so engrossed and blind in your imprisonment you can't see how bad off you really are without being told or the truth revealed to you.
I think this is an important point:
In the same way, God could choose in a way that was not maximally loving, but he never would because it is against his all-loving nature. This is a grey area of free will. There is a debate here as to whether God does not have omnipotence, or whether omnipotence can be a potentiality. If it is a potentiality that can never be made real and existent, then does this equate to it not existing?
There is another option: God always chooses that which is maximally loving because of who and what God is. The problem is that we don't know that the maximally loving options are or even what "love" really is in all situations. We have an idea, but we don't really know exhaustively.
However, the main point to be made here is as follows. It seems, then, that if God is to keep his omnibenevolent characteristic, then this world must be the maximally perfect and loving world that there can be. If God is perfect, then this must be his most perfect creation. A perfect God could not create something that fell short of perfection, and an all-loving God could not create something that did not fulfill the criterion of being the most-loving creation.
Johnny P neglects one major thing: Sin. You can deny sin, sure. But you can't argue against Christian theism using what we believe in order to show that it doesn't make sense and ignore sin. The Creation did not fall short of perfection before the fall. God doesn't perpetuate evil in this reality, we do. It's our rebellion that is what is wrong with the world. You cannot have love without mercy and it is this that keeps God from destroying all of us and making us wait until all those who will believe to hear the Gospel and turn to God to be revealed.
The slightly worrying outcome this is that a world where 250,000 people and millions of animals are killed in a tsunami, where anywhere between 20% and 75% of foetuses are naturally aborted (depending on the source), where cancer and malaria are rife, where a global flood killed all the population of earth bar 8 (and all the animals bar some), where forest fires kill baby deer, is a world where these events that are perhaps even necessary for it to be the most loving world.
Again do you or anyone of know what the whole plan is? Do we know what the best for us in the world is? I don't. If you think you do, then you are really dishonest. If you don't know what maximally good and perfect are, how do you know that there is no purpose for the suffering we witness? You don't.
Moreover, the Westboro Baptist Church may have some kind of twisted logic in celebrating the death of every soldier, in celebrating the outcome of pretty much anything as being the righteous judgement of an all-loving God. They realise that this judgement by God to actualise this particular world must be supremely wise and must result in the most loving world. This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.
Westboro Baptist Church is far from the best example of how to think logically about these issue. Is all of this due to God's judgement? Some of it? However God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, why should we?
Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ - Ezekiel 33:11
If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks.
So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is. Obviously, most people would prefer to attack a strawman version of God instead of what the Bible actually say.s IF you want to throw out the God of Middle knowledge and say that he does not exist, more power to you! That God does not exist. Instead, how about reading the Bible and meeting the God who exists and sustains God's self with God's self.
Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)