An Old Argument.... does it hold water? (page 149)

tec

LOL thats because it doesn't really matter where it is from...it is not evidence.

Evidence is anything that leads a person to a particular conclusion. Beliefs are based on evidence... what type of evidence is another matter.

Peace,

tammy

tec

Oh, missed this part, Q, sorry.

If your Christ has any power in the natural world and allows innocent newborn babies ( so no sin or things to learn ) to be starved, tortured, maimed or killed by natural events then it can only mean he chose to do nothing. He sat on his hands. Either your Christ won't help, can't help or doesn't exist. If that is your loving Christ then you maybe need to have a good think about why you are so morally flawed as to worship such a being.

People are tortured by other people. People are not tortured by natural events. Natural events are just that. Like a tsunami that comes up where people are and also where people are not. This is the world that we have, and neither you nor I know how it could be different and still support life.

Right now, we live with that. How it was meant to be, or how it will be, is something we cannot conceive about. That is something that is taken on faith (how it will be), based on trust in the One who states that there will be no more death or suffering.

Sorry to be harsh.

Not a problem. It is more that you are being absolute with limited knowledge, and this is what I objected to in the first place.

Peace,

tammy

tec

I have seen no argument to refute the premise of this thread.

The premise of this thread does not consider variables; the premise of this thread is based on assumptions of knowledge.

But then what else should be expected from this Biblical god? He killed millions, ordered his people to pillage and rape, constantly beat his chest as 'Lord' and killed anyone who dared cross him.

My God is not 'bible god'. My God is the God and Father of Christ.

Peace,

tammy

Qcmbr

I don't think you understand the concept that as soon as there is a supernatural world then the natural world is merely a permission of that supernatural world. In other words the natural world is no more than the supernatural world enforcing some local laws at a certain time and space, laws which it can suspend ( miracles ) as and when desired.

Thus a natural disaster is mandated by the supernatural world as much as a beautiful delicate flower.

1 could Christ have stopped natural disasters?

2 are you happy to defend your Christ's inactivity in natural disasters?

3 do you subscribe to the argument that morality is merely gods will rather than what actually happens ( so today it may be moral to kill and tomorrow god may decide it isn't)?

4 do you understand why claiming the bible as evidence when it agrees with you but arguing it isn't correct when it disagrees with you is a no different from saying your mental constructs , on religion, are always right? In other words you have no tools with which to examine your statements since you have mentally agreed with yourself that any dissenting information is simply wrong.

cantleave

BLOODY HELL! I wake up to 75 pages..........................................

cofty

In other words you have no tools with which to examine your statements since you have mentally agreed with yourself that any dissenting information is simply wrong. - Qcmbr

I just wanted to underline that point.

the premise of this thread is based on assumptions of knowledge. - Tec

1. Christ and his father have enormous power over natural events.

2. They are always aware of events in the natural world or at least have the ability to do so if they choose.

3. An earthquake ocurred under the Indian Ocean on Christmas Eve 2004 causing a wave to move away from the epicentre.

4. Christ and his Father observed or at least had the potential to observe the wave before it struck land.

5. They had the physical power to calm the wave a fraction of a second after it was born and to do so unobserved by everybody.

6. They did not stop it.

7. 250 000 people drowned.

Tec without getting into possible reasons, are there any assumptions above you don't agree with?

still thinking

Evidence is anything that leads a person to a particular conclusion. tec...

ev·i·dence

/ '?v?d?ns / Show Spelled [ ev -i-duhns ] Show IPA noun,verb, -denced, -denc·ing. noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. I think I'll phrase it the way I did the first time....you have no proof

tec

I don't think you understand the concept that as soon as there is a supernatural world then the natural world is merely a permission of that supernatural world. In other words the natural world is no more than the supernatural world enforcing some local laws at a certain time and space, laws which it can suspend ( miracles ) as and when desired.

Q, this is a total assumption on your behalf. How could you know something like this? Who says that it is the supernatural suspending laws (in the case of miracles), rather than natural laws that we don't know how to tap into yet?

I mean, I understand the concept that you're speaking of. I just don't know how you think you can state how the supernatural works.

1 could Christ have stopped natural disasters?

I think so. I think we will be able to as well, with the right amount of faith. (which is not a payment, but a means to do such things)

2 are you happy to defend your Christ's inactivity in natural disasters?

I do not know enough about it to condemn, only enough about Christ to defend Him. I do know that if we got rid of all the natural disasters, then all the man-made killing and torturing and wars and starvation would still continue. Natural 'disasters' occur because that is the way this world works; different conditions would not likely support life. We must work within that to have life... and of all the money and time we devote to wars, or personal gain, we could have spent money toward protection against natural disasters, good enough warnings against them, etc. People still take their chances though, even knowing the risks. Surfers still go surfing. People still build their homes around 'dormant' volcanoes; or on fault lines, or near the oceans when we know about the possibilities of tsunamis.

3 do you subscribe to the argument that morality is merely gods will rather than what actually happens ( so today it may be moral to kill and tomorrow god may decide it isn't)?

No. His will does not change, in any case. Ours does though, and we project that on to him. If it is not okay to kill, then it is not okay to kill.

4 do you understand why claiming the bible as evidence when it agrees with you but arguing it isn't correct when it disagrees with you is a no different from saying your mental constructs , on religion, are always right? In other words you have no tools with which to examine your statements since you have mentally agreed with yourself that any dissenting information is simply wrong.

Sure, I understand that... IF... that was what I was doing: agreeing or disagreeing according to my own 'constructs'. It is not though. I 'agree or disagree' according to what Christ did or taught. I check my statements according to Him. He is the Living Word, not the bible. Living God = Living Image/Living Word.

Peace,

tammy

tec

without getting into possible reasons, are there any assumptions above you don't agree with?

Not sure. That's the problem with assumptions. There are factors that are not covered by your list though... variables not mentioned; things that change the possible conclusion.

Still: tends to prove is not prove. Grounds for belief, is not necessarily proof. From Wiki:

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have

arisen over the difference.

More than one type of evidence.

And I have said countless times that I do not have proof.

Peace,

tammy

still thinking

tec...the more I read your 'evidence' the more I come to the conclusion there is no god.

finish highlighting that quote tec....evidence that suggests truth.....

Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

The evidence you post here does not suggest truth...it suggests quite the opposite...but then, thats my belief based on the evidence you present.

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

Share this