by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
Isn't it enlightening how believers take refuge in semantics rather than deal with the real challenges?
Humbled proposed a god who lacked the power to prevent a tsunami. I asked what is the point of an impotent god?
If a god is powerless to stop an tsunami he is impotent to do so.
Now back to the topic.
Flamegrilled, your arguments and refusal to admit the obvious is reaching Ludicrous Speed. It's like the young earth creationists that claim that light may have moved faster inthe past or decay rates may have been faster making the earth and universe just LOOK older.
Adam the earthquake that casued the Asian tsunami occured 19 miles below the Indian Ocean.
It wasn't caused by fracking.
Flamegrilled, your arguments and refusal to admit the obvious is reaching Ludicrous Speed. It's like the young earth creationists that claim that light may have moved faster inthe past or decay rates may have been faster making the earth and universe just LOOK older.
Viviane - you're very big on making general statements about my arguments without ever quoting them. Perhaps that's because you are continuing to infer things that I never wrote.
I've quoted you several times. No need to resort to dishonesty and, if it's not plain old dishonesty, you need to read more carefully.
Flamegrilled - Why do you avoid the strong arguments against your case?
Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes have been happening for a long time before there were humans.
They are a result of how the god of christian theism made the world.
Therefore god is responsible for the deaths that have ensued. It is a crime of commision not simply one of neglect.
So to review the ethics of christian theism ...
1. God made tsunamis
2. Every act of god is perfectly loving
3. Allowing 250 000 people to drown in a tsunami is an act of perfect love
Viviane said-
Adamah, impotent CAN mean powerless, it also means unable to take effective action. I was using the latter, not the former. I am not saying it's a good translation, but some Bibles, like the KJV 2000, does render Revelation 19:6 to contain the word "omnipotent", most others say "almighty".
None of which is relevant, since I said you committed the logical error of exclusion of alternatives (AKA false dilemma, or jumping to the other extreme). After reading the article, san you see what you did?
Hummingbird said-
Unless we know for sure that fracking caused the plate shifting that caused the tsunami, you are just arguing an off-topic point, adamah.
The hell it is: it became 'on-topic' when Cofty spouted a claim that is demonstrably-false. Don't suppose you've ever learned the rules of logic and rhetoric?
Logically, it IS a valid argument, only it's a circular argument - Adam
Cofty said- A valid circular argument?
Yes, it's a valid example of a CIRCULAR argument (perhaps I should've put a smilie in there).
However, technically circular arguments can be valid, where the conclusion is true but only if the premise itself is true. That's obviously not always the case, and why circular arguments are considered as a useless form of an argument. It's also called "begging the question".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando , "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking [1] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end up with. [2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.
Cofty said- Adam the earthquake that casued the Asian tsunami occured 19 miles below the Indian Ocean. It wasn't caused by fracking.
Are you a geologist? (Clearly not, since you weren't aware that ANY earthquake could be caused by human activity.) Are you aware of the geological factors at play in Indonesia in 2004? You have no basis to claim it wasn't, and the fact is you don't know WHY it happened. You made a statement which you cannot prove since you cannot prove the cause; you're assuming it was due to faulty design, but it would take more than a bald assertion in a court of law to prove manufacturer negligence (and here's a hint: the manufacturer gives an incriminating statement in the Bible, itself).
So the point remains: SOME earthquakes are known to have been caused by human activity, so if you wanted to be "fair and balanced" as you claim, you can add that human activity may have triggered the earthquake in a manner that science doesn't quite yet understand, and God chose not to intervene (whether due to 'benign neglect', or even as punishment for man's meddling with the Earth and to teach us haughty humans a lesson).
Adam
None of which is relevant, since I said you committed the logical error of exclusion of alternatives (AKA false dilemma, or jumping to the other extreme). After reading the article, san you see what you did?
I didn't read the article because I know what the fallacy of the excluded middle is. You can say I committed it all you want and I don't care because I didn't. I used a word appropriate to my meaning. As I explained, I did NOT jump to the extreme, I used the word in the sense that God was unable to stop the tsunami, not that God had no power.
Stop acting like you are smarter than everyone else, it's annoying and condescending.
If there is a god that is not all-powerful, I ask:Is that not a god?
The god Job met had a dwelling in the earth and Job sensed that ethical/loving conduct was the good this god enjoyed.....
why the hang-up on all-powerful? What is the main complaint here? That he/it isn't loving? What if god is loving and nothing else?
Who has a complaint here--atheists? theists?
so no one loves an impotent god? Mommy! Mommeeeee!!!!
(I have company coming in the door-----out of here--)see ya'll tomorrow
