yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Alright, since my primary response to the OP has been repeatedly ignored or made out to be something that it is not, I'll reframe it once more with a minor modification:
Cofty: My owner punched me in the face, threw foul tasting liquid in my mouth and nose, and watched while I choked and threw up.
Dog 2: What a bast#$rd
Cofty: I know. It PROVES that I cannot possibly have a loving owner.
Would Cofty be logically correct?
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
In the Genesis account, the Bible claims that humans were "made in God's image", which gave the author(s) carte blanche' to have God reasoning and feeling humanlike emotions (eg anger, sadness, etc). Humans obtained parity with God's and angelic morality by stealing the "wisdom of the Gods", such that Jehovah admitted as much, in Genesis 3:22
Or it could just be true that humans were made in God's image in the sense of having his qualities in a limited sense.
The ONLY difference at that point was that spirit beings had immortality, and the humans mortality
I understand how you are applying this to the immediate context, but the Bible does not say in general that spirits are immortal.
To discuss the traits of Almighty God according to the Biblical narrative would certainly take this off-topic. I'm not being funny, but I truly don't wish to be accused of "hijacking" the thread as happened at the outset. It doesn't take much apparently.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
@flamegrilled - you are arguing for "this is possible"
I am beyond that to "what is probable"
Besty - I have no arguments with you on that score. Once we get down to assessment of what is probable we will entertain a lot more data than 250K deaths in the Asian tsunami.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Adam - I appreciate your thought provoking comments. Although I'm evidently not on the same page as you in terms of my faith, I think you have made the most valuable contribution to the discussion in terms of logic and reason.
I completely acknowledge and agree that the "values" and "emotion" variables must necessarily have a hand in our personal conclusions, and that as a result full objectivity remains elusive.
I did not set out to prove that my foundation in Christian theism is truth. I only sought to counter Cofty's view that the tsunami presents a fatal flaw to it.
Of course, I know that you know this. I am simply reitterating it for the benefit of those who do not.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
We're not stupid. We're not pets. We're sentient beings who can reason. Simon
I agree we're not stupid. I agree we are not pets. I agree we can reason.
Furthermore I believe that some other animals can make decisions based upon available information just as we can, but to a different degree . I don't think that sentience and reason are binary things which your statement above implies.
I believe that higher beings can reason to a greater degree than lower beings. I believe that higher beings can work on a data set that is greater than that of lower beings.
In this context "stupid" is not a useful definition of anything.
If sentince and reason were to equate to omniscinece then I would see your POV, but they do not.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
besty
I guess that was aimed at me.
What is the logical alternative? We either claim that we know everything (in which case it's pretty clear that the claimant is a fool), or we deal in some way with the fact that we don't know everything.
The two ways to handle that are:
1) Dismiss everything we don't know as irrelevant.
2) Acknowledge that some of what we don't know might be relevant.
Which is it? If it's #1 then on what basis is that sound?
You might hate my analogy of the pet. It might be intellectually revolting to you. But that is not important. The only question is whether the line of reasoning is valid.
If it is, then Cofty's assertions as to the fatal blow to Christian theism are null and void.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
I'd like to draw on the Louie CK incident (referred to by Humbled) to present my reasoning in another way:
Dog 1: My owner punched me in the face, threw foul tasting liquid in my mouth and nose, and watched while I choked and threw up.
Dog 2: What a bast#$rd
Dog 1: I know. It PROVES that I cannot possibly have a loving owner.
Would Dog 1 be logically correct?
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
cofty, Christian theism has had other moments to wonder why their god has allowed death and destruction in the natural world kill people. The Lisbon earthquake and tsunami in the mid 1700's destroyed most the churches on All Saint's Day and yet let stand most of the red light district.So it is reported.
This is why I made the point that the numbers are irrelevant. Cofty makes much of the statistics of the Asian tsunami as if the 250K clinches the point of reason. What if it were 150K? What if it were 10? It makes no difference to the question, nor to the information available to us.
If 1 person suffers and dies due to what Cofty calls a "natural evil" then the question remains the same. Death by old age is surely a "natural evil" by this reasoning.
People die. Is this God's intent? The Bible says no. Can we fully comprehend why it occurs right now? Some people say yes, the Bible fully explains it. Personally I disagree with that. The Bible partially explains it, and I do not dismiss the information that is there, but like the pet that cannot fully comprehend the big picture I accept that there is some information that is outside of my range right now.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
What is Z in your argument, flamegrilled?
The evidence for a loving Christian God.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Adam
You have been very fair in noting the limitations of Cofty's so-called argument.
I would just like to comment on ...
The claim is actually an 'appeal to ignorance', following the general form of, "humans don't know X (which in some cases IS true), but THEREFORE we should do Y".
... since it was directed at my point of reason.
I don't think that is an accurate way of presenting the way most of us Theists are motivated.
We do Y because of Z (which is not part of this discussion), and at the same time acknowledge that we may not know X. Nevertheless the evidence of Z is so compelling (to us) that we are prepared to reserve judgement on X and not allow an absence of information in this area to lead us to conclusion Q in spite of Z.
Cofty's argument is that we must reach conclusion Q based upon his interpretation of X. No allowance can be made for Z, and an admission that we may not know X is to be scorned rather than acknowledged.
