a common atheist fallacy

[RevBogovac]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

If the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is a metaphor; it then follows that Adam and Eve were metaphor.  In which case, the Fall was metaphor.  The implications are serious.  Is this what you are saying?

 

If Adam and Eve and the Fall are all metaphor -- why not God?

 

 

 

 

If the Fall was not literal -- what was the sacrifice of Jesus about?  Was Jesus also a metaphor?

 

 

 

I believe the whole bible should be taken - more or les - as a metaphor. Just like every single other philosophical text.

 

I - persoanlly - would add though that I actually do believe there was some philospher named Jesus. Probably from around Nazareth, spreading his word around Jerusalem about 2000 years ago). Plenty of plausible evidence on that (more than on Plato, who "only" had the writings of Socrat, for instance). The problem starts over a centruty after Jesus was sentenced to death for spreading his equalitarian philosophies when some emperor in Constantinopel decided he should grant Jesus some "miracles" so he can persuade more people to his own sphere of influence. 

 

And that is exactly what is "wrong" with the bible too; if you start taking that book too literal. There has been too many changes, drops and additions to do that. It's just a good philosophical read. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Oh yeah; and yes: I am extremely grateful to Jesus spreading that equalitarian philosphy that is a big part of the basis of our current day way of life. And for standing so strongly for them that he actually accepted the death penalty over recanting his words. But no, he did not "rise from the dead" (that was actually one of those miracle that were added to the book over 100 years after hies death).

[mererdog]

On 7/4/2018 at 2:54 AM, RevBogovac said:

Hmkay, next level, let's step in a bit further than "only" Genesis (although that book alone is already full of "seeming" contradictions):

If God is all-powerful, would that not make God contradiction-proof? Able to both be and not be, do and not do- all at the same time? To presume that such a being's actions must make sense is to attempt to force logic onto the patently illogical- to weigh what has no weight.

Edited July 5, 2018 by mererdog
I like hyphens.

[mererdog]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Obviously, God wasn't asking because He didn't know. He was asking to give Adam, Eve, and Cain a choice. They disobeyed God, so would they also reject God, would pride cause them to lie as well? Today, God still expects us to confess our sins, not because He doesn't already know them, but because it expresses repentance. 

If God is omniscient, God knows what will happen before it happens. We test things because we do not know what will happen. We have expectations about what will happen because we don't have knowledge about what will happen. When you say God was testing, and that God has expectations, you are saying that God is not omniscient. You are saying that there are limits to God's knowledge.

Edited July 5, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

I believe the whole bible should be taken - more or les - as a metaphor. Just like every single other philosophical text.

 

I - persoanlly - would add though that I actually do believe there was some philospher named Jesus. Probably from around Nazareth, spreading his word around Jerusalem about 2000 years ago). Plenty of plausible evidence on that (more than on Plato, who "only" had the writings of Socrat, for instance). The problem starts over a centruty after Jesus was sentenced to death for spreading his equalitarian philosophies when some emperor in Constantinopel decided he should grant Jesus some "miracles" so he can persuade more people to his own sphere of influence. 

 

And that is exactly what is "wrong" with the bible too; if you start taking that book too literal. There has been too many changes, drops and additions to do that. It's just a good philosophical read. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Oh yeah; and yes: I am extremely grateful to Jesus spreading that equalitarian philosphy that is a big part of the basis of our current day way of life. And for standing so strongly for them that he actually accepted the death penalty over recanting his words. But no, he did not "rise from the dead" (that was actually one of those miracle that were added to the book over 100 years after hies death).

 

 

If God is metaphor, then God is the male equivalent of Mother Nature.  Is Mother Nature real?  Not in any literal way.  Sunshine, clouds, birds, trees, etc. yes.  But Mother Nature is not real.  God is just Mother Nature in drag.  People get really hot over poetic imagery.  Somehow, God is supposed to be real.  God is the Lord.

 

 

 

While we're at it -- the whole belief vs. Atheism thing...……..

 

   

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

If God is all-powerful, would that not make God contradiction-proof? Able to both be and not be, do and not do- all at the same time? To presume that such a being's actions must make sense is to attempt to force logic onto the patently illogical- to weigh what has no weight.

 

 

We can always spin our philosophic wheels on a special pleading.  I don't know why you insist on doing this -- but go right ahead if it pleases you to do so.

 

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is a metaphor; it then follows that Adam and Eve were metaphor.  In which case, the Fall was metaphor.  The implications are serious.  Is this what you are saying?

 

Not at all, it wasn't my intent to imply that the fall and expulsion from the  Garden of Eden was a metaphor.. I believe it happened.

 

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

Of course... Obviously... Speaking of God:

 

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. 
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

 

Not contradictory at all, God was pleased with his 6 day creation; "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) .. But God did not create sin, that was and is a production of man in the aftermath of creation. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6: 5-6). Creation was good, mankind via free will was terrible.

 

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

If God is omniscient, God knows what will happen before it happens. We test things because we do not know what will happen. We have expectations about what will happen because we don't have knowledge about what will happen. When you say God was testing, and that God has expectations, you are saying that God is not omniscient. You are saying that there are limits to God's knowledge.

 

Not exactly, I believe God is omniscient but also omnipotent, so while He has knowledge of what will occur, He also has the ability (power) to intercede, changing the natural course of what might have been. E.g; God knocked Saul off his horse on the way to Damascus, changing a villain into a saint..  Consider what was said to Abraham when God stopped him from sacrificing Issac; "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Genesis 22:12). This suggest to me that God did not know in advance, freewill and choice can be altered when we are living works in progress.. jmo

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

We can always spin our philosophic wheels on a special pleading.  I don't know why you insist on doing this -- but go right ahead if it pleases you to do so.

Claims of omnipotence are claims that logical limitations do not apply. This is not special pleading, but an assertion about the fundamental nature of existence.

If God is omnipotent, the universe is irrational, as everything is a matter of God's whim. Nothing is truly impossible and nothing is truly inevitable. As such, using logic as evidence when dealing with claims of omnipotence means failing to recognise the nature of the claim. It is an attempt to play baseball with a wiffleball bat.

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

He has knowledge of what will occur, He also has the ability (power) to intercede, changing the natural course of what might have been.

Which does not address my point. I know that if I drop a ball it will fall. I have the power to change the natural course of what might have been. But there is no motive for a test. I would only need a test if I did not know the natural course, and therefore needed to know whether (or how) to use my power.

Edited July 5, 2018 by mererdog

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Which does not address my point. I know that if I drop a ball it will fall. I have the power to change the natural course of what might have been. But there is no motive for a test.

 

The difference is that a falling ball doesn't have free choice, so gravity dictates that it will drop, but God doesn't dictate our choices. While you can physically alter the direction of a falling ball, it can't be influenced to change its own direction. Everything a person experiences in life can affect their choices, and just as God can change his own mind, we are free to change our minds and direction. Most every proposition in the bible is conditional; If you keep my commandments, If you believe, etc... Its an open invitation of which the results are not known until the work is finished. A test is just confirmation of what a person has determined to do, untested faith is evidence of nothing.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The difference is that a falling ball doesn't have free choice, so gravity dictates that it will drop, but God doesn't dictate our choices. While you can physically alter the direction of a falling ball, it can't be influenced to change its own direction. Everything a person experiences in life can affect their choices, and just as God can change his own mind, we are free to change our minds and direction. Most every proposition in the bible is conditional; If you keep my commandments, If you believe, etc... Its an open invitation of which the results are not known until the work is finished. A test is just confirmation of what a person has determined to do, untested faith is evidence of nothing.

 

A truly all knowing God would know -- in advance -- every change of mind that he will ever have.  Which means that there is no change of mind.

 

[RevBogovac]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[...] Not contradictory at all, God was pleased with his 6 day creation; "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) .. But God did not create sin, that was and is a production of man in the aftermath of creation. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6: 5-6). Creation was good, mankind via free will was terrible.[...]

 

100% contradictory, you can not have your cake and eat it too...

 

Creation is either good or not good. An omniscient creator does not get to change his mind.

 

As jonathan said too:

 

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

A truly all knowing God would know -- in advance -- every change of mind that he will ever have.  Which means that there is no change of mind.

 

 

In fact, the bible states God does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17. 

 

Major contradictions going on here now...

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

100% contradictory, you can not have your cake and eat it too...

 

Creation is either good or not good. An omniscient creator does not get to change his mind.

 

As jonathan said too:

 

 

In fact, the bible states God does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17. 

 

Major contradictions going on here now...

 

 

 

 

The contradiction is obvious.  God repents having created Man?  That's a big Cosmic oops.

 

[mererdog]

19 hours ago, Dan56 said:

A test is just confirmation of what a person has determined to do, untested faith is evidence of nothing.

You only need evidence if you do not already have knowledge. If God knows, why would he test?

Look at it this way....

You say it is obvious that God would not need to ask where someone is, because God already knows. In other words, God does not need to do something to get information He already has. You say God knows everything, so God does not have to test anything to find out about anything. Any exception, whether caused by free will or a lead-lined briefcase, would be a limitation that prevents the word "omniscient" from being accurate.

This is not to say that an all-powerful God could not run tests, merely that it is not sensible that an all-knowing God would want to- there is simply no reasonable motive because there is nothing to gain.

Edited July 6, 2018 by mererdog

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

100% contradictory, you can not have your cake and eat it too...

 

Creation is either good or not good. An omniscient creator does not get to change his mind.

 

Creation was good.... But your statement; "GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation" was false.. Verse 5 says; "GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth". Clearly, God was not pleased with what man had done. His regret was our wickedness, not that  his creation was flawed. God did not create wickedness, it emanated from us, and that's what grieved God.

 

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The contradiction is obvious.  God repents having created Man?

 

Its obvious to one who doesn't read with understanding and has no idea what the context is.. Ask yourself why God regretted it? God created man, meaning our physical bodies and saw that it was good. What displeased God came later, and it wasn't anything God designed.

 

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

This is not to say that an all-powerful God could not run tests, merely that it is not sensible that an all-knowing God would want to- there is simply no reasonable motive because there is nothing to gain.

 

Maybe the test are for our sake's.. The teacher gains nothing but pleasure when a student passes a test, its the student that is ultimately rewarded.. If good works and faithfulness are rewarded, surely they need those attributes on their resume to understand what their accomplishments will yield. God cannot judge someone on the basis of what He knows they would have done or not done. The record is for our understanding of judgement, and the test for our edification and growth. 

[mererdog]

56 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

God cannot judge someone on the basis of what He knows they would have done or not done. The record is for our understanding of judgement, and the test for our edification and growth. 

If God is all-powerful, as you have said, any sentence beginning with "God cannot" is incorrect. If God is omniscient, God has perfect knowledge, and what is a better source of judgment than perfect knowledge?

Now, note that the motive you cite is pointless if everyone passes the test. While the motive you now propose is logical, it is also morally questionable in the context of omnipotence. I would feel guilty if I harmed some in order to help others, if I knew I had the power to help everyone without harming anyone. Would you?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, mererdog said:

You only need evidence if you do not already have knowledge. If God knows, why would he test?

Look at it this way....

You say it is obvious that God would not need to ask where someone is, because God already knows. In other words, God does not need to do something to get information He already has. You say God knows everything, so God does not have to test anything to find out about anything. Any exception, whether caused by free will or a lead-lined briefcase, would be a limitation that prevents the word "omniscient" from being accurate.

This is not to say that an all-powerful God could not run tests, merely that it is not sensible that an all-knowing God would want to- there is simply no reasonable motive because there is nothing to gain.

 

Perhaps, the sadistic joy of handing out failing grades?  Of punishing failure?  Of spreading fear and guilt?  Why does a sadistic fiend do anything?  

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Creation was good.... But your statement; "GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation" was false.. Verse 5 says; "GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth". Clearly, God was not pleased with what man had done. His regret was our wickedness, not that  his creation was flawed. God did not create wickedness, it emanated from us, and that's what grieved God.

 

 

Its obvious to one who doesn't read with understanding and has no idea what the context is.. Ask yourself why God regretted it? God created man, meaning our physical bodies and saw that it was good. What displeased God came later, and it wasn't anything God designed.

 

 

Maybe the test are for our sake's.. The teacher gains nothing but pleasure when a student passes a test, its the student that is ultimately rewarded.. If good works and faithfulness are rewarded, surely they need those attributes on their resume to understand what their accomplishments will yield. God cannot judge someone on the basis of what He knows they would have done or not done. The record is for our understanding of judgement, and the test for our edification and growth. 

 

 

It's obvious to an adult, who reads at an adult level with adult understanding.

 

I read the Book.  It's not my problem, that the protagonist, in this work of fiction, is a deeply flawed character.  

 

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Why does a sadistic fiend do anything?  

Mostly due to the same motives as anyone else, but unrestrained by empathy due to a lack thereof. Empathy is a kind of knowledge, so it should fall under the omniscient umbrella. I would think that all-knowing would be all-loving 

Edited July 7, 2018 by mererdog

[Dan56]

On 7/6/2018 at 1:10 PM, mererdog said:

If God is all-powerful, as you have said, any sentence beginning with "God cannot" is incorrect. If God is omniscient, God has perfect knowledge, and what is a better source of judgment than perfect knowledge?

Now, note that the motive you cite is pointless if everyone passes the test. While the motive you now propose is logical, it is also morally questionable in the context of omnipotence. I would feel guilty if I harmed some in order to help others, if I knew I had the power to help everyone without harming anyone. Would you?

 

True... I should not have phrased it "God cannot" but rather "God will not".. My point was that God will judge and reward people on the basis of what they actually do. "God will render to every man according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6). So judgement will not be based on God's foreknowledge. "My reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Revelation 22:12).

 

And no,  I would not feel guilty if I had the power to help some while others were harmed. It would be like trying to help the Pharaoh and Moses simultaneously. You can't promote good when you insist on bringing evil along.

 

On 7/6/2018 at 9:38 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It's obvious to an adult, who reads at an adult level with adult understanding.

 

Exactly my point, its difficult to believe it even needs to be explained. God created man and saw that it was good, referring to man's physical creation. Then God saw the wickedness of man, and God regretted what man chose to do.

[RevBogovac]

On 7/8/2018 at 4:50 AM, Dan56 said:

[...] Exactly my point, its difficult to believe it even needs to be explained. God created man and saw that it was good, referring to man's physical creation. Then God saw the wickedness of man, and God regretted what man chose to do.

 

Sorry, but you do not get to "philosophise" this away... God does not get to "repent", remember: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.

 

Major contradictions going on by now...