Epic Debate Over God's Existance

[Dan56]

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

"Good" is not Websters definition, its what God is.

 

     Now, you don't need a dictionary?         What happened to your earlier statement in this thread?     

"I can relate to that ..... The simple remedy is a dictionary, but Atheist don't seem to like that definition."

 

A dictionary gives definitions of what means what. God says, "I AM THAT I AM". So what's the definition of that? My point being, "God is good" is not found in Websters dozens of applications for the word 'good'. The knowledge of what makes something good or evil is not encompassed in a single dictionary definition. God is good, God is light, God is righteous, etc, are not definitions, but pronouncements of what is. Water is wet would mean nothing to someone who never encountered water, just as 'good' has no relevance without God.. i.e; an Atheist disbelieves, but the definition has no application of why, while God is the explanation of good..... This may all be a bit above your pay grade, but 'good' in the divine sense goes beyond a dictionary reference, e.g; cake is good...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

A dictionary gives definitions of what means what. God says, "I AM THAT I AM". So what's the definition of that? My point being, "God is good" is not found in Websters dozens of applications for the word 'good'. The knowledge of what makes something good or evil is not encompassed in a single dictionary definition. God is good, God is light, God is righteous, etc, are not definitions, but pronouncements of what is. Water is wet would mean nothing to someone who never encountered water, just as 'good' has no relevance without God.. i.e; an Atheist disbelieves, but the definition has no application of why, while God is the explanation of good..... This may all be a bit above your pay grade, but 'good' in the divine sense goes beyond a dictionary reference, e.g; cake is good...

 

Wrong again.     

 

The distinction between non-belief and dis-belief seems to be beyond your pay grade.     

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

He spins the greatest of these is love to faith, even though its word for word literally wrong...AND DEFENDS IT.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

He spins the greatest of these is love to faith, even though its word for word literally wrong...AND DEFENDS IT.

 

 

Just so.  Dan is never wrong about anything.  God and he make a majority.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

This thread began with "Epic Debate Over God's Existance"

I would like to pause for a reality check.  Is the Debate over God's existence, really  all that epic?

 

I have long maintained that when a god's existence can not be demonstrated to be true -- it doesn't matter whether or not that god exists.  Even if that god actually exists, it still doesn't matter.

 

No.  This is not an epic debate.  This is us, getting over wrought, over something trivial.  A true "tempest in a teapot."  In the end -- So what?

 

[Key]

On 7/10/2020 at 11:48 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Refusing to condone sin is not discrimination. Your insisting that Christians alter their moral values, and refusing to do so makes them bigots. Treating others equally is good, but it doesn't entail embracing their moral standards, or the lack thereof. "Doing unto others" does not always necessitate favorable treatment, e.g; If I stole a car I'd expect to be locked up, likewise if someone stole my car, I'd want them locked-up.

 

No, I am not insisting that Christians alter their moral values, but rather look at them in regard to interactions with others. Again, it is not condoning sin to cooperate with others outside their religion toward a common goal that isn't itself a sin. So, yes, in that regard, they are, in fact, bigots. 

Working toward a common goal doesn't necessarily entail embracing outside moral standards, or lack thereof. That is where you always get it twisted. You really think you have to abandon your beliefs to work alongside of someone of a different religion or sexual preference? If so, you are a lot weaker in your faith than you claim to be.

[Key]

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

This thread began with "Epic Debate Over God's Existance"

I would like to pause for a reality check.  Is the Debate over God's existence, really  all that epic?

 

I have long maintained that when a god's existence can not be demonstrated to be true -- it doesn't matter whether or not that god exists.  Even if that god actually exists, it still doesn't matter.

 

No.  This is not an epic debate.  This is us, getting over wrought, over something trivial.  A true "tempest in a teapot."  In the end -- So what?

 

Only one way for the debate to ever truly be ended. That is God reveals Himself to everyone and removes any shade of doubt. Until then, forever shall it be an open question.

However, in regard to an individual's personal belief, it can be open and shut, just as faith is accepted as fact to some, it can be accepted as fable to others. That's both the beauty and curse of an analytical mind.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Only one way for the debate to ever truly be ended. That is God reveals Himself to everyone and removes any shade of doubt. Until then, forever shall it be an open question.

However, in regard to an individual's personal belief, it can be open and shut, just as faith is accepted as fact to some, it can be accepted as fable to others. That's both the beauty and curse of an analytical mind.

 

 

I can already hear the pious objections.  God has revealed himself.  It's all in Scripture, and it wasn't enough for the people who were there to see it.

 

This brings us to Scripture.  In my younger days, when I took Scripture seriously, I was willing to argue about it.  I did argue about it.  A lot.  Now, I can't take Scripture seriously, long enough, even to argue about it.  I don't mind talking about it -- but I don't care enough to engage in a serious argument.  The steam has gone out of me.  The boiler is empty.

 

Even now, if someone had actual evidence for God's existence -- not an argument -- real evidence -- I would gladly consider it.  The centuries have come and gone.  If such evidence existed, I would know about it.  The faithful would rub my face in it.  That leaves the arguments.  So many, repeated so often -- as though for the first time.  I think my least favorite argument is -- "What would it take to make you believe?"  The answer is -- I don't know.  God would know.  So far, it hasn't happened."

 

Yes.  God could end it.  If God existed.  If God cared.  If God were good.  All three propositions are dubious.

 

A brief pause about the vocabulary of non-belief:

 

I am an Apatheist.  I don't care any more.  I'm done with epic debates that don't matter.

 

I am an Atheist.  I don't believe and that's all it means.  Atheism is not a belief, or a philosophy, or a religion, or anything else.  It's non-belief. Not even dis-belief, which is different.

 

I am an Agnostic.  I don't actually know.  Even now, I sometimes use that label when I don't want to argue.  There is no objective, verifiable information about God.  In the end, God either is or is not.  There is no good evidence.  If something turns up, I will consider it.

 

There we are.  I'm open to friendly conversation.  I'm done arguing.

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

On 7/11/2020 at 8:48 AM, Dan56 said:

[...] Most 'leaders' have the support of their people. It wasn't just the Pharaoh who benefited from slavery in Egypt. Going along makes everyone culpable. 

We are all morally wrong, but who bore the punishment for our transgressions? God is good.

I know its a stretch, but there's a remote possibility the He who created all that is, might know a tad bit more than you do about fairly administering justice? Compare Christ to yourself, which of you would you honestly classify as 'good'?[...]

 

Really? You think your God "knows" anything about administering justice? Killing babies because their leader supposedly did something? Sure...

 

Have "fun" with that megalomaniac for all eternity... 

[Dan56]

On 7/11/2020 at 5:01 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I have long maintained that when a god's existence can not be demonstrated to be true -- it doesn't matter whether or not that god exists.  Even if that god actually exists, it still doesn't matter.

 

It was demonstrated to be true... But for you, it still doesn't matter.

 

16 hours ago, Key said:

No, I am not insisting that Christians alter their moral values, but rather look at them in regard to interactions with others. Again, it is not condoning sin to cooperate with others outside their religion toward a common goal that isn't itself a sin. So, yes, in that regard, they are, in fact, bigots. 

Working toward a common goal doesn't necessarily entail embracing outside moral standards, or lack thereof. That is where you always get it twisted. You really think you have to abandon your beliefs to work alongside of someone of a different religion or sexual preference? If so, you are a lot weaker in your faith than you claim to be.

 

I continue to disagree, the desire to associate with like-minded people to achieve a common goal does not equate to bigotry. Not allowing people to  engage exclusively with others who share their faith and values is an attempt to remove individual freedom and choice, all under the guise of political & social correctness. Its not about being forced to abandon one's own morals, its about being forced to include people who oppose your morals. If you agree that its good for the girl scouts to sell cookies to raise money, should they be forced to include you into their organization simply because you can sell cookies too? Fact is, you wouldn't fit in because your not a girl scout, just as Atheist don't fit in with a Christian group, because they aren't Christian.

 

16 hours ago, Key said:

Only one way for the debate to ever truly be ended. That is God reveals Himself to everyone and removes any shade of doubt.

 

 

God did reveal himself, He was manifested in the flesh and rose from the grave. Hang tight, everyone will know, "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And LORD Of Lords." (Revelation 19: 11-16)

 

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Really? You think your God "knows" anything about administering justice? Killing babies because their leader supposedly did something? Sure...

 

Have "fun" with that megalomaniac for all eternity... 

 

“When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live" (Exodius 1:15)..  "Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews,  you shall cast into the Nile" (verse 22). "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the LORD" (Romans 12:19). Paybacks a bitch ain't it

 

On 7/11/2020 at 4:22 PM, cuchulain said:

He spins the greatest of these is love to faith, even though its word for word literally wrong...AND DEFENDS IT.

 

My point being, how can one uphold the greatest commandment to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, when you don't even have faith that God exist? Love is greater than faith, but without faith, love is dead... i.e; I love my wife, but I don't respect her, I don't believe her, I don't trust her, I don't need her, and I'll do nothing for her. 

[RevBogovac]

4 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

[...] “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live" (Exodius 1:15)..  "Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews,  you shall cast into the Nile" (verse 22). "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the LORD" (Romans 12:19). Paybacks a bitch ain't it  [...]

 

You do understand that you are not only condoning but actually smiling upon infanticide. Dude, that's sick. I don't care who does the killing... it is inherently evil to kill babies. All you have demonstrated with your bible quotes is that your god is a vengeful evil being. And you smile upon that... 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

49 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

It was demonstrated to be true... But for you, it still doesn't matter.

 

 

.

 

 

.

 

 

.

 

You are so predictable.  That is the response I was expecting.

 

 

"I can already hear the pious objections.  God has revealed himself.  It's all in Scripture, and it wasn't enough for the people who were there to see it."

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

You do understand that you are not only condoning but actually smiling upon infanticide. Dude, that's sick. I don't care who does the killing... it is inherently evil to kill babies. All you have demonstrated with your bible quotes is that your god is a vengeful evil being. And you smile upon that... 

 

 

In the Bible, killing children is one of the ways that God punishes their parents.  Killing the first born of Egypt is consistent.  God kills children.  God also seems to be just fine with rape, as a punishment for husbands.  No matter how we wiggle and squirm, the Bible God is depraved.

 

Psalm 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

Isaiah 13:16

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

Dan, at the time, when He rose from the grave. They only saw Him as He proclaimed Himself to be, the son of God, and intercessor on their behalf before the Father. Revelations came much later. but wasn't always accepted as Gospel until the Council included it as official Canon.

So, it can still be argued that God did not reveal Himself, and that we only have a possibility.

There are still many who argue, as you well know, that a powerful God, as He is proclaimed to be, could reveal Himself without any lingering doubt. Thus, if He had already, why is there still doubt? 

You can argue various details about free will this and that, but if it truly came down to the decision to accept or not, why not reveal without doubt. and still allow the choice to accept?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Dan, at the time, when He rose from the grave. They only saw Him as He proclaimed Himself to be, the son of God, and intercessor on their behalf before the Father. Revelations came much later. but wasn't always accepted as Gospel until the Council included it as official Canon.

So, it can still be argued that God did not reveal Himself, and that we only have a possibility.

There are still many who argue, as you well know, that a powerful God, as He is proclaimed to be, could reveal Himself without any lingering doubt. Thus, if He had already, why is there still doubt? 

You can argue various details about free will this and that, but if it truly came down to the decision to accept or not, why not reveal without doubt. and still allow the choice to accept?

 

Free will is an interesting topic in it's own right.  If we are going to do that, I think it should have it's own thread.  Where would you put it?

 

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

You do understand that you are not only condoning but actually smiling upon infanticide. Dude, that's sick. I don't care who does the killing... it is inherently evil to kill babies. All you have demonstrated with your bible quotes is that your god is a vengeful evil being. And you smile upon that... 

 

Do you understand that a pro-abortionist is insinuating that an anti-abortionist approves of infanticide? How ironic,, and absurd.

God told the Pharaoh to let His people go or Egyptian infants would die, so the fate of those kids was in the hands of the Pharaoh, and his poor choice killed them.  

 

5 hours ago, Key said:

Dan, at the time, when He rose from the grave. They only saw Him as He proclaimed Himself to be, the son of God, and intercessor on their behalf before the Father. Revelations came much later. but wasn't always accepted as Gospel until the Council included it as official Canon.

So, it can still be argued that God did not reveal Himself, and that we only have a possibility.

There are still many who argue, as you well know, that a powerful God, as He is proclaimed to be, could reveal Himself without any lingering doubt. Thus, if He had already, why is there still doubt? 

You can argue various details about free will this and that, but if it truly came down to the decision to accept or not, why not reveal without doubt. and still allow the choice to accept?

 

God could, and eventually will, prove himself with indisputable evidence, but we are called by faith because it requires a decision, obedience, and a genuine desire to seek & trust Him..
"Without faith it is impossible to please him" (Hebrews 1:6). Imo, when Christ resurrected, he revealed exactly who he was, and the apostles recognized it, "Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God" (John 20:28), and Jesus told the devil who was tempting him, "Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God" (Matthew 4:7). No mincing of words, but a direct proclamation of exactly who Jesus was.

[cuchulain]

23 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

It was demonstrated to be true... But for you, it still doesn't matter.

 

 

I continue to disagree, the desire to associate with like-minded people to achieve a common goal does not equate to bigotry. Not allowing people to  engage exclusively with others who share their faith and values is an attempt to remove individual freedom and choice, all under the guise of political & social correctness. Its not about being forced to abandon one's own morals, its about being forced to include people who oppose your morals. If you agree that its good for the girl scouts to sell cookies to raise money, should they be forced to include you into their organization simply because you can sell cookies too? Fact is, you wouldn't fit in because your not a girl scout, just as Atheist don't fit in with a Christian group, because they aren't Christian.

 

 

God did reveal himself, He was manifested in the flesh and rose from the grave. Hang tight, everyone will know, "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And LORD Of Lords." (Revelation 19: 11-16)

 

 

“When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live" (Exodius 1:15)..  "Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews,  you shall cast into the Nile" (verse 22). "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the LORD" (Romans 12:19). Paybacks a bitch ain't it

 

 

My point being, how can one uphold the greatest commandment to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, when you don't even have faith that God exist? Love is greater than faith, but without faith, love is dead... i.e; I love my wife, but I don't respect her, I don't believe her, I don't trust her, I don't need her, and I'll do nothing for her. 

So the Bible has contradicted itself.  The greatest is love.  But the greatest is faith.  Can't be both.  Which is it, when the book says one thing in one place and another in a different place?

[RevBogovac]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Do you understand that a pro-abortionist is insinuating that an anti-abortionist approves of infanticide? How ironic,, and absurd.

God told the Pharaoh to let His people go or Egyptian infants would die, so the fate of those kids was in the hands of the Pharaoh, and his poor choice killed them.  [...]

 

This has nothing to do with you or me. It's about your god claiming that he is "good" while killing innocent children.  (No, Pharaoh didn't kill them, your god did. If he had an ounce of morals and was even close to being good he would have punished Pharaoh, not innocent children.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

This has nothing to do with you or me. It's about your god claiming that he is "good" while killing innocent children.  (No, Pharaoh didn't kill them, your god did. If he had an ounce of morals and was even close to being good he would have punished Pharaoh, not innocent children.)

 

 

Well done.     

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

This has nothing to do with you or me. It's about your god claiming that he is "good" while killing innocent children.  (No, Pharaoh didn't kill them, your god did. If he had an ounce of morals and was even close to being good he would have punished Pharaoh, not innocent children.)

 

Just as the Pharaoh chose to kill Hebrew infants, he also had the option of freely choosing to comply with God or letting Egyptian infants die.

And if you recall, God left the Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea.