Rilke's Granddaughter
Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
Ah. And once again, Dave demonstrates ignorance of another topic. In this case, one that he should understand: theology. Apparently, he doesn't.
[quote]I do understand the claim ... I know it is that "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place"? And the answer is "the same way parents can permit their children to experience evil."[/quote] Unfortunately for Dave's case, this analogy is invalid, parents are not God. (Much as I'm sure Dave would like his children to THINK that they are.) [quote]Obviously parents are not all-powerful, but the analogy works because parents do indeed have the power to keep their children from evil.[/quote] No, actually they don't. Otherwise the instances of child murder would not occur.
But having an invalid analogy hasn't ever stopped Dave before.
[quote]How? By not having them, or by going to Radio Shack and buying robot "children" instead of having natural children with CHOICE.[/quote] Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave. You really need to learn some logic, my child:
A person X cannot prevent person Y from doing Z by preventing the existence of person Y. If person Y doesn't exist then they cannot be prevented.
[quote]God also had the power to keep us from experiencing evil, but chose not to because of the greater good that would result in the big scheme of things.[/quote] Unsupported assertion and fatuous nonsense. Prove it.
[quote]He could have either not created us, or created us like little robots. That would be no fun though, just as it would be no fun for human parents.[/quote] And this demonstrates how little Dave understands theology.
God could have created beings who freely and of their own volition choose the right. In other words, God (being God) could create beings who freely chose not to sin. We know that such a condition can exist (based on Christian scripture) since heaven exists.
In other words, Dave is reduced to denying the truth of his own sacred scriptures in order to avoid the embarrassment of demonstrating his ignorance of those self-same scriptures. Like Uncommon Descent, you simply can't buy this kind of entertainment value.
[quote]Omniscience and omnipotence are separate issues.[/quote] Wow! What a dazzling observation! What a pity that folks have been making it for a couple of thousand years or more.
[quote]We obviously cannot comprehend this type of thing because we have never experienced it.[/quote] Certainly Dave hasn't.
[quote]Why is this a proof that it is a wrong idea?[/quote] It's not. But we've demonstrated that Dave doesn't understand 'proof'.
[quote]To say it is wrong as you do would be equivalent to a jungle native who had never seen an airplane fly saying that "airplanes are impossible." Both are denials based upon ignorance. Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so."[/quote] And only a moron would make such an argument. Therefore Dave is a moron. QED.
| Quote | | The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe. |
Factually incorrect statement, based on your personal ignorance.
| Quote | | I (with Paley) have given intuitive arguments. |
Actually, you have given no arguments at all. To give an argument would imply that you have given evidence. To give evidence would imply that you have pointed out facts about the universe.
You have not done so.
You have offered your personal opinions as unsupported assertions and stated that they are facts.
Poor Dave.
| Quote | | Bill Dembski is all about giving those intuitive arguments rigorous mathematical proofs, based on our recently acquired knowledge that life is essentially INFORMATION which assembles raw materials. |
ANd has conspicuously failed to do so. Dembski's 'filter' is a joke that has never been applied. Never.
| Quote | | While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place, and how the information was added to organisms to add new gross morphological features. |
So speaks the man ignorant of such simple counter-arguments as Avida.
| Quote | | The answer is Intelligent Design and this in turn supports Theism quite nicely. |
Oddly enough, it doesn't. ID is worse theology than it is science.
But since Dave, like every other scientifically illiterate fundie we deal with can't even define his terms (such as 'information' , it's unlikely that he can actually try to argue his point.
| Quote | | And Theism has no difficulties explaining the 'omnipotence and omnibenevolence problem' as I have shown. |
Gosh - and when are you going to 'show' that? So far, you haven't. The POE remains insoluable.
Norm: | Quote | | So, if God's will is that the worshippers of the golden calf must be killed by melting down their calf and making them drink it, that's not evil because it's God's will? If God's will is that Muslim hijackers crash planes into our skyscrapers, that's not evil because it's God's will? So, if you get ebola and die a horrible death, that's obviously God's will since no man decided you should get that disease? The problem with assuming you have to do God's will is figuring out what God's will is. |
Dave pontificated thusly: | Quote | | You are correct that figuring out God's will is a very big deal and should not be taken lightly. We also have the question of "Why is it OK for states to execute a convicted murderer?" and the like. And the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question. And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator? Or is there not?" Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions. Here's the deal. IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us. IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?" Now of course, you do have the problem of determining if it was really the Creator who created the Amalekites who is now saying go destroy them. Maybe the Jewish prophet is just a religious scheister and he's just pretending to speak for the Creator. And this should not be determined lightly. And it was not. God went to great lengths to make checks and balances with the Jewish people to make certain that the prophets were validated before they were trusted to give guidance on weighty matters such as destroying entire people groups. Contrast this with the modern claims of Jihadists. They have no authority from anywhere that has been rigorously validated by anyone. |
Excellent! So whatever God says, goes. And if tomorrow God ordered you to murder your children, sell your wife into slavery, and castrate yourself, you'd do it, because that's what God wants. And when God orders Muslims to burn every copy of the Bible as pure blasphemy, that's what God wants too.
Sadistic little bastard you worship, Dave.
| Quote | | Now regarding the obvious question of "How can God ordering the killing of people groups be considered good" the fact is that IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups. In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off. Killing people is a good thing under certain conditions and if done with the proper authority -- i.e. with government sanction in today's world (God has given life and death authority to governments--see Romans 13). Did it not do the Americans good to kill off those British soldiers? Look at all the good that has come to America as a result of killing those Brits and founding an independent nation. Ditto for Hitler and the Nazis (yes, I know ... Godwin ... OK fine). As for getting ebola and dying a horrible death, this too can be good if you are looking at it from God's perspective. Remember, this life is only a small portion of our total life. Humans will live forever somewhere and this short life within a physical body is nothing in the big scheme of things. |
Ah! And another piece of creationist boilerplate gets trotted out:
If something good happens, that's what God wants.
If something awful happens, that's what God wants.
I'm too stupid to understand that God is violating the moral rules She laid down for humans to follow; I'm too stupid to see the logical contradictions in the concept of God; so I'm just going to worship God no matter what horrible things (tsunami, anyone) God does.
| Quote | | So, God must feel the same way about things that you do? Could it be that you have made God in your own image? |
Dave opined: | Quote | | It's logically possible, yes, but you cannot escape the empirical evidence for a real Creator God, so no, when all things are considered it makes more sense to believe that WE were created in His image, rather than vice versa. |
Since Dave has not offered any empirical evidence for God, his argument is moot.
| Quote | | So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future. |
Dave sputtered: | Quote | | There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived. As for the future event which I cannot verify, I believe in this after I have established the authority of the Bible as a whole from a rigorous examination of the claims I can verify. |
There is no good evidence for the flood, Dave. None whatsoever. And all of the other evidence from geology and paleontology and history and a few other fields contradict it.
The Bible is a tissue of lies, distortions, and dull stories. And some really good smut. Come to think of it, maybe there is some reason to read it!
| Quote | | He then drew parallels between parenting, and god's handling of mankind. Does it follow, by extention, that parents should then subject those children who defy their will to unending, inescapable pain and torment? Where is the line drawn in this "in his image" concept? I found his explanation of "Evil in the World" to be kind of creepy. |
Dave made another meaningless rejoinder: | Quote | | Actually parents in a way do subject their kids to inescapable pain and torment by not always intervening. |
I see. Parents subject their children to eternal torment for finite transgressions? Parents murder their children for no known reason? | Quote | | Parents all the time choose not to intervene in the lives of kids who make bad life decisions. These kids end up in pain and torment all their lives because of their own decisions, not because the parents consigned them to this pain. |
So, Dave: if your child decided to drink acid and bleach mixed together, you would let him? If your child chose to take a blowtorch to your wife, you'd let him? If your child chose to cut his hands off with an axe, you'd let him?
You're one nasty dude, my child.
| Quote | | Why should God be any different? |
Why, indeed. We see from the Bible that God does things like that all the time. He kills innocents; he murders just and good men; he lies; he punishes unjustly.
Everything you'd want an omnipotent being to do.
| Quote | | He offers eternal life to anyone, but He does not force himself on anyone. If people want to choose to reject Him, it is they who are choosing their destiny, not Him. |
Proof?
| Quote | | yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science. |
Dave again: | Quote | | Do you all not realize that the children's novels are allegories of Lewis' Christian faith? He is primarily a Christian philosopher. His brilliance is shown in his children's novels because he not only writes exciting kid stuff, but also weaves in essentials of the Christian faith in a hidden sort of way. |
Hidden? How oblivious are you? Lewis is blatant in his Christian symbolism.
Are you really that dense?
I repeat: you can't buy entertainment like this. It's a pity though that Dave can't come up with an original attempted argument. I'd pay good money to see one.
|
