The Paradox of the Biblical God

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, we need to shorten some of our long discussions, this is getting out of hand  

[/quote]

I'm no philosopher ... comments I have made about it must persuade you I am extremely cynical about modern day philosophy.

Kyu

[Titan]

And sin is not being a believer pretty much yeah?

No, not believing is a sin. The act, not the person.

Slight re-orientation but more or less what I said.

As long as you recognize that it is the act, not the person, it's a choice.

Where's it say that in your bible?

It doesn't, that's my point.

I don't even want to start in on how confusing having a theist mind must be.

I was saying that being all-powerful doesn't mean the same thing as accepting everything. Please, if you are confused say you are confused don't insult me.

Theists are capable of objectivity? Well that's a new one on me.

You know, when you resort to ad hominem attacks it really makes me think that you are cornered and holding on by the fingernail of your own ignorance, not that you are above the debate.

Actually from an ex-Catholic POV it is actually very simple ... you pray, you're good, you get rewarded, you don't you get slapped

I can prove to you that from a Biblical standpoint, they are wrong.

Go on then!

Unanswered prayers by devout people:
Matthew 26:36-46 (reason given in Hebrews 2:9;12:2-3; 13:12,13
Mark 10:34-45
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Philippians 2:5-8

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, not believing is a sin. The act, not the person.

Slight re-orientation but more or less what I said.

As long as you recognize that it is the act, not the person, it's a choice.

Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

I don't even want to start in on how confusing having a theist mind must be.

I was saying that being all-powerful doesn't mean the same thing as accepting everything. Please, if you are confused say you are confused don't insult me.[/quote]

It was cynicism but fair enough, no guarantees but I will try.

Theists are capable of objectivity? Well that's a new one on me.

You know, when you resort to ad hominem attacks it really makes me think that you are cornered and holding on by the fingernail of your own ignorance, not that you are above the debate.

Again it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

I can prove to you that from a Biblical standpoint, they are wrong.

Go on then!

Unanswered prayers by devout people:
Matthew 26:36-46 (reason given in Hebrews 2:9;12:2-3; 13:12,13
Mark 10:34-45
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Philippians 2:5-8

Um ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, not believing is a sin. The act, not the person.

Slight re-orientation but more or less what I said.

As long as you recognize that it is the act, not the person, it's a choice.

Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

I don't even want to start in on how confusing having a theist mind must be.

I was saying that being all-powerful doesn't mean the same thing as accepting everything. Please, if you are confused say you are confused don't insult me.

It was cynicism but fair enough, no guarantees but I will try.

Theists are capable of objectivity? Well that's a new one on me.

You know, when you resort to ad hominem attacks it really makes me think that you are cornered and holding on by the fingernail of your own ignorance, not that you are above the debate.

Again it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

I can prove to you that from a Biblical standpoint, they are wrong.

Go on then!

Unanswered prayers by devout people:
Matthew 26:36-46 (reason given in Hebrews 2:9;12:2-3; 13:12,13
Mark 10:34-45
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Philippians 2:5-8

Um ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

Kyu

[Titan]

Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

Incorrect... Again: "I don't believe that getting hit by a truck will hurt me. Therefore, I cannot be hurt by a truck." The reality isn't diminished by our disbelief. The truck is going to hit you regardless of what you believe and you would be subject to God's moral code despite what you believe.

Again it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

I could say that I believe atheists are unable to argue religion objectively either. The point doesn't help the debate it only insults the other person. I'm a theist therefore you are insinuating that I would be unable to argue objectively about the subject. This completely disregards all of the atheists and theists who have switched sides based on rational reasons.

Um ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

When I asked you to simply sort out the few names you felt were legitimate you told me that you wouldn't do my work for you. I give you a few verses and you can't even look them up... Fine, I want this debate to progress either way:

Jesus' prayer is not answered. Paul's prayer is not answered.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

Incorrect... Again: "I don't believe that getting hit by a truck will hurt me. Therefore, I cannot be hurt by a truck." The reality isn't diminished by our disbelief. The truck is going to hit you regardless of what you believe and you would be subject to God's moral code despite what you believe.

A truck is a real tangible investigable object, it's big, hard, heavy, often fast and sometimes driven by maniacs ... your God is, well ... none of those (apart from the maniac arguably).

So, given that there is absolutely no validatable evidence for your god or the veracity of your religion's essential claims, I repeat, "I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin"

Again it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

I could say that I believe atheists are unable to argue religion objectively either. The point doesn't help the debate it only insults the other person. I'm a theist therefore you are insinuating that I would be unable to argue objectively about the subject. This completely disregards all of the atheists and theists who have switched sides based on rational reasons.

As I said, it was cynicism.

Um ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

When I asked you to simply sort out the few names you felt were legitimate you told me that you wouldn't do my work for you. I give you a few verses and you can't even look them up... Fine, I want this debate to progress either way:

.

[/quote]

That was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

Jesus' prayer is not answered. Paul's prayer is not answered

OK from a fictional perspective you've proved it ... big whoop. Next?

Kyu

[Titan]

A truck is a real tangible investigable object, it's big, hard, heavy, often fast and sometimes driven by maniacs ... your God is, well ... none of those (apart from the maniac arguably).

So, given that there is absolutely no validatable evidence for your god or the veracity of your religion's essential claims, I repeat, "I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin"

The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

As I said, it was cynicism.

Please stop, it doesn't help the debate out at all...it just demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss on a purely rational level.

That was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

1. I just wanted you to pick the names for ME to look up.
2. You are admitting that doing the research would be detrimental to your point....interesting.
3. Your claim was that those authors should have mentioned Jesus...that was an offensive argument, you needed to provide support for your point.
4. The verses I offered were extremely short, they would have taken a couple of seconds at the most.

Jesus' prayer is not answered. Paul's prayer is not answered

OK from a fictional perspective you've proved it ... big whoop. Next?

I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it dies either. Yes I am my own god

As I said, it was cynicism.

Please stop, it doesn't help the debate out at all...it just demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss on a purely rational level.

No guarantees but I will try.

That was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

1. I just wanted you to pick the names for ME to look up.
2. You are admitting that doing the research would be detrimental to your point....interesting.
3. Your claim was that those authors should have mentioned Jesus...that was an offensive argument, you needed to provide support for your point.
4. The verses I offered were extremely short, they would have taken a couple of seconds at the most.

I'm sorry Titan but you are going to have to accept something here ... I write my own arguments. Generally if I paste something else in it is acknowledged, if I give a url it is as additional information ...it's the way I do things and I expect others to be able to do much the same. My claim that these authors was offensive ion what way? The fact is my remarks are utterly dependent on your claims (Christian claims) and therefore they are not "offensive" (is that the way you were using the word?) but defensive. If these were short excerpts then just post them.

I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Bible? Circular reasoning?

Kyu

[Titan]

The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it dies either. Yes I am my own god

I didn't say that God was real because I claimed he existed. Please stop inserting red herrings.

That was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

1. I just wanted you to pick the names for ME to look up.
2. You are admitting that doing the research would be detrimental to your point....interesting.
3. Your claim was that those authors should have mentioned Jesus...that was an offensive argument, you needed to provide support for your point.
4. The verses I offered were extremely short, they would have taken a couple of seconds at the most.

I'm sorry Titan but you are going to have to accept something here ... I write my own arguments. Generally if I paste something else in it is acknowledged, if I give a url it is as additional information ...it's the way I do things and I expect others to be able to do much the same. My claim that these authors was offensive ion what way? The fact is my remarks are utterly dependent on your claims (Christian claims) and therefore they are not "offensive" (is that the way you were using the word?) but defensive. If these were short excerpts then just post them.

I meant offensive as in "defensive vs. offensive."
But I am going to throw out the quote in that case because from the little I did look into it simply was not valid.

I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Bible? Circular reasoning?

No because I'm not proving the Bible. I'm saying that God doesn't have to answer all good people's prayers for the Bible to be true. I was disproving the contradiction, not proving that the Bible or God was true.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it does either. Yes I am my own god

I didn't say that God was real because I claimed he existed. Please stop inserting red herrings.

You said, "Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist." ... THAT was what I was responding to so no, not a red herring!

I'm sorry Titan but you are going to have to accept something here ... I write my own arguments. Generally if I paste something else in it is acknowledged, if I give a url it is as additional information ...it's the way I do things and I expect others to be able to do much the same. My claim that these authors was offensive ion what way? The fact is my remarks are utterly dependent on your claims (Christian claims) and therefore they are not "offensive" (is that the way you were using the word?) but defensive. If these were short excerpts then just post them.

I meant offensive as in "defensive vs. offensive."
But I am going to throw out the quote in that case because from the little I did look into it simply was not valid.

Whatever you want but don't expect me to accept you've dealt with it. As far as I'm concerned it's still valid until such point as you POST a reasoned and valid argument against it.

I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Bible? Circular reasoning?

No because I'm not proving the Bible. I'm saying that God doesn't have to answer all good people's prayers for the Bible to be true. I was disproving the contradiction, not proving that the Bible or God was true.

And like I say, "Bible? Circular reasoning?" IOW I don't accept anything based purely on your bible which I consider, in board terms, to be a work of fiction set against a known historical background and culture.

Kyu

[Titan]

And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it does either. Yes I am my own god :brick:  Again, I'm not PROVING THE BIBLE! Which is why this is not circular reasoning. Like I have explained previously: I was just showing you that the Bible was not NOT true in that instance. I didn't prove the Bible to be true, only that it was not self-contradictory. We have gone over this before. Please think carefully about what I have said because the argument is internal (like the Alphabet Argument), it only concerns things in the Bible. You were saying that the Bible is not true because God does not answer all the prayers of good people, I was showing you that the Bible never makes such a claim so your argument is not only false but a strawman argument.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Let's go through this again:

Kyuuketsuki:
Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin. So, given that there is absolutely no validatable evidence for your god or the veracity of your religion's essential claims, I repeat, "I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin"

Titan:
The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

b]Kyuuketsuki:[/b]
And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it does either. Yes I am my own god :brick:  Again, I'm not PROVING THE BIBLE! Which is why this is not circular reasoning. Like I have explained previously: I was just showing you that the Bible was not NOT true in that instance. I didn't prove the Bible to be true, only that it was not self-contradictory. We have gone over this before. Please think carefully about what I have said because the argument is internal (like the Alphabet Argument), it only concerns things in the Bible. You were saying that the Bible is not true because God does not answer all the prayers of good people, I was showing you that the Bible never makes such a claim so your argument is not only false but a strawman argument.

Not not true? You mean like true?

The bible IS self-contradictory.

The alphabet argument? The one that was demonstrated to you as being inherently flawed?

Actually the bible does make such a claim:

"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." John 14: 11-14

so   right back at you!!!!

Oh I know you'll have some whacky answer but it  will be fun watching you squirm your way out of it.

Kyu