There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 554
#391
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
But of course, you're an atheist. So the bible cannot use metaphor, similes, or figure of speech.
That's the hilarious thing.  I believe it's practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech.

It's people who claim that the thing is the infallible, objective, 100% true literal word of god that are ignoring the factual incoherence.

If you're saying it just a bunch of stories that may have accumulated some inaccuracies over the years, and shouldn't really be taken 100% literally, then I'm all for it.
#392
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Good job dodging the question.
You asked no question. You assumed a contradiction.
Do you remember [POST#384] - Is God the author of evil?
#393
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I thought The "YHWH" only spoke in unambiguous universal and objective terms.
If I said what this dumb comment deserves, I would risk being banned, so I'll let it's disingenuousness speak for itself.

If god tells you, in its infallible missive, that it causes evil, then, that's it, right?  It must be considered a fact, right?
See your underlined word "it"? What does it refer to?

It seems pretty simple.  When there is peace, it's because god made it.  When there is evil, it's because god made it.  Omnipotence fits perfectly.
Everyone if free to interpret the bible however they like. Though I doubt you have a clue how "evil" is made, or why its contrasted with peace instead of good.
#394
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
You atheists pretend that words in the bible can only have one meaning,
This is the exact opposite of what non-Christians claim.

Non-Christians claim that the holy scripture is just a book of old stories, rife with inconsistencies and open to broad interpretation (rendering the "lessons" we can learn from it, patently unreliable and purely subjective).

It is only Christians who pretend the holy scriptures are the perfect and infallible true and literal word of god and NOT-OPEN-TO-INTERPRETATION.

If you want to dispute the definition of "evil", please simply present your preferred definition.

OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.

Yes, Virginia, The "YHWH" does create evil.
#395
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Everyone if free to interpret the bible however they like.
Well, we've finally discovered common-ground.
#396
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe it's practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech.
Then some of your claims of contradiction are blinding stupidity.

It's people who claim that the thing is the infallible, objective, 100% true literal word of god that are ignoring the factual incoherence.
Foul on the play! You are trying to sneak a lie in. No one said literal. If the bible is practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech, then it should sometimes not be taken literally.

Metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech are not necessarily untruth. They are simple tools of language. There is nothing weird or dishonest about the bible using them.

The bible uses language to transmit ideas. It uses the common and accepted tools of language to do that. 

If you're saying it just a bunch of stories that may have accumulated some inaccuracies over the years, and shouldn't really be taken 100% literally,
Like all good literature, some of it is literal and some of it is not. But atheist critics usually insist on reading the bible as hyper literalists. No sensible Christian would say that the bible should be taken 100% literally.

...then I'm all for it.
I couldn't care less for what you're for or against. But if you're going to claim a contradiction, it needs to be more than silly word play and agenda driven interpretation.

With me, you will have to show it.
#397
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Would you call your belief in abiogenesis a delusion? Why not?
That's more of a compelling hypothesis.

Which is not the same as 100% blindfaithconfidence.
#398
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Foul on the play! You are trying to sneak a lie in. No one said literal. If the bible is practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech, then it should sometimes not be taken literally.
Please explain how you know which (if any) holy scriptures can be taken literally.
#399
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It is only Christians who pretend the holy scriptures are the perfect and infallible true and literal word of god and NOT-OPEN-TO-INTERPRETATION.
This is another lie you wish to substitute for our position. The word of God is not open to YOUR interpretation. The bible interprets itself.

If you want to dispute the definition of "evil", please simply present your preferred definition.
The word evil, as do many words, have different meanings. You want to pretend it has only one. The meaning of words are not assigned by preference, it is gleaned from its usage in context.

All literature is this way, but when it comes to the bible, you dolts pretend this is some unusual, shady thing.

OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
For your agenda driven bias, sure. You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil". You do not want to consider that contrasting "evil" with "peace" could mean that "evil" is being used in a non-typical way.

And you certainly do not want to justify the meaning you apply to the word "evil", you simply want your interpretation accepted without question or any justification from you.

If your argument was as strong as you pretend, you wouldn't be so intellectually rigid and so afraid of examination.

All these years and all the mountains of text you guys spam, how many people have you convinced? People see through your fakery.

#400
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
It is only Christians who pretend the holy scriptures are the perfect and infallible true and literal word of god and NOT-OPEN-TO-INTERPRETATION.
This is another lie you wish to substitute for our position. The word of God is not open to YOUR interpretation. The bible interprets itself.
Is that why there are over 1000 Christian denominations?
#401
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
That's more of a compelling hypothesis.
If by "compelling" you mean, "not one shred of evidence", then sure.

But I'm sure I needn't remind you that science accepts hypotheses with evidence, not ones with zero evidence  people find personally "compelling".

Which is not the same as 100% blindfaithconfidence.
Christian faith is not blind. But belief in a hypothesis that has zero evidence could be called blind faith. Abiogenesis qualifies.

Please explain how you know which (if any) holy scriptures can be taken literally.
I turn on my brain when I read it. I notice that atheists never have this question about the great secular works of literature.

But when its the bible, suddenly they become reading idiots, only able to read the bible like retarded 3 year olds.

There is another way we know which holy scriptures can be taken literally. But you're not ready for that yet.
#402
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
If you want to dispute the definition of "evil", please simply present your preferred definition.
The word evil, as do many words, have different meanings. You want to pretend it has only one. The meaning of words are not assigned by preference, it is gleaned from its usage in context.

All literature is this way, but when it comes to the bible, you dolts pretend this is some unusual, shady thing.
I see.  You don't even have any general parameters that might apply to most cases?

You're making yet another appeal to ignorance.

Certainly different words mean different things to different people in different places. 

Why do you think I'm asking you what you think it means?

I'm asking you because different words mean different things to different people in different places.

And you're suggesting that in this case, it means the opposite of "peace"?

First of all, why would "peace" be "literal" and "evil" be relative to it, instead of the other way around?

Also, even iff this passage was interpreted as "evil" being the opposite of "peace" what would that be to you?

WAR.  Would it be war?  Do you know anyone who has personally experienced war? 

Have you asked them if it looked like something a loving god would do?
#403
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Christian faith is not blind. But belief in a hypothesis that has zero evidence could be called blind faith. Abiogenesis qualifies.
Faith is 100% confidence.

No amount of evidence justifies 100% confidence.

Especially a bunch of metaphors in an old book.

Nobody has 100% confidence in abiogenesis.

Therefore, nobody has faith in abiogenesis.
#404
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Please explain how you know which (if any) holy scriptures can be taken literally.
I turn on my brain when I read it. I notice that atheists never have this question about the great secular works of literature.

But when its the bible, suddenly they become reading idiots, only able to read the bible like retarded 3 year olds.

There is another way we know which holy scriptures can be taken literally. But you're not ready for that yet.
Nice.

So, "you know it when you see it"?

And, "if you don't know then you're an idiot"?

You're making another naked appeal to ignorance.

If you can't explain how you clearly and consistently determine which passages can be taken literally, then you are using a SUBJECTIVE STANDARD.

That's basically how religion works.

I find or write a book with a bunch of conflicting statements and stories, and then I convince people that it's really old and complicated and only I know the "true meaning" and if they have any questions about how any of this stuff applies to their real-life-decisions, they need to ask me.

That's why the Catholics were so afraid of making the scriptures available in the-common-tongue (instead of Latin-only).
#405
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
For your agenda driven bias, sure.
The mind-reader fallacy again.  Please tell me more about my inner thought process (that is beyond your epistemological limits).

You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil".
The mind-reader fallacy again.  Please tell me more about what I want.

And for the record, I would be absolutely tickled pink if you could explain why "peace" was "contrasted" with "evil" and how that would actually make your hypothetical god "not-the-creator-of-evil".

You do not want to consider that contrasting "evil" with "peace" could mean that "evil" is being used in a non-typical way.
The mind-reader fallacy again.

Please explain your hypothesis.  And please avoid injecting any "personal-opinion" into your analysis.
#406
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
You don't even have any general parameters that might apply to most cases?
Do you have "general parameters" that might apply to the novel War and Peace? The Old Man And the Sea? The American Revolution?

I'm not dumb enough to fall for the fake requirements you want to place on only the bible.

Certainly different words mean different things to different people in different places.  
It isn't a buffet Jethro. The words mean what the author intended, and that meaning is gotten from context. This is true so all literature.

Have you asked them if it looked like something a loving god would do?
No one I know has ever been at war with God. But it does seem that God would be right to clobber any moron who decided to resist Him by force. God is also Justice.

No amount of evidence justifies 100% confidence.
Faith in His Glorious Majesty, King Jesus Christ does. This is an ad hoc claim of skeptics who think because they don't know, no bad me else does either. I have no reason to believe it.

Therefore, nobody has faith in abiogenesis.
I'm not dumb enough or inexperienced enough to believe that.

So, "you know it when you see it"?
I know it when I read it. Just like you do when you read all works other than the bible.

And, "if you don't know then you're an idiot"?
When you pretend you cannot know for the bible, but can know easily for all other works of literature, then yes, you're an idiot.

If you can't explain how you clearly and consistently determine which passages can be taken literally, then you are using a SUBJECTIVE STANDARD.
Stop being a fool. There is no algorithm for language. There is no "standard" for when passages can be taken literally. That is why only the human mind can do it.

Expecting a set standard is fake stupidity. There isn't one, and to prove I'm right, give me the set standard you use to figure when passages in King Lear are literal.

I find or write a book....
Only there is just one book with the record of the bible...

...with a bunch of conflicting statements and stories,
That you can never show...

...and then I convince people that it's really old and complicated and only I know the "true meaning"
The most published, best selling book in history has only one person who knows the true meaning? Do you listen to yourself?

...and if they have any questions about how any of this stuff applies to their real-life-decisions, they need to ask me.
We haven't discussed application, but your agenda requires you to slot that in right?

That's why the Catholics were so afraid of making the scriptures available in the-common-tongue 
Red herring. Scripture was available 2,000 years ago, and there are records of Jesus freely reading it in the temple publicly.


OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
For your agenda driven bias, sure.

The mind-reader fallacy again.
I read your comment jed. You want no exination of the words meanings. You just want your agenda driven interpretation accepted without context or scrutiny.

You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil". 

The mind-reader fallacy again.  Please tell me more about what I want.
I told you what you did not want. And I knew because you have consistently refused to consider the context.

I would be absolutely tickled pink if you could explain why "peace" was "contrasted" with "evil"
I told you. Because "evil" here is not immorality, but unwanted things from a human point of view.

Like when I tell my daughter, "I do things you think are cool, and I do things you think are evil..."

...and how that would actually make your hypothetical god "not-the-creator-of-evil".
Moral evil is not a creation. But really, you are the one saying this evil means moral evil. You have not shown it to be. Thus, I don't have to show how that would make my god "not-the-creator-of-moral-evil".

Nice at the attempt at switching the BoP.

Words have meaning jethro. Our debate is about the meaning. You keep simply saying "evil" as if the word has only one meaning.

Please explain your hypothesis.
Meaning comes from context. You may hate that, but that is language for ya. No amount of semantic trickery changes that.

What did the author mean? Not which definition do you "prefer". Read it like you read all other works of literature, like you have a functioning brain that you have turned on.
#407
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
I told you. Because "evil" here is not immorality, but unwanted things from a human point of view.
Based on what?
#408
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Words have meaning jethro. Our debate is about the meaning. You keep simply saying "evil" as if the word has only one meaning.
And yet you can't seem to provide an alternative definition.

I'm going to guess you're in favor of definition 2?


evil
  • adj.
    Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
  • adj.
    Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.
  • adj.
    Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.
#409
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Based on what?
On the context and usage.

And yet you can't seem to provide an alternative definition.
Because word meanings in literature is gotten from context and usage, not personal taste. Do you need a dictionary when you read Stephen King?

Why do you need one now?

I'm going to guess you're in favor of definition 2?
So you know words can have more than one meaning? How you've grown!

Now, we are looking at a work of literature from a human mind, I do not "provide" definitions, the author has already provided one.

Read it with your brain on.
#410
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
evil adj. Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
Ex denial of climate crisis truths and facts, or denial of any truths and facts which does and will further result in

  • adj.Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
  • Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.
The truths and facts exist for those who seek them.  Few seek them and even fewer accept them.


#411
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Based on what?
On the context and usage.
in other words, YOUR PERSONAL OPINION.  not based on any identifiable PRINCIPLES.  every single word and every single sentence ever written is apparently a SUI GENERIS.  and perusing every book is an exercise in MIND READING (divining the author's original intent).

And yet you can't seem to provide an alternative definition.
Because word meanings in literature is gotten from context and usage, not personal taste.
"context-and-usage" = "purely subjective opinion" = "personal-taste".

(IFF) YOU CAN'T MAKE A sound, logical CASE, JUST CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO READ THE MIND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.

It works like a charm!

Do you need a dictionary when you read Stephen King?
Nobody is seriously suggesting that those stories are anything other than PURE FICTION.

tHAT'S WHY.

Why do you need one now?
Because people are claiming that these are the perfect and infallible words of an all knowing and all wise god.

(IFF) this god was so wise, I'm sure it would have specified "apparent evil" instead of just "evil".

I'm going to guess you're in favor of definition 2?
So you know words can have more than one meaning? How you've grown!
One of the first things I asked you was if you would kindly provide your personally preferred definition of "evil".

Now, we are looking at a work of literature from a human mind, I do not "provide" definitions, the author has already provided one.
Great, please show me the holy-glossary.

Read it with your brain on.
If you don't understand the verse exactly the same way I understand the verse, your brain must be malfunctioning.

 the "Stupid Assumption" - I would say this is a fallacy called "begging the question," which essentially means:

"...begging the question (petitio principii) can occur in a number of ways. One of them is when the proposition one is trying to establish is unwittingly assumed."

This is also known as "circular reasoning". [LINK]

#412
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
in other words, YOUR PERSONAL OPINION.
You are free to be stupid if you want. If language was everyone picking their "preferred" definitions, it would be a poor communication tool.

not based on any identifiable PRINCIPLES. 
Context and usage. That is how educated people read literature. There is no "principle" on how to read literature goober.

"context-and-usage" = "purely subjective opinion" = "personal-taste".
And yet for years the writers of literature have managed to transmit complex ideas to others using written language. Coincidence? Luck?

Nobody is seriously suggesting that those stories are anything other than PURE FICTION.
And yet Stephen King uses all the tools of literature in his books of fiction. Or are you contending there are no metaphors or figures of speech in fiction?

this god was so wise, I'm sure it would have specified "apparent evil" instead of just "evil
Why is amoral evil such a difficulty for you? Do you think a hurricane is moral evil? I did not say "apparent evil". Where did you get it?

One of the first things I asked you was if you would kindly provide your personally preferred definition of "evil".
And I told you that was not how literature is read. Authors decide what the words in their works mean. You are an idiot if you think readers bring their own "preferred" definitions to works of literature.

If you don't understand the verse exactly the same way I understand the verse, your brain must be malfunctioning.
Or you're being a deliberate public idiot to further your agenda. Either or.

You are actually going full stupid, with caps and all, over what even little children do naturally.

Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.
Red, and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight!

I've taught this song to countless kids, none of them have ever been confused about what the colors meant. But you would. Cause you'd look up the definition of say, "red" and declare that it cannot mean human kid.

You can be stupid on your own. You don't need me. I'm out.

(Oh, and that doesn't mean I'm outside or unconscious)
#413
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
(EITHER) the holy scriptures are subjective ("open to interpretation") (OR) "objective" ("NOT open to interpretation").

(IFF) the holy scriptures are the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god (THEN) there can be no variation in its interpretation.

Conversely,

(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.
#414
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
So whether what God wrote is true or not depends on whether two people disagree on its interpretation?

I cannot bring myself to comment on a position so ridiculously stupid as this. Sorry.
#415
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
So whether what God wrote is true or not depends on whether two people disagree on its interpretation?
Since all that exists is ' Gods Will " aka cause and effect, then God/Universe writes both truth and lies. >> A Truth.

Some of Gods/Universe's writings are apriori truth and fact irrespective  of human experience or interpretation.

...Ex the resultant sum-of-the-angles of a Euclidean triangle is eternally 180 degrees, when the base unity { closure } is 360 degrees.

...Integrity = closure = God/Universe of occupied space and all of its constituent parts{ phenomena }.

The truth exists for those who seek it. Few seek it and even fewer accept the truth. Go figure.




#416
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
So whether what god wrote is true or not depends on whether two people disagree on its interpretation?
More precisely, whether what a god purportedly wrote is properly OBJECTIVE depends on whether two people disagree on its interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind [LINK]

Which is the tautological opposite of,

SUBJECTIVE: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states [LINK]
#417
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I still cannot bring myself to comment on a position this ridiculously stupid. Sorry.
#418
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Right, also regarding your position on "the original intent of the author"...

It's funny how you seem to think you know the INTENT behind everybody else's statements BETTER than "the original authors".

If you're speaking to the actual, original author, it would seem prudent to simply ask them what their intent was.

No need to guess.
#419
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
How have you determined that "god" (or any other spiritual entity) has "actual being"?

I mean, does Shiva also have "actual being"?


Yes, Shiva has actual being. You make references to mythology whether it be Hindu or Urban Legend because you're attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency in rationale. Let me spare you the trouble:

Santa Claus
The Easter Bunny
The Christian God
The Greek Gods
The Hindu Gods
The Roman Gods
The Egyptian Gods
The Sumerian Gods
The Cabalistic Gods
The Wicca Gods
The Tooth Fairy
Big Foot
Leprechauns
Vampires
Werewolves
Kristen Stewart's acting ability
Man-Bear-Pig
Ra's Al Ghul
Winds of Winter (A Song of Ice and Fire)
The Eighth Horcrux
Liberal intelligence


All of these have actual being.





#420
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Thanks for clearing that up.