Bill Nye versus Ken Ham

#278
#278
Grand Vol said:
If God was omnipotent, He should be able to have foreseen the potential problems behind giving man the choice. Being that an omnipotent being, whichever way you refer to "god," would also have the ability to be omniscience as you pointed out and they should be able to see the future and be able to see how mankind would make bad choices.

So why create a flawed being from the start? If we were created in His image, does this mean God makes mistakes as well? So creating a perfect being would be to create one without the ability to choose and make bad decisions. And if omniscience is at hand, God should have been able to see the ways mankind could and would make bad decisions to include denying his existence.

So this could be considered a mistake that God made, again philosophically speaking.
Click to expand...

God could always have vastly different ideas of evil than we humans have.

You bring up great points against theistic religions, to include Christianity. They have many problems to confront (problem of evil/sin/etc.), but there are some who have confronted these problems head on. Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, to name a few. Whether you buy their arguments or not depends on whether you accept their premises. They are valid arguments. Their soundness, however, may be questioned.

I'm not a Christian, nor a theist. But, there are viable ways, in my opinion, to handle some of these problems.
 
#281
#281
therealUT said:
God could always have vastly different ideas of evil than we humans have.

You bring up great points against theistic religions, to include Christianity. They have many problems to confront (problem of evil/sin/etc.), but there are some who have confronted these problems head on. Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, to name a few. Whether you buy their arguments or not depends on whether you accept their premises. They are valid arguments. Their soundness, however, may be questioned.

I'm not a Christian, nor a theist. But, there are viable ways, in my opinion, to handle some of these problems.
Click to expand...

True, but the idea of choice, or making decisions, is a pretty clear cut path. The Ten Commandments for example "You shall have no other God before me." If omniscience is allowed, He would have seen the pathway mankind has taken away from believing without question to doubting to outright denial.

The problem is the church (all of them mainly) and Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions over the years has forbidden any questioning of God's infallibility. Or the potential for a fallible nature. But again, if you take the literal interpretation of Genesis, man was created in God's image. So if man is fallible, then could it be assumed that God is as well?
 
#282
#282
Grand Vol said:
lol

Evil is an opinion based definition. Cannot and will not go down that road.
Click to expand...

Then your comments about Satan, God and omniscience are invalid. If evil is only based on opinion then evil is arbitrary. I assume when you say God allows evil, then you are working with a specific definition of evil. Otherwise, you aren't saying anything. You are making truth claims that the creation MUST be this way or that, or God isn't omniscient, BASED ON, your issue with evil, which you now claim you won't or can't define.

It does demonstrate you really don't understand classical theism and the Omni3 nature of God, or evil for that matter. I suggest if you don't want to go down a road, then don't make truth claims that you can't defend with any thing other than, 'because I think so.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#284
#284
Roustabout said:
Then your comments about Satan, God and omniscience are invalid. If evil is only based on opinion then evil is arbitrary. I assume when you say God allows evil, then you are working with a specific definition of evil. Otherwise, you aren't saying anything. You are making truth claims that the creation MUST be this way or that, or God isn't omniscient, BASED ON, your issue with evil, which you now claim you won't or can't define.

It does demonstrate you really don't understand classical theism and the Omni3 nature of God, or evil for that matter. I suggest if you don't want to go down a road, then don't make truth claims that you can't defend with any thing other than, 'because I think so.'
Click to expand...

Are the 10 Commandments not given by God to mankind via Moses? And since they are given by God as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions believe, would those be His concept of good and evil? Putting other Gods before Him, killing, thievery, etc? So why create rules if you know mankind will not follow them? And breaking the Commandments is a sin, no? Does Proverbs 13:21 not state "evil will pursue the sinner?" Is this not evidence enough of what God would consider evil?

So the answer lies in your question. What is evil? Is evil the standards set down by God as observed by man? Is it a cultural determination as TRUT will argue against?

So how does one define evil? You say I'm ignorant, educate me...
 
#286
#286
therealUT said:
Effort can only be exerted against resistance. Something that is all-powerful can experience no resistance. So, certainly effort undermines omnipotence. As for time, if an omnipotent being wants something to be a certain way, then it will be that way, immediately. To assert that it must take time, is to assert either that the omnipotent being does not want it that way at that time, or that time is a constraint. If a constraint, then it is resistance. If resistance, then not all-powerful.

QED
Click to expand...

This is good stuff.
 
#289
#289
Grand Vol said:
True, but the idea of choice, or making decisions, is a pretty clear cut path. The Ten Commandments for example "You shall have no other God before me." If omniscience is allowed, He would have seen the pathway mankind has taken away from believing without question to doubting to outright denial.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It could be that for God, what is ultimately good is a mix of individuals that follow the Ten Commandments and some that break the Ten Commandments. It could be that for God, not all lies are bad; thus, God could command certain things and even tell humans that they will be punished in certain ways, yet be lying the entire time. Our notion of goodness is what says that is wrong; but, one can always question whether our limited and finite minds actually have a correct understanding of good and evil.

Grand Vol said:
The problem is the church (all of them mainly) and Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions over the years has forbidden any questioning of God's infallibility. Or the potential for a fallible nature. But again, if you take the literal interpretation of Genesis, man was created in God's image. So if man is fallible, then could it be assumed that God is as well?
Click to expand...

If you take the Bible as the literal word of God and take God's worth as absolute truth, then your problem is instantiated. If not, your problem is no theoretical or philosophical problem at all; it is merely a problem with the human constructed institutions of religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#291
#291
Grand Vol said:
Are the 10 Commandments not given by God to mankind via Moses? And since they are given by God as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions believe, would those be His concept of good and evil? Putting other Gods before Him, killing, thievery, etc? So why create rules if you know mankind will not follow them? And breaking the Commandments is a sin, no? Does Proverbs 13:21 not state "evil will pursue the sinner?" Is this not evidence enough of what God would consider evil?

So the answer lies in your question. What is evil? Is evil the standards set down by God as observed by man? Is it a cultural determination as TRUT will argue against?

So how does one define evil? You say I'm ignorant, educate me...
Click to expand...
The 10 were given to Israel as a covenant. They contain universals as well as prescriptive law.
Evil, is a deprivation, not a thing itself.
Either you don't want to go there or you do.

Which is it?

I give rules to my child, knowing that she will break them. Are you suggesting I don't exist?
Your argument is a non sequitur.

If your speaking to the bible, rules were given for a reason. God knowing an outcome that is contrary to his decree doesn't disprove God or a claim of omniscience. And you haven't even remotely presented a convincing argument.
 
Last edited:
#292
#292
therealUT said:
Not necessarily. It could be that for God, what is ultimately good is a mix of individuals that follow the Ten Commandments and some that break the Ten Commandments. It could be that for God, not all lies are bad; thus, God could command certain things and even tell humans that they will be punished in certain ways, yet be lying the entire time. Our notion of goodness is what says that is wrong; but, one can always question whether our limited and finite minds actually have a correct understanding of good and evil.



If you take the Bible as the literal word of God and take God's worth as absolute truth, then your problem is instantiated. If not, your problem is no theoretical or philosophical problem at all; it is merely a problem with the human constructed institutions of religion.
Click to expand...

You lost me on the first paragraph.

On the second one, it's impossible to say to an extent. As the Bible is a book written by man, although inspired by God, it can be construed as fallible. So anything written by man can be wrong, misinterpreted or misrepresented. It's impossible to tell if the words, especially those of the Old Testament, are what they were from the beginning. The New Testament is a little better recorded, although still incomplete (Gospels of Judas, Thomas, etc) from the works of the time. So why leave out the later texts that have been found even if they repeat some things that were already mentioned in other Books of the New Testament?
 
#293
#293
Roustabout said:
Either you don't want to go there or you do.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

You brought it up. I was only answering your question.


Roustabout said:
I give rules to my child, knowing that she will break them. Are you suggesting I don't exist?

Your argument is a non sequitur.

If your speaking to the bible, rules were given for a reason. God knowing an outcome that is contrary to his decree doesn't disprove God or a claim of omniscience. And you haven't even remotely presented a convincing argument.
Click to expand...

Funny, you make the assumption I don't believe in God...
 
#295
#295
Grand Vol said:
You lost me on the first paragraph.
Click to expand...

Basically, one may argue that humans have no true conception of what is good and right; thus, lying could be good and right, thought it appears wrong and evil to humans. If so, then God can lie, and the Bible can be the word of God.

Grand Vol said:
On the second one, it's impossible to say to an extent. As the Bible is a book written by man, although inspired by God, it can be construed as fallible.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
#296
#296
therealUT said:
Basically, one may argue that humans have no true conception of what is good and right; thus, lying could be good and right, thought it appears wrong and evil to humans. If so, then God can lie, and the Bible can be the word of God.



Correct.
Click to expand...

One may argue that, but then the statement is also vulnerable, because it doesn't hold up under the weight of its own skepticism. In a round about way, you are saying we can't know truth. Yet, you are in essence claiming, "we can't know truth," to be a truth we can know. In addition, you are making a very twisted appeal to the Eurypthro dilemma, and/or divine command theory.

regarding fallibility. Appealing to man's part does not negate or undermine scriptural infallibility.
Men write infallible things all the time. I'm sure we have all read instruction manuals and other literature that are infallible. And the fact that we can distinquish when there is error only further confirms that reality is intelligible. Further, if one is going to dispute scriptural infallibility, then they first ought to know exactly what is being argued and meant.
 
#297
#297
Roustabout said:
One may argue that, but then the statement is also vulnerable, because it doesn't hold up under the weight of its own skepticism. In a round about way, you are saying we can't know truth. Yet, you are in essence claiming, "we can't know truth," to be a truth we can know. In addition, you are making a very twisted appeal to the Eurypthro dilemma, and/or divine command theory.
Click to expand...

I am not claiming that we cannot know truth. In fact, there are a vast number of truths we know. We know that the proposition (p and -p) is false, and we know the proposition (p or -p) is true.

I am making no twisted appeal with regard to truth, I am asserting that human moral concepts may not only be wrong, but radically wrong. This is not the same as saying, or even implying, "we cannot know truth". Further, you claim that what I said does not hold up under its own skepticism is absolutely false. What I have said is not self-contradictory, and only leads to contradictions if combined with other contingent propositions.

Valiant effort, but incredibly hasty and full of gaps.

Roustabout said:
regarding fallibility. Appealing to man's part does not negate or undermine scriptural infallibility.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. Reread and pay attention to the language of possibility used in the argument in which I responded, "Correct."

Again, incredibly hasty on your part.

Roustabout said:
Men write infallible things all the time. I'm sure we have all read instruction manuals and other literature that are infallible.
Click to expand...

Agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your strong language, specifically "all the time." I'd contend that the overwhelming majority of all things ever written by human hand are not infallible.

Roustabout said:
And the fact that we can distinquish when there is error only further confirms that reality is intelligible. Further, if one is going to dispute scriptural infallibility, then they first ought to know exactly what is being argued and meant.
Click to expand...

Of course, but this implies a higher level of interpretation of scripture. That is, it requires distancing oneself from strictly literal interpretations.

Further, burdens are placed on both those arguing against scriptural infallibility and those arguing in favor of scriptural infallibility. And, while we suppose that we often observe error, many times our presumptions of error are incorrect. Thus, one must also provide an argument for how to correctly distinguish error. This is not some primitive given. It is, in fact, extremely complicated, and it suggests that the lack of distinguishing error ought not argue in favor of there being no error. This serves to increase the burden of proof on the argument supporting scriptural infallibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#298
#298
therealUT said:
I am making no twisted appeal with regard to truth, I am asserting that human moral concepts may not only be wrong, but radically wrong. This is not the same as saying, or even implying, "we cannot know truth". Further, you claim that what I said does not hold up under its own skepticism is absolutely false. What I have said is not self-contradictory, and only leads to contradictions if combined with other contingent propositions.
Click to expand...
First, apologies if I've misrepresented any of your positions, or have been hasty in reply. I didn't say twisted appeal to truth. I said it appears a twisted appeal to the Eurypthro dilemma or divine command theory. I stand by that.

Also, regarding the nature of God, you are absolutely saying we cannot know truth, which is the context of my comments. It seems you were equally hasty in your reply. Your appeal to knowing 'any' truth only appears a clever debate tactic to avoid dealing with the truth claims you are making about scripture and ultimately God.


Never said it did. Reread and pay attention to the language of possibility used in the argument in which I responded, "Correct."

Again, incredibly hasty on your part.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but just because I made a statement about infallibility doesn't mean I am saying you are implying the opposite of what I stated. Sometimes things are written for the audience at large. For example, I said if "one" is going to..... Instead of saying, if 'YOU" are going to..



Agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your strong language, specifically "all the time." I'd contend that the overwhelming majority of all things ever written by human hand are not infallible.
Click to expand...
Now you are just picking nits.

Of course, but this implies a higher level of interpretation of scripture. That is, it requires distancing oneself from strictly literal interpretations.
Click to expand...
In this case, I would expect you to define what you mean by, 'strictly literal.' For example: I don't think Jesus is literally suggesting we gouge out our eye in Matthew 5. Hermaneutics is a well established field, and the notion that the Bible, or any piece of literature can't be understood, is nonsense. We can "literally" know what they authors were communicating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#299
#299
Roustabout said:
First, apologies if I've misrepresented any of your positions, or have been hasty in reply. I didn't say twisted appeal to truth. I said it appears a twisted appeal to the Eurypthro dilemma or divine command theory. I stand by that.
Click to expand...

It's an appeal to the Euthyphro dilemma insofar as it is a worry about how we are able to evaluate our evaluative concepts. Not sure I see the issue with pointing out such an issue.

Roustabout said:
Also, regarding the nature of God, you are absolutely saying we cannot know truth, which is the context of my comments. It seems you were equally hasty in your reply. Your appeal to knowing 'any' truth only appears a clever debate tactic to avoid dealing with the truth claims you are making about scripture and ultimately God.
Click to expand...

Not a clever tactic to avoid dealing with anything. Unless you can offer me sufficient reasons supporting how a finite being can come to have knowledge of an infinite being (and, remember, analogies between finites and infinites do not hold), then you cannot claim to know (that is to have justified, true, beliefs...and, yes, **** Gettier) the truths of God. You can believe certain things, and you can believe certain things consistently. You cannot know them.

Roustabout said:
Now you are just picking nits.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. You said this happens "all the time". It doesn't. Instead of just accepting the that your assertion was absurd, you have now decided to take out your angst on the person who pointed it out. Kudos.

Roustabout said:
In this case, I would expect you to define what you mean by, 'strictly literal.' For example: I don't think Jesus is literally suggesting we gouge out our eye in Matthew 5. Hermaneutics is a well established field, and the notion that the Bible, or any piece of literature can't be understood, is nonsense. We can "literally" know what they authors were communicating.
Click to expand...

Hermaneutics is certainly established; and, it is also highly useless as a field. By strictly literal, I would say that Jesus is suggesting such a thing. By strictly literal, the meanings are wholly contained in the words and the sentences. They are not metaphorical, allegorical, etc. Once you introduce metaphor, the meaning is contingent upon the reader's understanding not solely of the language (whatever language that may be, to include formal logical language), but on sources, norms, culture, shared stories, etc. that exist outside of the language of the text.

I take it that you are a philosophy undergrad. Continue to pursue these issues, but, I will warn you, distance yourself from hermaneutics and distance yourself from metaphorical language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top