Has prayer ever worked for you?

[Juddog]

I'm asking you to prove your claim -- yet you keep "supposing".

If you're unwilling, or better yet, unable, then you're going back on ignore. This is the discussion club, and if you can't bring some solid evidence as requested, then just concede the argument, or simply admit "you don't know" because you don't.

He already proved his claim through logic, you just refuse to accept it. This is the discussion club, as you said, not the "I'm correct because the Bible said so" club.

 

[Juddog]

You have it backwards, sir... it's not the Bible that I was critisizing, its how the book has been taught.

OK so then in other words, whatever is in the Bible is true, as long as the reader interprets it correctly? That's what it sounds like you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong.

What I was pointing out is the fallacy of God having a "plan" which cannot be reconciled in the Bible. If God did have a plan, then he planned for the human race to fail, created a buring "Hell" for us, then sent his Son down to die in order to remedy a situation he deliberately put in place! LOL.

If God is all knowing, then this was his plan. If God was not all knowing, then he obviously has limits to his power. You understand logic, so this should be easy for you. Part of your brain recognizes the inconsistency here; at this point you're fighting internally to come to terms with understanding that what you took for as the truth in the past may not necessarily be true after all. The weight of spending years reinforcing your belief is the only thing holding you back from understanding what the logical part of your brain is thinking.

That's stupid and inconsistent and religious. A wise man wouldn't even do something as needless as that, so I am beyond confident that God did not deliberately do something as heartless as that. If I come across something as nonsensical as that, then I don't blame the Bible -- I blame my limited understanding and KEEP READING to get the truth.

You keep reading to find the truth, but again, your brain has a logical part to it that is fighting against the learned behavior part, which is why you have an internal struggle. As the classic phrase goes, "you live what you learn", meaning when you continue to see something growing up, and put enough time and effort into it, it's extremely hard to stop doing it, even if you know it's bad for you. I've seen the same exact thing first hand watching people try to quit smoking; they know it's bad for them, they dislike it, yet they cannot stop themselves from doing it. They understand the logical inconsistency of not wanting to do something yet keep doing it anyways. Basically the learned behavior is overtaking the logical part of their brain; what you are responding with is exactly the same.

So before I go calling the Bible non-sense, I read it through and make sure I am not the one misunderstanding something.

I do have the utmost respect for the book and I personally believe I owe more to the book than a brief read-through. I think it requires study, free of bias either way.

The book has plenty of lessons with it, and beautiful prose, but ultimately you have to understand it's a book written by man, for man. Men wrote it, fallible men, people like you and me, during a time where people thought that a chariot pulled the sun across the sky, where people were superstitious and didn't understand how diseases worked, etc..

 

[Retro Rob]

He already proved his claim through logic, you just refuse to accept it. This is the discussion club, as you said, not the "I'm correct because the Bible said so" club.

He did?

Wasn't it logical say, as little as 200 years ago, to believe God created the Universe?

You can't "prove" things with only logic.

I think you are well aware of this.

 

[Retro Rob]

OK so then in other words, whatever is in the Bible is true, as long as the reader interprets it correctly? That's what it sounds like you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong.

Juddog,

I personally give you much more credit than to make statements like this.

No, it's not about interpreting it correctly, becasue you can just as easily be interpreting it incorrectly. It's about understanding the overall messsage of the Bible, which does one heck of a job of cleaning up misunderstandings.

If God is all knowing, then this was his plan. If God was not all knowing, then he obviously has limits to his power. You understand logic, so this should be easy for you. Part of your brain recognizes the inconsistency here; at this point you're fighting internally to come to terms with understanding that what you took for as the truth in the past may not necessarily be true after all. The weight of spending years reinforcing your belief is the only thing holding you back from understanding what the logical part of your brain is thinking.

Can you provide any Biblical references confirming that 1) it was a plan and 2) it was deliberately executed? That will put the debate to bed, really.

This is really the bottom line -- you say it was planned, this is a assertion in the positive. You tell me that you don't need proof (in so many words) but logic. Logic isn't proof, nor is it evidence.

Well, it logically made sense to the 19 hijackers to fly planes into buildings, so were they right? Are you saying we can rely only on logic to understanding why someone (in this case, God) may or may not have done something?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm asking you to prove your claim.

What claim, exactly?

-- yet you keep "supposing".

Rob, I'm supposing common CHRISTIAN beliefs and then explaining the way they are inconsistent. If you do not believe that God created the universe with inerrant foreknowledge, then the argument doesn't apply to you. If you do believe those things, then it is disingenuous in the utmost to demand that I "prove" them.

If you're unwilling, or better yet, unable, then you're going back on ignore. This is the discussion club, and if you can't bring some solid evidence as requested, then just concede the argument, or simply admit "you don't know" because you don't.

It isn't my problem that you lack the sophistication to keep up with the discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

He did?

Wasn't it logical say, as little as 200 years ago, to believe God created the Universe?

You can't "prove" things with only logic.

I think you are well aware of this.

If logic is whatever you want to say it is then I would say that for you logic doesn't mean anything. A logical person, I don't think, would accept that. If you are right then logic isn't based on what is logical, but what kind of fad stage logic is at. Logic is either relative, as you seem to want to claim, or logic is based on the principles of logic such that even if folk two hundred years ago may have said that this or that was logical, it may not have been. Our understanding either evolves with time or it goes in circles. If logic is circular and you believe in a logic two hundred years out of style, than you are, regardless of what you may think, illogical today and you lose this argument, even if you may have won it two hundred years ago.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, I'm supposing common CHRISTIAN beliefs and then explaining the way they are inconsistent. If you do not believe that God created the universe with inerrant foreknowledge, then the argument doesn't apply to you. If you do believe those things, then it is disingenuous in the utmost to demand that I "prove" them.

That's fair, and I would offer an apology if I didn't understand your views.

But the fact is, I don't have to believe these claims to ask you for proof, no more than you have to believe God exists for you to participate in a religious thread.

 

[PowerEngineer]

You have it backwards, sir... it's not the Bible that I was critisizing, its how the book has been taught.

What I was pointing out is the fallacy of God having a "plan" which cannot be reconciled in the Bible. If God did have a plan, then he planned for the human race to fail, created a buring "Hell" for us, then sent his Son down to die in order to remedy a situation he deliberately put in place! LOL.

That's stupid and inconsistent and religious. A wise man wouldn't even do something as needless as that, so I am beyond confident that God did not deliberately do something as heartless as that. If I come across something as nonsensical as that, then I don't blame the Bible -- I blame my limited understanding and KEEP READING to get the truth.

So before I go calling the Bible non-sense, I read it through and make sure I am not the one misunderstanding something.

I do have the utmost respect for the book and I personally believe I owe more to the book than a brief read-through. I think it requires study, free of bias either way.

When I saw that this thread had reached ten pages, I knew it must have morphed into another biblical battle between Rob and his antagonists.

I realize it's a typo, but the bolded part of this post made me laugh. Perhaps it was really a Freudian slip?

In a more substantive contribution to the discussion, let me point out that these supposedly nonsensical understandings of the Christian god are those of some sects of believers. We non-believers are just repeating back what other fervent believers have told us based on what they were taught and presumably what they draw from reading the bible.

Rob's response to this seems to be that these other believers have arrived at some ridiculous interpretations by a relying on a too literal or superficial reading of the words. If only they would continue to read and study, they too could overwrite literal meaning with a tortured rationalization that better comports with their desire to believe in a kinder, gentler, fairer god than the one actually described in the bible.

This makes sense only if you believe that the bible was written to be some sort of divine puzzle book intended to hide its true contents from all but the most devout among us. You also have to possess the self-confidence (even conceit) to believe that your interpretation of this purposefully confusing book is more correct than those of equally devoted believers. It seems to me you almost have to believe that god has choosen to guide you (and not those others) to god's intended interpretation.

Pretty heady stuff!

 

[Juddog]

Juddog,

I personally give you much more credit than to make statements like this.

No, it's not about interpreting it correctly, becasue you can just as easily be interpreting it incorrectly. It's about understanding the overall messsage of the Bible, which does one heck of a job of cleaning up misunderstandings.

OK fair enough; but if you're dealing with a thousand page + book, then understanding the overall message can be quite a bit different from one person to the next.

Can you provide any Biblical references confirming that 1) it was a plan and 2) it was deliberately executed? That will put the debate to bed, really.

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

^^ This is generally interpreted as omniscience, but could be interpreted otherwise as well as having no end to his ability to understand.

Job 37:16

Do you know the balancings of the clouds,
the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

^^ "Perfect in knowledge" implies that he knows everything, in other words omniscience.

Job 28:24

For he looks to the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.

This is more of a general understanding of the present, not of the future, although could be interpreted otherwise.

1 John 3:19-20

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

"he knows everything" - omniscience. If he knows everything, then he knows the future. If he cannot know the future, then his power has limits. If his power has limits, then he's not omnipotent.

This is really the bottom line -- you say it was planned, this is a assertion in the positive. You tell me that you don't need proof (in so many words) but logic. Logic isn't proof, nor is it evidence.

In math you can prove something via showing that something is internally logically sound. I'll give an example but am not going to write out the whole thing:
http://www.wikihow.com/Do-Math-Proofs

In the same fashion, you can logically prove things as well; logic itself is formulaic in nature, and logic has been developed extensively, mainly due to our need to use logic when programming computer systems. If you couldn't "prove" something through logic, then computer programs wouldn't function. Since computer programs do function, based on logic, then it's safe to say that logic works and is indeed shown to be able to prove things. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Well, it logically made sense to the 19 hijackers to fly planes into buildings, so were they right? Are you saying we can rely only on logic to understanding why someone (in this case, God) may or may not have done something?

For the hijackers, they placed the highest degree of faith possible into their god, and prayed for success. As far as whether they were "right" or not, to them they were "right", and to their supporters, they were "right". They were doing a service to their god and accomplished what they were trying to do. To Americans, it is "wrong", so really what it boils down to is that it's relative to what side you were on, as to whether what they did was "right" or "wrong". What we do know is that their strong belief in their faith was one of the things that gave them the courage to carry forth the plan and develop the willpower to do something like they did.

 

[Retro Rob]

In a more substantive contribution to the discussion, let me point out that these supposedly nonsensical understandings of the Christian god are those of some sects of believers. We non-believers are just repeating back what other fervent believers have told us based on what they were taught and presumably what they draw from reading the bible.

True, and I really failed to recognize that to be honest. And I am sure that this is what you probably would NOT personally believe -- as you say, you're repeating, essentially what you hear.

Rob's response to this seems to be that these other believers have arrived at some ridiculous interpretations by a relying on a too literal or superficial reading of the words. If only they would continue to read and study, they too could overwrite literal meaning with a tortured rationalization that better comports with their desire to believe in a kinder, gentler, fairer god than the one actually described in the bible.

There is a common saying among atheists/non-believers....that they know the Bible better than believers, and to some degree, I agree because I don't think people read it like they used to. They listen to theologians way to much.

As far as desire is concerned, no...I don't fit God into what I want him to be. Like I said, I simply see no evidence in the Bible that He purposefully, maliciously, put humans here only to mess up, go to Hell, and sacrifice his son for NOTHING!! The notion is mind-bogglingly crazy!

Most believers I've ran into almost always defer to their "pastors" and such, and there is nothing wrong with that. But my issue is that generally they should read the Bible for themselves because I guarantee you, most of what they learn at Church will be challenged once the person reads for him/herself.

Case in point, in the Dark Ages (IIRC), the Bible was kept in Latin, a dead language, and it was illegal to translate it into the language of the common people for the reason of keeping control of them. I see similar things today, but not so blatant.

This makes sense only if you believe that the bible was written to be some sort of divine puzzle book intended to hide its true contents from all but the most devout among us. You also have to possess the self-confidence (even conceit) to believe that your interpretation of this purposefully confusing book is more correct than those of equally devoted believers. It seems to me you almost have to believe that god has choosen to guide you (and not those others) to god's intended interpretation.

The Bible isn't designed, from what I see, to hide anything -- it just takes more than a simple, superficial reading.

For example, I could never really understand evolution and the details of how it works...even while in school. I didn't think people who wrote text-books did this on purpose... I simply lacked real effort sometimes.

I see the Bible similarly... you can understand it if you want to. I don't think people want to anymore. I also think that people would rather ignore it too, for various reasons.

 

[smackababy]

This makes sense only if you believe that the bible was written to be some sort of divine puzzle book intended to hide its true contents from all but the most devout among us. You also have to possess the self-confidence (even conceit) to believe that your interpretation of this purposefully confusing book is more correct than those of equally devoted believers. It seems to me you almost have to believe that god has choosen to guide you (and not those others) to god's intended interpretation.

Pretty heady stuff!

I am pretty certain the Bible was only allowed to be translated by certain people into certain languages in the early days. The common 'Christian' was not allowed to be literate and had to get their interpretation of the Bible from a priest. Sounds like some kind of divine puzzle to me.

 

[Retro Rob]

OK fair enough; but if you're dealing with a thousand page + book, then understanding the overall message can be quite a bit different from one person to the next.

You are correct. That's why people need to read it on their own.

^^ This is generally interpreted as omniscience, but could be interpreted otherwise as well as having no end to his ability to understand.



^^ "Perfect in knowledge" implies that he knows everything, in other words omniscience.



This is more of a general understanding of the present, not of the future, although could be interpreted otherwise.



"he knows everything" - omniscience. If he knows everything, then he knows the future. If he cannot know the future, then his power has limits. If his power has limits, then he's not omnipotent.

I think those passage only prove the thing I've never disputed -- and that's God ability to use foreknowledge and to know everything.

What they DON'T prove is that God intentionally created beings HE KNEW WOULD fail, but created them anyway and destined them to fail before they existed.

In math you can prove something via showing that something is internally logically sound. I'll give an example but am not going to write out the whole thing:
http://www.wikihow.com/Do-Math-Proofs

In the same fashion, you can logically prove things as well; logic itself is formulaic in nature, and logic has been developed extensively, mainly due to our need to use logic when programming computer systems. If you couldn't "prove" something through logic, then computer programs wouldn't function. Since computer programs do function, based on logic, then it's safe to say that logic works and is indeed shown to be able to prove things. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

You can logically prove that I (and I am not being condescending or sarcastic, I like this discussion ) will fall of a cliff if I keep walking toward the edge, yes. But you cannot logically prove intention based on assumptions.

I think you'd have to prove that God did create us knowing we'd fail, then you would be able to establish that was his goal all along.

For the hijackers, they placed the highest degree of faith possible into their god, and prayed for success. As far as whether they were "right" or not, to them they were "right", and to their supporters, they were "right". They were doing a service to their god and accomplished what they were trying to do. To Americans, it is "wrong", so really what it boils down to is that it's relative to what side you were on, as to whether what they did was "right" or "wrong". What we do know is that their strong belief in their faith was one of the things that gave them the courage to carry forth the plan and develop the willpower to do something like they did.

I think we agree here. I wanted to point to how relative logic can be. Like it's perfectly logical to me that God created us, to you, that's illogical and demonstrably false.

Based on logic alone, neither of us are right, nor can we both be right. That's where evidence come in.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But the fact is, I don't have to believe these claims to ask you for proof.

Don't be ridiculous, Rob. I don't believe that God created the universe at all. I'm only supposing it for the sake of argument in order to elucidate the inconsistency. That's what reductio ad absurdum is. Why does that appear to totally elude you?

...no more than you have to believe God exists for you to participate in a religious thread.

Do you believe that God created the universe with inerrant foreknowledge of its future?

 

[Paul98]

He did?

Wasn't it logical say, as little as 200 years ago, to believe God created the Universe?

You can't "prove" things with only logic.

I think you are well aware of this.

It was never logical to believe god created the universe.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think those passage only prove the thing I've never disputed -- and that's God ability to use foreknowledge and to know everything.

What they DON'T prove is that God intentionally created beings HE KNEW WOULD fail, but created them anyway and destined them to fail before they existed.

But you're still suffering the same inconsistency. It is absurd to suggest that a volitional act committed with absolute certainty of its outcome would result in a outcome that was unintentional.

You can logically prove that I (and I am not being condescending or sarcastic, I like this discussion ) will fall of a cliff if I keep walking toward the edge, yes. But you cannot logically prove intention based on assumptions.

You literally do not know the first thing about logic. That is not an overstatement or hyperbole. You don't understand logic in the slightest.

I think you'd have to prove that God did create us knowing we'd fail, then you would be able to establish that was his goal all along.

It doesn't seem to make much sense to say that God only know the parts of the future he chooses to see when he would have had to create the future in the first place in order for it to exist at all for him to look at it. More realistically it appears to be an ad hoc hypothesis invented by you to desperately avoid confronting the pain absurdity of your beliefs.

I think we agree here. I wanted to point to how relative logic can be. Like it's perfectly logical to me that God created us, to you, that's illogical and demonstrably false.

There's nothing illogical about God creating us. It simply doesn't appear to be true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It was never logical to believe god created the universe.

Which rule of logic does it violate?

 

[Paul98]

You're trying to move the goalposts because you don't have a rebuttal.

You have two choices:

1.) God created the universe knowing inerrantly what the future held for it. If that is the case, it is inescapable that he intentionally caused everything that happened in it.

2.) God either did not create the universe, or does not have inerrant foreknowledge.

If the Bible is inconsistent with either or both of those, that's the Bible's problem, not a problem with the reasoning.


You're all class, Rob.

The problem you are having communicating is that you are assuming what Rob believes. You first need to figure out exactly what he believes before you can come to logical conclusions about that subject. Ask him questions and get him to explain. This is the problem I see with many of these threads, the assumptions about the beliefs of others.

This is where you can find logical inconsistencies, and you can help someone see where they are going wrong.

I do this when trying to help people with most subjects especially physics and math.

 

[Paul98]

Which rule of logic does it violate?

There is no evidence, so no reason to believe.

 

[Retro Rob]

But you're still suffering the same inconsistency. It is absurd to suggest that a volitional act committed with absolute certainty of its outcome would result in a outcome that was unintentional.

Do you KNOW if God, if he exists, created humans knowing the outcome, or is this simply what you assume?

Please, can you answer this question?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no evidence, so no reason to believe.

That isn't "illogical".

 

[Paul98]

That isn't "illogical".

Sure it is, I am sure you don't believe it's logical to believe in anything you or I or anyone were to make up. Unless it in fact does have evidence, and can be processed logically. But believing in something with not a single thing to back it up is not logical, but then again this is getting way off topic. And debating the word logical doesn't really mean much.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sure it is

No, it isn't. It may be unreasonable, and it may be untrue, but it isn't internally or externally inconsistent.

I am sure you don't believe it's logical to believe in anything you or I or anyone were to make up.

Don't be so sure. You see, I actually understand what it means for something to be "logical."

Unless it in fact does have evidence, and can be processed logically. But believing in something with not a single thing to back it up is not logical, but then again this is getting way off topic. And debating the word logical doesn't really mean much.

It would help if somebody besides myself knew what the word "logical" actually meant.

 

[Paul98]

No, it isn't. It may be unreasonable, and it may be untrue, but it isn't internally or externally inconsistent.


Don't be so sure. You see, I actually understand what it means for something to be "logical."


It would help if somebody besides myself knew what the word "logical" actually meant.

So you believe it is logical to believe in anything anyone comes up with?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do you KNOW if God, if he exists, created humans knowing the outcome, or is this simply what you assume?

Answer my question first:

Do you believe that God created the universe with inerrant foreknowledge of its future?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you believe it is logical to believe in anything anyone comes up with?

Depends on what they come up with. You seem to use "logical" where more learned persons would use "reasonable." I do not think it would be reasonable to believe any logically consistent flight of fancy.