Friday, October 14, 2011

FacePalm of th Day #134 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 3

Johnny P continued his response to mine. Even though I waited for a whole day, he still responded to part 1 and left a short one on part 2.  Again my quotes from him will be red italicized and his words will be black and my responses will be red.

I would wait. I haven't finished yet. I am a busy man.

Knock yourself out.  I'm ready.

"As far as we can tell, life as we know it is impossible without plate tectonics. "

So do you admit God in his omnipotence is U#nalbe [assume he meant "unable"] to produce a life-sustaining universe without plate tectonics

No. I'm saying that God in his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscent chose to create a life-sustaining universe that now has plat tectonics.  When the earth was first formed - there was one land mass. One of two things is true. When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and  it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science.

Dinesh D'Souza used this argument. And was torn apart.

By whom? When? Substantiation? 

This, of course, is a situation more plausibly (through power and scope) explained through naturalism. It is NOT better explained by an all-loving God. The only thing you CAN do is all you ever do, appeal to God's omniscience. The classic 'omniscience escape clause' which offers nothing more than a God of the Gaps style of weak appeal. And that's the sum total of your entire defence.

What's the gap? Naturalism can explain how plate techtonics works, but not why. The Christian worldview offers the why that naturalism can only shrug at. I don't have defend the necessity earthquakes beyond the fact that human life is impossible without it. God knows why they are necessary. and just because we don't know doesn't mean that they are not necessary for what God is achieving.

The question YOU need to ask yourself is 'Is this a plausible explanation?'

You've offered no explanation. The Bible's explanation still stand. 

No, it's not.

Says you.  Just your opinion. No substantiation.

Your next section you need to clarify by telling me whether you are a Calvinist or similar.

I did re-read part 2 of  the response. 

"It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your punishment of death as well."

OK, have it your way. If you think that is free will, then you would have most philosophers who ever existed to argue with on that analogy, starting with Hume!

I don't know what you think "Free Will" is. You never  bothered define it. Waiting.

"Which Johnny P again misses that giving our ignorance we don't know what the perfect world even looks like."

Again, you ignore my criticism that you appeal to the omniscience escape clause. Weak.It also doesn't matter one jot what WE know since it logically follows that this is the most perfect world that could feasibly be. DO YOU DENY THIS?

Yes, I do. THIS IS NOT THE BIBLICAL-BASED WORLDVIEW, as I have been saying from the beginning. This world is not perfect this is why God will erase it and start over. You seem to speak about what you do not know a lot.

Since this is the entire point of my post, and you have summarily ignored talking about the substantive points, building straw men and red herrings. Answer the question.

I did. Several times. You keep misrepresenting the Christian worldview and not giving a single reason why you think the Bible is wrong. 

"This is not saying that every single bad thing that has ever happened to you is because of something you personally did. The book of Job deals with that. This world is fallen - bringing us back to Roams 8. I don't know what kind of answer Johnny P is looking for but God more than answers us."

I might be close to ad homming here. Anyone who believes it is right to be punished for the sins of others is an idiot. The bible condones this time and time again. It is why the bible is a torrid book.

Where do you see the Bible condoning anyone (completely innocent) being punished for the sins of others? Do you even know what you are talking about? There only one case of some good person paying for sins of others - Jesus - and he volunteered. Dr. R.C. Sproul was right. No one else is good. When we suffer we deserve it and it's only God's mercy keeping us from annihilation Hell is our default destination because of our constant and continual rebellion against God.

And of course, you suffer the perennial problem of seeking to verify the truth of the bible from... wait for it... the bible.

That is of course true if you can prove the Bible is wrong. Good luck with that. 

The issues here are, again, too protracted to go into.

Nothing stopping  you. I'd even be happy to publish your attempt here. Evey blog can use some humor. 

If you believe unfalteringly, the disparate words of anonymous writers from thousands of years ago, then go for it. It will involve an unhealthy dollop of cognitive dissonance, some primetime indoctrination, some cultural bias, some social conditioning, and a whole heap of presupposition. Arguing from the bible is far more disingenuous than arguing to the bible.

Well given that the Bible, whether you believe it true or not, is the bed rock of traditional Christianity,  you have to at least correctly present what it say and you have dismally failed to prove that you can - undermining any meaningful criticism you attempt to offer. Your main presupposition is that the Christians believe that this world is perfect as it is because God would have brought a different world in its place had there been a better one.  Where is that in the Bible? It's not. I don't have to accept that premise. It's faulty and without it your argument collapses.

""So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is."

I have said nothing of what good or love is, so stop this naive critiquing of things I haven't even said. Tell me, what do I think goodness and love is, based on my comments here?

You said you think that the premise that this is prefect (ie good) world  because God cannot create imperfection is where you are starting. You are arguing that God cannot have free will because he has to do the most loving things possible. In order to make such arguments you are making assertions about what "good" and "love" are. You''re committed.

You see, this seems to be an exercise, for you, in shifting the burden of proof. It is up to YOU to offer FEASIBLE and PROBABLE reasons why there seems to be an inconsistency in the love espoused by God and Christians and the way the world is.

There goes your concept of "love" again. The current state of the planet does not represent the love of God. It's not God perfect plan of perfection, according to the Bible. I'd say go re-read Romans 8, but I already suggested it. Maybe you didn't understand it. 

Answer this, is all the pain and suffering on the world NECESSARY for a perfect world, and if not, why not?

It's necessary for what God has purposed. 

And if it is because of free will, and God set up these parameters and knew what the outcomes were against all other possible outcomes from all other possible worlds, then this still has to be the best one.

 Nope  the Bible does not  say its about human free will.

Otherwise God has not created the most loving, perfect world. IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF THESE WORDS!!!! This is a deductive argument. As long as you agree that God is all-loving and perfect, no matter what that means, then the conclusion validly follows that this is the most loving, perfect world.

That's not what Paul wrote. 

Deal with the argument please, and stop poncing around quoting bible verses, talking about red herrings.

Quoting where the Bible is not irrelevant when it answers your question.  Then again maybe it's over your head. Romans 8 deals with this. Why don't you explain why it's wrong. Your preference not to believe it is not good enough reason to reject it.


"I didn't say Johnny P did. I was saying that Johnny P seems to think that the Christian position is Middle Knowledge by default. I know Johnny P is an atheist and does not accept Middle Knowledge. Neither do all Christians. The straw man is his. "

What? Do I? Did I say this? You are constantly trying to put words in my mouth. Get a grip. It's not a bloody straw man!! I said "and given the possibility of Middle Knowledge or any other mechanism for divine foreknowledge"

POSSIBLITY of MK OR ANY OTHER MECHANISM!!!!!!

Sheesh. This is painful.

So you do accept the possibility of  Middle Knowledge? I don't. The bottom line of that above paragraph is that you have misrepresented and ignored the Christian worldview.

Personally, I have seen a Lennox lecture. My friends and I questioned him. He was left wanting. Appealing to authority like that gets you nowhere.

Was it recorded? Where? What did you ask him? Dr Lennox is a great scholar and I'd put way more stock in what he has said than you. At least I can appeal to Lennox. Who appeals to you and your work?

As for yopur bible quote, are you serious? Does that excuse a tsunami? All the foetuses, children, people who had never heard the Gospel, committed and repenting Christians? Dead? And all the animals and ecosystems? Take a long, hard look at what you are saying.

Committed and repenting Christians die in disasters all the time just like unbelievers. There is nothing we, as a group, go through that is uncommon to humanity. How does this help your argument. Evil exists. God will get rid of it when He gets ready to get rid of it. Don't get wiped out with it.

"If God can’t WANT to do anything else, then what the hell do you define as free will?

I didn't say "can't" I said "doesn't" and watch your language."

You entirely missed the subtlety of that point, then. If he can only want what is within his all-loving nature, then he CAN'T WANT to do otherwise. This is synonymous with CAN'T do otherwise. Please take a breath to actually read my words, cogitate on them, and try to critique them intelligently.

I think the disconnect is with the fact that you can't seem to grasp that God doesn't do anything against his nature. Nothing happens that he does not allow to happen. You don't understand what "all-loving nature is". Don't fee bad. No one understands it unless God shows it to them.  I'm praying that God shows you Love - Himself.

"The Bible does not support your premise: "this is a perfect universe" You should agree. That's the point you are making. God did not create imperfectly. It was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned and our sin perpetuates the problems. Your premises fail. "

Have you been paying any attention? See the logical arguments mentioned before. You are simply not addressing the points. Can a perfect God create imperfectly? Answer me that.

 The World was perfect and good until the fall in Genesis 3.  Now the world is not perfect.

You have offered nothing that approaches a logical refutation of any of my points. You have appealed to the bible a bunch of times, to no effect.

Maybe that's because you failed to understand what the Bible is saying. I'm only left to that conclusion because you have failed to respond. 

"It's not a perfect world (see Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible). Therefore Johnny P's conclusions are flawed because we don't know what the "perfect world" is"

For crying out loud, we don't need to!!!! How many times must I say this. You are being really naive.

How can you claim that the world is perfect without defining what that means? The Bible is not telling us that the World is perfect.  Who's being "naive"?

So, you say it was perfect until the fall.

God has the choice, in his divine foreknowledge, of knowing all the worlds he could create and all their outcomes. He is perfect. He knows the fall will happen. He still chooses this one. Therefore, the fall, evil, suffering, plate tectonics (call it what you will) are necessary for the most perfect world! It's a simple argument that you have failed to grasp.

Not for the perfect world. For the world in which we have now that God is working out for His purpose. It's not about us. The failure to grasp the Christian world-view is yours.

"Johnny P has been consistent in his inability to answer what God has said about the questions he raised. I did address the argument because God has addressed and it was put to rest 2000 years ago. Just read your Bible for a change. Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard. Revelation is need. And you can't argue against Christianity without understanding what the Bible says and Johnny P shows no understanding. Double FacePalm."

What a joke. Really. The best part? 'Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard'. You've been schooled. Philosophy is everything. You cannot even establish epistemology without philosophy. in other words, everything you have said, ever, cannot be established without philosophical investigations into epistemology, aesthetics, moral philosophy and so on.Take the bible. How do you evaluate what it is trying to say? Philosophy.

I didn't say that philosophy should be tossed. I'm saying that it takes more than philosophy. Philosophy is necessary but not sufficient. And for someone who keeps saying that he doesn't need to define terms to now bring up the need to use philosophy  to "establish epistemology" is truly laughable. Hypocrisy much? I agree that philosophy is needed to evaluate what the Bible says but given how badly you have butchered the Christian Worldview, clearly either philosophy is not enough or you have been doing it wrong. [Yes, indeed, I am laughing at you].

I'm not sure it's worth me posting here any more unless you are
1) less naive and better equipped philosophically

I've seen nothing so far in your responses that lead me to think you are equipped with anything beyond erroneous presuppositions. 

2) slightly more humble (I apologise for my tone, but it seems you must fight fire with fire)

I wouldn't call rejecting your assumptions and presuppositions based on you getting Christianity wrong as arrogance. You're just a man like me. I think writing:

Well, for starters, I would be clever enough to create a life-sustaining planet that didn’t have plate tectonics that killed millions of people throughout history. I think that’s fairly obvious. Especially since no theodicy that you could offer says anything about the billions of animals and ecosystems destroyed in the 2004 tsunami.

is far more arrogant than anything I have ever written. LOL

3) Less fallacious

I would like to see you model less fallacious argumentation. 




What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #132 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will?


I don't know if I have the energy for this.

I'm just getting started. 

"If you want a demonstration for why evil exists and that it's not gratuitous. , you have already conceded that evil does indeed exist."

Comments like this show just how naive you are. I do not even need to recognise that evil exists in my worldview, since I am not critiquing my worldview. If evil, or suffering or whatever you want to call it, exists in any form, then it needs explaining in light of god's omnibenevolence. If God can know all future contingent actualisations and has chosen this one, then this must be the most loving, even given the knowledge of all the suffering etc.

You can't meaningfully critique "Evil" from a Christian worldview without defining terms.The Bible tells us why there is no conflict with the reality of evil/suffering and God's goodness! I've given the same answers Christians have been giving since Jesus and you have failed to address them by just ignoring them with no meaningful rebuttal. I was hoping for better.

FacePalm of th Day #133 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 2
Enhanced by Zemanta

HowStuffWorks "Inside an Etch-a-Sketch"

HowStuffWorks "Inside an Etch-a-Sketch"

Preparing for Natural and Man-Made Disasters [infographic]

unexpected



Preparing for Natural and Man-Made Disasters [infographic]

Bring It: Why Was Adolf Hitler Wrong?

A lot of people do not think its correct to use the Bible to discuss Christian concepts and theology. I disagree. So I've decided to create a series of blog posts to give skeptics and atheists an opportunity to make their best case against key Biblical concepts. If you decide to take me up on my challenge, be prepared to defend your position because I will respond. I believe the Bible is true because it stands up to scrutiny and challenge. So go ahead and take your best shot.

For this first post let us deal with something fundamental: Why Was Adolf Hitler Wrong?


Feel free to defend or attack the theology in the comments. Use science. Use the Bible. Use philosophy. Use History. Use whatever evidence you think is relevant to proving your point. 

Bring it.

UPDATE

Since I first planned this post, Mariano Grinbank  has posted an article about how the  ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society website answers this question. Marinao shows how utterly silly the answer is. You can read Mariano's post at:

“ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society” on why Adolf Hitler was wrong 

Hopefully someone else can do better, but I doubt it. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Greatest Sermon Ever - YouTube

Neil deGrasse Tyson reading from The Pluto FilesImage by Newton Free Library via FlickrI came across this video on YouTube of Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson.





I was very intrigued. You don't see many African Americas as professional science and in some ways what I hear him talk he reminds me of my similar feelings. There are several things he says that I found very interesting. When he talks of the universe and the draw it had on him it was the must the same way people talk about religious experiences. For example for most of this video, if you swapped out "universe" for God, you wouldn't have messed up his message. I found it interesting that he even remarked on that fact. I don't think he looks at the universe as having personhood but was talking metaphorically. However it's interesting that for him the universe almost becomes a place holder in the place for where God should be in his life. It makes me wonder if he was raised in church and he grew into his world view or was that the worldview he was raised in? Real interesting. I totally enjoy him talking about science and how people should be more science literate. In this day and age, we have no excuse to not be more literate in all forms of human knowledge and expression. While learning more and more about the universe has driven me to God, I wonder why some people seem feel like the more they know the less they need God. I think Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Pascal, and most of the founders of modern science would agree that their studies and discoveries deepened their faith and brought them closer to God and brought about a desire to learn even more. That is what it does for me. Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Greatest Sermon Ever - YouTube
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of th Day #133 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 2

Johnny P has seen fit to respond to my response on one of his posts on Debunking Christianity. Hallelujah! Praise God! It seems that Johnny P considers my responses worthy of his attention given that he has so graciously written quite a lot although he disagrees with me.. At times he quoted me and responded - those are going to be in red italicized font. His words will be in black and my new responses will be red. Also, henceforth, I will be addressing him directly as he did me.

Er, in your first few lines you committed the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You see, since I am not asserting anything positive but am criticising a worldview and theory held by Christians, I do not need to define evil. I can believe it exists or deny it. It is irrelevant.

 My isn't that convenient?

This is a common fallacy committed by Christians. Hell, I've just watch Fernandes do it in a debate in which he got trounced by Lowder. You need to explain PLAUSIBLY why evil exists in the world, showing PLAUSIBLY that it is not gratuitous and explaining PLAUSIBLY how it provides a greater good.

Asking you to validate your assertions is not shifting the burden of proof. You are using the concept of "evil" in an attempt to criticize "a worldview and theory held by Christians" but you offer nothing to show that you are using the same definition of "evil" found in the Christian worldview. Without that common ground, how can you even gauge if you have been successful? It's far from irrelevant - irreverent but not irrelevant. It's obvious that you are not using the same definition for "evil" or "good" because you aren't using the Biblical definition. If you want a demonstration for why evil exists and that it's not gratuitous. , you have already conceded that evil does indeed exist. The questions I asked was an attempt to understand what you mean by  evil and how do you recognize it? By what criteria? What standard? And how do you validate it? Sure would like to see you try, because you just dodged it. Without defining terms, "PLAUSIBILITY" amounts to just what would convince you. Hardly scientific.  I will watch the Fernades vs Lowder debate just to see why you see passes for "PLAUSIBLE". Greg Koukl spoke about the common tactic you just tried to employ in which they play "hot potato" with "burden of proof". It doesn't matter if your claim is positive or negative - you really should be able to substantiate it.







For example, most animals require the pain, suffering and death of other animals to merely survive. Why did God not just make all animals photosynthesise, or simply not need energy at all?

According to the Book of Genesis, how do you know God didn't. The earth was perfect before  Adam and Eve sinned. No one or nothing died. People did not even eat meat until after the fall.  Regardless of whether you accept Genesis as truth or not, if you are going to start with the Christian worldview you have to at least get the Bible correct.

This is far better explained by naturalism and atheism than it ever can be by omni-theism.

That remains to be demonstrated. Waiting. 

And even if there is an explanation, it becomes wholly irresponsible that the Creator responsible for creating us, designing the system, knowing the outcomes, allowing all the suffering etc then refuses to EXPLAIN why the suffering is happening.

Did you read my responses? Better yet, I thought you've read the Bible. The Bible does tell us why a lot of suffering happens. If you don't find those explanations PLAUSIBLE (ie you don't like them) they are still there and if you say they are not then that is being dishonest.Instead, how about making PLAUSIBLE arguments that the Bible's answers aren't true. .

Even if, as some theists special plead, we cannot understand the reasons, a simple "You know that tsunami that killed 250,000 people which was a result of the plate tectonics I designed into your world, well it IS NECESSARY for a greater good, you just wouldn't understand it" would suffice. A parent that punishes a kid without telling them what they are being punished for is wholly irresponsible.

Suppose for a second that for some reason it was necessary. You have just admitted that you don't understand and can't conceive of how that is possible. So what? Does reality hinge on your personal ability to understand it?  Can something  be  real and true without your stamp of approval? Hope you know that your opinions do not set the standard for what is real and what is not real. Provide more than just assertion. When you tell your children to do things that they don't want to do but you know its best for them, do they always listen and just say "Okay." No? Neither do we when we are supposed to obey God and listen to Him. 

I'm not even sure I need to go on!

 Oh but you did go on. Turning this from a facepalm to a faceplant.

"If God had destroyed all evil at any time in the past, we would never exist. Instead God has a plan in mind and everything is in place to bring that plan to fruition - even evil."

Blind assertion after blind assertion.

I didn't say that. The Bible says that. Don't believe the Bible? Fine. Then demonstrate that it's wrong. If you want to prove that the Bible does not teach that and/or that it's not true, then bring up your evidence. 

". If God destroyed evil without cleaning evil from our lives, we would all be destroyed. When we say that God should get rid of evil and punish sin, we usually mean those people over there - apart from us and not recognizing that we are no better than they are. We deserve hell just like they do. You don't earn your way to heaven - it's by grace. "

Er, proof? Evidence? Look, if you're even half a serious thinker as you seem to think you are, you need to do a lot more work.

Back up a minute. If you were a serious thinker then you would have responded to the Bible passages that are foundational to the Christian worldview that you are trying to convincingly criticize. Without the Bible there is no Christian worldview. As I said before philosophy alone is not gonna cut it. I thought we were talking about the Christian worldview which you can't seem to get right or understand. Let's get that straight before we try to discuss about whether you should believe it. And speaking of evidence - where is yours?

Let's take the loving nature of a God who adores foetal death so much that he won't stop it naturally, even though most foetal deaths occur unnoticed to humanity causing us to question what positive effect they can have at all:

Figures vary. However, it is thought that up to 50% of fertilised eggs die at or before implantation.

Add that to up to 20% of known pregnancies miscarry.

Add those two to unknown pregnancies dying after implantation, and you have a staggering amount of 'natural abortions' that God allows.

I think you are using a very loose and nebulous definition of  "abortion". So loose in fact that you are conflating unnatural (and unethical ) surgical "abortions" where human life is most often eliminated for convenience than for any medical reason with miscarriages. By definition "Abortion" is not natural. And also I'd watch your language as I were you. You might get your atheist card revoked given that you talked about the fertilized eggs being alive and dying. Are your "PRO-life"? If so, good for you! Life does begin at conception. All life belongs to God.. When you look at all the things that go wrong during a pregnancy it seems miraculous that any of us survive at all. God chooses which ones of lives, where we live, and under what circumstances. See Acts 17. I trust God that for all those of us humans who aren't born, or never come to term, God has reasons. Unlike us, He would know.

So when Christians argue abortion, they actually need to answer why the omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allows what must be around 2/3 rds of all pregnancies to end it embryonic or foetal death (passive murderer).

So I guess that means that when people go to a clinic and surgically end a pregnancy, it's murder too? As a human being, I haven't the right to decide who lives and who dies. I didn't make me or anyone else. God however does indeed have that kind of power and owes no one explanation.

Explanations on a postcard please.

Just gave you one. 

God really is a loving kinda guy / god / thing.

God is indeed loving, merciful, kind, and awesome. God is beyond our small concepts of just what is good and just what is evil. Without Him we can't really know all of  what they are. 

"You don't earn your way to heaven - it's by grace"

Brilliant. What's the point of any earthly action. This utterly invalidates a theistic meaning of life and fully subscribes to theistic determinism. Are you a Calvinist?

It invalidate your misunderstood theistic meaning of life, because that's what the Bible says. Ever read Romans 9? What about Ephesians 1 and 2?  Yup, you don't understand the Christian worldview at all. I'm not a 5-point Calvinist but the humanity is indeed depraved; we are unconditionally elected for salvation (not reprobation - everyone goes to hell by default because we have all sinned; we are saved by irresistible grace; and we are kept by the Holy Spirit that was given to use as deposit guaranteeing our salvation. All that is most definitely in the Bible. I thought you knew the Christian worldview?

"Johnny P missed the point I raised. God does know perfectly everything. And we don't. The Bible does not tell us that [t]his world is perfect. It tells us that the world is decaying because of our sin and evil. I quoted Romans 8:19-25. Guess he missed it. Let me be clear. Johnny P's presumptions are wrong. Even if you don't think the Bible is correct, you have got to admit that he is making arguments based on claims that the Bible does not make. "

Eh? You missed the point AGAIN! If this is an imperfect creation, then God is imperfect since a perfect creator cannot create imperfectly. It has to be one of 2 things:
1) This is the perfect world
2) this is the perfect set of parameters designed which led to this world.

Given the knowledge of what this world would be like, these are effectively synonymous.

Johnny P, where does the Bible say that this world is perfect? It does not. The Christian worldview is not that this world is perfect. It's passing away. It's destined to be destroyed and restored. If you are trying to argue against the Christian worldview then at least correctly represent it rather than beating up a straw man full of concepts that the Bible does not teach. Before the sin of Adam and Eve this world was so perfect that in our current fallen state we can't even begin to conceive what that was like. Since you don't know what the design was supposed to look like it's laughable to think you can critique it given that you are part of the problem in that design that God has allowed to exist in his infinite mercy to reach a goal that we can't quite figure out but we can trust in Him that it is for the best. Sorry, but I believe that the one who is lost and mistaken and clueless as to how the world works is most definitely you, not God. Here let me help you out. Dr Bart Ehrman wrote a book addressing these issues called "God's Problem" and I think Dr.James White's response would help you.





What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #132 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will?
Enhanced by Zemanta