Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T 
>> WORK.
> 
>   So that means that even if someone wants to explain in a completely
> rational fashion some detail of the Bible, it's a perfectly valid form
> of counter-argumentation to throw back irrational straw men?

Nope. Nor did I do so. I merely pointed out what the Bible said. Josh 
was the one that came up with the unsupported rationalization.

What's a straw-man about pointing out that eating the Tree of Knowledge 
gave us the same knowledge as God has?

>   "Science", in a broad term, is not always about hard science, about the
> mechanics of the universe. Science can also refer to the study of sociology,
> culture, psychology, philosophy and logic. Something can be argumented
> logically even if it doesn't necessarily refer to an actual physical
> phenomenon.

Yes, but to be science, it needs to be based on some sort of 
observation. What observation is "God's smarter than you are" based on?

I quote Joel here:
> God is able, but whether he's willing is a matter more
> complex than of "yes" and "no". It is a "yes", because
> he will do it at his own pace, and it is a "no", because
> he will do it at his own pace.

So what does Joel base this on? Sure, it's possible, but it's presented 
as "God is able". How does one know? What evidence does one base that 
on? While possible, what makes it more likely than my approach. I'm not 
saying Joel's wrong. I'm saying he didn't support his contention. It 
seems a strange argument to say "The facts I present are right and 
you're wrong *because* what we're arguing about is incomprehensible to 
either of us."

Especially given the text of Genesis, wherein he condemns all humans and 
all serpents to suffering for something they had no blame in, and then 
wipes out almost every living creature on the earth not too long later.

Have you read Job? He's a sadistic SOB in that book. It sure doesn't 
sound like a good and loving God to me. And here I am, with the 
knowledge of good and evil. Yet I'm being told to shut up, ignore what I 
read in the Bible, don't think about it, because God is so much smarter 
that what he does can't make sense, including not making sense to the 
person telling me this.

How long is God going to wait before he gets rid of the evil, if he's 
doing it in his own time? I mean, according to Revelations, there's 
gonna be a huge load of evil in the last 7 years of life on earth, 
followed by unending eternal torment for large numbers of people. I'm 
pretty sure unending eternal torment for large numbers of people falls 
under the "evil" category - it certainly does when people do it. So when 
does God get around to eliminating evil, if not by the Rapture?

>   You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even want to
> have a rational conversation about different points of view. 

I do. You told me it would take too long to explain.

And it's not like the "You're mistaken, it's not really evil because God 
is smarter than you are" isn't an old, old argument. I mean, have you 
heard the expression "The Best Of All Possible Worlds"? People have been 
making fun of that argument since long, long before *my* country existed.

> You just want to be right, and you will not concede anything.

I have conceded that the Bible's translation might be messing up my 
understanding of it. I've conceded that I might be wrong about whether 
God exists, including a sample list of events that would convince me. I 
even, in a past discussion, conceded that dying for your belief can be a 
convincing way to faith. What more do you want me to concede?

> You have decided that your arguments are the only valid arguments, 

Nope. I just haven't seen a valid argument yet. That you haven't 
convinced me is not proof that I'm unconvincible.

> you don't want to listen nor
> understand what the other is trying to say, 

Nothing hasn't been said that I haven't heard dozens of times already. I 
roomed for a semester in university with a guy whose father was a priest 
and had done all the studies to be a priest himself. Do you really think 
I haven't heard the "it isn't really evil because it's all part of God's 
plan" argument before?

Don't tell me I'm not listening. I asked "how do you know it's God's 
plan?"  Answer the question I actually ask, instead of accusing me of 
arguing unfairly because I ask difficult questions.

> except to see how you could
> come up with yet another counter-argument. That's not listening.

I *am* listening. I quote:
>   2) You don't care anyways, so why even bother?

In other words, you gave up when I actually asked you to support your 
statements. That makes it hard to have a rational discussion.

>> They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep 
>> on trying, right?
> 
>   That's a perfect example of a straw man in this context. You are trying
> to make my arguments (and my point that some of these Bible things can be
> approached in a rational basis) look more ridiculous by comparing them to
> something extreme.

Remember the subject line.

You wanted rational arguments. What's rational about saying "God does 
evil for reasons you can't understand"? In particular, how can you know 
that's true, if you can't understand the reasons? How can you 
distinguish "God does evil because he enjoys it in ways we can't 
understand" from "God does evil because he is required to in ways we 
can't understand"?

Sure, some of the stuff in the Bible can be approached from a rational 
basis. I already conceded, also, that if you use the Bible as a 
fictional work full of allegories and investigate it to see which ones 
work for you, without expecting me to necessarily take away from it the 
same values, then I don't have any problem with it. So now you're 
telling me you ignored the "rational" parts of *my* statements?

>> I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I 
>> do?
> 
>   Yes. Show your righteous indignation. You must be right, who has the
> right to even claim that you might be wrong?

No, you're not reading what I'm writing. It's easy to *assert* that you 
know what God is thinking. But if you want to argue rationally, you 
can't just make an unsupported assertion and call it quits.

I said God allows evil. Joel says God has a reason to, or that it's not 
really evil because God wouldn't allow it. While I've heard this 
argument before, it's not supported by the text of the Bible, and it's 
not supported by observation. If God created life, then yes, people 
*are* smarter than God, as evidenced by all the flaws in life.

>   Listening to other people is very, very hard sometimes.

I have listened to other people, both here and elsewhere, on this 
subject. You are once again falling back on the tried and true "the only 
reason you don't agree is you don't really understand" argument, which I 
already pointed out once. You've given no evidence that I don't 
understand other than that I disagree with you. You merely asserted that 
you are right, but unable to explain why. (Granted, that's what faith is 
all about.) Hence, your implication that I'm not actually listening to 
what people are saying is unsupported and irrational.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message