Religious inconsistency question

[Moonbeam]

dphantom: Exactly. If you are not willing to see that there are no inconsistencies, then you are right there is little hope for an exchange of ideas.

M: But is it that he is unwilling? You are claiming that he is unwilling to give up his capacity to use intelligence, reason, and logical analysis to believe in something that promises immortality, as if such a motivation isn't obvious.

d: We are diametrically opposed. My position is there are no inconsistencies, simply our lack of understanding.

M: Yes, you can believe anything because you have dismissed any notion that you are capable of understanding. You believe what to a rational mind is unbelievable because of faith acquired probably in childhood before the age or reason. Lucky you, but this is not a faith you can hand to a rational doubter.

d: For me to admit there are inconsistencies would be to reject God.

M: Which is why your belief is suspect to those who don't have your faith.

d: For you to accept my position would have you accept God's infallibility and Truth as written in the Bible.

M: And for anybody with a shred of logic would say to believe that you would have to be a fool.

So the problem I see with folk like you is that while you have faith yourself, the way you express it makes it useless to and even an anathema to so many others. It depends on indoctrination and belief in the absurd, the rejection of the notion that man can know anything.

But you, like he, when it's time for a moral choice, decide only as best as you can. You should know, it would seem to me that on what you believe, only God knows which of you will make the better choices.

But is the real story and truth about God is based not on some being we imagine is out there but the experience of a conscious state that can be described in a million different ways, a logical mind, especially one not bombarded by those million different absurdities, might just find such a possibility logical and worth pursuing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LoL. I agree that you should cry about ad hominem, because crying is only thing you can do when faced with logic and reason.

You have not supplied any arguments which could be accurately described as "logic" or "reason."

You don't bother with logical explanations in posts.

Clearly false, and anyone else is free to review my posts in this thread to understand your claim's falsity.

Your argument and posts all boils down to, "this is my opinion, and that's the way it is." You can't understand simple concepts that I bring up, so you resort to using your opinions as a response.

I have offered no opinion, whatsoever. It is a fact that your claims are inconsistent, as I've described. Genocide is either good or it is evil, and you have claimed it is both. Either God's plan for the universe is unchanging or humans have free will. It cannot be both, as explained. It is also a fact that nothing prohibits an omnipotent being from creating a universe free of evil, and more specifically nothing prohibits that being from obtaining his will without requiring genocide, among any other evil.

These are facts that you have not refuted, let alone rebutted. You have only resorted to one personal attack after another, and this latest post of yours is no different.

Sad.

Indeed.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

You have not supplied any arguments which could be accurately described as "logic" or "reason."


Clearly false, and anyone else is free to review my posts in this thread to understand your claim's falsity.


I have offered no opinion, whatsoever. It is a fact that your claims are inconsistent, as I've described. Genocide is either good or it is evil, and you have claimed it is both. Either God's plan for the universe is unchanging or humans have free will. It cannot be both, as explained. It is also a fact that nothing prohibits an omnipotent being from creating a universe free of evil, and more specifically nothing prohibits that being from obtaining his will without requiring genocide, among any other evil.

These are facts that you have not refuted, let alone rebutted. You have only resorted to one personal attack after another, and this latest post of yours is no different.

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not logical.

This is just one of many examples of what I mean:

Me:God wishes free will. Evil is because of man, not because of God.

You: Your positions are inconsistent.

Nice logical explanation that happens to be missing.

Go ahead and explain logically how God can create a universe that's free of evil, while also giving man free will.

By the way, here's a gift for your self improvement:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not logical.

By the way, here's a gift for your self improvement:

Feel free to attempt a reasoned and logical argument at your earliest convenience. Your continued ad hominem only favors the soundness of my arguments.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Also, logically explain to me how evil is not the absence of good.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Feel free to attempt a reasoned and logical argument at your earliest convenience. Your continued ad hominem only favors the soundness of my arguments.

First, learn what ad hominem means if you are going to cry about it.

Second:

Explain using logic and reason your arguments. Define your terms first, then what your proposition are using those terms using logic, then the conclusion that necessarily arrive from those logical propositions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Explain clearly how God can create a universe that's free of evil while giving man free will.

Is there some kind of self-contradiction in the proposition of the creation of a universe with free-will beings unable to accomplish a certain class of actions?

You have claimed that humans have free will. Yet we are unable to choose to see infrared. We cannot choose to levitate. We cannot digest diamonds. We cannot breathe water. Why couldn't a universe creator create a universe where the evil actions are among those humans could not choose to do, while still giving them the freedom to choose ham or jam for breakfast?

Are there not free-will humans in evil-free heaven?

 

[Paul98]

Also, logically explain to me how evil is not the absence of good.

Is a photon couple light years away good or evil?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Also, logically explain to me how evil is not the absence of good.

It is your burden to defend your definitions.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Is there some kind of self-contradiction in the proposition of the creation of a universe with free-will beings unable to accomplish a certain class of actions?

You have claimed that humans have free will. Yet we are unable to choose to see infrared. We cannot choose to levitate. We cannot digest diamonds. We cannot breathe water. Why couldn't a universe creator create a universe where the evil actions are among those humans could not choose to do, while still giving them the freedom to choose ham or jam for breakfast?

Are there not free-will humans in evil-free heaven?

There you go. That's a lot better. Let me help you unravel the difficulty you face in this subject.

Why did God create man with free will? What is man free to do with his will?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There you go. That's a lot better. Let me help you unravel the difficulty you face in this subject.

Why did God create man with free will?

The only reason omnipotent beings do anything: because they want to.

This is a red-herring, of course. All I needed to show was that evil (specifically, the genocide perpetrated by your god) was unnecessary, and I've done that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

First, learn what ad hominem means if you are going to cry about it.

It would be amusing to see you try to explain how your arguments have not exhibited ad hominem.

It is also an interesting discussion technique to wait until a person has responded to your post, only then to return to your post and revise your statements in light of the response you've received.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I recommend listening to these as a start:

Why does God allow Evil?

If God is Sovereign, how can man be free?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I recommend listening to these as a start:

Why does God allow Evil?

If God is Sovereign, how can man be free?

Linking other people's argument is not discussion. This is the discussion forum. I'm here to debate people. If you want to defend an argument you've read or heard somewhere, then make the argument yourself here in the thread, and I'll tell you why it fails.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

It would be amusing to see you try to explain how your arguments have not exhibited ad hominem.

It is also an interesting discussion technique to wait until a person has responded to your post, only then to return to your post and revise your statements in light of the response you've received.

It's not ad hominem because I wasn't trying to refute your argument. I was simply attacking your character.

Only after doing so did I proceed to refute your arguments with logical explanations.

I also don't read other people's response before revising.

I revise because I do multiple drafts when posting. It helps to improve clarity and quality of my posts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's not ad hominem because I wasn't trying to refute your argument. I was simply attacking your character.

The implication was that my arguments failed for reasons of faults with my character.

Only after doing so did I proceed to refute your arguments with logical explanations.

That never happened, and has never happened.

I also don't read other people's response before revising.

Right.

I revise because I do multiple drafts when posting. It helps to improve clarity and quality of my posts.

I've yet to see those alleged "improvements"

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Linking other people's argument is not discussion. This is the discussion forum. I'm here to debate people. If you want to defend an argument you've read or heard somewhere, then make the argument yourself here in the thread, and I'll tell you why it fails.

Willful ignorance. How about you spend the effort to study and learn the subject matter. Then we can go ahead and debate it.

Otherwise, lets just stop here because debating with ignorance will only waste my time.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Willful ignorance. How about you spend the effort to study and learn the subject matter. Then we can go ahead and debate it.

More ad hominem.

Otherwise, lets just stop here because debating with ignorance will only waste my time.

Make what ever excuses that will help you escape with some feeling of self-respect. I'm willing to discuss whatever arguments you present.

 

[Moonbeam]

Go ahead and explain logically how God can create a universe that's free of evil, while also giving man free will.

To begin with, I see no logic in assuming that God created the universe or even if it hasn't always been there. To me it is illogical to speculate, much less to have reached a conclusion.

What science tells us, however, and that would be what I call logic, is that man evolved from animals, that we at some point became self aware and developed language. Prior to that we lived, I think, in the Garden because the concept of evil couldn't exist. There is no evil without the ability to conceptualize with language. The eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, in my opinion was the acquisition of the capacity to conceptualize the imaginary via words, to believe in the reality of ideas. Prior to that all perception was direct, no separation from God. Man and what he perceived were one and the same experience. There was no split in the psyche, no self analysis or self awareness because we had no language to conceptualize with. We were totally real, the image of God if you like. We were what we were, created or accident.

Evil is a concept we invented and put our selves down with. We separated ourselves into the good face we present, and the feeling we are worthless we deny. The goal of your Jesus, I think, was to save us from that, to collapse illusion that we are evil with the feeling of forgiveness. We were born perfect and deceived. All over the world in every culture and clime there arise people who return to the source. It doesn't just happen for Christians.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

The implication was that my arguments failed for reasons of faults with my character.

That never happened, and has never happened.

Right.

Your arguments failed because they are illogical.

I've yet to see those alleged "improvements"

I am sorry that you have difficulty seeing and understanding a lot of things. You have my sympathy. Must be hard living in our complex world.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your arguments failed because they are illogical.

Which rule(s) of logic did they violate?

I am sorry that you have difficulty seeing and understanding a lot of things. You have my sympathy.

You can keep your sympathy. I'd rather receive a reasoned rebuttal. I won't be holding my breath, though.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

More ad hominem.


Make what ever excuses that will help you escape with some feeling of self-respect. I'm willing to discuss whatever arguments you present.

I am calling your willful ignorance for what it is. That's the truth. I am not refuting any of your points.

Praise the Lord Jesus that he gave me the self-respect and wisdom necessary to stop debating with a self-professed ignoramus.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I am calling your willful ignorance for what it is. That's the truth.

I have been very clear that I am more than willing to debate you. If you have information or arguments to share, please do so wihtout delay. I will not simply be directed to some random links, however. This is the DISCUSSION Forum. You are not disucssing.

I am not refuting any of your points.

On this we can surely agree.

Praise the Lord Jesus that he gave me the self-respect and wisdom necessary to stop debating with a self-professed ignoramus.

Run away.

 

[dphantom]

I have been very clear that I am more than willing to debate you. If you have information or arguments to share, please do so wihtout delay. I will not simply be directed to some random links, however. This is the DISCUSSION Forum. You are not disucssing.


On this we can surely agree.


Run away.

Indeed it is a discussion forum. What is wrong with bringing in supporting evidence/documentation/arguments to buttress one's position? My reasoning may not be as inclusive or complete or clear as I would like so why should I or you or anyone not supplement with those who are experts in the field? Is that not what discussion really is?? And not simply an exchange of opinions?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Exactly. If you are not willing to see that there are no inconsistencies, then you are right there is little hope for an exchange of ideas. We are diametrically opposed. My position is there are no inconsistencies, simply our lack of understanding.

For me to admit there are inconsistencies would be to reject God. For you to accept my position would have you accept God's infallibility and Truth as written in the Bible.

Not quite "exactly"...

We are NOT just "diametrically opposed" by our positions, but by what we are willing to contemplate. I AM willing to see that there are no inconsistencies, but only after I've looked for them and found none. On the other hand, you aren't willing to acknowledge the possibility that inconsistences really exist, and believe it would be sinful to even look for them.

If your answer is always going to be "lack of understanding" on our part regardless of what apparrant biblical inconsistencies we might raise, then it's clear that you mean to reject any exchange of ideas on this topic.

Indeed it is a discussion forum. What is wrong with bringing in supporting evidence/documentation/arguments to buttress one's position? My reasoning may not be as inclusive or complete or clear as I would like so why should I or you or anyone not supplement with those who are experts in the field? Is that not what discussion really is?? And not simply an exchange of opinions?

There's nothing wrong with doing that, but it's best to do it by incorporating these things into a posting in your own words. It's always good to have some indication that the poster actually understands the meaning and context of his/her supporting material.

Fair or not, just posting links invites us to conclude that the poster can't continue the discussion because it's beyond his/her depth and further discussion should be with the authors of the linked material.