Mojch - I challenge you!
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
(28-05-2013 10:43 AM)Mojch Wrote:  Steven:

Your question "A logical God" is a little vague. I assume you are asking me to discuss what I am saying about God being logical but could you clarify? In the mean time, three points / questions for you. (I know these violate the "final word" rule but we both seem OK with modifying the rules in small ways.)

1. You assert the Christian God would be useless. If he exists, the Christian God is extremely useful because he rescues you from Hell. The Christian God is not useless if he exists. Your argument that he is useless presumes he does not exist. Thus, it is circular. It would be circular on my part as well if I was using it to prove that God is "useful". However, I am not. I realize we are way into the weeds here but if you trace our discussion so far, you will see that I am using it to prove that your initial response to my logical explanation for reconciling God and evil avoided the theory instead of answering it.

Nope. I am not asserting your God would be useless, I am saying your ideas of God are if they can't be tested. The concept of God is useless in the sense that nothing we have so far been able to investigate has been conclusively proven as "supernatural." How is "God is useless because he doesn't exist" an circular argument, I am not saying that if God is useless, he doesn't exist. God can be useless and STILL exist. Unless you have proven otherwise, it isn't as circular as you believe.

Quote:2. QUOTE: "You probably just added that attribute to get around some of the pitfalls of the three O's (Omnipotence, Omnibelevolence, Omniscience)." Yes, of course I did. Without this condition, God is illogical. Thus, I modified my conception of God. Why is this a bad thing? Why does the conclusion from a contradiction have to be to throw out the entire theory? Isn't the better process to see if you can modify the theory to remedy the contradiction? This is how all of modern physics (and most other sciences) proceed. No scientist finds a problem with his theory and scraps the entire thing until it is proven that the problem cannot be reconciled. I do not understand the atheist urge to reject the claims of a believer just because he modified his theory. It would seem to me that such modification should be viewed as a GOOD thing by showing intellectual honesty. The atheist can simply assert another contradiction in the revised theory or, if he cannot, admit that the theory is coherent but unprovable.
The reason why I view this as a bad thing is because it is simply adding on tags to God that can't be proven. It's almost as if you simply change the characteristics of God to get out of problems on a whim. Who are you to know God's characteristics. We have yet to prove such a being even exists! You can add any tag you want, but unless you can prove it to me, it will all be just a dodging match between me and you.

Quote:I note also that my position on the omnipotence of the Christian God is supported by the Bible. The entire point of the death of Christ was that it was NECESSARY to save man. If it was necessary, then God could not save man without it, thus there was something that God could not do, thus God was not "omnipotent" in the traditional sense of the word. The Bible is full of instances which imply limits to God's power.
I separated this because I had a good laugh at it. From what I have read of the Bible, it is the opposite. Here, let me give you some Bible verses:

Matthew 19:26 ESV:
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Luke 1:37 ESV:
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Jeremiah 32:27 ESV:
“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?

Mark 10:27 ESV:
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

I could go on and on for ALL day with this stuff. Where exactly does the Bible say this was a necessary sacrifice? I am only curious because I thought it was something added on by either the Church (Catholic) or Paul.

Quote: 3. QUOTE: "We retain our responsibility because we are our OWN deciders. God isn't deciding for us..." This one really intrigues me. It seems you are operating from the premises that if God is real, he controls our actions. Why do you believe this?

Sincerely,

Mojch

Nope, there you are, misunderstanding me again. You asked me why I think we retain responsibility. I wasn't commenting on if God existed, he would control us, I was merely explaining that our subconcious is still us, and we are self-governing agents, that nothing sentient( I used God as an example) is controlling us.

I want to know How could God be under the sway of logic when A) He existed before it

B) has explicitly mentioned that he is not constrained to it (see Bible

C) Is said to be Supernatural (trancending above the natural, meaning, in a sense, illogical.)

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
29-05-2013, 06:56 AM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Steven:

First, thanks for debating so far. However, I just found out that I will be moving and transferring jobs over the next few weeks. Therefore, I do not think I will have time to continue our discussion for at least that time period. Per the rules of TBR, I announce my intention to suspend posting in this thread, at least until such time has passed.

I anticipate that I will be settled in about a month. Hopefully, I will be able to return at that time. I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion, even if we disagreed. I certainly won't employ the jury analogy again without accounting for causation.

Best of luck in school and in the future.

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
13-07-2013, 08:22 PM
RE: Mojch - I challenge you!
Thread closed due to inactivity as per Mojch's post. Will be reopened at the request of the debaters.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: