Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:38 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...second, when God orders an execution, it is the death penalty. The death penalty is not malice murder, it is a just penalty for a crime that has been committed.

Silly me, all loving, caring and generally amazing god has a get out for ordering the killing of children by their own parents, though I'm unsure what crime Isaac committed...
This sociopath of a god can simply order his bloodlust to be carried out by his pawns & it's no longer murder it's 'justified killing' ~ I'd hate to see him when he's really angry.

- Talking lions, magic wardrobes, witches with Turkish Delight - GOOD - Muggles, Quidditch and Dark Arts Lessons - BAD -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:04 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  [Atheists] don't want to believe.

Speaking for myself as well as for all skeptics, I want to know what is true. I do not want to believe in lies. I seek truth, and the only way I can do this is through evidence. A three-thousand-year-old book, of which all original copies are lost, and only copies of copies of copies of copies exist, and even then often in mere fragments, does not constitute evidence. I also must apply logic, which is absolute. A god who is described as embodying logical impossibilities cannot exist.

Thus, the modern, mainstream Christian conception of God is a fiction. There are other conceptions of God which may not be logical impossibilities, but for which there is still no evidence.

I am an atheist, not because I don't want to believe, but because I want to believe in that which is true, and all logic and evidence points to a belief that there is no God.

(19-03-2015 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

It is obviously flawed - you can't get to 4 from 3, nor is 'maximally great' even defined.

As Chas says, the argument is a load of crap!

1. The term "maximally great" is not defined. Clearly, this is intended to mean God, but the term is far too vague for any logical argument. And the assertion that such a being is possible is nothing more than an assertion. The assertion has no validity, and all that follows is invalid.

2. The second point does not follow logically from the first. It is possible for a human to live in a life-support capsule on Mars, but there is no human living there. The falsity of the statement leaves everything that follows invalid.

3. The third point is even more illogical than the previous two. It is downright idiotic.

4., 5. and 6. The fourth, fifth, and sixth points would be true if the points above made any sense, but they don't, so these are irrelevant.

The argument is utter and complete bullshit.

(19-03-2015 01:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The death penalty is not murder, buddy.

Amnesty International and every human rights organization in the world, both secular and religious, disagree with you. The death penalty is what we call it when a government murders someone.

But a more cogent point is that the Bible does not say "Thou shalt not murder." It says "Thou shalt not kill." If you are a soldier, or if you eat meat, or if you are the executioner working for a government, you are violating the commandment.

Of course, the waters get murky because in the Old Testament, God tells people to kill each other all the time. The New Testament has far fewer commandments for people to kill each other, but there are some.

Note: The Marcionites were an early Christian sect who believed that the God of the OT and the God of the NT were different gods. They made some very convincing arguments.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 05:41 PM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  ... I'd hate to see him when he's really angry.

That's why the Old Testament folks always feared God. He was one scary-mean mofo!

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes daniel1948's post
19-03-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, let me educate you, as you seem sorely in need of it.

"Preparing to be educated, sir!!!" *salutes* Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The ontological argument (in either form) basically claims that God exists by definition (which is just plain nonsense, but that's by the way).

No, as you cannot define a being into existence. Everyone knows that Big Grin

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It says nothing whatsoever about things beginning to exist, or transcendent causes, or any of that stuff. That comes from a different argument. You are mixing up your arguments -- which is no big deal, since none of them are worth anything.

I am not mixing the arguments up..the point was; One argument supplements the other. One argument, a transcendent being is necessary..and the other argument, a transcendent, necessary being POSSIBLY exists...if the kalam fails, then the MOA also fails. But if the kalam is true, then the MOA is also true.

That was the point, and it is no coincidence that this is the case.

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But if you're claiming to defend the modal ontological argument, perhaps you should stick to what it actually says. And what it actually says is laugh-out-loud nonsense.

Based on what? You sitting there pouting and saying it is so?

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I am well aware of the definitions of necessary and contingent, and how they are used in the various "proofs" of God's existence. None of those are convincing either. They are all word games that assume the conclusion in their basic definitions. They don't "prove" anything. And none of that has anything to do with the ontological argument. It has a silliness all its own.

What I'd like is a point by point refutation of what I said regarding #3 and #4...instead of the typical waving of the hands and brushing it off crap that you people on here like to do when you can't refute an argument, but you still want to make comments.

Let me lay it out for you, my friend:

I just turned 60 about a week ago. In the last 7 years, I have lost my mother (lung cancer), my younger brother (lung cancer), and my father (bladder cancer), as well as several close friends. My only remaining brother has been diagnosed with fourth-stage lung cancer, and will be lucky to reach his 62nd birthday (my younger brother never made it to 58). I don't know how much time I have left. If I'm lucky, I might have another 20 or 30 years, but based on my family history and my own history, it's likely to be significantly shorter than that. However long I have, it won't be long enough. Life is short, and time is precious.

Given that, I am not going to waste my time obsessing over (and arguing about) silly word games that have been refuted over and over again by people much smarter than either you or I. If you care to do a little searching, they have been refuted numerous times on this very forum. Instead of asking me to re-invent the wheel, learn how to use the search function.

Another point is that the arguments do not support each other -- even their proponents disagree. St. Thomas Aquinas, famous for the "Five Ways" (among other things), had no use for the ontological argument. Alvin Plantinga, a major supporter of the modal ontological argument, considers all of Aquinas's arguments flawed and invalid. Note also that Plantinga (who could probably run intellectual circles around you without breaking a sweat) does not claim that the MOA proves the existence of God. His claim is that the existence of God is as likely as his non-existence. None of these arguments is the kind of slam dunk that you pretend they are. The fact that professional philosophers are still arguing these points after thousands of years should clue you in that there is no slam dunk argument.

But if you want to waste your time, be my guest. You won't waste any more of mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Grasshopper's post
19-03-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: Question about flood
Not sure what I can say after not reading the last 21 pages.

Perhaps -
"Nature is a cruel mistress .
There was no world wide flood.
Gods are never necessary.
Asking someone to kill someone else is usually a very bad thing.
A death penalty is not justice. Its just the states way of saying "We are going to ensure that you never hurt anyone again and we see no reason to keep spending money to keep you locked up and fed."

As far as refuting any arguments for god.
I can create an imaginary god that has every attribute and power of a god that people claim exist.

If my imaginary god can do everything that your god can do, then guess what, your god is imaginary too.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
19-03-2015, 09:21 PM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 09:17 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Edit: I would actually disagree with the pressure that Chas says. The pressure would be lower. The air pressure is based on the weight of the atmosphere per unit area. If you think of the surface of the earth as flat and the number of gaseous molecules surrounding it is constant (which is a slightly larger sphere), then if the radius of the surface is increased, that will make the gaseous region be thinner to compensate for the increased volume of the sphere as the radius of the air jacket. This will decrease the weight of the air over the same unit area thereby decreasing the air pressure. The VOLUME of the atmosphere did not change, but the circumference of the atmospheric sphere increased. By increasing the radius of the earth by 8.8 km (the height of Everest) you are increasing the size of the inner sphere and that will push the size of the outer sphere (the atmosphere) out and thin it out. If you are interested, we can actually calculate it out. Actually, I might do that anyway.
By my calculations the air pressure would fall by about 2 parts per million. So Chas is wrong. The air pressure would not be 14.7 psi but 14.6999706 psi. Sorry Chas.Einstein

Would the barometric pressure dropping that much mean a storm is coming?Laugh out load

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 09:23 PM
RE: Question about flood
We know the Flood is true. We are told of a great flood in many ancient cultures .... who survived and wrote about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBear's post
20-03-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 06:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Let me lay it out for you, my friend:

I just turned 60 about a week ago. In the last 7 years, I have lost my mother (lung cancer), my younger brother (lung cancer), and my father (bladder cancer), as well as several close friends. My only remaining brother has been diagnosed with fourth-stage lung cancer, and will be lucky to reach his 62nd birthday (my younger brother never made it to 58). I don't know how much time I have left. If I'm lucky, I might have another 20 or 30 years, but based on my family history and my own history, it's likely to be significantly shorter than that. However long I have, it won't be long enough. Life is short, and time is precious.

*Sigh* You are right, life is short, and time is precious...may we all accept Jesus into our lives before our dying day.

(19-03-2015 06:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Given that, I am not going to waste my time obsessing over (and arguing about) silly word games that have been refuted over and over again by people much smarter than either you or I. If you care to do a little searching, they have been refuted numerous times on this very forum. Instead of asking me to re-invent the wheel, learn how to use the search function.

Refuted over and over again? Laughable. That is the problem with you people, you all have your own cheerleading teams, and no matter how bad or illogical your arguments are, none of your peers will point it out because hey, "no matter how bad the argument is, it is still better than Goddidit".

No one has refuted anything as far as I can tell, and as long as I am here, illogical refutations, bad arguments, and any flat out NONSENSICAL posts will be exposed...as long as it is in reference to anything under my belief system.

(19-03-2015 06:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Another point is that the arguments do not support each other -- even their proponents disagree. St. Thomas Aquinas, famous for the "Five Ways" (among other things), had no use for the ontological argument. Alvin Plantinga, a major supporter of the modal ontological argument, considers all of Aquinas's arguments flawed and invalid. Note also that Plantinga (who could probably run intellectual circles around you without breaking a sweat) does not claim that the MOA proves the existence of God. His claim is that the existence of God is as likely as his non-existence. None of these arguments is the kind of slam dunk that you pretend they are. The fact that professional philosophers are still arguing these points after thousands of years should clue you in that there is no slam dunk argument.

Alvin Plantiga is a Christian apologist, buddy. I could care less about his views on the strengths of particular arguments, all I know is, he is on my side of things overrall, but even if he wasn't, every argument stands on its own two feet regardless of who is on the bandwagon or not.

(19-03-2015 06:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But if you want to waste your time, be my guest. You won't waste any more of mine.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 08:40 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 06:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Let me lay it out for you, my friend:

I just turned 60 about a week ago. In the last 7 years, I have lost my mother (lung cancer), my younger brother (lung cancer), and my father (bladder cancer), as well as several close friends. My only remaining brother has been diagnosed with fourth-stage lung cancer, and will be lucky to reach his 62nd birthday (my younger brother never made it to 58). I don't know how much time I have left. If I'm lucky, I might have another 20 or 30 years, but based on my family history and my own history, it's likely to be significantly shorter than that. However long I have, it won't be long enough. Life is short, and time is precious.

*Sigh* You are right, life is short, and time is precious...may we all accept Jesus into our lives before our dying day.

Fuck Jesus. Is that clear enough for you? Even if some sort of God exists (a possibility I admit), he/she/it is certainly not the God of the Bible. The Bible is a story (and not even a very good story), and God and Jesus are both fictional characters. Read the fucking Bible sometime -- all of it, not just the parts that they spoon feed you in church. If the God described in the Bible is real (fat chance), I would rather go to Hell than spend eternity worshipping such an asshole. Got it?

I repeat: fuck Jesus. With a fucking cactus. And do yourself too while you're at it.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Speaking for myself as well as for all skeptics, I want to know what is true.

So do Christians.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I do not want to believe in lies.

Well you are off to a poor start with that if you believe in evolution.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I seek truth

John 14:6 "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life".

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  and the only way I can do this is through evidence.

Me too, I go where the evidence takes me.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  A three-thousand-year-old book, of which all original copies are lost, and only copies of copies of copies of copies exist, and even then often in mere fragments, does not constitute evidence.

We don't have original copies of anything in antiquity, first of all...so therefore, if you hold every other ancient writing to the same standards that you hold the Bible, then we wouldn't be able trust anything in antiquity and therefore the entire genre of history will be unreliable. But of course, your standards are different than actual historians.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I also must apply logic, which is absolute. A god who is described as embodying logical impossibilities cannot exist.

Mere words.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Thus, the modern, mainstream Christian conception of God is a fiction. There are other conceptions of God which may not be logical impossibilities, but for which there is still no evidence.

Just...words.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I am an atheist, not because I don't want to believe, but because I want to believe in that which is true, and all logic and evidence points to a belief that there is no God.

What logic and what evidence...or is this just...more...words.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  As Chas says, the argument is a load of crap!

I've learned a long time ago that when two atheists agree with each other, it is very rarely because they are both correct in the agreement. Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  1. The term "maximally great" is not defined. Clearly, this is intended to mean God, but the term is far too vague for any logical argument. And the assertion that such a being is possible is nothing more than an assertion. The assertion has no validity, and all that follows is invalid.

As mentioned previously, any good advocate of the argument will start it off by first defining God, and this can be done by using the definition as a sort of an abstract (summary) BEFORE you begin the argument...or you can define God and use the definition as the first premise of the argument...either way, you are defining God before you begin the argument.

So at this point, the continual crying about how God isn't defined in the argument just won't work.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  2. The second point does not follow logically from the first. It is possible for a human to live in a life-support capsule on Mars, but there is no human living there. The falsity of the statement leaves everything that follows invalid.

Right!!! So there is a possible world at which no humans are living on Mars. So what? That is a contingent truth, not a necessary one...and of course if you don't know the difference between the two, you won't see the significance in the distinction, which you obviously don't.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  3. The third point is even more illogical than the previous two. It is downright idiotic.

Based on what? You most certainly HAVEN'T proven anything to be idiotic, sir Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  4., 5. and 6. The fourth, fifth, and sixth points would be true if the points above made any sense, but they don't, so these are irrelevant.

Ahh, so at least you realize that if the first few premises are true, then the rest just logically follows as you go down the line. The problem is, you made a half ass attempt at an analogy to explain why #2 is false, which you failed miserably considering that you compared a contingent truth to a necessary truth, which is literally a comparison of apples and oranges.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  The argument is utter and complete bullshit.

Dude, you haven't even said shit, but it is bullshit? Laughat

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Amnesty International and every human rights organization in the world, both secular and religious, disagree with you. The death penalty is what we call it when a government murders someone.

Well, call it what you want. On atheism, a human being taking the life of another human being is just an animal killing an animal....nothing more, nothing less.

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  But a more cogent point is that the Bible does not say "Thou shalt not murder." It says "Thou shalt not kill." If you are a soldier, or if you eat meat, or if you are the executioner working for a government, you are violating the commandment.

Yet God commanded the Israelites to kill people during times of war, and also as a judgement penalty...and he also commanded that anyone who commited premediated murder be put to death...so yeah, God violated his own commandment, huh Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Of course, the waters get murky because in the Old Testament, God tells people to kill each other all the time. The New Testament has far fewer commandments for people to kill each other, but there are some.

As if God doesn't have the power/right to take the life of anyone he wants to. All life belongs to God. That is one hellava newsflash for you, isn't it? I am not even sure on atheism whether humans even have the right to live, anyway. Who gives us this right? We are just happy coincidences of this speck of dust called "earth".

(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Note: The Marcionites were an early Christian sect who believed that the God of the OT and the God of the NT were different gods. They made some very convincing arguments.

And?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: