Saturday, July 04, 2009

Whos afraid of the Old Testament God?


Matthew said...

Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D?

In case you don#t get it:

Steven Carr said...

Is the Old Testament God the one who killed Ananias and Saphira?

The church was afraid, according to Acts 5:11

Steven Carr said...

The author commends the frankness and openness with which Psalmists say they want to smash open children's heads on rocks (page 126) of the book.

Matthew said...

Ignore the link I gave, Steven is much more amusing

Steven Carr said...

I think Matthew is claiming that it is amusing to see me quote stories of the god he worships killing children.

2 Samuel 12
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.

Of course, while the God of Christianity is described a s child killer in the Holy Book of Christianity, the God of Christianity is powerless against atheists, because there is no such being.

Spencer said...

The second round of my debate with Jerry McDonald is now up:

Gordon Knight said...

Wes Moriston has written something about this in the recent Philosophia Christi (have not read it yet)

Anonymous said...

You can read much of it at google books

Anonymous said...

And Paul Copan has responded to Wes Moriston, as can be read here:

Gregory said...

If God doesn't exist, then can "goodness" really exist?

Atheists repeatedly point out the plethora of horrendous evils which, supposedly, count as evidence against the existence of God. It is argued that it's presence means that God is either impotent or evil....or, that it's highly unlikely that He exists.

But it's far from evident that the argument from evil really counts as strong evidence that God doesn't exist. Perhaps the problem of evil, instead of disproving God, merely points to a lack in human judgment and understanding. How can I say what absolute Goodness would or would not allow....or what Goodness could, or could not, prevent?

Human agents, alone, are terribly perplexing and incomprehensible objects for human imagination and common sense...even to the most educated and competent psychiatrist, psychotherapist and forensic psychologist. The absence of a comprehensive theory of human behavior, backed by scientific/academic consensus, is prima facie evidence of human ignorance. So, if the fish are hard to catch in shallow water, then what use is there in casting the net at a deeper end?

Humans are the only things in the universe that turn around and complain about the universe, themselves and God...while the rest of the universe is unaware and does not care.

It's as though man, himself, were some kind of god; that man knows "good" from "evil", and is able to change things for the "good" by his own powers of insight, as well as his ability to act. That man, unlike the universe, is able to intelligently design and create computers to type on...and can create the very words and sentences he/she inputs on them.

Mankind is unlike anything in the known universe. In fact, mankind is so much bigger than the universe because he, and he alone, can contemplate....and complain.

Yet, how many proponents of the "argument from evil" have observed an evil that they normally would have prevented, and actually could have prevented, but didn't? Could someone proceed to construct an "argument from evil" that shows that these people don't exist either? Or, maybe, that goodness doesn't really exist? Maybe.

In any case, what makes more sense?

1) The source of personal beings is, itself, a Personal Being.


2) The source of personal being is non-personal, amoral stuff that happens to have spontaneously popped into being with a non-purposive morphological capacity, ex nihilo?

Edward T. Babinski said...

Gregory writes that the following makes "more sense": "The source of personal beings is itself a personal Being."

But how about "The source of matter and energy is itself matter and energy"?

"The source of each element is that self same element"?

"The source of each molecule is that self same molecule"?

"The source of water is itself water"?

"The source of each human being is a teeny tiny human being curled up inside each sperm cell"?

"The source of all of our thoughts is a teeny tiny little 'thinker' inside our brains."

"The source of species is always a species of the same kind. All kinds were created exactly as they appear to us"?

"The source of heavy rains and flood waters are great reservoirs of vast primeval waters that surround creation above the firmament and beneath the earth"?

"The source of increased heart rate is the heart's own decision-making abilities, such a beating noisy organ must be the source of mankind's decision making abilities"?

"The source of the English language is itself the English language"?

Edward T. Babinski said...

Gregory asked...

If God doesn't exist, then can "goodness" really exist?

What do you mean by "exist" and by "really?"

People who do not believe in God, or who are not religious, do prioritize their behavior and use foresight to make decisions in ways closely akin to how theists do, as shown in the book MORAL MINDS by a Harvard prof.

Even chimpanzees practice "forgiveness," hugs after clashes, holding out their hands to others with whom they have clashed in the past.