How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

The only correlation is that both Pluto and God were discovered via evidence.

I need to point out to you that you do not seem to know what qualifies as evidence. You cannot even say what this supposed evidence is. You appear to be conflating confirmation bias with evidence.

 

[ppp]

No, of course not.

Ok

The only correlation is that both Pluto and God were discovered via evidence.

That statement is not true.

I do not have an argument, so I cannot have an unsound argument.

You presented an argument in both form and function. You may have done so without knowledge or intent, but that does not change what it was.

Of course it is only my belief. One has to look at the evidence in order to know if it is supported.

What do you think the evidence is?

 

[Trailblazer]

What it means in humanist ethics, which is also the basis for much Western law, is that combined with the ability to intervene, perfect knowledge of what will follow means responsibility for it. Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose.

That is true for humans but it does not apply to God. To compare what is expected of humans to what is expected of God is the fallacy of false equivalency. The ability to intervene and perfect knowledge of what will follow does not mean that God has a responsibility to intervene.

You're likely aware of a case in the American news now of a child who brought an unsecured gun to school from home and shot a teacher, whose parents have been criminally charged. Will the defense attorney argue that even though the parents knew (or should have known) what might occur and stood by without intervening shouldn't be held accountable because the child had free will and is thus responsible? This is an analogous argument to the theistic one. The parents will be held liable unless they escape on a technicality or jury nullification, because those are our Western values. We should not be surprised that believers don't want their tri-omni god who grants free will to creatures he created and set loose upon one another, but neither should we be surprised that unbelievers would hold this god to the same standards if they believed it existed.

Only an illogical nonbeliever would hold God accountable for things that only humans are accountable for. God gave humans free will so that they would be accountable for their actions.

God cannot be held to the same standards as humans because God is not a human. To try to hold God to the same standards as humans is completely illogical.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".​

​

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.​

​

False equivalence - Wikipedia​

And what caused humanity? If it was a tri-omni god, it's responsible for the choices those humans make the way the parents in the example above are responsible for the child's choice to bring a gun to school and use it, even though, 'what happened in school was the caused by the child.' This is how humanist ethicists view this.

That is so illogical. Firstly, God is not responsible for the choice of parents to have children. Secondly, God is not responsible for the way that parents choose to raise their children, so God is not responsible for the child's choice to bring a gun to school and use it.

To blame God for what humans are responsible for is just a way to try to abdicate responsibility.

Nor did the parents' knowledge that a gun was lying around the house cause the child to take it to school and shoot it. It doesn't matter from a liability (legal responsibility) perspective.

No, the parents' knowledge that a gun was lying around the house did not cause the child to take it to school and shoot it.
No, that doesn't matter from a liability (legal responsibility) perspective since parents are responsible for their children.

However we are not God's children, so God bears no responsibility towards us. The All-Knowing God knows everything that is going to happen does not make God responsible for everything that happens. There is no logical connection whatsoever. God is only responsible for what He actually does, not for what some humans believe God should be doing, and God is not accountable to humans for what He does, since God is accountable to no one.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and a concept (object permanence) that helps us understand and navigate our world, but quantum science has cast some doubt here. How do we know it existed before it entered consciousness? The argument is kind of like the light in the refrigerator. Every time we look into it, it's illuminated, so we can't blame primitives who have never seen a refrigerator before from thinking that it must be bright in there all of the time. Brightness permanence. Quantum science say the equivalent (as many but not all understand it) of saying that the light is only on when we look inside, that it's the act of looking that leads to illumination in the refrigerator. The primitives laugh at him.

We do not know it existed before it entered consciousness. We cannot blame primitives for not knowing that there is a light in the refrigerator since they would have no reason to believe that since they have never seen a refrigerator. The light is only on when we look inside, and it's the act of looking that leads to illumination in the refrigerator. Likewise. it is the act of looking that leads us to discover that there is a God.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!”​

Paris Talks, p. 103​

​

“Again, a man proclaims: ‘There lies a garden in which there are trees with broken branches bearing no fruit, and the leaves thereof are faded and yellow! In that garden, also, there are flowering plants with no blooms, and rose bushes withered and dying—go not into that garden!’ A just man, hearing this account of the garden, would not be content without seeing for himself whether it be true or not. He, therefore, enters the garden, and behold, he finds it well tilled; the branches of the trees are sturdy and strong, being also loaded with the sweetest of ripe fruits amongst the luxuriance of beautiful green leaves. The flowering plants are bright with many-hued blossoms; the rose bushes are covered with fragrant and lovely roses and all is verdant and well tended. When the glory of the garden is spread out before the eyes of the just man, he praises God that, through unworthy calumny, he has been led into a place of such wondrous beauty!” Paris Talks, pp. 103-104​

 

[Trailblazer]

I need to point out to you that you do not seem to know what qualifies as evidence. You cannot even say what this supposed evidence is.

I have only said what evidence is about 100 times and counting on this forum.

You appear to be conflating confirmation bias with evidence.

No, because I wasn't looking for anything to confirm any preexisting beliefs since I had no preexisting beliefs.
I considered alternative possibilities as I was looking at the evidence. I did not believe that 'the evidence was evidence for God' before I looked at it.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

That statement is not true.

It is true for those who have discovered the evidence for God.

What do you think the evidence is?

The Messengers of God.

 

[ppp]

It is true for those who have discovered the evidence for God.

The "true for [me]" assertion is an admission of inssufficent evidence.

The Messengers of God.

That is definitely not evidence.

 

[dybmh]

And if he wanted to change even the least little aspect of life on Earth he could do so since he is all powerful. If he could not do that he would not be all powerful.

Life on earth has a defintion which requires certain qualities as a consequence of God's infinity. Removing or changing those things prohibits life on earth. But God is all-powerful and can destroy it all. But God is always infinite. That doesn't change.

 

[dybmh]

Thats why Atheism is a kind of faith

Their (false) god is denial. They are faithfully devoted to it and serve it. And usually a couple of others jump on the bandwagon for their faithful service as well. Cause once denial settles in, the barn doors are wide open.

 

[dybmh]

When you add that you reject naturalistic answers because they just feel wrong, or you can't see how a naturalistic mechanism can possibly be the explanation, you are also committing an incredulity fallacy

Ironic, you seem to have the same problem with your own god-claim. Theism feels wrong doesn't it? But denial feels right?

 

[dybmh]

What it means in humanist ethics, which is also the basis for much Western law, is that combined with the ability to intervene, perfect knowledge of what will follow means responsibility for it. Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose.

But since your definition of God is so shallow and corrupt, you do not realize humanism's rules do not apply.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, one cannot have a moral God that is omnipotent and omniscient

Not true. I am guessing this is a flaw in your definition of God. Most people who ID as you do, force the definition of God to be contradictory. So, its not saying anything that you produce a contradiction based on YOUR chosen defintions.

 

[Trailblazer]

The "true for [me]" assertion is an admission of inssufficent evidence.

Careful. That sounds like a straw man.
I did not say "true for me." I said "It is true for those who have discovered the evidence for God."
All those people had sufficient evidence. Just because it is insufficient for [you] does not mean it is insufficient.

That is definitely not evidence.

Messengers of God are definitely evidence, the only evidence that God has ever provided.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life on earth has a defintion which requires certain qualities as a consequence of God's infinity. Removing or changing those things prohibits life on earth. But God is all-powerful and can destroy it all. But God is always infinite. That doesn't change.

Well that is a bunch of unsupported nonsense. Can you be more specific? Can you support your claims?

 

[dybmh]

Well that is a bunch of unsupported nonsense. Can you be more specific? Can you support your claims?

I can definitely try. But it's very complicated. We're talking about the nature of God and the manner in which everything is created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. I am guessing this is a flaw in your definition of God. Most people who ID as you do, force the definition of God to be contradictory. So, its not saying anything that you produce a contradiction based on YOUR chosen defintions.

No, it is pretty clear that I am correct. You need to remember that the combination of omnipotence and omniscience would make every wrong on the Earth God's fault. That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally. Ooop, I think that I see why you might disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can definitely try. But it's very complicated. We're talking about the nature of God and the manner in which everything is created.

You have a very tough task ahead of you since you probably cannot even justify your use of the word "creation".

 

[dybmh]

No, it is pretty clear that I am correct. You need to remember that the combination of omnipotence and omniscience would make every wrong on the Earth God's fault. That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally. Ooop, I think that I see why you might disagree.

It's definitely all God. Yes. The buck stops at God.

 

[dybmh]

You have a very tough task ahead of you since you probably cannot even justify your use of the word "creation".

OK, ok. Maybe you're right. I didn't think I'd need to do that. Maybe I'll get started and you can interrupt me when I've skipped that important element?

Can you give me a hint why you are saying that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Not true. I am guessing this is a flaw in your definition of God.

True. It is a flaw in understanding what God is. God is not a human. Atheists make God into a human.
God is not subject to morality, only humans are subject to morality.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.​

​

Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary​

God is not subject to morality because God is All-Good. Such a being can only be good, it doesn't need to 'work on' being moral.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it is pretty clear that I am correct. You need to remember that the combination of omnipotence and omniscience would make every wrong on the Earth God's fault. That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally.

No, it is pretty clear that human free will would make every wrong on Earth humans' fault since humans committed those wrongs.
That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally.