Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
"Even" Behe? Are you high? Behe's an ID'er... Citing ID'ers who believe in ID isn't a very convincing argument...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)
- Thread starter kevino434
- Start date
"Even" Behe? Are you high? Behe's an ID'er... Citing ID'ers who believe in ID isn't a very convincing argument...
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
That's like saying "even Charles Manson believed there was going to be a race war"...
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Consider the following Scriptures:
Luke 10:25-28
"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
That definitely refers to becoming saved.
1robin said:
But you cannot admire, and respect a bad God, and those Scriptures imply that God requires that Christians admire, and respect him.
Consider the following from a Christian website:
Why Should A Christian Love God Above Everything Else?
sharefaith.com said:
That includes respecting, and admiring God.
1robin said:
It would be illogical for you to disrespect homosexuals if they were not able to resist having sex, at least from a secular perspective. Similarly, it would be illogical for you to respect God if he is not able to resist being good.
It is illogical to love, respect, and admire any being who has no choice except to always be good. You admire, and respect some people because they have the option to be immoral, but choose to be moral. God did not choose to be moral since he must always be moral. One reason why you admire military men so much is that they willingly choose to give their lives for their country if necessary, and do not have to do that.
Even if the God of the Bible does not require people to love him in order to become saved, he cannot exist since if he was moral, and omniscient, he would not ask people to love, admire, and respect him since he would know that it would be illogical for them to love, admire, and respect any being who did not have the choice not to be good.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Now that is better. If no evidence is available then substitute humor. Or it is like saying that "even Dawkins believes in non-theistic evolution"
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Well this is very complex and I just went through it with someone else. I will try and find the link as I am not typing all that over again. It is not saying what you think it does. It is one of he most subtle and sophisticated passages in the Bible and one of the most misunderstood and used.
The heck I can't. Telling people what they can and cannot love or admire is a losing game. People are irrational and can do anything they have the capacity to. Eva Braun loved Hitler, many very competent Generals loved Stalin even after he killed a third of them, and IMO Muslims love and admire both a genocidal prophet and a blood thirsty false God. I could not quickly find the link but if you will review any of the major commentaries they all claim what I had at the post I can't find.
You have too many ideas going here.
1. You have yet to prove God is evil or good.
2. You have mistakenly said we can't love or admire a bad God.
3. You have mistakenly said we can achieve salvation by obedience alone. The link explains why that is wrong.
4. I agree that that is the greatest commandment but disagree that commandments save.
So you are saying what? The argument that began the discussion claimed only that God could not help but be good and that he was then unworthy of love. I showed that neither of those statements are accurate or derivative. Now your adding another layer about what exactly. Are you saying that he is evil or what?
I debate behavior and not people. I did not disrespect anyone and will not be drawn into a false moral high ground constructed from nothing on the behaviors side. Things are wrong or not regardless of any solution and there is certainly no reason they must act on their sexual appetites as tens of thousands have not done so. I can and do love people who have serious flaws so everything you spent so much effort to set up is also inapplicable.
However it is logical to love a being that did have a choice about saving a race that had rebelled and deserved condemnation. He chose to save us and especially me long after my failures and intentional rebukes justified eternal condemnation. These arguments always do the same thing from you side. It is called a composition fallacy. What might be true about one thing does not make the whole obey the same principle. God does choose many actions even if he did not choose others.
I was unaware you opinion concerning what a infinite being could do was the arbiter of all truth. You are attempting to assert truth into being by the sole virtue that you asserted it. Professionals who debate God's attributes do not draw the distinctions you have. Were the ones they have drawn not enough?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Um, I only mentioned Behe because he mentioned him.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Once again, I was responding to a post at which Behe was mentioned. This is the second time I had to answer to this...I don't know if you guys lack reading comprehension skills or what.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I got mad skills. For my part I was only joking around. I usually agree with you.
Do you guys know that Roger Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is true but he appears to be far more honest than many from the non-theistic camp. He was used for what he should have been. To establish what is the most reliable model of cosmology. The model he and most of cosmology agrees upon could have been constructed from Genesis alone or it at the least perfectly consistent with it. I would not ask Penrose about transubstantiation (and he wasn't), but the words from a expert in the other camp about cosmology are even more valid than one from our camp. Now that I have wasted my time typing this it occurred to me that maybe that is what you meant all along. Is that the case?
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
*Waits with bated breath for the point*... *Collapses due to lack of oxygen*... Oh, was that going somewhere? There was still the part where you said "even an a believer in intelligent design believes in intelligent design"... Someone mentioning Behe first doesn't make that any less redundant.
Wow, please think about what you are saying here :seesaw:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I have no idea why you suggest such an absurd notion as thinking before posting. Seriously I can't imagine what you cautionary warning stems from. It is a principle even in law that witnesses who agree against their presuppositions are the more telling.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
No, those texts are very simple, and easy to understand. A lawyer asked Jesus what he had to do in order to become saved, and Jesus clearly told him that he must love God in order to become saved.
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
That is debatable, but I have a better argument. If a God inspired the Bible, and must always be good, I would not be able to love, admire, and respect him since he does not choose to be good, and is forced to be good by his nature. I could only love, admire, and respect people, or a God, who were able to be bad, but chose to be good. Similarly, if thieves had to steal, I would not be able to criticize them. It would be illogical to commend, or condemn any behavior as being right or wrong if choice is not involved. That is why some murderers who are mentally incompetent do not go to prison.
It is very doubtful that the God of the Bible would save anyone who did not love, admire, and respect him.
Consider the following Scriptures:
Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
That means that God is serious about Christians' commitment to him, and that very few people will be saved.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
All right I will give a little explanation for those versus. It is a very good trick philosophers use to get those that invent the framework a debate takes place in to expand on their assumption until they produce that flaws their framework inherently has. Ravi uses it all the time. It is lethal.
1. First Jesus wishes to clarify who he the man is speaking with. He called Christ good and only God is good so who was he talking to following that logic. Not a teacher as he supposed but God himself.
2. Jesus wanted to the lawyer to condemn himself so Jesus used his own framework against him.
3. He was not lying, if you could be perfectly obedient you would get to heaven on your own merit. However no one ever has been so let's move on.
4. The man apparently believed himself to be perfect. Christ basically said so your righteous based on the law right. He then gave some laws to began the conversation.
5. The man as arrogant as any man must be to suggest they could ever earn heaven suggested he had always been obedient.
6. Jesus instead of pointing out logical insanity hit him where he could find no way out. Within his own claim.
7. He said so you have always been obedient then be obedient in this one additional area and you will be perfect (as you are lying in claiming). He hit him within his own standard right where his own standard condemned him.
8. The same can be said for everyone of us. The standard is perfect obedience to all law or grace. When I show up I will say I was imperfect and rely on grace. If anyone shows up and states they have been perfectly obedient I imagine a tailored version of that argument will ensue in which that man and all men who claim merit will be self-condemned.
I have grossly over simplified but every major commentator I have read says virtually the same thing and in much more exhaustive detail if you wish to check. The Hebrews say there are 50 levels of understanding for all scripture. I don't think it is that complex but in many there is far more going on than it appears at first glance.
So you have concluded that you can't choose to love God (though you certainly could do so, love is a choice not a derivative mandate) and so you have failed your own test without me even having to do what Jesus and Ravi did to set you up. You gave your self too much rope.
Then you have condemned your self again. I believe in a God who could do this and so am yet again uncondemned by my own argument where as your are.
You ever notice that gates unlike roads are passed through in very short time periods unlike lifelong struggles to love or always admire would be. Love is broad. People love all manner of things for all manner of reasons. Christ however is a single narrow gate. To use another similar verse you are staying beyond the gate Christ has created and are attempting to love your way over a wall and Christ has condemned those that do as thieves and wolves who attempt to take the kingdom by effort. What do you mean by love anyway? How much is enough? Why is your standard the right one? What if I love 99.9% of my life but one second before death do not? No merit based salvation is even possible much less logical or even identifiable.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
No, I could not do so. That is because since God did not choose to be good, and must always be good, I am not able to love, admire, and respect him for doing things that he must do. Similarly, if a God must always be bad, I would not be able to criticize him since he has no other choice.
An omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would know that I know that he does not have free will, and would know that I would not be able to love, admire, and respect him.
The word "morality" by definition implies choice. Without choice, nothing can be moral, or immoral.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Yes you could but you choose not to. So like the lawyer in your verses you have hung yourself with your own rope. If there is anything human nature demonstrates it is that we can love anything. Even things that have no choice but to be what they are like shoes or cars. Most of the things we love fit in hat category.
His being and standards have nothing to do with what you know. What you know binds nothing concerning God. He is that he is and even said so. You can get with the program, misunderstand the program (which I think is true of your case), or even deny the program exists because you do not like it. Stating you refuse to do that which you can and should is not a factor at all.
I do not know if that is true but will assume it is for the heck of it. I do not use moral or even good concerning God very much. I use right to describe him. He is and he is right. However God does choose many things like to save mankind in the first place that he does not have to. So the argument is bogus even if true which it isn't on any level. I also noticed you did not answer a single question I asked and would have to answer them all before you could or should even think of claiming what you have.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
It has to be true since murderers who are mentally incompetent are usually not sent to prison, and are usually not considered to be immoral by the majority of people. I think that the vast majority of college philosophy professors would agree with me.
1robin said:
But I do not need to use the word "morality." I would not be able to love any being who did not have the choice to be bad. In addition, I would not be able to criticize any being who always had to be bad.
1robin said:
But that does not change anything since God does not have free will regarding his character. He must always be good.
1robin said:
No, God cannot choose to do anything. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word choose as "to select freely and after consideration." God has never considered anything since he has always known everything, and he has never been capable of doing anything that is not good.
Even though God will save some people, he did not choose to save them since that would mean that he first considered who he would save, and God could not do that since he has always known who he will save. Even if God chose to save some people, whatever he does, it always has to be good, and he always has to tell the truth.
So, my previous arguments are still valid, which were:
"I would not be able to love any being who did not have the choice to be bad. In addition, I would not be able to criticize any being who always had to be bad."
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
But I meant that you could not love, admire, and respect any God who you did not believe was good. Surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him.
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
That is irrelevant to what I said since I only mentioned what God knows that I know, not anything about his being, or standards. God knows that I know that he does not have free will, and would know that I would not be able to love, admire, and respect him.
It would be illogical for you to criticize a God who always had to be bad. Similarly, it would be illogical for you to compliment a God who always had to be good.
1robin said:
What I know would matter to an omniscient, omnibenevolent God who would know that I know that he has no choice except to be good, and that I am not able to love, admire, and respect any God, or any human, who does not have the choice to be bad. When military men are admired, they are admired because they have the choice not to die for their country.
1robin said:
That is correct, God does not have free will.
Last edited:
