Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

[samtonga43]

You must be upset since you could not use something as simple as the reply button properly.

LOL! No, I’m not upset, SZ. You assume I must be upset, but you’re wrong, as you usually are when you assume. It’s called a false assumption. I believe I have pointed out this irrationality of yours previously.

You are now being overly literalistic

Ah! So you did not really mean ‘proof’? You perhaps meant that you could find some wiki evidence (note, not proof) which offers a definition of ‘myth’ which suits you.

You should know, SZ, that proof really only exists in mathematics. This is why you ought to use the word ‘evidence’ instead of ‘proof’. Most people who know anything at all about epistemology are aware of the difference. Here is a good place to learn more (If you want to know more):
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In the real world almost nothing can really be proven,
so I would suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously, you desist from conflating proof and evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! No, I’m not upset, SZ. You assume I must be upset, but you’re wrong, as you usually are when you assume. It’s called a false assumption. I believe I have pointed out this irrationality of yours previously.

Ah! So you did not really mean ‘proof’? You perhaps meant that you could find some wiki evidence (note, not proof) which offers a definition of ‘myth’ which suits you.

You should know, SZ, that proof really only exists in mathematics. This is why you ought to use the word ‘evidence’ instead of ‘proof’. Most people who know anything at all about epistemology are aware of the difference. Here is a good place to learn more (If you want to know more):
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In the real world almost nothing can really be proven,
so I would suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously, you desist from conflating proof and evidence.

You appear to be being overly literalistic again. Since very few things can be "proven" if one uses the mathematical concept, then no. Nothing in the real world can be "proven" to such an extent. Gravity is not proven by that standard. If you mean by the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes. I can do that. The problem is that many people cannot be reasonable.. That is why we still have Flat Earthers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and other deniers in this world.

 

[samtonga43]

You appear to be being overly literalistic again. Since very few things can be "proven" if one uses the mathematical concept, then no. Nothing in the real world can be "proven" to such an extent. Gravity is not proven by that standard. If you mean by the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes. I can do that. The problem is that many people cannot be reasonable.. That is why we still have Flat Earthers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and other deniers in this world.

Great! You say you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is a book of myths.

Well, all I can say is that I very much look forward to this proof. I wait with bated breath.

There may be a book deal in this, SZ!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great! You say you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is a book of myths.

Well, all I can say is that I very much look forward to this proof. I wait with bated breath.

There may be a book deal in this, SZ!

Do you not realize that it is well recognized that the three books I already mentioned are all known to be myths by that standard?

 

[Bird123]

I have started quite a few threads about the PoE, but there is still more to talk about. Today I'd like to talk about this little issue: ostensibly, given the premises that God exists, that God is omnipotent, that God is omniscient, and that God created humans deliberately, then it is reasonable to conclude that God is responsible for our moral compasses: that evaluation that we perform when we feel something has morally good or morally bad implications.

For instance, perhaps this is the reason that we might feel guilty if we hurt somebody, even unintentionally.

Ostensibly, if God is benevolent and wishes for us to be morally good agents, God would endow us with functioning moral cognitive faculties: God would give us the ability to detect what is morally good and what is morally bad. (Now, obviously as a non-theist and moral non-cognitivist I don't believe any of this; just working within the framework of the premises).

Let us return again to the example given in the last couple of PoE posts: childhood leukemia. If we were to imagine a being giving or allowing a child to suffer horribly from leukemia and then die, most of our moral compasses tingle "this is bad."

But why? If we are to use the theodicy that this post series is about (that is, "God has an unknown, but benevolent, reason for causing/allowing physical suffering in the world"), why wouldn't our moral compasses register this as good even if we didn't understand why, if it was actually good?

In other words, we are between a rock and a hard place: if children with leukemia is actually congruent with God's benevolence, and God gave us functioning cognitive, moral faculties, why wouldn't this register as good to us?

If it is actually good, but registers on our moral compasses as bad, why did God give us malfunctioning moral cognitive faculties? Wouldn't that be an entirely new problem unto itself?

Is anything really malfunctioning?? Of course not!! Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that making judgment calls with limited information will often be wrong.

If people choose a limited view seeing what they want to see without learning and discovering all sides, should not God still act from the Higher Level whether anyone understands or not? Further, since wisdom is acquired on the journey to Discover knowledge, God should allow people to Discover the answers on their own rather than cater to the emotional security of people. People will gain more this way. Isn't that exactly what is happening??

Doesn't it all come down to wanting the answers enough to work at Discovering those answers? Much more knowledge exists beyond the surface. How many take time to look?

Remember, God is operating with High Intelligence. Understanding exactly what is going on takes work. Sometimes the roughest roads will end up with the best view yet no one wants to take that rough road.

I have spent many years watching and understanding God's actions. God hides nothing. When one acquires understanding, the view changes. This world is not a mess. This world is a Masterpiece even with illness and death.

Every little thing changes things. Focus on the changes instead of just the hurt. The dynamics of God's system are amazing especially with those infinite number of variables between us all.

So Relax, Be who you must! It's a part of the plan! Listen to the advice of others but walk your own path!! Life's lessons are best learned that way! Never forget that God has fixed everything ahead of time for whatever happens, we are all Eternal!! There are no conditions on that!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[samtonga43]

Do you not realize that it is well recognized that the three books I already mentioned are all known to be myths by that standard?

This is your proof that the Bible is a book of myths?
Please tell me you're not serious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your proof that the Bible is a book of myths?
Please tell me you're not serious.

No, it is just the beginning. But if one cannot admit to the obvious there is no point in going on.

 

[samtonga43]

No, it is just the beginning. But if one cannot admit to the obvious there is no point in going on.

Of course there's a point to going on. You said that you could prove the Bible is a book of myths.

You have been asked to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course there's a point to going on. You said that you could prove the Bible is a book of myths.

You have been asked to do so.

Oh you dodged a reasonable question. That is not a good sign. That indicated that you are not debating in good faith. As I already said, if a person cannot admit to the obvious there is no point in going on.

 

[samtonga43]

Oh you dodged a reasonable question. That is not a good sign. That indicated that you are not debating in good faith. As I already said, if a person cannot admit to the obvious there is no point in going on.

Even if it is true that it is "well recognized" that the three books you already mentioned are "all known to be myths by that standard", would it not be irrational to conclude that "The Bible is a book of myths" is a true statement?

 

[samtonga43]

"Oooh!" says SZ.

"What to do with common-sense logic? I'll just pretend I haven't noticed...."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if it is true that it is "well recognized" that the three books you already mentioned are "all known to be myths by that standard", would it not be irrational to conclude that "The Bible is a book of myths" is a true statement?

Please, do not use strawman arguments.

In other words, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Oooh!" says SZ.

"What to do with common-sense logic? I'll just pretend I haven't noticed...."

Please. Do not pretend to hold any superiority in logical reasoning. You keep demonstrating that you refuse to have a rational discussion. My point was that if one will not admit to the obvious then the concepts that are a bit harder to understand are hopeless and there is no point in continuing the discussion. And instead of apologizing our at the very least trying to argue rationally you doubled down on bad behavior.

 

[samtonga43]

You keep demonstrating that you refuse to have a rational discussion. My point was that if one will not admit to the obvious then the concepts that are a bit harder to understand are hopeless and there is no point in continuing the discussion. And instead of apologizing our at the very least trying to argue rationally you doubled down on bad behavior.

Please. Do not pretend to hold any superiority in logical reasoning.

No pretence on my part.

Now, you say that it is obvious that the three books you mentioned are myths. You may be correct; maybe some do think it's obvious.

But if they are myths, is it rational to say that "The Bible is a book of myths"?

It's a simple question, SZ. Let’s have a rational response.

(Oh, and what should I be apologizing for?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No pretence on my part.

Now, you say that it is obvious that the three books you mentioned are myths. You may be correct; maybe some do think it's obvious.

But if they are myths, is it rational to say that "The Bible is a book of myths"?

It's a simple question, SZ. Let’s have a rational response.

(Oh, and what should I be apologizing for?)

If it was only those three books I would say no. But if you go back an reread my post I never said or even implied that that was all that there was. You are doing a little bit better, but it is never proper to imply that someone said something that they did not.

 

[samtonga43]

If it was only those three books I would say no.

Good! An improvement!

But if you go back an reread my post I never said or even implied that that was all that there was.

Here are your words:
"Of course I can prove that the Bible is a book of myths".
Followed by
“I never said that it was all myths”.

So when you said:
"And of course I can prove that the Bible is a book of myths",
What you really meant was that the Bible is a book containing SOME myths. Am I correct?

Finally, I’m going to ask you to think and to try to understand that a basket containing...
apples,
oranges,
grapes,
plums,
pomegranates
and pears

is not a basket of plums?

Do you understand?

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, it's not easy to admit that you have been irrational, is it, SZ?

Hoist by your own petard, I would say.