Fun with Logic
28 April 2006 by Bob
This little diddy comes from David Hume’s Treatise. (Hume was one cool, fat dude.) I’ve boiled-down the argument for clarity:
(1) If there is justice in this life, then no afterlife is necessary.(2) But if there is no justice in this life, then one has no reason to believe that God is just.
(3) However, if one has no reason to believe that God is just, then we have no reason to believe He will provide us with an afterlife.
(4) So, either no afterlife is needed, or else we have no reason to think God will provide one.
Yep, the dude died of colon cancer, in (of course) a very slow and painful way.
Glory!
28 April 2006, on 6:58 pm
That’s a nice one, Bob. I’d heard it before, but thanks for the concise refresher.
Of course, the theist comeback will simply be that we can’t understand why gawd allows injustice in this world, but there will be an afterlife if you just love him, and he is just even if it seems grossly unjust for a just gawd to deny his own creations an eternal life that it would be easier for him to provide than popping a pimple on his own ass, but he is STILL just and — GOSH DARN IT JUST ACCEPT! ACCEPT! ACCEPT!!
And… uh… yes, clearly our just gawd killed this guy slowly and painfully for having uppity ideas.
28 April 2006, on 9:32 pm
I understand that you were trying to simplify here so maybe there’s a link missing ’cause logic #1 puzzles me. I fail to see the connection between an availability justice in this life and the existence of an afterlife
28 April 2006, on 10:17 pm
I fail to see the connection between an availability justice in this life and the existence of an afterlife
Yeah, that one kind of got me too. I’m no philospher, so I just might be a little dense. Maybe it has to do with the fact that Christians claim that the afterlife is necessary to carry out ultimate justice, a sure punishment for sinners on earth (at least that’s the way I understand it). So if we are able to carry out justice here on earth then that makes there afterlife justice unecessary?
28 April 2006, on 10:36 pm
I’m sure that Hume was simply going by the xian dogma of his time, although I’d venture to say that even today such a function of the afterlife (i.e., through a concept of Final Judgment) is alive and well. (I’m also wondering if there are any good reasons to have an afterlife in the xian sense without any connection to justice of any kind. That is, what would be a good reason for it to be there, given xian dogma?)
28 April 2006, on 11:27 pm
“(1) If there is justice in this life, then no afterlife is necessary.”
- As has been implied, this statement assumes that the afterlife only exists so perfect justice will come to everyone. While it might be true that perfect justice will come at that time, the Bible hardly implies that this is the afterlife’s only purpose.
“(2) But if there is no justice in this life, then one has no reason to believe that God is just.”
- This statement forgets that if God is just, justice will be the end result. If an afterlife exists, death is not the end, so no justice in this life does not imply that God is not just any more than justice in this life implies that he is just.
If both of my comments are correct, (3) and (4) are undermined as well.
28 April 2006, on 11:46 pm
- This statement forgets that if God is just, justice will be the end result. If an afterlife exists, death is not the end, so no justice in this life does not imply that God is not just any more than justice in this life implies that he is just.
Yeah, but the afterlife is not guaranteed for everyone. In fact the bibble says that only 144,000 people get to go.
http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/144000Question.htm
So this world is filled with injustice, and then almost the entire history of humanity is denied final justice.
Oh, wait. That is a ridiculous literal translation of the bibble! The bibble is figurative! We only take the bibble literally when it is convenient to do so! We make the rules up as we go along! Those who believe the number is only 144,000 are twisting what the bibble really meant — although the bibble actually does say it twice… Because, because, because…
There are no TRUE CHRISTIANS™ but me RIGHT NOW this SECOND! Stop making me think! SHUT UUUUUP!
I fuckin’ hate this shit.
Grow up, Planet Earth. It’s getting fucking old.
28 April 2006, on 11:56 pm
PS: I’ll tell you why 144,000 is not figurative… Because that seemed like a BIG number to a primitive desert goat fucker. Most people had never even heard of a number that big. He was just trying to impress people of the time.
And then… And then… There will be, like, ELEVENTY HUNDRED HUNDREDS of ‘em!
GASPS around the campfire.
And each… Each shall have ten long noise hairs! Not nine, not twelve, but ten!
GASP!
But wait, there’s more!
And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment…
29 April 2006, on 12:43 am
No logic proof is necessary to prove God’s a prick, should the deity exist.
Look at natural disasters, genocide, poverty, disease, etc. Look at serial killers, pedophiles, rapists and domestic abusers.
Is this really the work of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent deity?
There are only three possible conclusions: God doesn’t exist; God is a prick; God doesn’t give a fuck.
I’m always flabbergasted when theists talk about the “beauty” of the world being evidence for the Christian God’s existence. I’d sooner call it evidence for the biblical Lucifer.
29 April 2006, on 12:44 am
Revelation’s writer was a prisoner, so he had to make the book figurative so he wouldn’t be censored. The number 144,000 isn’t a number made just to impress people either. Simple math: 12*12*1000=144,000. Both 12 and 1000 are important numbers in Revelation, so it isn’t an arbitrary number. It’s pretty clear from the gospels that more will go to heaven.
29 April 2006, on 1:40 am
just thinking (or not):
what the fuck is clear?
is there anything clear here?
after all the twisting and turning and self-contradiction and sheer ridiculousness of your fairy tale, you dare to say it is clear?
i would laugh. except it makes me wanna cry sometimes.
as we have pointed out here, on any other subject than established religions, such thought expressions would invariably land you in a nuthouse.
it’s NOT an arbitraray number, i tell you! he said the number in other places! number times number equals THE number! which he said in other places!!!! what? is this a coincidence that he said the number in other places??? NOOO! it cannot be! sheer logic says so. if the number beith the same! even if from the same voice, ’tis miraculous that he said the same number! it must beith true! don’t you see? are you lost??? LISTEN TO ME! the end is NIGH!
LISTEn TO ME-E-E-E-E-E!
(dragged away in straight jacket, convinced that the world is insane but the self is not.)
FUCK.
29 April 2006, on 3:05 am
A straight jacket? You know, science goes about 99% of the way toward proving there’s a God…always room to deny if you want to, but I find it difficult. I don’t think that anyone resting their case solidly on science is insane. Statistics has been solidified as fundamental to the workings of the universe. (Even the “laws” of classical physics, such as F=ma, only represent relationships between the expectation values of various observables.) In saying that there is no God, a person puts upon him or herself the burden of explaining away the statistical improbability of the life-permitting precision of a number of universal constants. Get beyond that, and you have to explain how life first came about (forgetting the “billions and billions” of stars and the silicon-based life answers, because neither hold up under close scrutiny), which is a violation of entropy. Finally, you have to explain why the universe’s laws work so well for life. I mean, if classical physics had the final word, electrons would fall into their nuclei, and there would be no atoms, molecules, etc. If there were fewer than 3 generations of fundamental particles, there would be too much antimatter. The list goes on and on. Now, I understand that there are logical explanations that overturn earlier “Goddidit” models in science, but I don’t think the anthropic principle is a “Goddidit” explanation. There should be physical reasons that we observe certain phenomena, even life. However, the physical reasons that life works are different from the reasons physics allows life to work. Think I’m insane if you want, but I need EVIDENCE that all this can happen by itself.
29 April 2006, on 3:30 am
just thinking…
If there were infinite universes, there will be life. An infinite amount of it. Agree?
29 April 2006, on 3:30 am
I counted five bingos in just thinking’s last post. Anybody else?
29 April 2006, on 6:23 am
Think I’m insane if you want, but I need EVIDENCE that all this can happen by itself.
Why? How about “The universe diddit?”
Good enough?
Man, I envy you. A few thousand years of humans studying the physical universe, out of the billions that it has existed, and you’re already convinced humans know enough about it that you can second-guess it on its own merits and say “Hey, Universe — prove to me that my invisible sky daddy didn’t create you… Cuz from what I can see, he did!”
Hundreds of millions or years of dinosaurs never had such arrogant assumptions. They just lived.
What is it with humans and the hubris we have toward the universe? It is so much more vast than you, how dare you simplify it with silly legends that have existed during only a flea speck of time that it has existed?
I mean, if classical physics had the final word, electrons would fall into their nuclei, and there would be no atoms, molecules, etc.
I don’t know where you get this from. There are physical laws at work here. Studing them and determining the constants between various phenomenae is the whole idea of science. What are you saying? Stop studying the physical laws of the universe, give up on attaining new knowledge and simply say “God diddit?”
29 April 2006, on 6:34 am
You know, science goes about 99% of the way toward proving there’s a God
Which is probably why a whopping 7% (yeah, seven percent) of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in God, right?
29 April 2006, on 7:26 am
Who cares! These circular arguments are a waste of intellectual passion.
29 April 2006, on 7:30 am
Mark Twain said it all with great efficiency: “When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.”
29 April 2006, on 7:33 am
Tony said:
Who cares! These circular arguments are a waste of intellectual passion.
Yes, it’s true. But unfortunately they actually want to remake our public school system with ideas like this and feed such nonsense to America’s children. As in Dover, we need to keep pushing back or we’re in big trouble as a nation.
29 April 2006, on 10:06 am
Hundreds of millions or years of dinosaurs never had such arrogant assumptions. They just lived.”
Sean, hah, maybe they did haveth such assumptions. Maybe that’s why God smoteth them with an asteroid bigger than 144,000, well, smaller rocks.
You beith a very funny commenter. Thanks for the Saturday laughs.
29 April 2006, on 11:46 am
As has been implied, this statement assumes that the afterlife only exists so perfect justice will come to everyone. While it might be true that perfect justice will come at that time, the Bible hardly implies that this is the afterlife’s only purpose.
Hume doesn’t claim that an afterlife’s only purpose is for justice. If you go back and read the first premise, his claim is that justice is a necessary condition for an afterlife, not both a necessary and sufficient condition.
This statement forgets that if God is just, justice will be the end result. If an afterlife exists, death is not the end, so no justice in this life does not imply that God is not just any more than justice in this life implies that he is just.
Well, now you’re equivocating on the meaning of “end result.” Death is clearly the end of stuff for us that happens in this life, where our actions are supposed to be Judged — else why would people claim that Judgment will happen after death?
I mean, either you continue on to an afterlife and hangout there till you’re Judged (by a standard-you-know-not-what), or Judgment happens right away after you die (in the afterlife). In either case, these statements are actually confirming rather than disconfirming premise (1), since all of this already assumes an afterlife.
The situation, I think, that comes to mind with something like Hume’s argument is this: someone kills a kid, never thinks that he did anything wrong, i.e., never asks for forgiveness, and then dies years later without ever having been found out. Now, what believers seem to think is that, even though he didn’t get what he deserved in this life, he’s supposed to get this in the Final Judgment somehow (I’ll leave all the details about this open for now for the sake of the argument).
Hume’s argument is simply introduced at this point, i.e., if you’re going to claim that a being exists that allows such crap to occur in the first place, don’t think that it’s somehow “all gonna get better” in the afterlife due to “His Justice,” since the allowance of the crap in the first place already makes the judgment on whether or not that being is just.
Now, I understand that there are logical explanations that overturn earlier “Goddidit” models in science, but I don’t think the anthropic principle is a “Goddidit” explanation. There should be physical reasons that we observe certain phenomena, even life. However, the physical reasons that life works are different from the reasons physics allows life to work. Think I’m insane if you want, but I need EVIDENCE that all this can happen by itself.
And where would you get such “evidence?” This is the only universe I know of. To think that one should be surprised by the life-allowing principles in this universe is simply to engage in fallacious reasoning though sample bias, i.e., to presuppose in some indirect way (and without argument) that universes “in general” don’t have these kinds of principles; further, it also ignores the very important fact that any universe that would ever contain intelligent beings like us complex enough to ask this question in the first place would have to be ordered in some way.
29 April 2006, on 1:38 pm
Bob said:
it also ignores the very important fact that any universe that would ever contain intelligent beings like us complex enough to ask this question in the first place would have to be ordered in some way.
Nice.
And thanks, Catherine, you beith too kind.
29 April 2006, on 2:10 pm
just thinking said,
“Finally, you have to explain why the universe’s laws work so well for life.”
Well if they didn’t we wouldn’t be here talking about it, would we? Can’t you see life has adapted to the laws of the universe, not the other way around.
Even if humans were created by this “god” of yours, that god would have to have been created by natural processes at some point in time. So according to your beliefs, we have to accept nature is capable of creating an all-powerful being (who has the ability to create whole universes) by accident. And if nature can produce an omnipotent god by accident then creating mere humans should be easy.
29 April 2006, on 2:42 pm
Captail Al said:
Even if humans were created by this “god” of yours, that god would have to have been created by natural processes at some point in time.
Yeah, but the Xian comeback to that is the completely inarguable “God is the Alpha and the Omega.” He has always been here, he will always be here.
29 April 2006, on 4:18 pm
Yeah, but the Xian comeback to that is the completely inarguable “God is the Alpha and the Omega.” He has always been here, he will always be here.
And by “inarguable” here Sean just means “completely fucking stupid,” because it makes the xians say some really intelligent stuff, like:
You know, dumb-ass shit like that…
29 April 2006, on 4:31 pm
Wow. Never thought I would get that many comments, but it’s always nice to hear as many opposing views as possible. Anyway, down to business.
“If there were infinite universes, there will be life. An infinite amount of it. Agree?”
- I’ve thought about this a lot, and it seems to me like the only way we could be here without a God. Admittedly, I haven’t studied the physics of a multiverse, so my opinions come mainly from what I have read. Apparently, any domain in which an infinite number of universes reside must have a finite age (which is a problem), but I’d rather figure it all out mathematically instead of using some qualitative argument, so I can’t solidly deny the existence of an infinite number of universes. However, if there were an infinite number, and there were no serious restrictions on initial conditions, I would agree that life would be a completely natural consequence.
“I mean, if classical physics had the final word, electrons would fall into their nuclei, and there would be no atoms, molecules, etc.
I don’t know where you get this from. There are physical laws at work here. Studing them and determining the constants between various phenomenae is the whole idea of science. What are you saying? Stop studying the physical laws of the universe, give up on attaining new knowledge and simply say “God diddit?”"
- (Classical physics predicts that orbiting electrons (which are accelerated charge) would radiate energy, losing coulombic potential energy, and falling into their nuclei.) I’m not saying that we should stop studying physics (my life would be very sad and boring if that happened ;-)). By all means, we should continue to press toward a fundamental theory. I’m just saying that physics implies God’s existence pretty strongly.
“And where would you get such “evidence?” This is the only universe I know of. To think that one should be surprised by the life-allowing principles in this universe is simply to engage in fallacious reasoning though sample bias…”
- That’s why I’m agreeing to the fact that life would naturally arise if there were an infinite number of universes.
“…further, it also ignores the very important fact that any universe that would ever contain intelligent beings like us complex enough to ask this question in the first place would have to be ordered in some way.”
- Therein lies the question: how was it ordered? By God or by the statistics of large samples?
“Even if humans were created by this “god” of yours, that god would have to have been created by natural processes at some point in time. So according to your beliefs, we have to accept nature is capable of creating an all-powerful being (who has the ability to create whole universes) by accident. And if nature can produce an omnipotent god by accident then creating mere humans should be easy.”
- Sean got it right when he said that I would use the Alpha-Omega argument. I think that there must be an eternal entity at the beginning of the chain of events that lead to the Big Bang. Whether it is some domain wherein nature naturally produces universes or a purposeful God, there must be something that had no beginning point, thus no need for a “creator”.
29 April 2006, on 6:53 pm
just thinking,
The Big Bang happened about 15 billion years ago. Please explain how your god could have had anything to do with it if your god was only invented 2000 years ago. Hardly an “eternal entity”.
29 April 2006, on 7:31 pm
My head is spinning! Stop! can’t we just ignore “just thinking” and people of that elk? I live in the same town as the Fermi National Accelerator. That’s sub atomic paticle physics. Its about to be underfunded, run by th US Dept. of Energy. What that means is the USA loses the most important lab for science in the world. There are no fundies there, is that why?
29 April 2006, on 7:52 pm
I live in the same town as the Fermi National Accelerator
PJHBatavia - You don’t live that far from me…small world! I am in New Lenox and work in Aurora.
29 April 2006, on 8:11 pm
Bob said:
“Everything in the universe needs to have a cause — well, except the thing I want,”
Ha! Prezactly.
30 April 2006, on 9:02 am
Whether it is some domain wherein nature naturally produces universes or a purposeful God, there must be something that had no beginning point, thus no need for a “creator”.
The “must” here is the problem. Why “must?” And, further, why would you think — even if we granted such an “uncaused cause” — that asciptions of god-like properties would even be plausible (the uncaused cause is one thing, omnipotent, omniscient, loving, etc.)? It takes a huge jump from “uncaused cause” to god.
30 April 2006, on 8:50 pm
“Whether it is some domain wherein nature naturally produces universes or a purposeful God, there must be something that had no beginning point, thus no need for a “creator”.
The “must” here is the problem. Why “must?” And, further, why would you think — even if we granted such an “uncaused cause” — that asciptions of god-like properties would even be plausible (the uncaused cause is one thing, omnipotent, omniscient, loving, etc.)? It takes a huge jump from “uncaused cause” to god.”
- Yeah, it is kind of a big leap, but let me try to explain my rationale. I have two reasons to think that everything must have started with some kind of eternal entity. The first is, if whatever created this universe moves through time and it is not eternal, it had a beginning. You can find its source, and, if the source has no beginning, the source has a source. Either this will continue indefinitely, or you will hit an eternal “first cause”. My problem with an infinite progression of sources is the entropy of this universe. If we were produced from an eternal line of sources, and, during the transition from source to source, entropy increased, it seems that we should have much higher entropy than we do now. Of course, there is always the more tradition argument against an infinite number of sources has to do with traversing an infinite number of anything that is discrete.
Now, my jump from “uncaused cause” to God occurs because it does not seem like an eternal source of universes, governed by statistical laws, could explain the condition of the universe we see now. (Again, I haven’t studied the mechanics of such a source yet, so I have to go off of what I have read.) Because its universe-making processes aren’t governed by statistics, as are natural processes, I assume that the source must have some kind of control over what it makes. Now, we have this concept of God, and evidence of things that I doubt could be explain in any other way, so I make a small leap from believing in an eternal “universe source” that can make decisions to belief in God.
1 May 2006, on 5:50 pm
Well, well, well, if it isn’t me ol’ pal just thinking…
just thinking, how come you never answered me?
I’ll also copy it here in full to save you the trouble of linking:
Eve Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
I just reread this thread, and realized that I missed just thinking’s reply to something I asked, so sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Most of what you wrote is your opinion, which of course you’re certainly entitled to; I’ll just address the points *I’m* curious about.
First of all, you seem pretty certain that “God” is the Abrahamic “he;” what makes you so sure of this? Why couldn’t god be female, or both genders in one, or Other and hence an “it?”
jt: Biblical prophets are probably communicating the exact words of God…
Why them and not the non-prophets?
jt: the truth of these words is reinforced when prophecies are fulfilled.
Could you please give a specific example of this?
jt: The gospel writers, however, may have been different. It seems to me that God wanted someone to record the events of Jesus’ life, so he motivated these writers to do it. Whether or not he told them exactly what to write is probably not important as long as they were accurate in their records.
But why wouldn’t word-for-word accuracy be important in recounting what Christians at least argue is the most important part of the Bible? The Old Testament prophets get to simply repeat what God says, whereas the New Testament writers have to come up with their own words? It doesn’t make sense; isn’t the Christian part of the Bible as important as the Judaic? Also, what about all the books and scriptural writings that *didn’t* make it into the different bible versions; they were considered for entry at certain times, so wouldn’t they be God’s exact words as well? And why not?
lya said, I forgot, it’s more likely that an invisible sky pixie wrote a book several millennia ago that contained real morality. Like stoning bad kids, gays and adulteresses, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers and genocide. And even though that book has been revised, and translated countless times - it’s inerrant and perfect.
She’s got a really good point, jt; how can you possibly reconcile what *you’re* saying the bible is - God’s words verbatim in the prophecies but just his motivation in the gospel - with all the nastiness in the rest of the book? Is all that also his words or just his inspiration?
1 May 2006, on 11:28 pm
how can you possibly reconcile what *you’re* saying the bible is - God’s words verbatim in the prophecies but just his motivation in the gospel - with all the nastiness in the rest of the book? Is all that also his words or just his inspiration?
Eve - Explanation for lack of answers to your questions.
2 May 2006, on 12:19 am
Awesome pic, Star. I added it to our Flickr account for future use.
2 May 2006, on 12:42 am
Sean - Sorry…I should have thought to add it. Isn’t it a great pic? LOL! We should use that when people quote their babble for evidence.
2 May 2006, on 3:38 am
Eve, sorry about not replying. Thanks for the copy-paste.
“First of all, you seem pretty certain that “God” is the Abrahamic “he;” what makes you so sure of this? Why couldn’t god be female, or both genders in one, or Other and hence an “it?””
- I don’t remember arguing the point that God is male, so I’m guessing you’re drawing the conclusion that I see God as a “he” from my consistent use of the pronoun. It seems to me that the main functions of gender are sexual and social. This is obviously nothing more than a guess, but I don’t think God has a sex life, and I doubt that he has to choose a social gender role. Of course, I could be wrong, but the question of God’s gender is not something on which I hold a strong opinion.
“jt: Biblical prophets are probably communicating the exact words of God…
Why them and not the non-prophets?”
- As I recall, I did not say that non-prophets were not communicating the exact words of God.
“jt: the truth of these words is reinforced when prophecies are fulfilled.
Could you please give a specific example of this?”
- These are a few prophecies involving Jesus (I’m thinking the format won’t carry over :-():
Prophecy Verse(s) Subject Verse(s) Where Fulfilled
Hosea 11:1 flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt Matthew 2:14, 15
Psalm 2:7 God (the Father) endorses Jesus Matthew 3:17
Isaiah 53:3 Jesus rejected many places (Luke 23:18)
Isaiah 53:1 Jesus betrayed by a friend Luke 22:47, 48
Zechariah 11:13 Jesus betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, silver given to potter Matthew 26: 14-15; 27:5-7
Isaiah 50:6 Jesus beaten Matthew 26:67
Isaiah 53:12 Jesus killed with “evil” men Mark 15:27-28
Psalm 22:7-8 words people used to mock Jesus on the cross Luke 23:35
Psalm 22:17-18 soldiers gambling for Jesus’ clothes Matthew 27:35-36
Psalm 34:20 bones not broken (unlike others on crosses) John 19:32-33, 36
Isaiah 53:9 Jesus buried with the rich Matthew 27:57-60
Psalm 16:10 the resurrection Mark 16:6-7
***The rest of what you said***
- The reason for the difference between requirements for the substance of the writings of the prophets and the gospel writers lie in the important part of what is being written. The importance of prophecies lies in the wording whereas the importance of the gospels lies in the stories. (I’m not sure if that makes any sense. My brain has been shot for a good two days, so tell me if I need to clarify that.)
As for your dislike of the God of the OT (which definitely makes sense), I did a bit of research to find the context of these “God-given decrees”. I found a reference to orders to wipe out a people…but apparently those people aimed to do the same to Israel, so it’s about survival. I also found an explanation for the rape thing at http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm. The authors seem a bit over-the-top religious, but I think they might make a point somewhere. Again, I’m operating on very little sleep, but I didn’t want to delay my response too much. So, if these don’t make sense, or you still have questions, point out where I’m going wrong. It’s always nice to have my faith challenged…either strengthens it or revises it for the better. Anyway, I think I’m going to pass out for a few hours.
2 May 2006, on 8:48 am
“jt: the truth of these words is reinforced when prophecies are fulfilled.”
Ugh. not “let’s pretend prophecies have been fulfilled” trash again. Don’t you people ever get new arguments?
2 May 2006, on 9:33 am
My brain has been shot for a good two days, so tell me if I need to clarify that.)
So, if these don’t make sense, or you still have questions, point out where I’m going wrong. It’s always nice to have my faith challenged…either strengthens it or revises it for the better. Anyway, I think I’m going to pass out for a few hours.
Apparently your Gawd does not sustain you enough to stay awake and answer coherently? Ever wonder about why that is? This is one of the problems I have about human “witnesses” for Gawd. They proclaim they are “entrusted by Gawd” to pass along his “all-important message” and they are just flawed faulty humans who can’t get their answers straight, and all the answers they attempt to make are varied, individual interpretations of the babble. So, why doesn’t this Gawd deliver the answers in person? Oh…I remember…we would all burst into flames if we looked at Gawd directly.
2 May 2006, on 4:38 pm
““jt: the truth of these words is reinforced when prophecies are fulfilled.”
Ugh. not “let’s pretend prophecies have been fulfilled” trash again. Don’t you people ever get new arguments?”
- Being tired of an argument doesn’t invalidate it. Besides, I was asked for examples of fulfilled prophecies.
***Stardust***
- It’s not like my inability to answer all the questions posed at this instant will keep anyone from eventually hearing whatever God wants to convey to them. Another thing: there may be a few nuts out there who try to completely change the main message of the Bible, salvation through faith in Jesus. However, most, if not all, Christians I’ve talked with believe that salvation comes through faith in Jesus. Furthermore, uncertainty on this point can be resolved by looking it up in the Bible. I’m not sure how you can say it’s “babble”…I’d like to see what you mean by that.
2 May 2006, on 4:59 pm
jt said:
Furthermore, uncertainty on this point can be resolved by looking it up in the Bible. I’m not sure how you can say it’s “babble”…I’d like to see what you mean by that.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
2 May 2006, on 5:01 pm
It’s not like my inability to answer all the questions posed at this instant will keep anyone from eventually hearing whatever God wants to convey to them.
If you are one of his messengers then why don’t you have the answers gawd would have and all xians be able to explain this message in agreement with one another?
Another thing: there may be a few nuts out there who try to completely change the main message of the Bible,
Everyone thinks they have the correct version of the “main message.”
Furthermore, uncertainty on this point can be resolved by looking it up in the Bible.
This deserves THIS
2 May 2006, on 5:19 pm
Besides, I was asked for examples of fulfilled prophecies.
Since the New Testament is a sort of “sequel” to the OT, it is likely that these “prophecies” were written to jive with the OT. It wouldn’t be that difficult. Screenplay writers do that all the time in our modern world.
2 May 2006, on 5:53 pm
Zechariah 11:13 Jesus betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, silver given to potter Matthew 26: 14-15; 27:5-7
Matthew attributes this quote to Jeremiah, but Jeremiah has no verse that is even similar to the words given in Matthew. Matthew confused Jeremiah with Zechariah.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/mq_mt27.html
Something got confused in translation???
Check out the sections at SAB about biblical prophecies:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
2 May 2006, on 5:57 pm
just thinking: Eve, sorry about not replying. Thanks for the copy-paste.
You’re welcome; thank you for answering.
jt: “First of all, you seem pretty certain that “God” is the Abrahamic “he;” what makes you so sure of this? Why couldn’t god be female, or both genders in one, or Other and hence an “it?””
- I don’t remember arguing the point that God is male, so I’m guessing you’re drawing the conclusion that I see God as a “he” from my consistent use of the pronoun.
That, and your saying that you believe the bible is at the very least inspired by god. Do you not believe in the biblical concept of god, then?
jt: - It seems to me that the main functions of gender are sexual and social. This is obviously nothing more than a guess, but I don’t think God has a sex life, and I doubt that he has to choose a social gender role. Of course, I could be wrong, but the question of God’s gender is not something on which I hold a strong opinion.
OK, so what is the concept of god that you believe in (i.e., Abrahamic / Judaic / xian / Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, animistic, other)?
jt: “jt: Biblical prophets are probably communicating the exact words of God…
Why them and not the non-prophets?”
- As I recall, I did not say that non-prophets were not communicating the exact words of God.
No, you said and I repeat, “Biblical prophets are probably communicating the exact words of God.” Do you mean to say that your words “biblical prophets” also refers to non-prophets? Especially when you went on to say that you thought the “gospel writers may have been different?”
jt: “jt: the truth of these words is reinforced when prophecies are fulfilled.
Could you please give a specific example of this?”
- These are a few prophecies involving Jesus (I’m thinking the format won’t carry over:
Prophecy Verse(s) Subject Verse(s) Where Fulfilled
Hosea 11:1 flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt Matthew 2:14, 15
Psalm 2:7 God (the Father) endorses Jesus Matthew 3:17
Isaiah 53:3 Jesus rejected many places (Luke 23:18)
Isaiah 53:1 Jesus betrayed by a friend Luke 22:47, 48
Zechariah 11:13 Jesus betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, silver given to potter Matthew 26: 14-15; 27:5-7
Isaiah 50:6 Jesus beaten Matthew 26:67
Isaiah 53:12 Jesus killed with “evil” men Mark 15:27-28
Psalm 22:7-8 words people used to mock Jesus on the cross Luke 23:35
Psalm 22:17-18 soldiers gambling for Jesus’ clothes Matthew 27:35-36
Psalm 34:20 bones not broken (unlike others on crosses) John 19:32-33, 36
Isaiah 53:9 Jesus buried with the rich Matthew 27:57-60
Psalm 16:10 the resurrection Mark 16:6-7
I appreciate the try, but don’t you see? Your “proof” of the prophecies coming true consists of accounts that were written after the OT prophecies were made by people who wanted others to believe that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. It was their evidence for the claim that he was the foretold Messiah. Of course they would write accounts showing him fulfilling these prophecies word for word; they even say that’s what they’re doing!
jt: ***The rest of what you said***
- The reason for the difference between requirements for the substance of the writings of the prophets and the gospel writers lie in the important part of what is being written. The importance of prophecies lies in the wording whereas the importance of the gospels lies in the stories. (I’m not sure if that makes any sense. My brain has been shot for a good two days, so tell me if I need to clarify that.)
That would mean that you’re picking and choosing which parts of the bible you want to approach literally, as in believing word for word. However, the danger in switching approaches like this (while convenient when suiting the argument, as now) is that the literal approach is the most troublesome of all. It’s why fundamentalists have to jump through hoops (an endlessly entertaining spectacle to us agnostic/atheists) to try to make everything in the bible fit their approach.
If you argue that part of the bible was directly dictated by god but not the rest, it raises the point as to why, especially when the bible doesn’t say, “OK, enough word for word believing; now it’s time to just grasp the gist of the story.” One could almost argue that this god didn’t think certain parts important enough for him to issue word for word. It makes much more sense to approach the entire bible from the literary, symbolic, or anthropological point of view than to grapple with this sticky wicket – which to give you credit, sounds like what you’re attempting to do.
jt: - As for your dislike of the God of the OT (which definitely makes sense), I did a bit of research to find the context of these “God-given decrees”. I found a reference to orders to wipe out a people…but apparently those people aimed to do the same to Israel, so it’s about survival.
And an all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, all-good god couldn’t have found a better solution to tribal conflicts than preferring one side over the other and backing them up in killing off their opponents?
jt: I also found an explanation for the rape thing at http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm. The authors seem a bit over-the-top religious, but I think they might make a point somewhere.
This only addresses one biblical reference, and their source for original Hebrew words is the Blue Letter Bible, which can only use lexicons in the public domain (i.e., mostly written in the late 1800s, so you run the risk of referencing outdated material). I’m no expert on ancient Hebrew domestic life, but they probably defined rape in much narrower terms than we do. After all, Deuteronomy 21:10 – 14 never even uses the old Hebrew word for rape – but it sure ain’t describing a willing woman in my opinion.
jt: Again, I’m operating on very little sleep, but I didn’t want to delay my response too much. So, if these don’t make sense, or you still have questions, point out where I’m going wrong. It’s always nice to have my faith challenged…either strengthens it or revises it for the better. Anyway, I think I’m going to pass out for a few hours.
Actually, the bible makes sense if you stand back and look at it as the collected writings of a certain religious tradition and belief system, a compilation of propaganda, mythology, dogma, and so on. I strongly encourage you to take that first baby step, but I’m not naive enough to think that will challenge your faith. Sleep tite!
2 May 2006, on 6:37 pm
Sean, Star, thanks for the SAB link; the comments are really funny!
I wish I had it as a resource when I was a kid being terrified by the fundies; I try really hard not to hold grudges, but it’s tough for me not to on the subject of prophecies. It makes no sense now when I look back on it, but when you’re trapped in the Matrix (I think that kind of thinking is called a “closed system” or something like that), that’s all you can see and therefore the only reality you can envision.
2 May 2006, on 9:40 pm
Star and Eve, great points in regards to debunking the idea of prophecies. After all, the texts JT mentioned would have been well known at the time whoever was writing the gospels was writing them. Simply crafting a story to respond to earlier predictions is in no way proof that those predictions were true. It only suggests that the authors were aware of the source material to which they were responding. Furthermore, finding NT fulfillment of OT predictions can also be seen as little more than readers finding what they want to in the vast sea of biblical vagueness.
2 May 2006, on 10:20 pm
Simply crafting a story to respond to earlier predictions is in no way proof that those predictions were true. It only suggests that the authors were aware of the source material to which they were responding.
KR - My point exactly.
2 May 2006, on 11:36 pm
Here’s my favorite, which I have pointed out before. Matthew’s book was especially written to the Jews and it presents Christ as the King of the Jews. It gives the royal genealogy of Christ to prove Him to be in the Messianic line of David.
There you go… Working the story to make sure a phrophesy came true.
Um. One problem. This genealogy is traced through Joseph. And since Jesus was immaculately conceived, well, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Talk about a bunch of dumb camel humpers who couldn’t even get their science fiction story straight.
2 May 2006, on 11:41 pm
Um. One problem. This genealogy is traced through Joseph. And since Jesus was immaculately conceived, well, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Sean, you are ruining their fantasy. Are you trying to take their Jeebus away? LOL! I was told that by someone recently “Don’t you try to take my Jeeezus away!”
3 May 2006, on 3:09 am
Thanks for all the responses, especially the website citations. I looked through them and did some research, but I’m going to need more time before I can give an intelligent response. (My “magical sky daddy” won’t take my finals for me. ;-)) Anyway, thanks again, and I hope to get back to you soon.
3 May 2006, on 6:08 am
“- Being tired of an argument doesn’t invalidate it.”
You’ve completely missed the point. I’m not saying it’s invalidated because I’m sick of hearing it. I’m saying it’s totally invalid and I’m sick of hearing it.
“ Besides, I was asked for examples of fulfilled prophecies.”
And I’m saying prophecies are complete and utter trash. I can do it too: Some Sunday afternoon, it will rain in Seattle Washington.
Now praise me! *LOL*
3 May 2006, on 3:31 pm
Lya, you’ve got a better track record than most psychics - and me; the last time I predicted a xian drive-by wouldn’t come back here, he did!
3 May 2006, on 4:50 pm
I also will join in on the prophecies and see if I can do as well as Lya.
I predict a shortage of water in Southern California sometime within the next 20 years.
I predict that a team of men wearing ball caps will when the world series this year.
I predict that a percentage of people below the majority of this country will cast ballots this November to select the members of a legislative body.
I predict that somewhere in China a child will be born with dark hair.
I prefer someone somewhere will be beat up for their beliefs, sexual orientation, or skin color by someone of differing traits.
Now my children, let us see if these come to pass. If they do, you must acknowledge the powers granted me by gawd!!!
3 May 2006, on 6:23 pm
I predict that at least one Filipino will do or say something completely crazy in the name of the supernatural before the month is out.
4 May 2006, on 6:06 am
“I predict that somewhere in China a child will be born with dark hair.”
All HAIL the KING!!! Clearly all of us lucky heathens are blessed with the power of prophecy. ALl hail his noodly appendage!
4 May 2006, on 11:55 am
All praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his marinara drenched love for us!!!
5 May 2006, on 1:39 am
Eve: I think the Bible uses “he” in reference to God because it doesn’t want to call him “it” (though I don’t know what word was used in the original language).
Basically, what I’m saying about the Bible is that (in my opinion) it is a collection of writings about some of God’s interactions with humans. I believe the prophets were inspired by God to write what they did, since the prophecies have come true, and I would guess that the writers of the gospels were used by God to convey the message of Jesus to later generations. They may have written the exact words of God, but it’s more difficult to confirm this for their writings since the writers themselves don’t give us any way to check…and I don’t really remember any of them saying that they were writing what God conveyed to them word-for-word. I’m not saying this isn’t true. I just think we should look at the Bible as a collection of letters and histories that can be supported or negated by outside sources (or by other sources within the Bible that have been supported by outside sources). It is my opinion that the gospels, the law, and the prophets are supported by outside sources, and I will continue to think that until I have good reason to doubt. (By the way, for those thinking I’m a wacko fundie who won’t change his views, I recently watched “The Gospel of Judas” and, because of some points they brought up, alter a few of my views on the Bible. Of course, as an analytical viewer, I also found a mistake in one of their arguments, so I wasn’t just taking what they said as fact. ;-))
I had an AP Lit class in high school, and we studied some mythology. I looked at those stories, comparing them to the Bible, but several factors seem to differentiate the Bible from those stories. Furthermore, I realize that Biblical prophecies are fulfilled in the Bible (though it must be remembered that the whole Bible was not written by the same human), but I doubt Christianity would have grown much if there was no truth to the claims. I mean, it’s not like Jesus hid his entire life. People outside of his inner circle saw him crucified. As for the morals of the Bible, it seems to me that God takes a lot of heat for laws that must be understood in context. Of course he looks like the bad guy for saying that some people must die, but he was probably mostly concerned with the group’s well-being. Take it however you like, but if you are going to accuse God of some moral failure, I think that there should be a logical explanation for the moral constraints you put on his actions. I mean, you can’t just make arbitrary rules without some kind of logical motivation. I apologize if any of that sounded harsh (not that you necessarily care). I appreciate your level-headed approaches to our conversations.
Stardust: Sorry for the skepticism, but I’m going to have to say that the website you mentioned that tries to debunk prophecies is unsuccessful. I looked up a few, at random, and found that the author (1) forgot to mention conditions on certain promises that weren’t met (2) didn’t take into account the contexts of the prophecies and (3) completely distorted some prophecies. For example, one of the prophecies said something about everyone coming to the throne of God (obviously an end-time reference), and the author, without quoting the prophecy, said that the prophet was saying everyone would convert to Judaism…and that hadn’t happened yet. Two strikes for that interpretation. I haven’t looked at all the commentary yet, so maybe it gets better, but I’m not convinced by this source.
5 May 2006, on 2:40 pm
I’ve probably missed the point someone was trying to make about this but I did want to say that god is referenced as a “he” because a) the pendulum has swung from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society and everything non-gender specific automatically defaults to masculine pronouns and b) Unlike in other languages, English does not have a gender neutral word. “It” refers more to objects than to people or anthropormorphicized (is that even a word?) ideals.
5 May 2006, on 2:42 pm
Yeah, but even in German, the Abrahamic God is a He, The Father, The Son, etc.
5 May 2006, on 3:56 pm
just thinking: Eve: I think the Bible uses “he” in reference to God because it doesn’t want to call him “it” (though I don’t know what word was used in the original language).
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but since all of the pronouns used in the bible to refer to god are definitely male, why would you assume that the bible does this simply to avoid calling him an “it?” Do you accept the bible versions that deliberately change these pronouns to female?
jt: Basically, what I’m saying about the Bible is that (in my opinion) it is a collection of writings about some of God’s interactions with humans.
Interesting; that’s really close to what *I* said: “Actually, the bible makes sense if you stand back and look at it as the collected writings of a certain religious tradition and belief system…”
jt: I believe the prophets were inspired by God to write what they did,
So just to clarify, this still means that you’re claiming that “prophets are probably communicating the exact words of God?”
jt: since the prophecies have come true,
You’re still not showing any proof for this statement!
jt: and I would guess that the writers of the gospels were used by God to convey the message of Jesus to later generations. They may have written the exact words of God, but it’s more difficult to confirm this for their writings since the writers themselves don’t give us any way to check…
Whoa – and the prophets *do?*
jt: and I don’t really remember any of them saying that they were writing what God conveyed to them word-for-word. I’m not saying this isn’t true. I just think we should look at the Bible as a collection of letters and histories that can be supported or negated by outside sources
This sounds an awful lot like you’re now agreeing with me that it doesn’t make sense to approach the bible from a literal point of view – as in believing it word for word. *Are* you agreeing with me, then?
jt: (or by other sources within the Bible that have been supported by outside sources).
I really don’t get what you mean here; what “other sources within the Bible?”
jt: It is my opinion that the gospels, the law, and the prophets are supported by outside sources,
Could you please give at least one example of each?
jt: and I will continue to think that until I have good reason to doubt.
You’re entitled, of course.
jt: (By the way, for those thinking I’m a wacko fundie who won’t change his views, I recently watched “The Gospel of Judas” and, because of some points they brought up, alter a few of my views on the Bible.
Cool; like what?
jt: Of course, as an analytical viewer, I also found a mistake in one of their arguments, so I wasn’t just taking what they said as fact. )
Also cool; you should have commented on one of our two posts on this gospel.
jt: I had an AP Lit class in high school, and we studied some mythology. I looked at those stories, comparing them to the Bible,
Well, at least they’re baby steps; my advice is to keep taking them, ‘coz a few selections from a high school class – not that comprehensive…
jt: but several factors seem to differentiate the Bible from those stories.
Like what? Many factors also differentiate other mythologies from the biblical one.
jt: Furthermore, I realize that Biblical prophecies are fulfilled in the Bible (though it must be remembered that the whole Bible was not written by the same human),
It doesn’t need to be to invalidate prophecy fulfillment reported within its own pages.
jt: but I doubt Christianity would have grown much if there was no truth to the claims.
What? I don’t believe there’s truth to the claims of Joseph Smith – and yet, look how much Mormonism has grown since he first claimed the angel Moroni gave him additional scripture on golden tablets that later conveniently disappeared!
jt: I mean, it’s not like Jesus hid his entire life.
Oh, boy; you should be aware the actual historical existence of Jesus as portrayed in the bible is a pretty hotly debated topic. About the most anyone’s been able to agree on it is that a real person who *may* have provided the basis for the biblical character *may* have existed at a time and place convenient enough for the gospel writers to base their depiction on. I’m in no way up on the latest in this field, though, so you could always start reading more on the subject.
jt: People outside of his inner circle saw him crucified.
That’s part of the dispute I mention above; the main sources for this are the four orthodox canonical gospels.
jt: As for the morals of the Bible, it seems to me that God takes a lot of heat for laws that must be understood in context.
Depends; first, you have to assume that such a thing as the god conceived by the orthodox xian bible exists (which we don’t know if you do or not). Then, you have to assume that this god dictated the bible word for word (the literal approach). Given those assumptions, then of course he should take the heat for those laws. He’s the one who gave them to the ancient Hebrews!
Of course, as soon as you start questioning the nature and concept of god – is the bible right and is he really all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, all-good – then you start looking at all the laws differently, especially if you abandon the literal approach. Do the laws originally designed for nomadic, herding, patriarchal, warlike desert tribes have any value or significance for single, working, urban, college-educated women today, for example?
jt: Of course he looks like the bad guy for saying that some people must die,
Something else on which we agree…
jt: but he was probably mostly concerned with the group’s well-being.
Obviously not the well-being of the group that he says must die…
jt: Take it however you like, but if you are going to accuse God of some moral failure, I think that there should be a logical explanation for the moral constraints you put on his actions. I mean, you can’t just make arbitrary rules without some kind of logical motivation.
Like what? Like god shouldn’t order the Hebrews to kill another tribe after he’s given them the commandment not to kill?
jt: I apologize if any of that sounded harsh (not that you necessarily care).
Actually, it sounded more defensive, which doesn’t bother me, and does make me wonder if perhaps you’re starting to see some of the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the biblical and abrahamic concept of god, as well as the attending disagreements over it even among abrahamic believers?
jt: I appreciate your level-headed approaches to our conversations.
Same here! Keep thinking.
5 May 2006, on 5:29 pm
just thinking: Eve: I think the Bible uses “he” in reference to God because it doesn’t want to call him “it” (though I don’t know what word was used in the original language).
That’s bullshit. There are languages with gender-neutral pronouns. The Xian god is still a “he” in them.
5 May 2006, on 8:47 pm
Good point, Sean.
16 May 2006, on 2:51 pm
god doesent exist and heres the resounding prove …
k , most religions say that “god” is perfect and that it created the earth which….is not perfect .so why would “god” create somthing that wasent perfect when it easily could have ??? BECAUSE “ITS” NOT PERFECT !!
so if anything to do with god isent perfect then it isent perfect
so there is no “god” ! B00YA !
23 April 2008, on 11:05 am
[...] And I feel the same way. I’d suggest that looking at both the amount and distribution of natural and moral evils shows that this “too much on one’s plate” explanation is simply a vapid attempt that goes nowhere. [...]