Fifth Response To Jensen
Sigh. What to do? Jensen dumps another load of, um, garbage onto the Internet. Should I bother responding? Maybe I should just leave him the last word and be done. Why bother with this guy? I must be a glutton for punishment, but, one more round. Here, I am responding to the section of his response headed by “Jensen11”
My response will not necessarily be in order of his piece. I wish to group things in what I see as a logical order for my response. But, one thing in particular just happened to catch my eye and I want to respond to it right off. Here, he discusses a possible miracle to support his religion:
Jensen11: the undeniable lengthening of a person's shorter leg to the length of the longer leg.
Let me tell you a story. When I still considered myself a Christian, I went to a “faith healing”. This was sometime mid to late 80’s. First thing the preacher did was a leg-lengthening. It looked pretty real. At the time, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it. At the time, I didn’t doubt that God “could” do that if He chose to, just wasn’t sure if that indeed “would” be something God would do. In short, I was neither convinced it was real nor convinced it was fake. I didn’t know.
From there, the preacher called to people in the audience that needed healing. One person came forward that was deaf in one ear. The preacher gave his “whammy” on the guy and claimed the deaf man could hear again. But the deaf guy said he was still deaf in that ear after the healing. The preacher said that sometimes your brain has gotten to where it doesn’t expect input from a deaf ear, and it might take some time for his brain to readjust to his ear now working. He said he’ll start to hear in that ear again in a few days.
Very similarly, a woman who was blind in one eye came forward. Surprise, surprise, she was still was blind after the “healing”. This time the preacher said it was probably the eye that hasn’t yet readjusted to working. It hasn’t had to do any focusing for a long time, so it may take the eye a few days to relearn how to focus. Surely in a few days she would have perfect vision.
One boy about 10 had asthma. He told the boy “you’re cured!” and told him to run around the congregation to show his asthma had left his body. The boy tried to run, and was obviously out of breath and couldn’t make it one lap around the room.
Then he did things like shout out, “someone in the room has breast cancer! You’re cured!” “Someone has heard disease! You’re cured!”
One would think, at this point, ANY IDIOT should have been able to see this was all a sham. But, you see, he opened with his “best trick." The leg lengthening bit looked good, and so the audience was sold on the show. So when everything else in the show failed to produce anything, nobody challenged him. People lapped up the show, even thought it should have been patently obvious it was bullshit.
This healing was not at my church, a friend brought me to her church. After the events, I discussed this with my preacher from my church. I myself was still naïve at the time. The leg lengthening looked real, and I was too naïve to think it was an intentional trick. Yet the more I thought about it, the more unconvincing it was to me. So if I didn't think it was a intentional trick but didn't think it was real either, well, what was it? So, here is what my preacher said. He said he wasn't prepared to say for certain it was outright fraud, but was forthright that was a likely possibility. He did know one thing, he knew he had never seen someone come out of a faith healing with a missing leg replaced. If God will lengthen a leg, why not replace one?
Given how naive I was, this was actually shocking to me. This friend of mine whom I considered a good Christian, and going to a good Christian church, and there was outright fraud? How could this be? I am glad that I had an honest preacher that knew bullshit when he saw it.
Since that time, I have come to know that this leg lengthening trick is a well-known parlor trick. Google it. It’s been debunked a thousand times over. Here’s a YouTube vid on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKLemBIhEZo
Now, you said something about an “undeniable” leg lengthening. I have heard that one woman has testified before thousands that it was real, her leg really was lengthened. I don't know if this is the "undeniable" event you refer to, but, I'll go ahead and make the guess it is. If so, as I see it, there are at least 3 possibilities:
Do you really think it is option 1? Do you really think that God would do as a real miracle one that is indistinguishable from a well-known parlor trick? Really, God would do that? Why not heal amputees instead? You might also watch this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3VAEYEG53w
My response will not necessarily be in order of his piece. I wish to group things in what I see as a logical order for my response. But, one thing in particular just happened to catch my eye and I want to respond to it right off. Here, he discusses a possible miracle to support his religion:
Jensen11: the undeniable lengthening of a person's shorter leg to the length of the longer leg.
Let me tell you a story. When I still considered myself a Christian, I went to a “faith healing”. This was sometime mid to late 80’s. First thing the preacher did was a leg-lengthening. It looked pretty real. At the time, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it. At the time, I didn’t doubt that God “could” do that if He chose to, just wasn’t sure if that indeed “would” be something God would do. In short, I was neither convinced it was real nor convinced it was fake. I didn’t know.
From there, the preacher called to people in the audience that needed healing. One person came forward that was deaf in one ear. The preacher gave his “whammy” on the guy and claimed the deaf man could hear again. But the deaf guy said he was still deaf in that ear after the healing. The preacher said that sometimes your brain has gotten to where it doesn’t expect input from a deaf ear, and it might take some time for his brain to readjust to his ear now working. He said he’ll start to hear in that ear again in a few days.
Very similarly, a woman who was blind in one eye came forward. Surprise, surprise, she was still was blind after the “healing”. This time the preacher said it was probably the eye that hasn’t yet readjusted to working. It hasn’t had to do any focusing for a long time, so it may take the eye a few days to relearn how to focus. Surely in a few days she would have perfect vision.
One boy about 10 had asthma. He told the boy “you’re cured!” and told him to run around the congregation to show his asthma had left his body. The boy tried to run, and was obviously out of breath and couldn’t make it one lap around the room.
Then he did things like shout out, “someone in the room has breast cancer! You’re cured!” “Someone has heard disease! You’re cured!”
One would think, at this point, ANY IDIOT should have been able to see this was all a sham. But, you see, he opened with his “best trick." The leg lengthening bit looked good, and so the audience was sold on the show. So when everything else in the show failed to produce anything, nobody challenged him. People lapped up the show, even thought it should have been patently obvious it was bullshit.
This healing was not at my church, a friend brought me to her church. After the events, I discussed this with my preacher from my church. I myself was still naïve at the time. The leg lengthening looked real, and I was too naïve to think it was an intentional trick. Yet the more I thought about it, the more unconvincing it was to me. So if I didn't think it was a intentional trick but didn't think it was real either, well, what was it? So, here is what my preacher said. He said he wasn't prepared to say for certain it was outright fraud, but was forthright that was a likely possibility. He did know one thing, he knew he had never seen someone come out of a faith healing with a missing leg replaced. If God will lengthen a leg, why not replace one?
Given how naive I was, this was actually shocking to me. This friend of mine whom I considered a good Christian, and going to a good Christian church, and there was outright fraud? How could this be? I am glad that I had an honest preacher that knew bullshit when he saw it.
Since that time, I have come to know that this leg lengthening trick is a well-known parlor trick. Google it. It’s been debunked a thousand times over. Here’s a YouTube vid on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKLemBIhEZo
Now, you said something about an “undeniable” leg lengthening. I have heard that one woman has testified before thousands that it was real, her leg really was lengthened. I don't know if this is the "undeniable" event you refer to, but, I'll go ahead and make the guess it is. If so, as I see it, there are at least 3 possibilities:
- God really did a miracle on this one woman.
- She’s lying for financial reasons – paid off.
- She’s lying for religions reasons – she thinks she is bringing people to Jesus.
Do you really think it is option 1? Do you really think that God would do as a real miracle one that is indistinguishable from a well-known parlor trick? Really, God would do that? Why not heal amputees instead? You might also watch this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3VAEYEG53w
I had asked, “Could you answer my question about a terminator could God create a computer program that wouldn’t do exactly as God knew it would do in every situation? Yes or no?
Jensen11: The nature of computer programs is such that (correct me if I'm wrong) certain results must inevitably occur every time it is working (given all the machinery, the hard ware and the software, is working as intended). If this is correct, then God would always know what the program would do in every situation. So given these stated qualifications, my answer to your question is "no."
|
Your understanding is mostly correct in terms of computer programs. Yet you might wonder then, why does it seem that computer program results are not always 100% reproducible? Generally very close to that, but not necessarily always so. Why might that be? One reason, believe it or not, is that random radiation can flip a bit in a computer. Most of the time when this happens, the computer crashes, you have to reboot, and you (wrongly) curse Microsoft. But, this can, on a rare occasion, change a result. This would certainly be beyond the ability of any human programmer to know and predict. But, for God, who knows where every atom in the universe is, would know when such bits are going to get flipped. In other words, at least in theory, a human could accidentally create a “Terminator” but God could not.
This may seem irrelevant, but, my point is that simply showing something is beyond human prediction does not make it beyond prediction of an omniscient entity. So, when it comes to humans, we are a lot more complex than a computer, and our brain synapses are not predictable to another human. I can’t look at your brain and see what will happen. But God could. He would know what is going on in every synapse. So, if God could not create a “Terminator”, how could he create a human with free will? Our brain is just more complex, not anything fundamentally different.
This may seem irrelevant, but, my point is that simply showing something is beyond human prediction does not make it beyond prediction of an omniscient entity. So, when it comes to humans, we are a lot more complex than a computer, and our brain synapses are not predictable to another human. I can’t look at your brain and see what will happen. But God could. He would know what is going on in every synapse. So, if God could not create a “Terminator”, how could he create a human with free will? Our brain is just more complex, not anything fundamentally different.
Jensen11 When we trace back causes, we reach an end at the self. The buck stops here. In our choice we are an uncaused cause just as God is an uncaused cause for the universe.
|
What is really funny is, at least many Christians (maybe not you, I’m not sure) but many Christians will mischaracterize Big Bang theory as saying “the universe came from nothing”, and then the Christian will argue that is impossible, something cannot come from nothing. Yet, regularly Christians argue for things coming from nothing. Your deity came from nothing. He creates things from nothing, like he created the universe from nothing. And now you argue that even things God creates (us) can do things from nothing via free will. What a complete load of garbage.
Jensen11 One can weigh influencing factors and choose the best alternative in the light of those factors. As such we would be still following a completely deterministic program.
|
Yes, correct. Yeah!!! Maybe things are looking up?
Jensen11: But then we can make a choice entirely out of keeping with those factors and also out of keeping with any other unperceived and unconscious causal or influential factors. It is here that your determinism comes to an end and free choice steps in.
|
Boo! Just when things were looking up. Dang it.
The way you have defined free will here is pure randomness. Like in my restaurant example, say that after carefully weighing the pros and cons of water, Coke and tea, I pour gasoline on myself and light myself on fire. Would that be “free will” at work to you?
Basically, with your earlier statement: “One can weigh influencing factors and choose the best alternative in the light of those factors. As such we would be still following a completely deterministic program,” you seem to have conceded that when people make choices that can be deemed a logical outcome from known information, then the “choice” was deterministic. And have retreated to merely asserting that if the “choice” doesn’t make sense from known information, only then is “free will” at work. As in my, “should I have a glass of water, or light myself on fire?” example. If that is your “free will”, you have watered it down to insignificance.
But, even in the case where a “choice” doesn’t seem to have obvious connection to the available knowledge, I suspect you simply haven’t dug deep enough. If after weighing beverage options, I light myself on fire, I suspect you will find I have a history of mental health issues. People do not ordinarily light themselves on fire upon being given a choice of beverage. In that case, what we have is not any “free-will,” we have a malfunctioning biochemical engine.
Or what if I do something not so drastic, but simply out of normal character? Like, for example, I hate beer and never drink beer. But, say, for example, that one time I decide to drink beer. That would be out of character for me, but, if you were to actually investigate why I picked beer this one time, do you honestly think there would be no causal factors found? Do you not really realize causal factors would be found if you looked? Perhaps I was feeling peer-pressure, everybody else was drinking beer and calling me a pussy for not having any. Maybe I was feeling depressed and I had heard other people say that beer makes them feel better. These are just possibilities, but, it seems to me rather undoubtedly that if you were to research it, you would find something like that.
So, again, you are just left with assertions, without evidence, and contrary to evidence. Again.
The way you have defined free will here is pure randomness. Like in my restaurant example, say that after carefully weighing the pros and cons of water, Coke and tea, I pour gasoline on myself and light myself on fire. Would that be “free will” at work to you?
Basically, with your earlier statement: “One can weigh influencing factors and choose the best alternative in the light of those factors. As such we would be still following a completely deterministic program,” you seem to have conceded that when people make choices that can be deemed a logical outcome from known information, then the “choice” was deterministic. And have retreated to merely asserting that if the “choice” doesn’t make sense from known information, only then is “free will” at work. As in my, “should I have a glass of water, or light myself on fire?” example. If that is your “free will”, you have watered it down to insignificance.
But, even in the case where a “choice” doesn’t seem to have obvious connection to the available knowledge, I suspect you simply haven’t dug deep enough. If after weighing beverage options, I light myself on fire, I suspect you will find I have a history of mental health issues. People do not ordinarily light themselves on fire upon being given a choice of beverage. In that case, what we have is not any “free-will,” we have a malfunctioning biochemical engine.
Or what if I do something not so drastic, but simply out of normal character? Like, for example, I hate beer and never drink beer. But, say, for example, that one time I decide to drink beer. That would be out of character for me, but, if you were to actually investigate why I picked beer this one time, do you honestly think there would be no causal factors found? Do you not really realize causal factors would be found if you looked? Perhaps I was feeling peer-pressure, everybody else was drinking beer and calling me a pussy for not having any. Maybe I was feeling depressed and I had heard other people say that beer makes them feel better. These are just possibilities, but, it seems to me rather undoubtedly that if you were to research it, you would find something like that.
So, again, you are just left with assertions, without evidence, and contrary to evidence. Again.
Jensen11: Our natural tendency is to let them influence our decisions but it is not necessary that they do so
|
And how do you know this? You just assert it.
Jensen11: free will would not be disproven.
What does it mean to be “proven” or “”disproven”? What would be sufficient evidence for you? There will (probably) always be gaps in our knowledge of how we make decisions, your argument is essentially “free will of the gaps”.
What does it mean to be “proven” or “”disproven”? What would be sufficient evidence for you? There will (probably) always be gaps in our knowledge of how we make decisions, your argument is essentially “free will of the gaps”.
Jensen11: Doland had just given a long example of how his choice of beverage at a restaurant is determined by all the prior causal factors taken together […] But this does not show that all choices have causes that in turn have prior causes.
|
More free-will-of-the-gaps. Name ONE CHOICE that cannot be traced to causal factors. Try it, name one. But not simply that you do not know the causal factor, that it you can definitively determine that there were none. Perhaps you will say I’m demanding stricter evidence from you than I’m willing to give myself. Well, when everything that I see points to having causal factors, and can show them in at least most cases, it becomes insufficient for you to make a vague assertion, "well, maybe not *all* the time."
Jensen11: No you did not give any evidence for your claim.
Look guy, I have pointed you to multiple times to the Keith Augustine article. You even quoted me giving you the link to the article. And you have the balls to offer up a response of, “duh, I don’t see no evidence” At this point I’m tempted to dismiss you as either mentally deficient or a liar. NOW READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. But, to save you time, skip about the first half and start with the paragraph that starts “Beyerstein lists five main types of empirical evidence which support the dependence of consciousness on the brain.” The first half of the article deals with issues not as directly applicable to our discussion.
Now, he references further articles, and, if you really want to be knowledgeable on the subject, then I’d encourage you to read more. But, frankly, the articles he references probably would go over your head, so, just start with the one article. It is reasonably sufficient on its own, and hopefully you can grasp at least most of it. And, if you have interest in learning more, maybe make a little stab at it here and there. But the bottom line is, until you have done just a tiny fucking bit of reading on the subject, you haven’t earned anything except the derision I give you. Grow up and learn something, I ain’t your fucking mommy here to feed you spoonfuls of knowledge.
Jensen11: No you did not give any evidence for your claim.
Look guy, I have pointed you to multiple times to the Keith Augustine article. You even quoted me giving you the link to the article. And you have the balls to offer up a response of, “duh, I don’t see no evidence” At this point I’m tempted to dismiss you as either mentally deficient or a liar. NOW READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. But, to save you time, skip about the first half and start with the paragraph that starts “Beyerstein lists five main types of empirical evidence which support the dependence of consciousness on the brain.” The first half of the article deals with issues not as directly applicable to our discussion.
Now, he references further articles, and, if you really want to be knowledgeable on the subject, then I’d encourage you to read more. But, frankly, the articles he references probably would go over your head, so, just start with the one article. It is reasonably sufficient on its own, and hopefully you can grasp at least most of it. And, if you have interest in learning more, maybe make a little stab at it here and there. But the bottom line is, until you have done just a tiny fucking bit of reading on the subject, you haven’t earned anything except the derision I give you. Grow up and learn something, I ain’t your fucking mommy here to feed you spoonfuls of knowledge.
Jensen11: Do you think stories about the tensile strength of metals or the terminator or choosing your drink at a restaurant constitute evidence?
|
For the record, I do not consider analogies, such as the tensile strength of metals and the terminator analogies to be evidence. They are intended to be teaching tools, not evidence. As to the restaurant example, that is an example. Examples that fit my model are evidence supporting my model. I gave one example that fits my model, you’ve given none to support your model, all you have provided is just a free-will-of-the-gaps. So, I would say that the restaurant example constitutes a piece of evidence. Not, in itself sufficient, but my 1 example is infinitely more than your 0 examples.
Jensen11: Einstein was a determinist like you and didn't think people should be held responsible for their moral actions. Yet he couldn't help but hate the Nazis and hold them responsible for what they had done.
|
Well, for one, humans (including Einstein) are emotional entities, that do not always have consistent beliefs, or always act consistent with stated beliefs. That is our nature. But, how I would respond to the Nazi question you raise: It is natural for us to react with emotion to actions such as the Nazis, but, ultimately, each Nazi was a product of his or her environment and biology. If I was born in Nazi Germany, I’d have been a Nazi, and so would you. Or at least very much likely. Moreover, there is no punishment that can be done after the fact to bring back any of their victims. Once it is past, it cannot be undone. That is a fact whether you are right or I am right. Therefore, it follows that the only purpose to punishing the perpetrators can do is to discourage it from happening again. And that is a worthy goal whether you are right or I am right.
From this, it also follows that to punish someone like God allegedly does in hell where there is no useful purpose to the punishment except pure vengeance is itself pointless and evil.
From this, it also follows that to punish someone like God allegedly does in hell where there is no useful purpose to the punishment except pure vengeance is itself pointless and evil.
Jensen11: From the context of your statement "How is your soul knocked out of kilter?" I take it you mean, "How can a physical change in the body make one more prone to evil actions?"
|
Correct, that is the question.
Jensen11: Assuming I understand your question correctly I would say, that's just the way we are physically.
|
TADA! You win! That is indeed THE WAY WE ARE PHYSICALLY. Except one thing -- YOU ARGUE OUR SOUL IS NOT PHYSICAL. So, well, you lose. The question is, how is this PHYSICAL thing, lithium, interacting with our NONPHYSICAL soul? Hmmm?
Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor? Basically, when you have a solution with elements that don’t add any explanatory power, they can be eliminated from the solution. Your adding a nonphysical soul into the question doesn’t add any explanatory power and therefore can be removed. The soul here is basically a proverbial fifth wheel.
In fact, your soul hypothesis detracts from the explanatory power because you’ve added an element without any explanation of what the hell it is doing and how it is interacting with the physical entities. Again, your adding a nonphysical soul not only doesn’t help explain the lithium connection to behavior, it detracts from the solution because you’ve added an element with no definable purpose and no discernable mode of operation.
Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor? Basically, when you have a solution with elements that don’t add any explanatory power, they can be eliminated from the solution. Your adding a nonphysical soul into the question doesn’t add any explanatory power and therefore can be removed. The soul here is basically a proverbial fifth wheel.
In fact, your soul hypothesis detracts from the explanatory power because you’ve added an element without any explanation of what the hell it is doing and how it is interacting with the physical entities. Again, your adding a nonphysical soul not only doesn’t help explain the lithium connection to behavior, it detracts from the solution because you’ve added an element with no definable purpose and no discernable mode of operation.
Jensen11: Minor differences in our physical makeup and even major failings in our biology that have little effect on our mental abilities do not alter our moral awareness.
|
Bullshit. I mentioned the lithium study which indicates that very small changes in our biology can make significant changes in our “moral awareness”. I can point you to other studies showing other aspects in diet make significant changes in behavior, or “moral awareness. If you’re going to keep peddling bullshit, don’t be surprised if I call you on it.
Jensen11: Suppose someone with sufficient physical injury were in a coma. That also makes them unable to make responsible moral decisions in the world outside of their own minds. Do you think that should also be a problem for theists?
|
Oh for fuck’s sake, no, because people in comas are not making any decisions considered to be moral decisions. They aren't even making moral decisions within their mind as they are unconscious. Now, if you start seeing people in comas going around raping, murdering, joining the Nazis or KKK, let me know, okay? What is wrong with you? Maybe you need some more lithium or something?
Jensen11: We are only concerned about those who are sufficiently physically and mentally healthy such that they are culpable for their moral decisions
|
I’d be willing to bet that every single one of the people in the study about lithium in the water, if you were to talk to them, you would probably judge them as being indeed mentally healthy enough to be judged for their actions.
And this is leading me to a point that I’ve been trying to make but I haven’t been direct enough with: THERE IS NO EXACT DIVIDING LINE between being mentally and physically healthy and not being so. EVERYBODY is imperfect. EVERYBODY has mental and physical defects compared to the “norm”. So, if your God is going to let people off the hook for not getting quite enough lithium, then He has to let EVERYBODY off.
And this is leading me to a point that I’ve been trying to make but I haven’t been direct enough with: THERE IS NO EXACT DIVIDING LINE between being mentally and physically healthy and not being so. EVERYBODY is imperfect. EVERYBODY has mental and physical defects compared to the “norm”. So, if your God is going to let people off the hook for not getting quite enough lithium, then He has to let EVERYBODY off.
Jensen11: How about Romans 1? It talks about evidence people have for God's existence that is so clear that they will be "without excuse" when they face God in judgment. That the biblical writers are concerned about the idea of someone being without excuse shows that God would take into account factors like drug ingestion or deficiency, dementia, etc.
|
Oh for fuck’s sake. EVERYBODY knows that Romans says 100% opposite of what you say. What it says “when you die, don’t come crying that you didn’t know, all men are universally without excuse.”
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
How do you manage to get “some men have excuses” out of the universal “men are without excuse”. Sheesh!
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
How do you manage to get “some men have excuses” out of the universal “men are without excuse”. Sheesh!
Jensen11: I think Doland has admitted (or will admit) that we cannot be responsible if we are determined in our choices, either biochemically or any other way. So if we are free in our choices, not determined, we are responsible for our choices. It is a greater good that we freely choose the good, and most significantly, that we choose for God freely, than that we choose God and the good by being determined to do so. It is better that we be responsible or culpable and thus free in our moral/spiritual choices than that we be determined.
|
You STILL have not demonstrated why evil is necessary in this. If God wants me to be able to freely choose him, why is it necessary that I also be free to chose to go rape someone? This does not follow. And why is it that my free will to choose to rape someone should be able to override someone else’s free will to not be raped just because I happen to be stronger or quicker than my victim? If God is really into this “free will” thing, He should make it to where any potential victim’s free will is just as important to the outcome of events as the free will of any potential perpetrator.
And what about natural disasters? If I am right about there being no God, then there is no “evil” intent with natural disasters, they just happen. But if you are right, then God premeditatedly put in the ocean a fissure that he knew would eventually create an earthquake and a tsunami that killed roughly ¼ million people. So, if YOU are right, YOUR God commits acts of premeditated evil, with evil intent.
And what about natural disasters? If I am right about there being no God, then there is no “evil” intent with natural disasters, they just happen. But if you are right, then God premeditatedly put in the ocean a fissure that he knew would eventually create an earthquake and a tsunami that killed roughly ¼ million people. So, if YOU are right, YOUR God commits acts of premeditated evil, with evil intent.
I noted how Jensen makes God his exception to his own rule about causality:
Jensen11: But God is the only possible exception to the rule and it is necessary that there be an exception to the rule. Nothing else works. That is, we need something changeless and personal to cause existence. Personality is the only thing we know of that can be an uncaused cause.
|
Jeez, what will it take to get through to you, PERSONALITY is NOT and never has been any such thing as an “uncaused cause”. You ever have any pets? Notice how your different pets have different personalities? Does that just happen without cause? Personality just magically arises out of nothing? Or do you suppose it might it just have something to do with their brains, their biology? And what about children? You ever notice that infants can have distinctly different personalities? Do you think THAT just happens for no reason? Or do different infants have different biologies?
So don’t give me this SHIT about personality being an uncaused cause. What complete SHIT.
So don’t give me this SHIT about personality being an uncaused cause. What complete SHIT.
On the question of why doesn’t God make his existence obvious:
Jensen11: And that is why God allows the evidence to be not so overwhelmingly obvious that people cannot deny it if they do not want it to be true. With the knowledge that it is true, they are "without excuse," if they reject God. But if it were too obvious and strong, the freedom of their choice would be too impaired. God needs to know what our choice will be.
|
Satan, and the angels that followed him presumably had full knowledge of God’s power and whatnot, and still succeeded in choosing to not follow God. Your claim is thereby disproved.
On the question of how does a timeless entity like God make a “choice”:
Jensen11: There need be no "transition from not having made a choice to having made a choice." The choice has eternally been made, it never changed.
|
If there was never any moment where other options were being considered, how can you ever call it a “choice”? That doesn’t jive with the idea of a “choice” to me. Besides, in the Bible, many times God makes “choices”, changes his mind on what he is going to do. Like the time that God was going to kill Moses, until his wife gives him an on-the-spot circumcision! So, God transitioned from “I’m gonna kill that rat-bastard Moses cuz he’s got a fully complete dick” to “okay, Moses’ dick is now acceptable, I guess he can live”. Care to explain this shit?
In regards to omnipotence vs. attributes of reality, Jensen had stated that God cannot do the logically impossible. I said that makes God superfluous. Jensen says:
Jensen11: If God removes his hand, they would cease to be
I really wish you could follow a conversation. According to YOU, what is “logically impossible” is “logically impossible” period, and not even God can change that. If “God removes his hand” they are still, according to YOU, logically impossible. But, if things are logically possible or impossible even if “God removes his hand”, then we can construct a model of the universe purely based on logic and evidence. God is not needed in the model because, according to YOU, what is logically possible or not is not under God’s control. Which means God is superfluous.
Jensen11: If God removes his hand, they would cease to be
I really wish you could follow a conversation. According to YOU, what is “logically impossible” is “logically impossible” period, and not even God can change that. If “God removes his hand” they are still, according to YOU, logically impossible. But, if things are logically possible or impossible even if “God removes his hand”, then we can construct a model of the universe purely based on logic and evidence. God is not needed in the model because, according to YOU, what is logically possible or not is not under God’s control. Which means God is superfluous.
I asked how does he know the Bible isn’t a Satanic lie:
Jensen11: One, by considering the evidence from miracles, the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and fulfilled messianic prophecy.
|
How do you know the “messianic prophecies” were not ALSO satanic lies? How do you know that Satan cannot resurrect someone to propagate his lies? Even if he can’t do that, how do you know that Satan cannot do a good job at faking it, like animating a dead body or giving people delusions? Maybe Osiris is the One True God, but, Satan has buried all the evidence. Once you allow the supernatural into the equation, you don' t have any justification for saying "only the supernatural I like is real."
Jensen11: Three, one might claim a contemporary miracle: say a healing of an otherwise incurable disease or injury or infirmity if, say, it is done in the name of Jesus.
|
Um, dude, if the Bible is a satanic lie, that would include the whole Jesus story, so, by extension, Satan would be happy to do things “in the name of Jesus” just so that you would believe his Jesus lies -- and forget that Osiris is really the One True God.
I questioned how he knows what he claims to know about Mark handing out his memoirs:
Jensen11: I sure do. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180) said "When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome . . . those who were present . . . besought Mark since he had followed him for a long time . . . to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this, he gave the gospel to those who asked him."
|
Okay, you have a reference to your position. I’ll have to clarify. Let’s see what we have as to what the early church fathers say about Mark. We’ll start with Papias:
- Papias (c60-130) (History of the Church 3:39:15)
Mark the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly, but not in order, what he remembered of the acts and sayings of the Lord, for he neither heard the Lord himself nor accompanied him, but, as I said, Peter later on. Peter adapted his teachings to the needs [of his hearers], but made no attempt to provide a connected narrative of things related to our Lord.
|
Where Papias got his information was, according to him, a “presbyter” that was unnamed and unknown. From there, we see that each of the later Church Father took Papias statement as the starting point and simply added their own embellishments to it:
So, the story about Mark authorship goes from “Mark wrote it of what he remembered after Peter died” to “Peter was alive but had no specific participation of the writing of the Gospel” to “it was composed according to the instructions of Peter” to “Peter was narrating while Mark wrote”. Each step of the way, there is just one more step of embellishment. Obviously this is simply embellishment of a legend. No references are given to the information, nor is it particularly likely that people writing later would have better information than people writing earlier, particularly when the later authors contradict the earlier ones without any providing supporting evidence.
So what you produced as "evidence" for your side is a quote by Clement of Alexandria which contradicts earlier church fathers. You an't got shit.
- Ireneaus (c130-200) added that Mark wrote his gospel "after the departure" (i.e. death) of Peter.
- Clement of Alexandria (c150-215)(quoted in History of the Church 6:14:6-7) contradicted Ireneaus and added his own statement that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was alive and when he (Peter) heard of the gospel "he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it."
- Origen (c185-254) (quoted in History of the Church 6:25:8-9) said that Mark "composed it according to the instructions of Peter"
- Eusebius (c260-c340) who faithfully recorded the witnesses above, followed Clement's account but then added that when Peter heard about the gospel he "was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. " (History of the Church 2:15:2-6)
- Jerome (c342-420) in his letter to Hedibia (Letter 120) mentioned that Peter narrated while Mark noted down what he said.
So, the story about Mark authorship goes from “Mark wrote it of what he remembered after Peter died” to “Peter was alive but had no specific participation of the writing of the Gospel” to “it was composed according to the instructions of Peter” to “Peter was narrating while Mark wrote”. Each step of the way, there is just one more step of embellishment. Obviously this is simply embellishment of a legend. No references are given to the information, nor is it particularly likely that people writing later would have better information than people writing earlier, particularly when the later authors contradict the earlier ones without any providing supporting evidence.
So what you produced as "evidence" for your side is a quote by Clement of Alexandria which contradicts earlier church fathers. You an't got shit.
I mentioned about how people praying to an idol were slaughtered and apparently sent to hell:
Jensen11: And what's this stuff about being damned forever? Where does it say that in this passage.
|
YOU IDIOT. God says so:
Ex 32:33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.
It is standard Christian theology that “the book” in question is who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. You do know this, right? Right?
Ex 32:33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.
It is standard Christian theology that “the book” in question is who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. You do know this, right? Right?
Jensen11: These were people who saw the full power of God. They watched the Red Sea part which they crossed just in time while the Egyptian army was drowned; a pillar of smoke by day and one of fire by night led them; they saw the plagues of Egypt which hit everyone but their own people; they saw the earth open and swallow those who rebelled against Moses. They knew who God was and they knew the severity of this sin in God's eyes. They knew that there could be almost nothing more horrible than this kind of idolatry.
|
My first response to this is, does this not trigger any “bullshit” alarms in your head? None at all? How could it be possible that someone had seen all these things and still doubt? It's like in the NT, where Jesus does miracle after miracle, and yet invariable the next scene the disciples are like “duh, Jesus, whadda we gonna do now?” This just reeks of “plot device”, that the characters do things because the story required it, not because anybody would actually behave that way in real life.
Also note how this scene is totally contradictory to the NT. You have heard of the prodigal son haven’t you? The prodigal son turns his back on his father who had done so much for him, and yet is welcomed back when he returns. The father does not strap on a sword and slice up the son. If the parable had the father slicing up the son, would you approve? Why not? You just defended God and Moses for that.
Also, of note, THE EXODUS NEVER HAPPENED. It is a growing consensus among historians that there was no Exodus. If a million plus people had lived in exile, they would have left traces.
Jensen11: And you are going to tell me that they did not deserve what they got?
If you insist on considering the moral ramifications of the event pretending it did happen, then, yes, I will tell you, you asshole, they did NOT deserve what they got. If, hypothetically, these people saw all these wonders and yet somehow still had a moment of weakness and prayed to some idol, then maybe they could stand a good “bitch-slapping”, but they could not possibly deserve execution and eternal damnation. Only a suck fuck would propose that.
Also note how this scene is totally contradictory to the NT. You have heard of the prodigal son haven’t you? The prodigal son turns his back on his father who had done so much for him, and yet is welcomed back when he returns. The father does not strap on a sword and slice up the son. If the parable had the father slicing up the son, would you approve? Why not? You just defended God and Moses for that.
Also, of note, THE EXODUS NEVER HAPPENED. It is a growing consensus among historians that there was no Exodus. If a million plus people had lived in exile, they would have left traces.
Jensen11: And you are going to tell me that they did not deserve what they got?
If you insist on considering the moral ramifications of the event pretending it did happen, then, yes, I will tell you, you asshole, they did NOT deserve what they got. If, hypothetically, these people saw all these wonders and yet somehow still had a moment of weakness and prayed to some idol, then maybe they could stand a good “bitch-slapping”, but they could not possibly deserve execution and eternal damnation. Only a suck fuck would propose that.
Jensen11: If God is good, God must be just. I find it hard to imagine how atheists can have such a perverted view of justice and goodness.
|
You are going to defend slicing up family members and sending them to eternal torment over a moment of weakness, and tell me that I have a perverted view of justice and goodness? FUCK YOU. I’m done with your nonsense, your shit, your fucked in the head apologetics. I’m done with you. Have the last word if you must, but, GO THE FUCK AWAY.