"May we be a people that seeks God's justice."
On the surface, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't agree with this sentiment, I certainly do. I rely on the surety of God's justice for any number of reasons.
I do think that there is a problem with agreeing with the principle above however.
What if a commitment to seek God's Justice, requires that we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about Justice ?
What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?
What if we see God's Justice, but don't like it?
What if God's Justice is less about specific legal outcomes, and more about bringing Glory to Him?
What if God's Justice includes some level of eternal punishment?
I am 100% for seeking God's Justice. I wholeheartedly believe that even when I earnestly seek God's Justice, that I will fall short. I also believe that if I'm not willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, prejudices, preconceptions, and assumptions about God's justice, then it's likely that I will make an idol from them and become angry when my idolatry doesn't bring me peace and comfort.
This is the text of a post from the other day. Something about it has gotten Dan's panties in a twist and he's been quite prolific in his reaction to it.
What he hasn't done is answer the questions above. He's answered some other questions, bitched, asked a bunch of questions (some stupid), and made multiple false claims without even pretending to provide proof that any of them are true.
That makes me wonder, what is it about these questions that has him engaging in so much effort to avoid answering them. I have some suspicions, but will refrain from sharing them for now.
Since the first attempt at this has been dragged into a completely different direction, the ONLY comments that I will approve for this thread will be comments that specifically and directly answer the questions. These comments will be formatted by copy/pasting the question and answering it directly beneath the question. If there are legitimate questions, I will consider them AFTER there has been a good faith attempt to answer the questions as posed. They are very broad and are asked with the understanding that the answers will contain some degree of opinion.
Unlike the other posts with specific restrictions, comments that fail to meet the criteria will be DELETED, not saved for a later date or moved to the other thread. If anyone is too lazy, comprehension challenged, or stupid, to follow these simple instructions then the deletion of those comments is 100% your responsibility.
129 comments:
Feo,
The fact that you were able to post a short comment caught my eye before I deleted it. If you would like to answer the questions, and can do so without condescension and without the sense of superiority, I'll consider an exception to the automatic deletion policy you've brought on yourself. If you can't follow the rules, that's too bad.
Your questions...
"What if a commitment to seek God's Justice, requires that we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about Justice ?"
We should always seek God's justice, love, Grace, morality.
If we had, for instance, Galt that killing innocent people in vengeance was somehow a Justice, then we should be willing to abandon that thirst for vengeance. But the goal would still be Justice.
The thing is , I don't think there's a separate thing, Justice and God's justice. I think there's just Justice. You may not always understand it perfectly, but Justice is understandable.
We want to be fair, impartial, not prone to oppress others, especially Innocents, especially historically oppressed people, Justice is not that mysterious and I don't think God has some secret hidden intelligible idea of what Justice is.
Do you?
I think our understanding of justice IS justice, even if we don't know how it's perfectly implemented. But I don't think the view or definition of justice is different than we understand them do you?
Do you define justice and some other way then people typically Define Justice? You suspect the God has some secret hidden idea of justice that we don't know I think about? Do you think God has some secret hidden definition of justice this different than our understanding? If so, please provide your guess about that definition. If you don't, then say so.
"What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?"
On the Earth, where humans Implement systems of Justice, that sounds Justice will happen is human institutions of Justice. I believe we should want to admit Justice. Even if it's not perfect Justice We should strive to implement Justice. Again, I don't think there's two different things God's Justice and Justice. I don't think there's two different things God's love and love.
Do you?
I'll start by pointing out the obvious. that you didn't answer the question as asked. But, since you've finally worked up the gumption to make the attempt, I'll see where this goes.
"Do you?"
I think that we all have our own idea of what justice is. I think we all focus on different aspects of justice with different intensity. I think that like virtually anything, when we mold one of God's attributes into our own image, we create an idol.
Further, as you grudgingly sort of concede, God's view of justice (everything really) is infinitely larger and more complete than ours. It seems foolish to believe that our grasp of justice is anything close to God's.
"I think our understanding of justice IS justice, even if we don't know how it's perfectly implemented. But I don't think the view or definition of justice is different than we understand them do you?"
I certainly don't think our understanding of justice is complete, and at best it's flawed. I think that suggesting that a finite creation can have the same level of understanding as the (relatively) infinite creator is simply hubris. At best we see shadows and reflection. If God's justice is perfect, then by definition ours isn't close to perfect. Obviously, it's the best we have in this world, but what we see here isn't fully God's justice by any means. How could it be?
"Do you define justice and some other way then people typically Define Justice?"
Yes, justice under the threat of violence isn't justice, yet many call it exactly that.
Justice that sets aside fairness and truth, isn't justice, even though some claim it is.
Justice that focuses on a predetermined, preferred outcome, not on the fairness of the process is not justice.
Apparently, I do have a different definition of justice then some.
"You suspect the God has some secret hidden idea of justice that we don't know I think about?"
I think that virtually every reality of God in all of it's completeness is a secret from us. I think that our finite limited minds can't grasp the extent of what God considers justice.
"Do you think God has some secret hidden definition of justice this different than our understanding?"
Do you think that asking essentially the same question twice in a row actually helps anything?
While I appreciate your response, you didn't answer the entire question as asked, and you decided that asking questions based on your assumptions would be a good plan.
My follow up question is this.
Are you suggesting that you are prepared to stand before God and unhesitatingly accept Him treating you with only justice? Why or why not?
Your failure to answer the question as asked suggests that you don't believe that your views of justice could possibly be an idol that could get between you and your understanding of God's justice. Given some of your earlier hunches, that kind of makes some sort of sense.
Before this goes further, I want to point out that you see to approaching this differently than I am.
You seem to be trying to make an affirmative case that your hunches about justice substantially align with God. I have no doubt that you can slap something together that makes sense to you and justifies by our preconceptions.
I’m asking you to consider how you would respond if confronted with your hunches being wrong. Your approach seems to be essentially arguing that it’s incredibly highly unlikely that it’s even possible that our conceptions about justice might diverge from God.
Try approaching it that way.
Feo,
Thank you ever so much for demonstrating that you are simply incapable of engaging with anyone in any sort of normal respectful manner. I gave you the chance to participate, and you chose not to do as I asked.
FYI, I'm not sure what drugs you're taking, but I've always acknowledge that I occasionally catch part of your comments as I scroll through and delete them. These are the first two I've read in their entirety in a while. I also sometimes skim them when you post at Dan's. You lecturing anyone on pride is simply absurd, while you accusing anyone else of lying is the height of hypocrisy, and why would I be a gracious host to such an ungracious guest.
Again, I offered, you chose, you're done.
Re: "Your failure to answer the question as asked..."
The question, as asked:
"What if a commitment to seek God's Justice, requires that we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about Justice ?"
We should always seek God's justice, love, Grace, morality.
That is, we should ALWAYS seek God's justice, love, grace and morality. If we have bad ideas about justice? WE SHOULD ALWAYS seek God's justice.
How is that NOT a direct and clear answer to the question? Are you saying, I NEED to say, "We should always seek God's justice, EVEN IF we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about justice in the process?" That is, do I need to use your words to answer it in the "right" way? Even if I'm saying the same thing?
I didn't include "sacrifice the idol of our ideas about justice" because I don't know that we have an "idol of our ideas about justice..." I don't think I do. I rather doubt you do. The question is leading and based upon what seems to be a false premise AND the answer dealt with it. ALWAYS means always. If it's friday should we seek God's justice? YES, because ALWAYS. If we hold false idols of justice, should we seek God's justice?" YES, because ALWAYS.
Always is, by definition, all-encompassing.
But setting aside the fact that I did answer the question precisely as it was asked and you're just making a false claim there, you ask me to "I’m asking you to consider how you would respond if confronted with your hunches being wrong."
That is, if UP is actually down. If RIGHT is actually wrong. If ripping babies out of mother's arms and bashing their heads against the rocks is actually just, if enslaving people is actually just, if killing people because of their skin color is actually just...
If ALL that we think of as good and loving and just is actually evil, if God is actually a god of what WE understand to be evil, who wants us to rape children and kill our enemies... IF god is actually a god of evil, should we follow that god and chase after what WE recognize as a great evil injustice and THAT god asks us to heed their evil word, should we follow that?
I don't think so. Because that's not a god worth following.
Now, IF I think that it is most just and moral to leave medical decisions up to the mother and family (including if an abortion medical procedure is needed) and an otherwise Good and Just God says, "Dan, you're mistaken on that point, because, in fact, that one day old zygote is FULLY deserving of all rights and decisions about medical concerns MUST presume that this zygote MUST be allowed to be born..." I can "get" that a person might be mistaken about a particular aspect of justice.
But if we truly have NO clue about what is and isn't just and some god comes along and tells me EVERYTHING that we think of as good and fair and reasonable is actually wrong and I should do the opposite, I would not trust that evil god. I would assume that this is some trick of evil or a sick mind, not a good word from a good God.
Does that make sense?
Another way of looking at it is this: We see as through a glass darkly, now our knowledge is not full and perfect. BUT, neither are we fully blind. It's one thing to say, Justice is about fair, reasonable and ultimately good treatment of all people and, if punishment is needed, it should be reasonable in comparison to the crime... BUT not knowing how to perfectly implement that sort of justice.
It's another thing to say, You're wrong about justice, "true justice" is about killing any human you might come across in the middle of the night for the joy of killing and the knowledge that the FIRST BLOW is what makes something just... Then that's an upside down notion of justice, not just a failure to fully understand how to implement justice.
Does that make sense?
Craig... "It seems foolish to believe that our grasp of justice is anything close to God's..."
It's one thing to say that our understanding of justice is imperfect. It's another thing to say that our grasp of justice is nothing like God's.
Do you have any data or support to prop up that claim? Or is it just a wild guess on your part? Is it the case that you think we know nothing at all of God's justice? Or that we understand Justice generally, but will not be able to understand it perfectly?
Craig's second question... "What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?"
Ultimately, those of us who believe in God will likely choose to trust God. Period.
However, in this world, God is not actively dispensing Justice in any sort of Supernatural way. It is in the hands of humans to work for justice as Jesus taught us.
Thus, if we are believers in God who is the God of Justice and if we believe God wants us to work for justice, especially for the poor and oppressed, then we are going to be following those teachings and actively work for justice.
Will we get it perfectly right? No. Are we obliged to work for justice in the systems we have nonetheless? Yes I think so. Do you disagree?
Thank you for explaining your answer. While I don't agree that you don't construct idols that obscure God, I understand that you believe that you don't do that. I understand that coming from your position of believing that human "goodness" is innate and of extreme value to God, that you would be resistant to the possibility that you could possibly construct an idol. I apologize for not thinking through all of the angles of your answer.
"If ALL that we think of as good and loving and just is actually evil, if God is actually a god of what WE understand to be evil, who wants us to rape children and kill our enemies... IF god is actually a god of evil, should we follow that god and chase after what WE recognize as a great evil injustice and THAT god asks us to heed their evil word, should we follow that? I don't think so. Because that's not a god worth following."
Thank you so very much, even though you didn't mean to this is a perfect answer. Leaving aside your idiotic assumption that anything beyond your comprehension of God is "evil", which is likely one of your tactics to bolster your hunches. Thank you.
"Does that make sense?"
Yes, it might make sense of the only possible alternative to your conception of God was a God that was pure evil. Yet, the assumption that pure evil is the only alternative, is just that, and assumption.
No, because it presumes that your hunches about things are the standard by which God should be measured.
"It's another thing to say, You're wrong about justice, "true justice" is about killing any human you might come across in the middle of the night for the joy of killing and the knowledge that the FIRST BLOW is what makes something just... Then that's an upside down notion of justice, not just a failure to fully understand how to implement justice. Does that make sense?"
Of course this is simply you constructing a caricature or a straw man and arguing against it. If your goal is to construct various hypotheticals intended to drive others to the answer you want it makes perfect sense.
"It's one thing to say that our understanding of justice is imperfect. It's another thing to say that our grasp of justice is nothing like God's"
You are correct, that is two different things. Although I'd argue that the difference is one of degree, not of substance. Of course when you quote me (a rare enough occurrence), then blatantly misrepresent what I said, it kind of defeats the purpose. Since your comment and (I presume) the questions are based on your false representation of my quote, I fail to see why I should indulge your falsehood be taking it seriously.
"Do you have any data or support to prop up that claim?"
Really? What an idiotic question. But, none that you would accept.
"Or is it just a wild guess on your part?"
No.
"Is it the case that you think we know nothing at all of God's justice? Or that we understand Justice generally, but will not be able to understand it perfectly?"
Since the questions doesn't represent anything close to what I've said, why would I answer it.
Craig... "While I don't agree that you don't construct idols that obscure God..."
Do you recognize that this is a bullshit suggestion that you absolutely cannot support reasonably? You can't point anything that I've made an idol of.
Craig... "Leaving aside your idiotic assumption that anything beyond your comprehension of God is "evil"..."
Of course, I've said nothing of the sort. What assumption are you talking about? Do you recognize that none of my words mention any such assumption?
"Craig's second question... "What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?"
"Ultimately, those of us who believe in God will likely choose to trust God. Period."
Who's suggesting that we not trust God?
"However, in this world, God is not actively dispensing Justice in any sort of Supernatural way. It is in the hands of humans to work for justice as Jesus taught us."
Interesting claim. You seem very certain that you can authoritatively speak to what God is not doing. Given your inability to prove so many of the claims you make, I see no reason to simply accept your assertion, no matter how certain.
"Thus, if we are believers in God who is the God of Justice and if we believe God wants us to work for justice, especially for the poor and oppressed, then we are going to be following those teachings and actively work for justice."
Interesting thought. In general I'd agree with the notion. However, you seem to be assuming that "believers" are somehow the majority of those working for "justice". Are you suggesting that s believers we should put our trust in a secular judicial system increasingly filled with non believers as a vehicle for God's justice to be reliably dispensed here on earth? It does seem strange that "believers" who think that "God's justice" is dispensed through the US legal system would be so adamantly against fellow "believers" (brothers and sisters in Christ) participating in the justice system. Are you suggesting that the secular justice system be adjusted or tipped in favor of the "poor and oppressed"?
"Will we get it perfectly right?"
Will relying on a "justice system" that is increasingly hostile to "believers" move us closer to this ideal of "God's justice" or further away? Are you suggesting that this flawed, imperfect, secular, justice system is our only hope for God's justice? Or just our best hope for God's justice? You were adamant that God can't work supernaturally, are you denying the possibility of God working THROUGH the secular justice system? Why would you rely on judges and court officers who deny the existence of God, to be interested in bringing about "God's justice"?
"No. Are we obliged to work for justice in the systems we have nonetheless? Yes I think so. Do you disagree?"
No, I agree that the current system is the best available option. I'm just not foolish enough to believe that the current system is interested in "God's justice" in the least. It's interesting that you've gone to such lengths to excoriate the justice system we have, yet now are touting it is the best vehicle to bring about God's justice.
Again, thank you for the revealing answers.
Craig... "You seem very certain that you can authoritatively speak to what God is not doing."
I can speak authoritatively about what I've seen. If you have data to support the claim that God has actively acting in a supernatural way in the world for justice, please point it out. I think that would be cool to hear. You can't point it out. If you could, you would. Unless you go all Pat Robertson crazy on us and say that when God sent the fires to California or covid to the world he's punishing Trump.
Craig... "However, you seem to be assuming that "believers" are somehow the majority of those working for "justice". "
As always, I have not said that. I do not believe that.
Craig... "Are you suggesting that s believers we should put our trust in a secular judicial system increasingly filled with non believers as a vehicle for God's justice to be reliably dispensed here on earth?"
I'm saying we should put our efforts into creating more just systems. If the current systems are not just, then no, we don't necessarily put our trust in them. But we put our efforts into making them more just.
Do you disagree?
And that is true regardless of the faith traditions or lack thereof of those working in the justice system.
Craig... "I agree that the current system is the best available option. I'm just not foolish enough to believe that the current system is interested in "God's justice"
Again, you appear to be suggesting that there are two different sorts of Justice. There's Justice and God's justice. I disagree with that guess. It's one that you can't support, to begin with, it's irrational, and you still haven't provided definition explain how your theoretical God's justice is defined and what's different about it. Feel free to provide your explanation, your definition, and support for both.
"I can speak authoritatively about what I've seen."
Sure you can. Unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that you haven't seen enough to make the sorts of broad, sweeping, authoritative, claims that you tend to make.
"As always, I have not said that. I do not believe that."
Again, when you only reference "believers" as people working for justice, it's tempting to assume that you are suggesting "believers" are a significant presence in the justice system. My apologies.
"Do you disagree?"
From a secular perspective, sure. Yet if I'm looking for "God's justice", then I might disagree. Of course, if you're suggesting that imperfect secular justice systems are the best (or only) source of justice, then I get that you wouldn't necessarily be looking for people who were trying to seek God's will as they administer justice.
"Again, you appear to be suggesting that there are two different sorts of Justice. There's Justice and God's justice."
Perhaps if I phrased it as "imperfect justice" and "perfect justice" that might help you out. Are you really suggesting that human justice and Gods justice are completely aligned in every way?
"Again, you appear to be suggesting that there are two different sorts of Justice."
Not in the way you want to twist things, I'm not. What I am suggesting is that (and you seem to agree) any justice dispensed by humans is flawed, imperfect, and biased. On the other hand I'd suggest that justice dispensed by God is flawless, perfect, and unbiased. Ultimately I'm suggesting that there is a qualitative difference between God and humans, and that that qualitative difference affects everything including justice.
In your quest to foment disagreement, you seem to be expending a great deal of effort to attribute things to me that don't exist any any sort of reality.
Craig... "Unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that you haven't seen enough to make the sorts of broad, sweeping, authoritative, claims that you tend to make."
If someone is making for a claim for something way outside the norm, something Supernatural, the onus is on them to prove it. The onus is not on me to investigate all possible Supernatural occurrences and disprove them.
Do you have data to support a claim that God is supernaturally taking steps to administer Justice? That's a simple question, yes or no? If yes, please support the claim. Again, I think it would be cool if you could support the claim. I'm just saying that it's bullshit to suggest that you can. You can't. Show me that I'm wrong.
Craig... "you wouldn't necessarily be looking for people who were trying to seek God's will as they administer justice."
For Better or Worse, anytime someone speaks as if they are the ones to whom in God's justice, red flags fly. I don't want the Muslim extremist seeking God's justice to kill gay folk. I don't want the Christian Fundamentalist seeking God's justice to implement rules to criminalize homosexuality.
In any large Society with different views, I totally feel better when people just speak about Justice, at least in mixed company. Because I, for one, think that if someone's proposing rational and just solutions, that is equivalent to something approaching God's justice. They don't need to tell me they're working for God's justice. Justice will suffice.
Dan,
Perhaps your vaunted reading comprehension is failing you. I’ve not made any claims re God working supernaturally, I was merely responding to your claim. So, you’re correct that the onus is on the maker of the claim, your just wrong about who made the claim.
Of course, it’s just one more instance where most people would acknowledge their overreach, apologize, and move on. I suspect you’ll beat this horse for 4-5 more comments.
When you argue against straw men, you lose credibility. When you speak of yourself on the vanguard of seeking Gods justice as a positive thing, and of others doing so as a negative thing, it makes you sound almost delusional.
Again, thank you for your revealing answers. Since it’s unlikely that you’ll finish the questions in the post, I guess I’ll have to be satisfied.
Craig... " I’ve not made any claims re God working supernaturally, I was merely responding to your claim. So, you’re correct that the onus is on the maker of the claim, your just wrong about who made the claim."
I had said... in this world, God is not actively dispensing Justice in any sort of Supernatural way. It is in the hands of humans to work for justice as Jesus taught us."
And you responded... Interesting claim. You seem very certain that you can authoritatively speak to what God is not doing.
I responded... I can speak authoritatively about what I've seen. If you have data to support the claim that God has actively acting in a supernatural way in the world for justice, please point it out.
You said... Sure you can. Unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that you haven't seen enough to make the sorts of broad, sweeping, authoritative, claims that you tend to make.
So, in response to my suggestion that there's no evidence that God is actively acting in a supernatural way to work for justice, YOU responded by saying I haven't seen enough to make "the sorts of claims" I am making. The conversation is about God acting in this world for justice.
I responded... If someone is making for a claim for something way outside the norm, something Supernatural, the onus is on them to prove it. The onus is not on me to investigate all possible Supernatural occurrences and disprove them.
IF you were not intending to reject my suggestion that I haven't seen any evidence of God acting in this world for justice in some supernatural, then just say so. You SEEM to be rejecting my claim that I've seen nothing to support a claim that God is actively acting for justice. Are you? If not, then perhaps you shouldn't have nagged about that comment.
This is why a conversation with you is not really worth it. If I have to explain not only my OWN position AND clarify it when you have misunderstood my position AND review the conversation when you get lost, it's just time consuming and tiring.
A couple of curious observations:
"If ripping babies out of mother's arms and bashing their heads against the rocks is actually just..." and "Now, IF I think that it is most just and moral to leave medical decisions up to the mother and family (including if an abortion medical procedure is needed)..." There's really no difference between these two scenarios except that the first suggests the mother wasn't necessarily consenting and the second suggests she may have been. In either case, a child is ripped from its mother and murdered. In neither case is there any consideration of justice for the child. Somehow, Dan finds one to be compatible with "God's justice" and the other not so much. Seems clear that Dan is projecting upon God what should constitute justice rather than truly seeking His justice. Science...something the left claims to worship often more than God...clearly regards one a human being from the moment of conception. Scripture...something the left regards as optional as a reference in the understanding of God's nature....clearly never makes any claim as to when a human being is not a human being made in God's image and as such is not a life we have the authority to take on a whim.
" I don't know that we have an "idol of our ideas about justice..." I don't think I do." and "If ALL that we think of as good and loving and just is actually evil, if God is actually a god of what WE understand to be evil, who wants us to rape children and kill our enemies... IF god is actually a god of evil, should we follow that god and chase after what WE recognize as a great evil injustice and THAT god asks us to heed their evil word, should we follow that?
I don't think so. Because that's not a god worth following."
So here we see that Dan indeed makes an idol of his notions of what is just...more specifically here, what is moral and what is evil. "What we understand to be evil" should align with what God has described as evil. In addition to the murder of small children, Dan also ignores God's prohibition of homosexual behavior. These behaviors are both evil given they are both in direct opposition to God's will as clearly and unequivocally revealed in Scripture, something the left...like Dan... regards as optional as a reference in the understanding of God's nature.
With these two examples in mind, it seems clear that Dan hasn't a grasp of the concept of "God's justice" versus "man's justice". The latter is subjective based on a variety of factors, whereas the former is fixed. To seek God's justice means to fully and completely cast aside any preconceived or worldly-influenced notions of right and wrong in order to understand how to apply whatever notions of justice one can draw from our understanding of God's nature. We know that Dan can't grasp that his view of homosexuality is 180 degrees opposite of God's and thus his notion of how justice should be applied to it is equally skewed...if not worse.
Dan doesn't seek God's justice. He seeks to impose on God what appeals to him as just without regard to what appeals to God. He won't worship God if God doesn't agree with his notions of right and wrong, just and unjust.
continuing...
The difference between God's justice and our justice is that our justice is based upon our understanding of right/wrong. That understanding doesn't necessarily put any expectations upon God to agree, or more importantly for this point, that God is absolutely judging on the same basis as we do. We base our justice on the laws we created, some of which are derived from our sense of the moral, which is influenced in this part of the world by Scripture...regardless of how imperfectly. The question is, why would we be punished by God? For stealing, lying, murder and adultery, or because we do not truly abide in Him? Which of the two is what brings about God's wrath? Matt 22:37-39 provides us with our obligation before God. If we fail in these...which, particularly of the first commandment, is evidenced in our obedience to His rules...is it the actual sin that brings about His judgement, or that our sin proves we don't truly love and believe in Him which does? If it's the latter...which I believe is the case...then yes, some young atheist who ladles out soup at the local shelter, but rejects God, may indeed have an eternity of discomfort. That would then be God's justice. It holds for everyone in the same way...which is justice equally applied.
And THAT is where seeking God's justice comes in. We have our laws. We have determined (and continue to re-evaluate from time to time) that which we find criminal and apply judgement impartially regardless of social status. It's not so much the law as how it's applied. It's not so much the sentence, but that everyone who breaks the law which carries it suffers it as the next guy would. THAT is God's justice in my mind...equal application of the law.
Protesters whining about that which is not reality, who then escalate to violent behavior are not in any way expressing anything that comes anywhere near God's justice. They have violated that concept from the beginning by supposing they can be judge and jury without benefit of facts, which is what we've seen in every outburst following the death of a black person. God's justice is neither sought nor given the slightest thought.
Dan,
1. I see you’ve completely dodged the fact that your claim about me is completely false. Your own quotes prove you wrong.
2. My issue, as is often the case, is that you are making a universal claim based on your limited observations.
3. How can you determine that something you’ve observed wasn’t actually prompted by something supernatural?
The problem is that you make these grand, sweeping, universal claims, then can’t acknowledge that you’ve overreached.
But thank you again. This thread has been revealing. B
" in this world, God is not actively dispensing Justice in any sort of Supernatural way."
The above is the specific claim I took issue with. You are clearly making a claim that is universal "in this world" (unless your going to argue that "this world" objectively means "Dan's limited experience"), and you are clearly stating that God is "NOT" (emphasis mine) doing something.
The question must be asked, how does one prove the lack of supernatural intervention?
The answer is likely that one doesn't. Yet to make a blanket, unequivocal, universal claim about anything based only on the limited experience (which includes biases and prejudices) of one person (or a small group of people), is simply an incredibly stupid claim to make.
I get that you probably meant something else, but after bitching for years about people assuming things about you, I simply take your words at their literal, most likely, plain meaning, and assume nothing.
Again, put your ego aside, admit that you made a mistake, and move forward. The fact that this is the hill you look ready to die on (or to use as you excuse for running away with questions unanswered) just makes you look like an egomaniac.
I've made no mistake that I can see. You appear to be the one to appear to be claiming that God can be proven to be actively working for justice. If that's your claim, prove it. All you have to do to show me that I'm mistaken is to prove it.
Step up and prove it.
Offer some data and prove it.
Can you prove it? Show me. Don't just tell me I'm mistaken, show me. Prove your claim if you're going to make it. Make it clear that you're not making that claim if you're not making it.
Craig... "The question must be asked, how does one prove the lack of supernatural intervention?"
One does not need to prove a lack of something Supernatural. We have no data or Reason to suspect that something supernatural has happened unless somebody offer some support for such a claim. I don't have to prove a lack of unicorns that can fly from tree to tree.
If someone is making a claim about something outside of the natural world that has ever been observed, the onus is on them to support the claim. The question then, is not, why doesn't Dan prove that God has not actively stepped in with God's own hand and fought for justice it's on Supernatural way. The question is is Craig making a claim the god has done so? If so, Craig needs to support it. If not, then Craig does not disagree with Dan that there's no evidence for such an occurrence.
"I've made no mistake that I can see"
There it is. The hubris that simply declares oneself mistake free and moves on. Why bother with actually addressing your words and pointing out anything questionable. Simply make the declaration and pretend like it's all good.
" You appear to be the one to appear to be claiming that God can be proven to be actively working for justice"
As we're seeing, at least part of your problem seems to be your inability to differentiate how things "appear" to you in all of your hubris, and reality. Unlike you, I pointed out a specific claim you made, and specifically why it was problematic. Instead of demonstrating where I was wrong, you make your pronouncement, move on, and start by building and attacking straw men. If you've blinded yourself to your own false statements, what possible confidence would anyone have the you can identify them in others.
"Step up and prove it. Offer some data and prove it. Can you prove it? Show me. Don't just tell me I'm mistaken, show me. Prove your claim if you're going to make it. Make it clear that you're not making that claim if you're not making it."
Excellent example of how to respond when you've made a claim you can't back up. Offered your limited, parochial, observations, as "proof". Then go on the offensive to demand that a straw man of your own making be proven. If you can't provide a quote where I've specifically claimed that God is supernaturally working to bring about Justice, and that I can prove it, then stop the bullshit.
I understand that the God you claim to follow doesn't actually do anything, that he just sits back and watches (if you'd allow that He even has that much power), and is satisfied with the crap He sees.
"One does not need to prove a lack of something Supernatural."
Except, I'm not asking you to prove that claim. I'm asking you to prove the claim that you made, and the corollary claim that your personal experience is sufficient for you to make a broad universal claim.
I suspect this is one of those dodges you like so much where you'd argue that God CAN intervene supernaturally, but that HE doesn't, or if He does, there is absolutely zero possible way that we could know it.
In the words of the Hulk, "Puny god.".
Two simple questions.
1. What specifically do you think I've done or said here that is mistaken? Make it clear.
2. Do you understand there's a substantial difference between these two claims...
A. unicorns that fly from tree to tree do not exist.
B. Unicorns that fly from tree to tree DO exist.
Do you recognize why the person who makes claim B needs to support their claim, but not the person who makes claim A?
Regarding your last paragraph, make yourself clear. Do you think the God is actively intervening and actively working to change things by God's own hand? Is God sending hurricanes to destroy dictators that God doesn't want Power? What are you suggesting when you suggest seemingly t'god is actively interacting with this world? Do you mean acting in the hearts of men and women? I agree with that, although we can't point to that objectively and prove it as an objective proven fact. Or do you mean somehow actively changing elections, casting down dictators, overthrowing armies, sending tornadoes to wipe out villains? Tell us what you mean. Take a stand and clarify yourself.
Again, excellent job of completely diverting the conversation off into a dead end of your own making, marked by your hubris and your straw men. It's a great foundation for you to spin some fantastical riff on the ever popular "Nobody ever answers my questions, and you aren't capable of understanding me, so I'm going to run back to my blog where I can delete things I don't like.", trope.
" in this world, God is not actively dispensing Justice in any sort of Supernatural way."
The above is literally your claim, made in your words. Unless you have supernatural powers of your own, you have absolutely ZERO standing to make this sort of universal claim as an indisputable absolute. Yet you have, and you've doubled down.
As if it'll matter, but what would you tell someone who'd seen or experienced something that cannot be explained with any natural explanation?
"Regarding your last paragraph, make yourself clear. Do you think the God is actively intervening and actively working to change things by God's own hand?"
Well played. You can't actually prove that you've made the claim to support your straw man, so you expect me to do what you demand. Well played.
I'd ask them to support the claim. That would be pretty amazing if they could support that claim. If they can't, then I'd say God bless you. I can't really believe it if you can't prove it, not as a fact. Would you accept it as a fact if I told you that God intervened and told me personally that God wants you to marry a man?
This is amazing. You appear to be implying that you have some kind of Supernatural fantastic stories to share and I would love to hear them. I can't tell you how much I would love to hear your fantastic Supernatural stories. I love those sorts of stories. Why would you not just share it?! That kind of thing is amazing. If I had any Supernatural stories, you can bet I would share them.
Are you embarrassed by your Supernatural stories? Do they make you feel weak and impotent? Or insane? Why would you not share them?
Are you worried that I'll make fun of your stories? I would not. I've had people tell me about seeing Bigfoot and ghosts. I've had people tell me about being healed by God. I've had all kinds of Amazing Stories told to me. I love them all and I've never made fun of anybody for their stories.
All I'm saying is that I do not necessarily accept it as a fact just because somebody make a claim of a Supernatural story, as I'm sure is true for you, as well.
"1. What specifically do you think I've done or said here that is mistaken? Make it clear."
For at lease the third time, you've made a specific, universal, claim about something without offering a shred of proof. Then when pressed, you've claimed that your limited, personal, parochial, biased, observations are adequate for you to make the sweeping, universal objective claim. I'm not repeating this a fourth time.
"2. Do you understand there's a substantial difference between these two claims...
A. unicorns that fly from tree to tree do not exist.
B. Unicorns that fly from tree to tree DO exist."
Yes, they're both stupid.
"Do you recognize why the person who makes claim B needs to support their claim, but not the person who makes claim A?"
They are both positive claims about objectivity reality. It's why only idiots make sweeping, universal, objective claims.
"Regarding your last paragraph, make yourself clear."
I'll start by repeating what I've been clear about from the beginning. I have NOT made any specific claims on this topic and you can't find an example of one because they don't exist. Everything after this is just more obfuscation and bullshit to move further away from you answering the remaining questions from the original post, and from you actually taking an firm unequivocal stand on anything.
Do you think the God is actively intervening and actively working to change things by God's own hand? Is God sending hurricanes to destroy dictators that God doesn't want Power? What are you suggesting when you suggest seemingly t'god is actively interacting with this world? Do you mean acting in the hearts of men and women? I agree with that, although we can't point to that objectively and prove it as an objective proven fact. Or do you mean somehow actively changing elections, casting down dictators, overthrowing armies, sending tornadoes to wipe out villains? Tell us what you mean. Take a stand and clarify yourself."
You first. Answer your own, then these and I'll do the same. That's your only option. If I answer these you'll dodge, divert, obfuscate, and blow smoke before you answer them. As we're seeing, anytime you take an unequivocal position, your then deny that you said what you actually said.
Answer each individual question briefly and unequivocally.
1. Are you categorically claiming that God has never, and never will intervene directly in any way in time and space? Explain why.
2. Are you categorically claiming that God is unable to intervene supernaturally, that God simply chooses not to, or that God is unaware of what's going on? Explain why?
3. Are you categorically claiming that something other than God played a significant role in the creation/Big Bang event, and that something other than God explains the suitability of Earth for human habitation? If yes, then what precisely?
4. Are you denying the existence of phenomena that cannot be explained by appealing to purely natural causes?
There you go. You're chance to demonstrate a backbone and take a stand that you won't try to deny the next day. I'll point out the demonstrable fact that in this thread, as well as over the last month or so, that you've literally not answered the questions in the initial post, much less all of what's followed. Beyond that we have the thread that these questions first appeared in where you made 20-30 comments without answering them. You have absolutely zero room to try to play the "you won't answer questions" card, because you've set the tone. I've answered plenty, quit the shit and get caught up.
Craig... "They are both positive claims about objectivity reality. It's why only idiots make sweeping, universal, objective claims."
Come on. You think those are equally valid claims? Do you not acknowledge the reasonable suggestion that it is those who are making extra ordinary claims are the ones who have to support it, not the ones that say, "there is no data to support that claim..."?
To be clear, as of the last time I checked moderated comments, we were 37 comments into this thread, and 3 of the 5 questions from the initial post remain unanswered. You have literally zero credibility to bitch about questions asked much later in the thread being unanswered. Especially since so many of them are based on your own straw men.
Put another way, saying there is no data to support the claim of unicorns is objectively demonstrably factual. Saying there are unicorns is not objectively factually demonstrable.
Your questions...
"1. Are you categorically claiming that God has never, and never will intervene directly in any way in time and space?"
I'm saying I am unaware of any data to support that claim that can be objectively demonstrably proven. Are you?
"2. Are you categorically claiming that God is unable to intervene supernaturally..."
No.
"... that God simply chooses not to..."
I'm saying that I see no demonstrative Lee objectively provable data that God has. Do you have objective demonstrable data to support that suggestion? Cool. Please provide. I truly, truly would love to see it.
"...or that God is unaware of what's going on?"
No.
Cont'd...
"3. Are you categorically claiming that something other than God played a significant role in the creation/Big Bang event, and that something other than God explains the suitability of Earth for human habitation?"
No. I'm saying I have no objectively demonstrable provable data to support that claim. Do you? If so, cool. Please share.
"4. Are you denying the existence of phenomena that cannot be explained by appealing to purely natural causes?"
No.
On the other hand, I'm unaware of any data does objectively provably able to demonstrate that either the Hebrew, Christian God or unicorns explain those unanswered questions. But there are certainly questions that remain unanswered. But having unanswered questions is not authoritative proof the God is the explanation. Or unicorns.
Right?
Look, I'm a Believer. I believe in God, I believe in the Supernatural, I believe in mystery. All I'm doing is being intellectually honest enough to admit what is objectively factual and what is an unprovable guess or theory.
More of your questions from the post...
"What if we see God's Justice, but don't like it?"
Tough luck. We don't have to like it. I'm quite sure there's a bunch of white conservatives to have their panties in a wad he won't like it when they learn they were on the wrong side of social justice for black Americans. I'll just have to get over it, won't they?
"What if God's Justice is less about specific legal outcomes, and more about bringing Glory to Him?"
What if...? I guess I would say, huh! What is the right answer to this question? I don't know how to answer it.
"What if God's Justice includes some level of eternal punishment?"
What if? I guess I'd be surprised.
What if it doesn't include some level of Eternal punishment, some Eternal torture for your loved ones who didn't sufficiently or correctly repent? I'd be glad to learn of it, myself.
What a coward Dan is. The questions asked are easy to answer, even if the answer can be discussed on its own merits as a separate topic. But to continually dance away and continually try to impose his own questions, Dan does nothing more than deflect. Jeez!
Ahhhhhh the “keep the focus on the stupid hypothetical” strategy.
I think they’re equally invalid. But nonetheless they are both making a positive claim about reality.
Had your claim been more like “there is no data”, we wouldn’t have the problem. But, you’re the one making claims you can’t prove here.
Impressive case on non answer answering. Well done. I’m glad to know that the standard for knowledge is what Dan has data for.
Still wouldn’t answer the questions he asked me.
I’ll probably answer tomorrow. I don’t want to spend that much time typing on my phone or look like an idiot for not proofreading my voice to text.
Art,
It seems germane to point out that Dan’s standard effectively denies the reality of the possibility of supernatural intervention, while technically claiming to believe it. It’s also effectively a big FU to anyone who says they’ve experienced something that Dan finds inadequately explained. If he can’t explain it to his naturalistic satisfaction then it’s impossible that it could be true.
Craig...
"seems germane to point out that Dan’s standard effectively denies the reality of the possibility of supernatural intervention, while technically claiming to believe it. It’s also effectively a big FU to anyone who says they’ve experienced something that Dan finds inadequately explained. If he can’t explain it to his naturalistic satisfaction then it’s impossible that it could be true."
1. No. It does not deny the possibility of God intervening supernaturally. There is a distinct and clear and reasonable difference between I have no data to support that claim and it can't have happened. You would say the same thing about a Mormon who makes a fact claim that they can't prove. You would say the same thing about a Bigfoot believer who makes a fact claim that they can't prove. Am I mistaken?
That is, if a Mormon stated that it's a fact that Jesus visited the Americas centuries ago, you would not accept it as a fact claim just because they made the claim. Am I correct? In fact, you would probably tell him he's wrong.
2. For my part, I'm not telling the person who spotted Bigfoot or a unicorn or who says Jesus visited America or who believes that God has intervened in a Justice matter in a supernatural way... I'm not telling any of them that they are wrong. I'm just noting the reality that we have no data to prove these claims factually happened.
There's a difference between denying it happened and saying we have no data to support that claim. I'm saying you have no data to support a claim that God has intervened in a Justice matter. If you do, I've been quite clear that I would love to hear that data and see the support for it. I'm just making the reasonable distinction between empty and unsupported claims, and those claims that can be supported with data that is objective and factual and demonstrable.
What is wrong with that? Is that not just extremely fair and reasonable?
As to the phrase, it hasn't happened, when people make that claim, they are, in effect, saying we have no data to support that claim. If something is Sue fish Italy remove from the realm of the normal and observable, then noting that hasn't happened it's just reasonable. But what it is is a shortcut for saying we have no data to support that claim. They're functionally the same thing. But I'm glad to make the clarification if it helps you.
Tell me, if someone tells you that they were swept up into the air and taken to the Treetops by a flying unicorn, do you accept that it happened or do you tell them we have no data to support that claim? In fact, do you not believe that it has not happened?
Craig... "typing on my phone or look like an idiot for not proofreading my voice to text."
An entirely fair point. I'm dictating some quick responses with insufficient proofreading and catching the typos. Pure laziness on my part. I was just guessing, given your own typos, you weren't too worried about it.
"Tough luck. We don't have to like it."
This isn't the answer he gave before. Before, He'd be a God Dan wouldn't worship. Now he claims he'd have to find a way to deal? Which is it?
" I'm quite sure there's a bunch of white conservatives to have their panties in a wad he won't like it when they learn they were on the wrong side of social justice for black Americans."
Why the racism, Dan? That's not Christian...to either pretend "social justice" is Biblical or that white conservatives are prone to denying justice for black people...which is a leftist trait, not a conservative one.
"
"What if God's Justice includes some level of eternal punishment?"
What if? I guess I'd be surprised."
What's not surprising is to hear what is Biblical would surprise you!
Headline... "Two GOP senators test positive for Covid-19, potentially jeopardizing Barrett confirmation vote"
Hm! I guess God DOES actively intervene!
"This is amazing. You appear to be implying that you have some kind of Supernatural fantastic stories to share and I would love to hear them.
I've seen and know people who've experienced things that really can't be explained by your naturalist presuppositions. I've learned that when I share them with people who are extremely skeptical and closed minded, that the response is usually not positive so I don't usually just put them out there in public.
I'll give you a hint. Telling someone that you'll expect them to trove (to your skeptical satisfaction) that something actually happened, isn't a good way to convince people to share things with you.
I'll say this. Anytime something happens that defies the laws of physics, that is literally a singular event, and beats impossible odds, it's really difficult to suggest that there is a natural explanation.
"Do you think the God is actively intervening and actively working to change things by God's own hand?"
Yes. Otherwise, why would we pray if we don't think God cares and intervenes.
"Is God sending hurricanes to destroy dictators that God doesn't want Power?"
I have no idea, and would never claim to know such a thing for a fact, but I guess it's possible. A God who created the world, yet was unable to intervene in it would be pretty impotent and probably not worthy of worship.
"What are you suggesting when you suggest seemingly t'god is actively interacting with this world?"
I'm suggesting that God loves humans in general, and His children in specific. I'm suggesting that we take scripture seriously when it tells us that God loves us and has a plan for us? I'm suggesting that God is a personal God who wants what's best for those who follow Him. I'm suggesting that God is sovereign over creation.
"Do you mean acting in the hearts of men and women?"
Sure, that's one option. I'm not suggesting that God is limited to one one option though. God does have a history of working through individual people to accomplish His purposes though.
"Or do you mean somehow actively changing elections, casting down dictators, overthrowing armies, sending tornadoes to wipe out villains?"
Again, do I believe that God can and possibly has done those things, sure. Do I believe that I could prove that to someone as hyper skeptical of anything supernatural as you seem to be, no. And I wouldn't waste the time trying. As far as elections, I'd be more inclined to suspect that He'd work through people and how they vote than making millions of ballots disappear. Do I think it's reasonable to think that God could have been working through Bonhoeffer and his fellow conspirators in their plan to assassinate Hitler, sure.
1. Are you categorically claiming that God has never, and never will intervene directly in any way in time and space? Explain why.
No.
2. Are you categorically claiming that God is unable to intervene supernaturally, that God simply chooses not to, or that God is unaware of what's going on? Explain why?
No.
3. Are you categorically claiming that something other than God played a significant role in the creation/Big Bang event, and that something other than God explains the suitability of Earth for human habitation? If yes, then what precisely?
No.
4. Are you denying the existence of phenomena that cannot be explained by appealing to purely natural causes?
No.
"1. No. It does not deny the possibility of God intervening supernaturally. There is a distinct and clear and reasonable difference between I have no data to support that claim and it can't have happened. You would say the same thing about a Mormon who makes a fact claim that they can't prove. You would say the same thing about a Bigfoot believer who makes a fact claim that they can't prove. Am I mistaken?"
Please read what I said before responding. Or, if you did read and didn't understand, ask for help.
"That is, if a Mormon stated that it's a fact that Jesus visited the Americas centuries ago, you would not accept it as a fact claim just because they made the claim. Am I correct? In fact, you would probably tell him he's wrong."
Of course, my response to the Mormon would be based in the fact that virtually every "historical" claim ever made by the Mormon church has been proven false, so there's little reason to believe that claim to begin with.
"2. For my part, I'm not telling the person who spotted Bigfoot or a unicorn or who says Jesus visited America or who believes that God has intervened in a Justice matter in a supernatural way... I'm not telling any of them that they are wrong. I'm just noting the reality that we have no data to prove these claims factually happened."
Which is exactly what I said.
"What is wrong with that? Is that not just extremely fair and reasonable?"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with you deciding that you choose to live life as a skeptic and demand that everyone prove everything that you haven't personally seen.
It's interesting that you don't seem to apply the same standards to claims you make or that those who agree with you make.
"As to the phrase, it hasn't happened, when people make that claim, they are, in effect, saying we have no data to support that claim."
This appears to be your way of saying that you're appealing to some large group authority to explain why what you actually said means something entirely different from the plain meaning of the text. Impressive, the appealing to numbers logical fallacy and the "I used these words in a nonstandard fashion" excuse all in one sentence. So, please provide objective proof of who these "people" who make the specific claim you made are, and why their/your usage strays so far from normal English.
"If something is Sue fish Italy remove from the realm of the normal and observable, then noting that hasn't happened it's just reasonable. But what it is is a shortcut for saying we have no data to support that claim. They're functionally the same thing. But I'm glad to make the clarification if it helps you."
Again, an excuse for you choosing to not say exactly what you mean in a precise way. Look, if you can't simply acknowledge that you misspoke, and that your choice of words was wrong because you're obsessed with being right, why would anyone be so stupid as to think you'd be open to seriously considering that an event had a supernatural cause? The fact that you played stupid, pretended that I hadn't pointed your mistake out in detail, continue to ignore my secondary point, and expend this much effort concocting this bullshit defense, says all I need to hear.
"Tell me, if someone tells you that they were swept up into the air and taken to the Treetops by a flying unicorn, do you accept that it happened or do you tell them we have no data to support that claim? In fact, do you not believe that it has not happened?"
I's respectfully ask questions.
Tell me, if someone claimed that their personal experience was sufficient grounds to conclude that something is objectively not happening, would you accept that claim?
"An entirely fair point. I'm dictating some quick responses with insufficient proofreading and catching the typos. Pure laziness on my part. I was just guessing, given your own typos, you weren't too worried about it."
I'm not so much worried about it, as I'm giving a proactive explanation to preempt your usual bitching about my not doing your bidding as immediately as you'd like. Your history of confusing "not now" with "not ever" when it comes to your demands makes it prudent to be proactive.
I'm sure I occasionally make typos however I comment. But they're much fewer and further between when I type on a computer than on my phone. Also, my phone isn't a friendly to copy/paste as my computer, and the larger screen helps as well. I'm simply acknowledging that I'm aware of the limitations of typing on my phone or using voice/text and explaining why I've virtually stopped doing extended comments on my phone, because I know how annoying it is to try to decipher gibberish.
"Headline... "Two GOP senators test positive for Covid-19, potentially jeopardizing Barrett confirmation vote" Hm! I guess God DOES actively intervene!"
Here's the difference, I have no reason to think that God wouldn't intervene if He wanted to, you simply make a mockery of the possibility.
I'm not saying that this is a specific instance where He did, just that it's not beyond possible.
Art,
Excellent points. Although, I suspect that he's really saying that it would depend on what the specific outworking of God's justice was to determine his response. But, in general, I agree that Dan has a tendency of contradicting himself.
There will likely be a comment explaining that "people", will actually say something but mean something different, and that... Oh hell, you get the point.
Art,
I also think it’s likely that if someone is not convinced that any sort of eternal consequences exist, that’s it’s easier to take the position that you’d just not worship that God.
Great job pointing out the racist sounding comment. Personally I think that a whole lot of brown Muslims are also going to be surprised and disappointed when they don’t get their virgins.
To be fair, I think we’re all going to be surprised when we find out that there were things in the Bible that we thought or acted like weren’t True.
I'm not clear if you think that I have not answered some questions. I have answered every question to the best of my ability. Are there questions that you think I have not answered yet? If so, please make that clear.
Craig... "I've seen and know people who've experienced things that really can't be explained by your naturalist presuppositions. I've learned that when I share them with people who are extremely skeptical and closed minded, that the response is usually not positive so I don't usually just put them out there in public."
Again, as I've made clear, I am fine with Supernatural stories. Stories that can't be explained. I would love to hear them and I don't think that I've ever mocked any such stories.
On the other hand, it's reasonable to ask if there's any data to support such stories or if it is just a story that you believe but can't support?
What is wrong with asking reasonable questions of hard to believe stories? Is it your position that if somebody is the right kind of believer and tells you a fantastic, supernatural sort of story, that we must believe that it represents fact? Why? It is my belief that good and solid stories, certainly stories about God, can withstand reasonable questions. I do not worship a weak or timid God.
Craig... "Tell me, if someone claimed that their personal experience was sufficient grounds to conclude that something is objectively not happening, would you accept that claim?"
That would depend upon the context. If someone is saying that they have never personally seen a purple Toyota therefore they don't believe purple Toyotas exist, I would not necessarily accept that claim. It's a rather subjective and weightless claim.
On the other hand, if someone said I have never seen a flying unicorn nor do I believe that anybody has ever reported such a thing, therefore I do not believe that flying unicorns exist, I would accept that as a reasonable conclusion because it is NOT just their personal experience.
We can reasonably say that stories of flying unicorns that are verifiable are not common if they exist at all. If some one is speaking of a claim of something supernatural or highly unlikely based on human observation, they're not limited just to their particular observation, it's a reasonable conclusion to say yes that is reasonable to suppose that flying unicorns do not exist.
Do you actually disagree?
Craig... "I'm not saying that this is a specific instance where He did, just that it's not beyond possible."
Will you agree that in any case where a disease, the hurricane, a fire, Etc dot-dot-dot in any case where a natural disaster or phenomena occurs if there's no evidence that God sent it to affect God's justice?
If you can agree with that, then can you agree that those who site such events and then claim to suggest the God sent that disease or fire or tornado to exact Justice are the ones making a mockery of God? Attempting in their pathetic and impotent little manner to use God as a bully for their causes?
Craig... "What if God's Justice includes some level of eternal punishment?"
I'm guessing you think my answer to this question may have been insufficient, even though I did answer it the best way I could. Let me ask you this about what if questions, what if God enjoys raping and then eating little babies? What is your answer to that question?
Do you defer to this hypothetical god and say, well, if God likes raping and then eating babies, God is God and God is good and therefore that must be good? Or, do you say such a question is a mockery of the notion of a good, loving, just and gracious God?
"I'm not clear if you think that I have not answered some questions. I have answered every question to the best of my ability. Are there questions that you think I have not answered yet? If so, please make that clear."
As I usually try to point out, that any comments where I refer to you not answering questions are predicated on what I know when I write the comment. Having said that, there are threads full of unanswered questions from the recent past. I'm not sure you've got much to be proud of."
Craig... "I've seen and know people who've experienced things that really can't be explained by your naturalist presuppositions. I've learned that when I share them with people who are extremely skeptical and closed minded, that the response is usually not positive so I don't usually just put them out there in public."
"Again, as I've made clear, I am fine with Supernatural stories. Stories that can't be explained. I would love to hear them and I don't think that I've ever mocked any such stories."
given your general level of mockery, disdain, and condescension for those you disagree with, I'll stick with my impression and with my practice of not putting those sots of things out in the public. Feel free to assume whatever you want.
"On the other hand, it's reasonable to ask if there's any data to support such stories or if it is just a story that you believe but can't support?"
I guess that depends on what you mean by evidence. For example, statistical probability analysis is a usually pretty accurate, am I correct? Just for grins, let's say something happened that was incredibly statistically improbable. What level of statistical improbability would constitute significant evidence for you?
"What is wrong with asking reasonable questions of hard to believe stories?"
Nothing, as long as the expectations of evidence are reasonable and that they're asked with an open mind.
"Is it your position that if somebody is the right kind of believer and tells you a fantastic, supernatural sort of story, that we must believe that it represents fact?"
Nope.
"Why?"
because it's a stupid question based on prejudice and assumptions,
"It is my belief that good and solid stories, certainly stories about God, can withstand reasonable questions. I do not worship a weak or timid God."
OK, whatever you say.
Craig... "as long as the expectations of evidence are reasonable and that they're asked with an open mind."
If I tell a pentastic story oh, I do not feel that anyone is obliged to believe me. And I have to tell you, if someone tells me that they have seen Bigfoot and tell me their story, I would love that story and I would hope for it to be true oh, but I would be skeptical. I wouldn't mock them but I would be skeptical hello without any hard data.
The same is true for someone who tells me that God healed them, that they used to be missing their right arm and God grew it back for them. I would love that story, I would hope that's the story would be true, but I would be skeptical.
Wouldn't you, in both instances? There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. There's nothing ungodly about being skeptical. You know that, right?
For one thing, there are a lot of confused people out there and God bless them, sometimes the stories just are not factual representations of reality. I love very deeply and work with closely people who may tell me stories that just are not actually right. And I love their stories and I don't mock them for them and I don't say anything negative to them. But I am skeptical of stories of Supernatural events.
The same is true for wide wide variety of very religious folks. I may love their stories of speaking in tongues of miraculous healings, and I'm not mocking them for their story. But I am skeptical. Do you think that's wrong? Why?
" good and solid stories"
I suspect that your definition of "good and solid" stories is likely driven by your biases and preconceptions.
"Craig... "Tell me, if someone claimed that their personal experience was sufficient grounds to conclude that something is objectively not happening, would you accept that claim?"
"That would depend upon the context. If someone is saying that they have never personally seen a purple Toyota therefore they don't believe purple Toyotas exist, I would not necessarily accept that claim. It's a rather subjective and weightless claim."
So, if someone claimed that their personal experience was sufficient to make a universal claim about something, you would treat their claim as subjective and weightless? For example. "X does not ever happen in this world." Would this claim, based on the experience or observation of one person be objective or subjective? Weighty or weightless?
"On the other hand, if someone said I have never seen a flying unicorn nor do I believe that anybody has ever reported such a thing, therefore I do not believe that flying unicorns exist, I would accept that as a reasonable conclusion because it is NOT just their personal experience."
Really, are you really saying that someone's belief about someone else's experience is enough to make a claim objective? The mere belief, establishes objectivity?
"We can reasonably say that stories of flying unicorns that are verifiable are not common if they exist at all. If some one is speaking of a claim of something supernatural or highly unlikely based on human observation, they're not limited just to their particular observation, it's a reasonable conclusion to say yes that is reasonable to suppose that flying unicorns do not exist."
It might be reasonable to suppose that flying unicorns do not exist, while not being reasonable to draw that conclusion based on one person's observation or experience, and I'd suggest that their beliefs about other people's observation and experiences fall into the category of subjective opinion. My belief about Bob's experience is certainly not admissible in a court of law.
"Do you actually disagree?"
I've pointed out my agreements and disagreements in my responses/answers. Asking this at the end is redundant and stupid. It's almost like you want a gotcha question so you can bitch that I won't answer all of your questions.
"Craig... "I'm not saying that this is a specific instance where He did, just that it's not beyond possible."
"Will you agree that in any case where a disease, the hurricane, a fire, Etc dot-dot-dot in any case where a natural disaster or phenomena occurs if there's no evidence that God sent it to affect God's justice?"
I'm not sure what you're demanding that I agree with. I think it's absurd to expect that this sort of thing wouldn't be evaluated on a case by case basis. Unlike you, I'm leery of making sweeping, blanket, universal claims about things, it always seems to bite you in the ass so I avoid it.
"If you can agree with that, then can you agree that those who site such events and then claim to suggest the God sent that disease or fire or tornado to exact Justice are the ones making a mockery of God?"
I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to engage in a little guilt by association. If I don't agree with you, then I automatically MUST 100% agree with and support ANY idiot who claims that "X is God's judgement.". It's a false equivalency and it's built on your tendency to look at and evaluate things and people as members of the groups you assign them to, rather than as individual events and people.
I think lot's of folks are making a mockery of God, hell I've probably done it once or twice myself.
"Attempting in their pathetic and impotent little manner to use God as a bully for their causes?"
Do you mean like when christians publicly announce that they hope that God uses Covid to strike down Trump? That sort of thing?
"Craig... "What if God's Justice includes some level of eternal punishment?"
"I'm guessing you think my answer to this question may have been insufficient, even though I did answer it the best way I could. Let me ask you this about what if questions, what if God enjoys raping and then eating little babies? What is your answer to that question?"
As a general rule the answers you give to questions are rarely as sufficient as I'd like, as they tend to be equivocal, and indecisive. But, since I just assume that, it's really not that big of a deal. I just figure if you answer anything at all it's a win. Sometimes even your insufficient answers are incredibly revealing.
The problem with you ridiculously extreme examples is that there is absolutely nothing in scripture or Church History that suggests that God would "rape and eat" little babies. There is ample evidence, including from Jesus, that suggests that it's not unreasonable to conclude that there is some degree of consequence for sin that extends beyond our death. Some sort of judgement before God when the goats go into outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth. You, individually, might not like this suggestion. You might not agree with it, at some point you might conceivably offer an alternative with scriptural support. But to deny that scripture contains enough references to the concept, is simply being obtuse. Again, you might suggest that those references don't mean whet they appear to say, but in the absence of any counter interpretation, it's simply you blowing smoke. So, yes it's reasonable to ask (in essence) "What of those scriptures DO mean what they appear to say?", "What if scripture is right and I'm wrong?". It's unreasonable to ask the same about things that aren't even hinted at in scripture.
"Do you defer to this hypothetical god and say, well, if God likes raping and then eating babies, God is God and God is good and therefore that must be good? Or, do you say such a question is a mockery of the notion of a good, loving, just and gracious God?"
I think that my response above is adequate. If someone is going to posit an image or attribute of God that isn't even hinted at in scripture, then I'd say they were indeed mocking God.
So, go ahead. Be my guest.
"Do you actually disagree?"
Do you actually realize what this question says abut your pride and hubris? To insinuate that your hunch is of such gravity that it's virtually unthinkable to disagree with it. I've heard it said many times that pride is at the root of all sin, well anyone who thinks their hunches can't be disagreed with might have pride issues.
Craig... " I think it's absurd to expect that this sort of thing wouldn't be evaluated on a case by case basis..."
Okay. Go for it. You know these sorts of claims have been made multiple times. Evaluate any one of them on a case-by-case basis.
IS there one where you think God objectively DID send a disaster as punishment? If you think that happened, what is your data to support that claim?
If you don't think you can support that claim or that it happened, why would you think that maybe the next time someone could support that claim? Was that there might be a time with someone could support that claim?
If there have been hundreds of instances where someone has made this sort of claim, and none of them can be supported factually, objectively, why would you not draw conclusion that when people make that sort of claim it is safe to say they can't support that claim as a point of fact?
What if there were thousands of instances of people making that sort of claim? 1 million? Is there some point where you think is reasonable to conclude that people can't support that claim and dismiss that genre of claim out of hand as not reasonably supportable?
Craig... "that suggests that it's not unreasonable to conclude that there is some degree of consequence for sin that extends beyond our death."
But we're not talking about "some degree of consequence," are we? We all agree that our actions have consequences and negative behavior can reasonably be punished as a matter of Justice. You understand that, right, we're all in agreement on that point right?
The question then is will God punish for misdeeds in a manner that is far exceeding any reasonable notion of Justice or fairness? If someone commits 1000 minor sins in our life, the traditional Evangelical position is equivalent to the suggestion that God eats and rapes babies.
To punish someone with an eternity of torture for 1000 relatively minor sins, that is not Justice or fair. It is wildly unjust, similar to the suggestion that God might rape and then eat babies. Do you understand that point?
You do agree, don't you, that a punishment that is wildly disproportionate to the crime is not only not great... such a punishment would be an injustice itself?
Craig... "But to deny that scripture contains enough references to the concept, is simply being obtuse."
Of course it's not. I'm not denying that there are scriptures that some people have taken to mean the God will send the majority of humanity to an eternity of torture for failing to repent in the correct way - or failing to be called by God in the first place - for their sins which could include even just one sin, according to the traditional evangelical traditions. I'm not denying that there are passages that some human Traditions have interpreted that manner. But there are plenty of other passages that talk about the suggestion of no afterlife. The Bible has not spelled out with one clear message what eternity is like. I'm not denying there scriptures that some people read that way, but the question is are those readings and those traditions of Some Humans reasonable? Noting the reality that many people find such human Traditions to be irrational and unreasonable and even criminal, that would be up to you. And we objected those human interpretations not because we are opposed to Justice or to God but because we believe in God and Justice. You do recognize that, don't you? Or do you?
"If I tell a pentastic story oh, I do not feel that anyone is obliged to believe me. And I have to tell you, if someone tells me that they have seen Bigfoot and tell me their story, I would love that story and I would hope for it to be true oh, but I would be skeptical. I wouldn't mock them but I would be skeptical hello without any hard data."
That's good because I rarely believe you anyway. I'm not suggesting that starting with an open mind and not applying an unreasonably skeptical approach from the outset, is to uncritically believe anything someone says. I am suggesting that it's a reasonable, adult, Christian way to approach pretty much anything someone says. I'm suggesting that simply not mocking someone is an incredibly low standard. I think that's the difference, you go in assuming that any story isn't true and prepared to demand "hard data".
let me ask this question. Anything other than a yes of no answer will be deleted, it's important that you answer yes or no only.
Do you believe that Trump said that racists (NAZI's, whatever) were "good people" in the wake of the Charlottesville incident?"
"The same is true for someone who tells me that God healed them, that they used to be missing their right arm and God grew it back for them. I would love that story, I would hope that's the story would be true, but I would be skeptical."
But that's you're problem, not theirs. If you choose to be unrealistically skeptical or not to trust them, that's you. It's not them. If your default position is skeptical and untrusting, I can't help you.
Contd
"Wouldn't you, in both instances? There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. There's nothing ungodly about being skeptical. You know that, right?"
Wouldn't I what? Yes, I know that balancing skeptical with other things is fine.
"For one thing, there are a lot of confused people out there and God bless them, sometimes the stories just are not factual representations of reality."
Of course, and is the best response to go into the conversation with a skeptical attitude? Is skepticism really the most Christlike response.
I think your problem here, as it often is, is that your default position if anyone says anything that YOU don't find credible, is to lump them in with the looniest, most extreme example you can find. Seriously, you're examples are almost always some bizarre extreme. Again, maybe the problem is you.
"I love very deeply and work with closely people who may tell me stories that just are not actually right. And I love their stories and I don't mock them for them and I don't say anything negative to them. But I am skeptical of stories of Supernatural events."
Of course you are. You're skeptical on anything that's outside of your bubble. You're especially skeptical of things that don't line up with your hunches, and seem less skeptical about things that do.
I asked you at the other thread if you could prove a claim you made, and since you've kept making that claim and failed to prove it, I'm skeptical of the veracity of the claim and I'm skeptical of your ability or willingness to prove claims you make. If you want to explore this, do it over there, not here) But my skepticism of you is based on your past actions, your willingness to ignore hard data, and your condescending attitude when people point out when you're wrong. I'm skeptical of you as an individual, not of progressives as a group.
"The same is true for wide wide variety of very religious folks. I may love their stories of speaking in tongues of miraculous healings, and I'm not mocking them for their story. But I am skeptical. Do you think that's wrong? Why?"
I guess you think condescending is better than mocking. It's almost like you've built this wall around yourself, and anything you can't imagine is treated with condescension.
You claim to love, serve, and worship a supernatural God. A God who is Spirit and Truth, yet your first response to anything vaguely supernatural is "I'm skeptical, show me 100% guaranteed proof backed up with hard data.".
I wonder if your pray for things to happen, and I wonder why you would ask a supernatural being to do supernatural things, if your first response is condescension and skepticism.
Craig... "Do you actually realize what this question says abut your pride and hubris?"
I'm sorry. We're talkin about flying unicorns and I'm astounded that some may disagree with a sweeping claim that they don't exist. And you find that to be a sign of hubris?
The hill you're going to die on his defense of flying unicorns? You want to accuse me of hubris about flying unicorns?
Well color me proud if you must. I think this is a reasonable adult position to take. Not in the least proud. I mean, I wouldn't mock children for believing in flying unicorns, although I would still question them if they have any data to prove it perhaps.
"Okay. Go for it. You know these sorts of claims have been made multiple times. Evaluate any one of them on a case-by-case basis."
Why should I? There's absolutely nothing I could say that would convince you, why would I bother.
"IS there one where you think God objectively DID send a disaster as punishment? If you think that happened, what is your data to support that claim?"
Not that I can recall off the top of my head.
"If you don't think you can support that claim or that it happened, why would you think that maybe the next time someone could support that claim? Was that there might be a time with someone could support that claim?"
I haven't made a claim that I need to support, nor have you pointed out why I am responsible for supporting someone else's claim.
"If there have been hundreds of instances where someone has made this sort of claim, and none of them can be supported factually, objectively, why would you not draw conclusion that when people make that sort of claim it is safe to say they can't support that claim as a point of fact?"
Given the fact that I specifically asked you what degree of improbability would allow you to conclude that an event was impossible, and I've seen no answer, why would I indulge your fantasies?
"What if there were thousands of instances of people making that sort of claim? 1 million? Is there some point where you think is reasonable to conclude that people can't support that claim and dismiss that genre of claim out of hand as not reasonably supportable?"
See the answer above.
What if you asked the same question over an over with minuscule differences and just got so annoying that I ignored you.
What if I told you that every single person who had engaged in one particular activity in one particular location had had the exact same result except 1? What's the ratio that would convince you that the one was outside of the realm of chance?
"Of course you are. You're skeptical on anything that's outside of your bubble."
But you are too. You've already said you would be skeptical of Mormon claims because it is your opinion that a lot of false claims have been made by Mormons. It's outside of your bubble, you don't believe it to be factually correct and you're skeptical other claims. I think rightly so.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. I'm not mean about it. I don't mock people for their positions. But being skeptical of Fantastical claims is not unreasonable. It's not ungodly. In fact, I'd say it is reasonable and godly. Do you disagree? If not, why are you giving me such grief for doing what is rational and godly?
I don't mock people for their positions or fantastical claims or Fantastical stories. However, if they're going to make fact claims that have serious repercussions, I will ask the reasonable question if they can support it and if not, will they admit it's not a fact claim just an opinion claim.
This, too, is reasonable. Not mocking, not an attack. Just reasonable and godly.
"But we're not talking about "some degree of consequence," are we? We all agree that our actions have consequences and negative behavior can reasonably be punished as a matter of Justice. You understand that, right, we're all in agreement on that point right?"
Of course we're talking about degree, what else could there be? Since I think you took my quote out of context, it's hard to know what you agree with.
Since I was talking about consequences post death, I guess you'd have to be clear about whether you believe that the consequences of our actions extends beyond our earthly lifespan before I could hope to unpack the rest.
"The question then is will God punish for misdeeds in a manner that is far exceeding any reasonable notion of Justice or fairness? If someone commits 1000 minor sins in our life, the traditional Evangelical position is equivalent to the suggestion that God eats and rapes babies."
No, that's your question. It's not THE question. Since you've already categorically denied "eternal punishment", the question is whether or not you believe that there is ANY punishment after death. If you can't answer that yes or no, then it's pointless to go on.
Further, the reason I put the question in the terms I did was to prevent you from engaging in this sort of diversion.
Finally, this notion of fair and equal etc is YOUR subjective standard, you can't provide hard data, or any of the bullshit you want from others. So stop acting like your hunches are some sort of universally accepted truth.
"To punish someone with an eternity of torture for 1000 relatively minor sins, that is not Justice or fair. It is wildly unjust, similar to the suggestion that God might rape and then eat babies. Do you understand that point?"
I understand that you hold that hunch, but that you can't prove it. Therefore it's just a story that I'm going to be skeptical of until you can prove your hunch to be true.
"You do agree, don't you, that a punishment that is wildly disproportionate to the crime is not only not great... such a punishment would be an injustice itself?"
All in all an excellent job of diverting the discussion to a conversation that you abandoned (along with unanswered questions) in another thread.
What you've done is managed to avoid responding to the observation that scripture and Jesus teach that there is some degree of punishment for sin after death, and that it's 100% reasonable to draw that conclusion from scripture. Instead you've invoked raping babies (you have s strange affinity for using this vile example), as a way to avoid having to agree to the what I actually said.
..."same result except 1?"
I'm not sure what that even means. Like 10 people who were in the same room you flipped the same quarter and none of them had to come up heads and one had to come up tails? That would be unusual, but not Supernatural. I guess it would depend on what examples you're offering come up with the specifics of your story are.
Craig... "Why should I? There's absolutely nothing I could say that would convince you, why would I bother."
Facts would convince me. Supported data would convince me.
Why should you? To support your story. Why wouldn't you? If I had a Fantastical story to tell, you can bet I would tell it.
Again, I cannot tell you how much I would love to hear you support a story about a supernatural event. I love those sorts of stories and would love to be shown that one of them has data to support it.
I'm on your side on this.
Make your case. Present your evidence.
But if you're just going to tell me, well I knew a stranger once who had two arms and he told me that when he was born he had one arm and God or Allah or a unicorn grew back his other arm, I would be reasonably skeptical. Of course.
But if you give me reason to believe a story, I'll believe it. If you don't give me reasons, I won't. This is to be expected. It's just reasonable and godly, correct?
"Of course it's not. I'm not denying that there are scriptures that some people have taken to mean the God will send the majority of humanity to an eternity of torture for failing to repent in the correct way - or failing to be called by God in the first place - for their sins which could include even just one sin, according to the traditional evangelical traditions."
I see what you've done there. You realize that the actual point I made was something that it would be virtually impossible to disagree with, so you chose the straw man route as a way to avoid agreeing with the relatively uncontroversial claim that it's "reasonable to conclude that scripture and Jesus teach some level of punishment for sin after death. And you stretched that bullshit out for two comments. Your fear of agreeing with the notion of ANY punishment after death (hell, you've never been clear about what you think happens after death), leads you to flights of fancy and attributing vile actions to God.
"I'm not denying that there are passages that some human Traditions have interpreted that manner. But there are plenty of other passages that talk about the suggestion of no afterlife. The Bible has not spelled out with one clear message what eternity is like. I'm not denying there scriptures that some people read that way, but the question is are those readings and those traditions of Some Humans reasonable? Noting the reality that many people find such human Traditions to be irrational and unreasonable and even criminal, that would be up to you. And we objected those human interpretations not because we are opposed to Justice or to God but because we believe in God and Justice. You do recognize that, don't you? Or do you?"
Blah, blah, blah, it's all just too confusing to reach any conclusion except that there is absolutely, zero possible way that they could possibly be any eternal punishment in any way shape or form. I get that you're confused and overwhelmed by scripture and the very notion that it could disagree with you. The problem is that you went through three comments of complete bullshit, before you agreed with the very premise I put out there.
No wonder you're skeptical of people who tell stories they can't prove.
I'm done for the day, I seriously doubt I'll get the answers I'd like tomorrow. Just more bullshit.
"I'm sorry. We're talkin about flying unicorns and I'm astounded that some may disagree with a sweeping claim that they don't exist. And you find that to be a sign of hubris?"
No, ultimately we're talking about your inability to prove a claim you made. You're the one talking about unicorns, not I. Read the damn context.
"The hill you're going to die on his defense of flying unicorns? You want to accuse me of hubris about flying unicorns?"
No. More on the hill of you can't prove your claims. Context.
"Well color me proud if you must. I think this is a reasonable adult position to take. Not in the least proud. I mean, I wouldn't mock children for believing in flying unicorns, although I would still question them if they have any data to prove it perhaps."
Context.
Craig... "What you've done is managed to avoid responding to the observation that scripture and Jesus teach that there is some degree of punishment for sin after death..."
Dan... "We all agree that our actions have consequences and negative behavior can reasonably be punished as a matter of Justice."
I guess you missed it.
Or are you concerned about the "after death..." part?
Dan... "I'm not denying that there are scriptures that some people have taken to mean the God will send the majority of humanity to an eternity of torture for failing to repent in the correct way..."
I've responded to your tradition's theories. But have you responded to my tradition's reasonable and biblical concerns about your tradition's theories?
I don't think you have.
Craig... "I guess you think condescending is better than mocking."
What condescension? Asking people if they can support their claims and noting that it's reasonable to be skeptical if they can't prove their fact claims? Reasonable skepticism is not mocking or condescension. Are you condescending towards mormons in not believing their gold tablets story and, instead, being skeptical?
"But you are too. You've already said you would be skeptical of Mormon claims because it is your opinion that a lot of false claims have been made by Mormons. It's outside of your bubble, you don't believe it to be factually correct and you're skeptical other claims. I think rightly so."
No, I didn't say that. My response to a Mormon would be to take the results of my years of studies and walk them through all of the verifiabally false claims made by the church, and point them towards the resources to help them.
"There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. I'm not mean about it. I don't mock people for their positions. But being skeptical of Fantastical claims is not unreasonable. It's not ungodly. In fact, I'd say it is reasonable and godly. Do you disagree? If not, why are you giving me such grief for doing what is rational and godly?"
I'm not aware condescension is a fruit of the spirit? Nor have I ever seen anything in scripture that suggests that skepticism is the default position towards things of God.
"This, too, is reasonable. Not mocking, not an attack. Just reasonable and godly."
Given your history on mockery, vitriol, false claims, etc, if you choose to see yourself as "godly" you go right ahead.
Craig... "Since you've already categorically denied "eternal punishment", the question is whether or not you believe that there is ANY punishment after death."
I have zero data on what happens post death in regards to punishment for sins while living. Would you like me to offer my reasonable, reasoned guesses?
I think God is a just God and any punishment would be just, not unfairly disproportionate to any misdeeds. What does that look like specifically? No one living can say. But to suggest that one sin should and will be punished with an eternity of torture (if they don't repent in the right way) would be an attack on justice and a besmirching of God's name.
Craig... "What you've done is managed to avoid responding to the observation that scripture and Jesus teach that there is some degree of punishment for sin after death..."
That IS how some human traditions have interpreted the Bible.
"I'm not sure what that even means. Like 10 people who were in the same room you flipped the same quarter and none of them had to come up heads and one had to come up tails? That would be unusual, but not Supernatural. I guess it would depend on what examples you're offering come up with the specifics of your story are."
I'm asking you to answer a simple question. What is the ratio that would convince you that something was outside the bounds of normal? 10:1, 100:1, 1000:1, 100,000:1, 1,000,000:1 or more. It's pretty damn simple and I'm not sure why you can't just answer.
Craig... "Why should I? There's absolutely nothing I could say that would convince you, why would I bother."
"Facts would convince me. Supported data would convince me."
It hasn't before, why would I believe you now?
"Why should you? To support your story. Why wouldn't you? If I had a Fantastical story to tell, you can bet I would tell it."
I do tell it. I'm just heeding that whole pearls before swine admonishment.
"Again, I cannot tell you how much I would love to hear you support a story about a supernatural event. I love those sorts of stories and would love to be shown that one of them has data to support it."
Yet you can't answer two simple questions about what statistical probability would be convincing.
"I'm on your side on this."
Clearly, no you're not. Otherwise you would be arguing about stupid crap, and making things up.
"But if you're just going to tell me, well I knew a stranger once who had two arms and he told me that when he was born he had one arm and God or Allah or a unicorn grew back his other arm, I would be reasonably skeptical. Of course."
Nope, I'm talking about things I've seen, experienced, and that happened to immediate family members.
"But if you give me reason to believe a story, I'll believe it. If you don't give me reasons, I won't. This is to be expected. It's just reasonable and godly, correct?"
Again, I don't believe you. I have no reason to trust you. I can't remember an instance where you've taken "hard data" that disagrees with you and changed your tune.
Finally, because other people are involved, I have agreed with them that I won't share these things publicly. So stop begging, whinging, bitching, shaming and lying. This is a shitty medium to get into these sorts of detailed things, and I'm not going to go there.
Craig... "I'm not aware condescension is a fruit of the spirit?"
Also Craig... "I get that you're confused and overwhelmed by scripture and the very notion that it could disagree with you."
Mm hm.
Craig... "Nor have I ever seen anything in scripture that suggests that skepticism is the default position towards things of God."
You are skeptical/flat out don't believe the things of God, as taught by the mormons. You mean, I presume, the things of God THAT ALIGN WITH YOUR human traditions?
Probably me, too.
Craig... "What is the ratio that would convince you that something was outside the bounds of normal? 10:1, 100:1, 1000:1, 100,000:1, 1,000,000:1 or more. It's pretty damn simple and I'm not sure why you can't just answer."
Well because, there IS no one correct answer, is there?
The odds of you flipping a coin and it turning up heads is 50/50. For someone to flip heads 10 times in a row would be outside of normal. For it to happen 1000 times in a row would be difficult to explain and certainly outside the bounds of normal.
On the other hand, someone jumping 3 feet into the air is impressive but maybe not that far outside of normal. Someone jumping 10 times that is WAY outside the bounds of normal and difficult to explain.
Why?
Craig... " I don't believe you. I have no reason to trust you. I can't remember an instance where you've taken "hard data" that disagrees with you and changed your tune."
You also have no reason NOT to believe me. I've never mocked anyone for their stories. I've never told anyone their stories were not true. Certainly, I have not done that for you. What was it you said about my "default position" towards "things of God..."? As a Christian, a believer in God, one who seeks truth and justice, you have nothing but condescension and hostility towards "the things of God" in me. Perhaps consider softening your heart and just making your case/sharing your stories.
Consider: What if you tell me (I'll just make it up) you believe in supernatural intervention because you once had a dream where God appeared to you and said, "Don't drive on the highway tomorrow..." and you didn't, and sure enough, there was a big wreck on the highway... what would I do with your story? Would I make fun of it? No. Would I say you didn't dream it? No. Would I deny that an accident happened?
Would I say that the story is not, in and of itself, any kind of proof that God actually saved your life? Probably not, not in a conversation with you. But that story is not, in and of itself, proof of God's actual intervention. It's a story about a dream that is very impressive. But that's all it is, not proof. It's an impressive story.
I would not mock it or belittle it. If it was very meaningful to you and you were strongly attached to it, emotionally (as people often are with such stories), I would probably just acknowledge that, wow, what a cool story.
And I'm fine with that. I'm fine with the mystery of that, the unknown and unknowable quality of it all. On the one to one, that's all I'd do.
But, if we're moving from a personal interaction about a very cool dream/"vision," to the idea of Do we have authoritative, objective proof that God intervenes, that story just doesn't meet that level of intellectual consideration. It's a cool story, NOT objective fact.
I love mystery and believe in living in mystery and living into mystery. I believe that God is in the Mystery and the Unknown, and that's cool. But it's just not objective proof.
Right?
As to me changing my tune, present me with objective facts and I can change. Present me with cool stories and I will say how very cool a story that is.
Is that wrong?
""Headline... "Two GOP senators test positive for Covid-19, potentially jeopardizing Barrett confirmation vote" Hm! I guess God DOES actively intervene!""
This would only be true if one is suggesting that God wants us to suffer for some reason. However, given Barrett's reputation, it's not likely God would do anything to prevent her being seated on the Court. She's pretty much the very definition of what one hopes a Supreme Court Justice is, unlike the woman she's intended to replace, who in no way was.
"Let me ask you this about what if questions, what if God enjoys raping and then eating little babies? What is your answer to that question?"
My answer is that only a proven asshole would ask such a question. As you like to ask such questions as if their intelligent and somehow rational, you've proven yourself long ago.
"Attempting in their pathetic and impotent little manner to use God as a bully for their causes?"
How is this a reasonable thing to suggest? Those who see destructive forces as God's punishment are not pathetic for wondering about why people are experiencing such things. What a horrible thing to say about those who value God's will! You're free to disagree, but given the clear revelation of God's will in Scripture, together with the clear disregard of His will by so many...particularly lefties...it's a reasonable suspicion...provable or not.
Gotta go.
Wow! Dan's last dozen or so comments is like a "greatest hits" compilation! So many different ways to tap dance!
My favorite has to be his line about what constitutes fairness in God's eyes...what will make one deserving of and in line to experience His wrath. Dan goes on about "1000 minor sins". I doubt it would be difficult to find that most of us commit that many in span of only a month or two. Of course, Dan has assumed authority to dictate what is or isn't sinful, so the number's likely less for him and his "progressive" friends.
But Dan thinks any one of those minor sins must be also be minor to God as well. That is, because Dan rules a sin is minor, then by golly God must regard it as minor as well. If Dan's not offended by a sexual behavior, then by golly God has no business being offended by it, either. And that's really the crux of the entire conversation...what if your notion of justice is different than God's? What constitutes a just responses...or justice...is determined by the morality of a given behavior as per God's terms. Not ours. Dan rejects that, and there's no mistaking his rebellion on this issue. He states again and again that certain behaviors are no longer objectionable to God without any evidence from Scripture to back it up. He also suggests other behaviors are absolute horrors in God's eyes with the same lack of concrete evidence or "hard data".
So if one can't agree on what actually is or isn't sinful, much less how bad a sin a behavior might be, how can one dare to speak on the subject of God's justice?
A real world example of Dan's belief in his own authority on the subject of sin and justice is the tragedy that brought up all of this...the Breonna Taylor death. Dan demands justice for the woman through "just" punishment for the cops involved. Yet it requires a whole new definition of "murder" to suggest they're guilty of that crime. It requires a whole new definition for reckless endangerment, if all three are guilty of THAT crime. Because Dan didn't like the outcome of that event, he demands justice that isn't merited. And by golly, God better get with Dan's program or He's off Dan's Christmas card list.
Another perennial favorite is Dan citing other religions to determine the consistency of an opponent's position on a point of contention. Here, he uses Mormons, as if Mormons have any relevance to a Christian discussion. The variation on this ploy that is present above is his "many people don't believe", as if that somehow renders a point debunked in any way.
And then finally, all the wasted keystrokes due to Dan's deflection toward semantics, unicorns and other extreme (and extremely vile) analogies that don't make his point as much as demonstrate his own depravity.
All in just a few comments. What's missing are straight answers.
At church this morning we installed our new senior pastor and the service was filled with the language of the supernatural. Language of calling, leading, relying on, supporting, sustaining, worshiping, guiding etc. I came to a realization about this conversation.
I can choose to trust some relatively random guy on the internet who's quite insistent nt in telling others about what God can't/won't/doesn't do. Someone who starts from a place of skepticism and condescension. Who seems to think that a supernatural God won't/doesn't or can't act supernaturally.
Or.
I can trust what I've seen, what people who I know and trust have related to me, Scripture, and my congregation.
When I look at it that way, it's a pretty easy decision.
Dan wrote: Facts would convince me. Supported data would convince me.
Well as a matter of fact, every blog post on the many blogs he's posted comments on I have never seen him once accept facts, i.e. TRUTH, which went against his ideology.
I'm not going to waste a bunch of time so I'll summarize Dan's points.
Dan, "I acknowledge that it's reasonable to conclude that scripture does suggest punishment after death, but I'm not man enough to actually affirm or deny my beliefs about it." "I've told you that your tradition is wrong, although I haven't proven it. Why won't you address my hunches about the topic."
I've addressed you on this plenty, but if you'd like to enumerate specifically what your hunches are about the topic of what happens after death, I'll be glad to consider them.
"Or are you concerned about the "after death..." part?"
It's more that I'm curious why you thing answering part of the question is sufficient? Why you think that editing my words out of context and answering the parts that don;t scare you is such a problem.
"Craig... "What you've done is managed to avoid responding to the observation that scripture and Jesus teach that there is some degree of punishment for sin after death...""
"That IS how some human traditions have interpreted the Bible."
Look your avoiding it again. The question isn't about "some traditions, but about you clearly and unambiguously explaining your "tradition" and your hunches.
"You are skeptical/flat out don't believe the things of God, as taught by the mormons. You mean, I presume, the things of God THAT ALIGN WITH YOUR human traditions?"
No, I'm not skeptical, I've done quite a bit of research and with some refreshing of my studies, I'd be perfectly willing and able to discuss the factual, historical (and other) problems with Mormonism in a respectful and reasonable way.
"Probably me, too."
I get that you just can't bring yourself to say anything without leaving yourself a way to weasel out.
"Craig... "Since you've already categorically denied "eternal punishment", the question is whether or not you believe that there is ANY punishment after death."
"I have zero data on what happens post death in regards to punishment for sins while living. Would you like me to offer my reasonable, reasoned guesses?"
There are many things about which you have zero data yet aren't this hesitant to offer your claims about. So yes, since you've currently offered zero on the topic (beyond your assertion that eternal punishments is absolutely not within the realm of possibility), I'd say that something is better than the nothing you've offered so far.
"I think God is a just God and any punishment would be just, not unfairly disproportionate to any misdeeds. What does that look like specifically? No one living can say. But to suggest that one sin should and will be punished with an eternity of torture (if they don't repent in the right way) would be an attack on justice and a besmirching of God's name."
If that's supposed to be your answer, it's simply repeating the same unproven pablum you've dribbled out for ever, and completely dodges the question. The question is whether or not you believe that there are any consequences for sin that extend past death. Of course, as best I can recall, you've always dodged the whole what happens after death question anyway.
"Mm hm."
Not condescension, concern.
"Well because, there IS no one correct answer, is there?"
You'll note that I specifically didn't ask you for THE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT answer. I specifically asked what the ratio is that would convince you. But it's an excellent attempt at a dodge.
"The odds of you flipping a coin and it turning up heads is 50/50. For someone to flip heads 10 times in a row would be outside of normal. For it to happen 1000 times in a row would be difficult to explain and certainly outside the bounds of normal. On the other hand, someone jumping 3 feet into the air is impressive but maybe not that far outside of normal. Someone jumping 10 times that is WAY outside the bounds of normal and difficult to explain."
Those are both interesting anecdotes, yet neither actually provides even a remotely definitive answer to the question.
"Why?"
Why what? Why am I asking you what ratio you would consider as the tipping point? Because it's a reasonable question designed to see what data you would actually accept.
FYI a coin flip is not a 50/50 proposition.
It's interesting to see that your responses have grown shorter, more vague, and focused on more minor areas on the discussion, while avoiding some really specific direct questions asked in the hope of gaining some sense of what level of "data" you require before you accept something as a fact.
In the absence of your participation, I guess we'll never get that answer.
"You also have no reason NOT to believe me. I've never mocked anyone for their stories. I've never told anyone their stories were not true. Certainly, I have not done that for you. What was it you said about my "default position" towards "things of God..."? As a Christian, a believer in God, one who seeks truth and justice, you have nothing but condescension and hostility towards "the things of God" in me. Perhaps consider softening your heart and just making your case/sharing your stories."
Given your history of false claims, vitriolic attacks, refusal to accept evidence, expletive laced rants, and allowing others to use your blog to spread falsehoods, I have absolutely zero reason to trust you. Further, I've been clear. I don't share things that involve other people in public. I don't know you, don't trust you, and don't believe you.
"Consider: What if you tell me (I'll just make it up) you believe in supernatural intervention because you once had a dream where God appeared to you and said, "Don't drive on the highway tomorrow..." and you didn't, and sure enough, there was a big wreck on the highway... what would I do with your story? Would I make fun of it? No. Would I say you didn't dream it? No. Would I deny that an accident happened?"
I don't know and really don't care. Unfortunately for you, your previous actions have consequences, and one consequence is that you've forfeited any claim on my trust. Honestly, I suspect that you have absolutely zero idea how you'd react, and that you're just playing your same bullshit games.
"Would I say that the story is not, in and of itself, any kind of proof that God actually saved your life? Probably not, not in a conversation with you. But that story is not, in and of itself, proof of God's actual intervention. It's a story about a dream that is very impressive. But that's all it is, not proof. It's an impressive story."
Again, don't know, don't care.
"I would not mock it or belittle it. If it was very meaningful to you and you were strongly attached to it, emotionally (as people often are with such stories), I would probably just acknowledge that, wow, what a cool story."
Again, your past actions make me doubt this, and I have no desire to take the risk.
contd
'And I'm fine with that. I'm fine with the mystery of that, the unknown and unknowable quality of it all. On the one to one, that's all I'd do.'
Yet you can't forthrightly answer questions, you dodge and obfuscate, even this comment would seem more likely had you been honest, forthright, and clear about so many things, it might have changed my attitude. The fact that you probably think you have been all those things simply reinforces my conclusions based on you actions. Your actions and attitudes have cost you trust and credibility, and that's your choice. Empty words about what you might do are no substitute for the misrepresentations and other behaviors you've engaged in.
"But, if we're moving from a personal interaction about a very cool dream/"vision," to the idea of Do we have authoritative, objective proof that God intervenes, that story just doesn't meet that level of intellectual consideration. It's a cool story, NOT objective fact.
I love mystery and believe in living in mystery and living into mystery. I believe that God is in the Mystery and the Unknown, and that's cool. But it's just not objective proof."
"Right?"
More bullshit undermined by your actions.
"As to me changing my tune, present me with objective facts and I can change. Present me with cool stories and I will say how very cool a story that is. Is that wrong?"
I'm not sure if you can conceive of anything you do being wrong. In this case, it's a moot point. you've squandered whatever trust that might have existed by your actions.
It's about not casting pearls before swing at this point. Why would I waste my time pandering to your condescending skepticism, in a forum virtually guaranteed to communicate things of importance badly.
Answer, don't answer I don't care that much and can draw enough conclusions from your non answers at this point. But stop the faux humility and begging.
Glen,
I apologize. I was cleaning out the trash in my moderated comments and accidentally hit the wrong icon on yours. Please re comment and I’ll gladly fix my error.
Craig,
That's okay. I was just making a point that I've never seen Dan accept facts/truth on any of the comments he makes on the many blog posts of the several blogs I've seen him comment on. He only likes truth if it fits with his agenda; otherwise facts don't mean anything to him.
Even though I'm answering your questions as well as I can and you're largely not answering my questions, let me try this one more time. It appears you just are not understanding. Whether that's delivered or not, I don't know. You can tell me.
"What is the ratio that wou convince me something is outside the bounds of normal?"
ANYTHING that is outside the bounds of normal is outside the bounds of normal. One person flipping a coin and it coming up heads 10 times in a row, that's outside the bounds of normal. A little bit. Someone doing that 1000 times in a row would be way outside the bounds of normal.
With me so far? That is an answer to your question, right? I think it helps to deal with specific because the circumstances matter.
So if one person flipped a coin 100,000 times in a row and it came up heads 100,000 times that would be bizarrely beyond the bounds of normal. If someone flipped a coin and it remained floating in the air and never came down, that would be impossible. Not just beyond the bounds of normal, but impossible. Given normal gravity in a normal room and a normal coin, it is impossible. That's not beyond the bounds of normal, it's impossible.
Are you with me on that point so far?
Similarly, for someone to drown in a frozen lake and remain submerged for 30 minutes and then to be resuscitated is Way beyond the bounds of normal. I don't know how to put odds on that, one in a million?
But okay, things that are Way Beyond normal happen. Sometimes we just don't have explanations for it. I'm okay with that. It doesn't make it a miracle in the sense of God intervening and having put an air bubble around them or just directly bringing them back to life. But it is Way Beyond the bounds of normal and unexplainable.
But, someone losing an arm who had it blown off by a bomb and it was no longer existing. For that person to regrow an arm, that's not just beyond the bounds of normal, that's impossible. As we understand the world right now, such a thing is impossible.
I'm distinguishing between impossible and Way Beyond the bounds of normal. To your question... anything that is beyond the bounds of normal is beyond the bounds of normal. But that doesn't make it impossible.
I think what you're asking, you tell me, is what would it take for me to say something impossible happened even when it was impossible? ...Or really, I don't know what you're asking. My literal direct clear answer to that question is anything that is beyond the bounds of normal is beyond the bounds of normal. If it's not normal to flip a coin 10 times and have it turn up heads every time, then it is beyond the bounds of normal. That is my literal direct and clear answer to that question. What answer are you looking for? What is the point of the question? I can't answer it any better than that. But I am curious as to what you're trying to get to with this question.
Glenn... " I was just making a point that I've never seen Dan accept facts/truth on any of the comments..."
Of course, one fact that we know is that Glenn cannot support this claim. He can't point to a place where he showed me some facts and I refused to accept those facts. If he can, all he has to do is do so and I will have no choice but to admit I was mistaken. Then I could apologize.
But he can't do so and won't even try to do so because he can't.
The question then is, whether he will admit he can't do so and apologize for making such a false claim? Or whether he'll double down on making the false claim and stand by it.
The problem with Glenn's false claims is much like with Marshal's false claims. He points to some belief that he holds in his head and he confuses that belief with a fact. Then when I disagree with his opinions, he thinks I've disagreed with facts. But disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as disagreeing with facts.
When Glenn opts out of even trying to support his false claim, we will all see the false claim for what it is.
"What answer are you looking for?"
As the question stated, I'm looking for the ration that you would accept as being far enough beyond the realm of probability as to be functionally impossible. It's not that hard, it's simply trying to get a measure of one possible (reasonably) objective measure of evidence.
"What is the point of the question?"
The point of the question is simple. There is a point in statistics where the ratio tells us that something is effectively impossible. What I'm hoping for is your take on what the ratio is.
For example. Some would argue that an event that has a 1:10 to the 40th power chance of happening, is something they'd accept as a reasonable probability. Personally when you get into numbers with more that 8 or 9 zeros you lose me, but that's just me. I'm trying to get you to answer. Or put another way, if 99.9% of an activity ended up with the same result, I'd tend to say that any other result was functionally impossible, but again that's me. Is it really so hard to simply provide the specific ratio that you you believe is the cut off for functionally impossible.
"I can't answer it any better than that. But I am curious as to what you're trying to get to with this question."
Clearly you believe the first sentence, although I really think you can come up with a ratio that works you're comfortable with. Clearly you are curious enough to ask virtually the same question twice without giving me a chance to answer it.
I've answered multitudes of your questions, although I may not have answered the repeats of the same question every time you've repeated it. I've further responded to multitudes of additional questions by pointing out problems with the question or it's premise, or by seeking clarification. I've further, pointed out that some of your questions are stupid, pointless, or not worth answering. If there are any that I've totally ignored, point them out. If there are any that you've provided the clarification for that I've missed point them out. I'm categorically not going to answer questions based on false premises, nor should I.
You've ignored at least two very specific and (IMO) critical questions that I can recall off the top of my head, but you do you.
Glenn,
While I wouldn't say never, I'd agree that Dan is unlikely to accept facts/truth or "data" if it contradicts his hunches. I quite clearly remember an instance where he was insistent that he was more correct on a medical issue that actual medical doctors.
Is this what you're asking me:
How impossible - how far outside the bounds of normal - does something have to be for me to accept that it is a miracle from God?
If so, please try to understand the problem this question posed for the rationale skeptic, whether they are a believer in God or not. There are all manner of unlikely things that can happen that may be entirely unexplainable with the data that we have on hand. That does not push me automatically to assume some Supernatural intervention. I can live entirely comfortably with mystery and the unknown.
Dan,
A couple of points.
1. If you are going to offer, and expect others to accept, your anecdotal and personal experience as evidence than you should do the same to others.
2. I remember at least two very specific instances where I offered you multiple examples of actual medical doctors, peer reviewed studies, and more where you failed to accept those as evidence regarding a claim you made about a medical issue. Wile I could invest hours and days digging through old blog posts to "prove" my memory is correct, it's unlikely I will. Further, I'm not going to open this to any discussion of what on this thread. You've already pushed things far enough away from the topic.
3. It's unlikely that you realize it, but you've quite clearly mad a claim about Glenn, that you haven't proven.
4. I'll allow Glenn one more response to this and delete any further comments on this diversion.
"How impossible - how far outside the bounds of normal - does something have to be for me to accept that it is a miracle from God?"
"Is this what you're asking me."
No it's not. I was quite clear that I am asking you what the ratio is for something to be functionally or practically impossible.
"If so, please try to understand the problem this question posed for the rationale skeptic, whether they are a believer in God or not."
Since it's not, I have no reason to be concerned by the implication of a question I didn't ask. I suspect the problem is that you don't want to simply answer the question as asked. You somehow need to move beyond the question as asked and try to ferret out the possible implications of answering the question as asked, and try to defend against things you've imagined that I might say.
"There are all manner of unlikely things that can happen that may be entirely unexplainable with the data that we have on hand."
Yes there are, and I'm trying to understand the point that you move from unlikely to functionally/practically impossible. I'm sorry this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.
"That does not push me automatically to assume some Supernatural intervention."
No, but a simple question clearly pushed you automatically to assume something that I haven't said, and to defend that imaginary position. When you start to respond based on your assumptions, filtered through your prejudice, you will likely end up coming to the wrong conclusion.
"I can live entirely comfortably with mystery and the unknown."
Yipee. It's almost like you'd default to mystery and unknown that to even entertain the possibility of God intervening.
Look, if these simple direct questions are too difficult for you to answer without putting aside your assumptions, then just say so and stop all the bullshit. I have no need or desire to wade through your assumptions and straw men if you can't set them aside. So. please if all you have is more of this crap, just don't waste my time.
Craig... "There is a point in statistics where the ratio tells us that something is effectively impossible..."
Well, I'm not familiar with that and I suspect it really depends on the topic/subject matter. Flipping a coin heads up 10,000 times in a row is probably statistically impossible, but it's certainly impossible to flip a coin and have it remain floating in the air even ONE time, right?
That's why the question as it is is not answerable as far as I can tell. It depends on the circumstances.
Craig... "please if all you have is more of this crap, just don't waste my time."
So, if your question is confusing, irrational or unanswerable to me, I should just remain quiet? But then, you'll complain that I didn't answer.
Are you trying to set up a no win question for me?
Look, I get it. You can't/don't want to/won't answer the question. Thank you for the attempts and for acknowledging that you won't accept evidence based on the science of statistical probability.
What's interesting is that you literally answered the question in your example. You could quibble about 1:10K or 1:100K, but you just acknowledged exactly what I've been trying to get from you.
I just deleted more clarification, because I realize that I just don't give a rat's ass about trying to pull answers out of you. I understand that you worship mystery and that you're fine worshiping mystery.
Just one more reason why I wouldn't share my experiences with you.
Here is "Dr Math's" answer to your question...
"Thanks for writing to Doctor Math. An event is impossible when its probability is zero. If the probability is greater than zero then it might occur.
Here is an important point about probability. If there are enough possible events with very low probability then it is likely that at least some of them will occur. Or, if an event with low probability is given a large number of opportunities, then its chance of happening at some time may be quite large. What would be really unusual is if nothing unusual ever happened."
Craig,
I said I've never SEEN Dan accept facts/truth on any of the comments, etc, not that he never has accepted said facts. I'll grant it is possible, though from my experience with him it would be a rare occasion.
Dan,
Well, would you really expect me to make a collection of your foolish claims over the years from the several blogs I've seen you on? Without collection such things of course I can offer no proof. However, my person interaction with you via email a few years back, and on my blog (from which you ended up being banned) you never accept the facts, the truth, of what the Bible says about homosexuality. You just say it is MY interpretation and that you have a different interpretation, etc; the same conversation you've had with Craig, Art, and if I remember correctly Stan also.
Craig, I have no further to add. I just wanted to make that point about Dan refusing to accept facts that don't agree with his agenda.
"So, if your question is confusing, irrational or unanswerable to me, I should just remain quiet?"
No, by all means ask questions as simply, concisely, and without basing them on assumptions as you'd like.
"But then, you'll complain that I didn't answer."
Yet, strangely, I answer your questions, seek clarification, and respond to them, and you bitch that I don't answer. Answer, don't answer, that's up to you. I'm just sick of the bullshit based on your going off on tangents, making up questions that I didn't ask and bitching that you can't answer them, and throwing out mounds of bullshit where you follow yourself down a rabbit hole. Just try to keep things simple, concise, and limited to the questions I asked. Also, when you take things like this out of context, it doesn't help. The quote was, if I remember, in the context of you making up a question, and pretending as if I'd asked the question.
"Are you trying to set up a no win question for me?"
Virtually every interaction with you has a significant probability of being no win.
Glenn,
That's my experience as well. It's not that I can't waste hours providing "data", it's that I know it would be a waster of time.
Dan,
Thank you ever so much for such an excellent demonstration of a couple of points I've been making.
1. You could have done your little Google search dozens of comments ago and saved both of us time and effort.
2. I specifically used the term "functionally or practically" impossible. What you've done is once again, answered a question that is slightly different that the one I actually asked.
Now, if you're really sure that you are sticking with "Dr Maths", then you just (effectively) categorically denied that possibility of any supernatural events, which is essentially the question I've been trying to get you to answer for days.
Good lord, how much time your bullshit wastes.
Glenn,
If you want to chime in on the topic, I'd welcome that. If not, I'll be deleting any further comments on this digression.
Craig... ". Thank you for the attempts and for acknowledging that you won't accept evidence based on the science of statistical probability."
Stupidly false claim, as I never said that.
Craig... "Virtually every interaction with you has a significant probability of being no win."
Actually, if you're going to make a fact claim that God has, for instance, intervene super naturally to change an election or stop a bad guy, Etc, all you have to do to win the support that plane with data. With facts. Not just the story come out of the story may be wonderful. But the story does not make a fact claim.
It sounds like this comes down to, y'all have these stories that you believe happened and that you believe signify something that you can't prove. And because you believe it represents something, you think it's a fact. But your feeling or understanding about something that is unexplained or unknown does not equate to being a fact.
If you have a story of witnessing a man regrowing an arm, for instance, that is a claim. But it's not a fact claim that is objectively provable... Not in and of itself.
However, if you can go on live TV and show a man regrowing an arm, and the experience can be replicated, then it is an objectively provable fact claim.
You can "win" in conversations with me by supporting your fact claims with something that's objectively provable. Or I just admitting that, you can't prove it objectively. That too would be winning, because it would be honest.
What's hard to understand about that?
Really, I've been trying to get you to establish whether you would and what level of statistical probability you would accept for days, and you just respond with the fact that anything less than 100% isn't enough. My bad.
"Actually, if you're going to make a fact claim that God has, for instance, intervene super naturally to change an election or stop a bad guy, Etc, all you have to do to win the support that plane with data. With facts. Not just the story come out of the story may be wonderful. But the story does not make a fact claim."
Actually, if you're going to base everything you say and do on your misinterpretations of what I said, rather than what I actually said, then I'm right. Trying to respond to your fantasies, and assumptions is a no win situation. There's no evidence I can produce to prove something that I didn't say, and nothing I can do to get you to let go of your assumptions and straw men and deal with what I actually did say.
"It sounds like this comes down to, y'all have these stories that you believe happened and that you believe signify something that you can't prove. And because you believe it represents something, you think it's a fact. But your feeling or understanding about something that is unexplained or unknown does not equate to being a fact.
If you have a story of witnessing a man regrowing an arm, for instance, that is a claim. But it's not a fact claim that is objectively provable... Not in and of itself.
However, if you can go on live TV and show a man regrowing an arm, and the experience can be replicated, then it is an objectively provable fact claim.
You can "win" in conversations with me by supporting your fact claims with something that's objectively provable. Or I just admitting that, you can't prove it objectively. That too would be winning, because it would be honest.
What's hard to understand about that?"
Absolutely nothing. Apparently what's hard is pointing out that you're arguing against a made up version of what your prejudices tell you I said, rather that what I actually said.
You've spent God knows how many comments trying to avoid even the possibility of agreement on ONE possible standard of evidence, but your keep spinning these stories about "fact claims" that I haven't made. Seriously, arguing against things you've made up, is the definition of no win.
The fact that you can't point to any of these alleged "fact claims" just makes your bitching about it all the more amusing.
Craig... "if you're going to base everything you say and do on your misinterpretations of what I said, rather than what I actually said, then I'm right. Trying to respond to your fantasies, and assumptions is a no win..."
We simultaneously appear to want to claim that you have data to support the claim that God supernaturally intervenes, but you won't provide any support for it. Since you won't provide everything, I'm left with taking guesses. Feel free to provide some sort of claim. It doesn't have to be your own. Just something to indicate what you're talkin about. We need some actual grounding in reality on what you're talking about if you want to have a rational conversation.
Of course since I’ve never made the claim you say I have, and you’ve based days worth of comments and questions, that could be part of the problem. Why don’t I step out and you just argue both sides, you essentially already are.
https://crossexamined.org/the-arising-of-our-universe-design-or-chance/
Here's an interesting blog post that gets into the topic of statistical probabilities and the point at which the chance of happening is, for all practical purposes, zero.
It points out the reality that if you apply an infinite time period to any set of statistical probabilities that the probabilities increase. Yet which of us really live in a world of infinite time? In reality, I'd suggest that we all measure probability in terms of our lives and the generation on either side of us. That anything that happens outside of that span would be considered (in a functional sense) impossible by most.
Post a Comment