Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
Are you attempting to "bait" or "troll" me?! Are you sincerely saying that you don't already know and couldn't easily recognize an "extraordinary claim," and don't already have a good idea of what "extraordinary evidence" you would require in the face of such a claim?!
ANSWER: The same kind of qualities displayed by the accompanying claim.
As my tag-line states: If the claim is extraordinary (= displays the earmarks of being extraordinary, as opposed to being banal, obvious, and/or quotidian), then the accompanying evidence should be of the same caliber.
Example:
At a coffee-shop in Berkeley, you bump into a long-time acquaintance, whom you know to be of sound judgement and good repute, who says, "While recently walking through Union Square, in downtown San Francisco, I accidentally stepped into what appeared to be human fecal matter."
That is NOT an "extraordinary" claim, is it? Which is why you probably wouldn't evince extreme doubt and dismay, say that it was astounding. You wouldn't immediately express great skepticism, and demand photographic evidence, a DNA test of your friend (after all: He might be an imposter!), the sworn testimony of three reputable eye-witnesses, would you?
But now suppose that you discovered, at a flea market / swap meet, a clay tablet, purporting to date back to approx. 300 B.C. (it mentions various kings and such from that era, and identifies them as still living), inscribed with a story, in Attic Greek, of how the author undertook a journey to the Moon - say, on the back of a great eagle. In his narrative, the author claims to have actually met the King of the Moon, etc., and describes in detail the lunar flora and fauna, the workings of the lunar society, etc.
I think that you now realize that you already knew what is meant by "extraordinary claims." And that you likewise now realize that you already knew what kind of supporting evidence you would demand before accepting the veracity of the clay tablet.
Regards,
But it does NOT follow that we HAVE to accept as TRUE unsupported accounts from disreputable or disputed sources, that were written by semi-literate Bronze Age tribesmen, and have been handed down and successively corrupted (through repeated mistranslation, heavy EDITING, "corrections" and "amendments" required by Councils with ulterior political motives, etc.) through the centuries, does it?
Otherwise, you'd believe in the Bhagavad-Gita, wouldn't you?
Or the Book of Mormon?
Or...
Regards,
"Saviour" = one who rescues, redeems, or saves another.
I don't understand your juxtaposing the English word "Saviour" with "connaître" (and as for your autocomplete: Just use the d*mn circumflex key on your keyboard already! And if it's not on your keyboard - then use your library of special symbols!).
Unless you actually meant the French verb "savoir."
If so: Would you please complete your thought? I don't discern your point.
No need to be coy, and speak in vague terms, like a fortune cookie! Spell it out!
What does your juxtaposition of these two words have to do with my post #199?
In the past, your comments have been consistently insightful, and pertinent - but here, I'm not following you.
Regards,
Yeah! Kinda like I was directly citing / making a literal call-back to that story, huh? Imagine that!
...which kind of leads back to "I Am" and to the end of C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces : "You, Lord, are the answer."
I thought that Douglas Adams had already established that the answer is "42?"
A sententious pronouncement like "You, Lord, are the answer" may initially sound very profound and significant - but is hardly useful when trying to untangle difficult philosophical problems, when attempting to improve the quality of human life, or when designing a microchip.
Regards,
I think that sit-rep's point was that there is frequently NO SUFFERING imposed when disobeying basic Biblical laws. Many, indeed, get off scot-free (as far as we can determine).
IN CONTRAST: When it comes to violating objectively true laws - like the Law of Acceleration, or Ohm's Law - the world is, indeed, a North Korea! If you jump out of a 9-storey building, the punishment is not long in coming. If you grasp a high-voltage line, you don't have to "trust" that you will "eventually" (at some later point in time) experience the consequences!
If only a Just God would do the same re. violations of His Biblical Law! If only He would institute a cosmic North Korea, here and now!
And if his Divine Justice were to demand that all of Humanity be immediately obliterated: BRING IT ON!
I hate this "pussyfooting around."
Regards,
Maybe sit-rep was stating that, because God doesn't fix things, this implies that there is no God.
Because if God existed, then He would fix things. He would not tolerate Injustice.
Regards,
Never said that Man was guiltless, and/or was unable to remediate, slightly, some of the effects of Man's unwise choices. Or that Man shouldn't, ideally, abstain from willfully committing evil acts.
RATHER, I referenced supernovas causing Mass Extinctions, sunspots, etc.
Man has no means to adequately counteract such effects. Man a thousand years ago certainly did not have the means.
You are constantly diverting via "Tu quoque!" Let's stick with the question at hand: No one here disputes that humans are faulty, and often make bad decisions, and cause suffering. Rather, we discussing the Evil that God tacitly allows, does not immediately avert, needlessly permits. Mass Extinctions, volcanic eruptions wiping out entire civilizations, etc.
How do you explain them away?
SPECIFICALLY: How would it impair Man's "Free Will" if such natural catastrophes were simply not allowed?
Regards,
Well forgive me for attempting to make some sense of the blatantly immoral behavior of your supposedly all-merciful, all-just, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator!
Forgive me for trying to bring the crazy, mixed-up Theology you have contrived on the basis of patched-up Bronze Age fragmentary documents written by primitive, nomadic tribesmen into alignment with something resembling a self-consistent Morality.
YES, THE POT DOES QUESTION THE POTTER!
And who is to blame for that? It is in the very nature of the pot to question everything - esp. the Potter! Who put that nature there, I wonder?
Regards,
Straw Man Fallacy!
The atheist's position is, rather: I'm still waiting for adequate evidence and compelling arguments. In lieu of such, I will not embrace your position.
That's all: I will not embrace!
It's not actually a "position," at all! The atheist does NOT claim, "You are wrong, but I know the Truth!"
Rather, the atheist merely observes that your arguments are insufficient.
He makes no counter-claims. You are therefore not entitled to demand that the atheist provide a counter-explanation.
NOTE: Someone who claims that he knows how the Universe was instead formed, etc. - is MORE than simply an atheist. An atheist need not believe in the "Big Bang", for instance. The bare-bones definition of an atheist is: One who is unconvinced by your paltry, inconsistent, and often patently ridiculous "evidence."
Regards,
Be careful! Don't all into their trap!
By limiting the question to "cancer, innocent sick babies, etc.," you are playing into their deception. (They'll namely counter with: Sickness is often the result of bad behavior. Or: Man should develop medicine! Or: Suffering helps us take stock of our own shortcomings / recognize God's mercifulness!)
Stick, instead, to natural catastrophes. Supernovae! Massive volcanic eruptions wiping out entire civilizations!
Regards,
You petered out just as it was getting really interesting!
Please continue!
So, in reality, the purpose/goal of Theology TODAY should be recognized as...?
HINT: If it ain't to improve our lives, eliminate suffering, etc. - it ain't worth jack.
Regards,
Tell that to the poor child dying in a Concentration Camp!
Regards,
In what way is your "faith" (as you define it) superior to "knowledge based upon compelling logic, expert testimony, forensic-level evidence, the evidence of my five senses?"
I'm not saying that your faith is absolutely worthless - I'm saying that CERTAINTY if preferable.
Regards,
Bunch of ideologies in a Petrie dish?
he knew what I was saying all along.
thanks for voicing in... being that articulate is something I havnt quite grasped in my life!
But what you are stating is exaclty my point...
Objection, Your Honor!
Unnecessarily introducing additional terms - even SYNONYMS, if not everyone is "onboard" with them - or controversies only muddies the water and impairs the discussion!
The participants, so far, have more or less explicitly or tacitly RESOLVED that the concept of "God" pertains to an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent supreme being. (The original essay as much as established this basis.)
The OP then posited the query: How can God allow Evil / why doesn't He stop it from happening.
By introducing additional concepts or "buzzwords" (since "omnibenevolent" already more or less encompasses "love"), you distract and delay. It is as if you were to suddenly volunteer, "Well, God is also MALE." That may or may not be true - but all that will do is unnecessarily confuse things and introduce more controversy into the discussion at hand.
So, PLEASE: No unnecessary proliferation of terms!
Regards,
"Needlessly permits?" With mass extinctions being unrelated to man's choices? You are constantly engaging in an argument from omniscience, as if exceedingly rare mass extinctions, volcanic eruptions wiping out entire civilizations, cannot be a judgment due to sin (the Flood, Pompeii) by an omniscient being who knows every action of man, and his motives, and every single effect of man's actions, as well as His own.
But that you, as a exceedingly finite very ignorant speck in this universe, and in time, knows that these exceedingly rare extinctions are needlessly permitted, even as allowed or sent by Being in the light of all that can be known?
Rather than a moral argument against God, that fact that man, who was given good things and good laws, with the norm being that people eat and drink, have sex and families, see sunsets, etc.
with attributes that give him dominance above all other earthly creature, and suffer as a result - direct and indirect - of the disobedience of man,
breaking God's good laws, beginning with man's basic innate sense of right and wrong, and corrupt conscience, and misusing the good things God gave and gives, perverting or abusing such, making a mess of society as well as the world,
has not suffered a mass extinction (which by man's own actions he is now able to inflict upon himself), is a testimony to God's long-suffering.
You want an earthly paradise with no such judgments? That is a reality that only results for those who ultimately manifest they want the Light over the Darkness, God over sin, by His grace.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)
You mean no immediate slapping down, or manifestly negative effects. Likewise, positive effects of obedience are often not immediately manifest. Which means that once again, on one hand the atheist charges God for the evils resulting from man's disobedience to God, from conscience to express revelation, and then finds fault when He does manifest judgment.
IN CONTRAST: When it comes to violating objectively true laws - like the Law of Acceleration, or Ohm's Law - the world is, indeed, a North Korea! If you jump out of a 9-storey building, the punishment is not long in coming. If you grasp a high-voltage line, you don't have to "trust" that you will "eventually" (at some later point in time) experience the consequences!
That is a real jump of equivalence. If only a Just God would do the same re. violations of His Biblical Law! If only He would institute a cosmic North Korea, here and now! And if his Divine Justice were to demand that all of Humanity be immediately obliterated: BRING IT ON! I hate this "pussyfooting around.
Which once again, presumes that an omniscient omnipotent being has no purpose in providing man with good things and good laws, and with the ability to make choices, and alternatives to choose btwn, and affect others thereby, directly and indirectly, thus revealing what they want, and making all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as with mercy and grace toward those who choose the Good, God over sin, the mercy of God in Christ.
A typical problem with arguments of atheists is that they want to morally argue against the God of the Bible while rejecting attributes of God and what is says as regards the scope of His operation, as if He was ignorant like them, and they were omniscient as God, and thus assert that God "needlessly permits" rare mass extinctions.
Sometimes it’s a curse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.