Man and all his activities has absolutely no effect on plate tectonics. It's called kinetic energy. It's science.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
adamah
Cofty said-
The summary is fair and balanced.
Are you actually resorting to the old fallacy, "appeal to Fox News slogan" as if it'll be persuasive?
Flamegrilled said- No it doesn't. You can dismiss the pet analogy all you like, but the fact remains that we CAN conceive of a circumstance whereby it seems irrational to reconcile the loving nature of a higher being from the viewpoint of a being that has more limited ability to assess the true facts. If we CAN conceive of such a situation then we cannot dismiss that such a thing is occurring in our case. If we cannot dismiss it, then we cannot say that any form of human suffering ("natural evil" as you call it, or otherwise) proves a fatal flaw in theistic belief.
Yep.
Hell, we don't even have to use a pet analogy: having treated many human infants and small children over my career, I know first-hand that even human children and infants will bite, kick, scream, cry, and struggle as if their lives depending on fighting off the attempts of the doctor, staff (and even their own mother) to treat them, since they truly don't understand the concept of the a "higher-being" (AKA adults) inflicting short-term pain that possibly could lead to some greater long-term benefit. Of course, the Bible primes believers for such thinking by referring to them as "children", eg the CHILDREN of Israel.
So whether you poo-pooh it as illogical or not, the whole "God's ways are mysterious, and beyond us" IS one of the primary methods used within the Bible itself to address the problem of 'natural evil', and it apparently must not be such a problem for theists, since 85% of the World's populace professes a belief in God. It's only a problem for those who are dogmatically set in their beliefs, and refuse to see the big picture of a belief system that is self-supported by such psychological manipulations.
It's actually a GREAT example of circular logic in action, since it starts with the person accepting the unsupported premise of belief in an God (for which absolutely no evidence exists), adding in the premise of this God being greater than we can possibly comprehend, and then appealing to that ineffability whenever a natural disaster arises that challenges that belief in a God.
Logically, it IS a valid argument, only it's a circular argument, since it relies on accepting the first unsupported premise of God's existence, based on faith, alone (faith being the super-glue that holds it all together).
You cannot defeat theism with logic by challenging the pieces separately as if they operate in isolation from each other, since as I said, it's called a BELIEF SYSTEM, one that is irreducably-complex and self-repairing, and ultimately is held together not by relying on LOGIC, but FAITH (a polite way of saying 'dogmatic thinking', i.e. belief in what we WANT to believe, where the more-intelligent ones will engage in much-more elaborate post-hoc rationalizations in order to justify those beliefs).
That's exactly WHY the Bible goes on-and-on constantly about the importance of faith, and makes faith such a virtue, a trait which is the key to one's salvation: it's the glue that holds it all together, and if you're willing to accept ANY premises on faith, there's literally NO idea so illogical and outrageous that you will not believe it.
Adam
-
flamegrilled
Flamegrilled you have just hit bedrock of willful stupidity. I am embarrassed for you.
When comments like this are made with no reference to what was said, or no further argument, I can only assume that there is no further argument and an insult will have to do instead.
-
adamah
Cofty said- Humans have had absolutely zero influence on plate tectonics.
You might want to check those "facts" before you spout off as an expert, Cofty, as you're just flat-out wrong, and you don't get to make up your own facts (you should be embarrassed):
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worst-earthquakes-disasters-gas-extraction-mining-oil-528373
It's called 'induced seismicity', and it's a problem in the States from oil-well drilling (esp with use of fracking techniques).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity
Adam
-
flamegrilled
adamah - some of what you say may be true, but to address it we would have to turn this into a discussion about the existence of God. And Cofty is quite firm that this is not about that. He simply wishes to assert that the tsunami is a defeat to the viewpoint of a Christian theist, but logically speaking there is no reason to make that conclusion.
-
Viviane
Since when is the definition of impotent "a being who is not omnipotent"?
It's not. I used it to mean what it means, not the opposite of omnipotent.
Viviane - please point to where I described either God's ignorance, or His impotence.
Yes. You are assuming that all other variables that we observe are exactly what God (if he exists) intended. If God lacks te power to make happen what he wants to, then he is impotent.
An assertion which you have no possible way to support.
There are millions of years of geologic evidence to support Cofty's position, predating the "fall of man", so even the "cursed is the ground" thing doesn't work here.
Ooops, I just learned something from Adamah's link.
-
flamegrilled
Well Cofty scores high on the chart for making assertions and throwing insults. Not so much on logical debate though.
-
flamegrilled
Yes. You are assuming that all other variables that we observe are exactly what God (if he exists) intended. If God lacks te power to make happen what he wants to, then he is impotent. Viviane
I didn't say he lacks the power. You somehow inferred that, but I didn't say it.
-
adamah
Flamegrilled said-
some of what you say may be true, but to address it we would have to turn this into a discussion about the existence of God. And Cofty is quite firm that this is not about that. He simply wishes to assert that the tsunami is a defeat to the viewpoint of a Christian theist, but logically speaking there is no reason to make that conclusion.
No, you don't.
I made it about God to demonstrate how the belief system operates as a system within theology, but the argument of appealing to mysterious ways of some "higher beings" (i.e. doctor from the viewpoint of a child) IS valid, and works when taken out of the loop.
However, it IS used to justify a belief in God, in the face of 'natural evil' (it's actually used along with the 'benign neglect' theodicy I mentioned before), but it rests on the questionable premise of the existence of God who IS a "higher power", a belief which requires FAITH.
Adam
-
Viviane
You did say it, just like you are making the "it's a mystery" argument. Both times you are describing something perfectly and then refusing to admit what you are describing.
As far as saying Cofty doesn't understand logic, that's funny coming from a person that thought people were using impotent as an antonym for omnipotent.