Saturday, 21 February 2009

Picking Apart The Arguments Of Theists

1. God didn't know that adam and eve would eat the fruit. He knows the future only if he wants to. Why would god test Abraham if he already knew that he'd pass? Why put the tree in the first place if he knew they'd fail?

2. Don't blame God for what satan did. Satan, as the serpent, was sitting on the tree. He ate the fruit. What did eve expect to happen? The snake to die, right? Well he didn't, he started talking. Eve, with her inexperience with talking animals, probably had a lot of questions to ask this creature, and the rest, as they say is history.

By doing this, satan called into question god's authority. This is not a Monarchy, so God does not immediately kill whoever questions his authority. So now the choice is ours. Be faithful to god, or be destroyed with the rebels.

3. The fruit did not actually make them like God, they only knew sin, which they would be better off not knowing.

4.Hell does not exist. This is a church teaching, not the bible's teaching

OrangeWIZARD



This seriously makes me want to head-desk >>


God didn't know that adam and eve would eat the fruit.
If God didn't know that Adam and Eve were going to eat that fruit - it proves He's not Omniscient. To be Omniscient is to 'have all knowledge' and God obviously doesn't 'have all knowledge' if He didn't know Adam and Eve were going to 'fall'.

He knows the future only if he wants to.
Apparently this guy knows how God works. Does he have a direct link, d'you think? Anyway, you either 'have all knowledge' or you don't. There's no turning it on and off like a light-switch.

Why would god test Abraham if he already knew that he'd pass?
This is an illogical question, because he already asserted that God didn't know Abraham would pass. Anyway, even if He did, if He didn't do the testing, then He would have false knowledge of the future - thus proving He's not Omniscient once again. And also, not God.

Oh - and the story of Abraham and his son is very telling by the way. God apparently was well known for asking for Blood Sacrifices - otherwise, Abraham would have said 'No - you are a False God, MY God wouldn't ask for a blood sacrifice'.

But Abraham didn't see anything wrong with his God asking him to kill his own child - so obviously, God must have done it a few times before (and in point of fact, Cain and Abel prove it - Genesis 4:4 And Abel, he also brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. God liked the animal sacrifice Abel gave him.)

Why put the tree in the first place if he knew they'd fail?
Why indeed? But then, if He knew they would eat the fruit and he DIDN'T put the tree there, He would negate the future He's supposed to know. It's all a bit circular really. That's only one of the problems with knowing the future. But again, this guy already asserted He's not Omniscient, so it's a silly question.

Don't blame God for what satan did.
Why not? God made Satan, didn't He? Satan used to be an angel - and presumably still is. Anyway, it's back to that Omniscient thing again - if God is Omniscient, (and this guy already asserted that He's not...) then He knew Satan/Lucifer would defy Him and that He would throw him from His presence. If God didn't throw Satan/Lucifer from His presence, then we'd obviously have no Satan/Lucifer/Devil to blame all the ills of the world on. Then where would we be?

Satan, as the serpent, was sitting on the tree. He ate the fruit. What did eve expect to happen? The snake to die, right? Well he didn't, he started talking.
I just checked my Bible and it doesn't say anything about the Serpent eating the fruit first and then talking. Maybe this guy has a different version - I mean, the thing's certainly been edited, re-written and edited some more, enough times that no-one really knows what the original said anyway.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This is not a Monarchy, so God does not immediately kill whoever questions his authority.
I'll gladly dispute this one - Lot's wife, anyone? All she did was look over her shoulder and He turned her into a pillar of salt.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Very nice of Him, if you ask me.

So now the choice is ours.
The whole 'Free Will' thing again negates God's Omniscience.

If He '[has] all knowledge', then He obviously knows exactly what we're all going to do when, how and why. Which means it's all already set in stone - because you can't 'have all knowledge' and then change your mind later - and we have no choice but to do precisely what He already knows we are going to do.

So, if we have Free will, He isn't Omniscient - if He's Omniscient, we don't have Free Will. You can't both have your cake AND eat it - in cases like this, it's one or the other, not both.

However, this guy already asserted that He isn't Omniscient - and not being Omniscient means He ain't no God. Or certainly, not the God that the Bible describes. Bit contradictory, that.

The fruit did not actually make them like God, they only knew sin, which they would be better off not knowing.
Ooh, fun interpretation time! Everyone has a different one, and this guy's no exception. Let's see what the actual text says.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 3:5 ...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

That doesn't say anything about knowing 'sin'. All it says is that they will lose their innocence. My personal interpretation (and I'm allowed, because, y'know, EVERYONE has their own interpretations) is that they'll grow up if they eat the fruit.

Now, why they'd have been 'better off not knowing' the difference between 'good' and 'evil' I don't quite understand. Surely if Eve had known beforehand, she wouldn't have taken the Serpent's word at face value? Hm, but then, it's back to the circular reasoning.

Hell does not exist. This is a church teaching, not the bible's teaching
Oh now, this one amuses me to no end.

There's actually something like 160 odd references to Hell in the New Testament - 70 or so of them are by Jesus himself. So the assertions that 'Hell does not exist' (while in accordance with Atheist views!) and 'not the Bible's teaching' is false.

Hell is mentioned in the books of Mark, Matthew, Malachi, Luke, Acts and Revelation.

Hell is also mentioned in the Old Testament. In the books Deuteronomy, Samuel, Job and Psalms.

Want proof? Go to the Bible Gateway. So, yeah, actually the Bible does teach about Hell.

I've seen a few more posts by this guy - and all of them serve to make me face-palm and head-desk. Especially his wonderful posts about Noah and the Flood. If nothing else, he's good for a laugh, because as another poster in that forum said, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

2 comments:

Lorry said...

Did you mean Lot's wife, or were two women turned into pillars of salt? I'm too lazy to look up the verse you cited, but I'm quite sure Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. Being raised in a highly religious family, this was one of the few stories that left an impression on me as a young child, since I knew what salt was. I called salt shakers "Lot's wife" for a short period.

At any rate, I got a good laugh out of the "God only knows the future if he wants to." That's awesome.

Hannah King said...

Oops! Yes, I meant Lot's wife XD Changing that now!