A challenge to Atheists! #2

G

garbonzo

Registered Senior Member
So I've decided to play the numbering game, also. Some of you may remember my challenge to Atheists at which time I was a theist, and you guys helped me see the truth. It went on for like 13 pages I think.

Now this guy, Rusty Entrekin, claims THIS:

I have not been closed minded to the idea that the Bible could be wrong - I have carefully considered the best arguments for this I have encountered. Most people uncritically accept such arguments. One of my hobbies is to scrutinize them carefully, and what a faith-strengthening exercise that has been! In my experience, no one has ever given an argument against the Bible that upon close and crritcal examination holds water.
Click to expand...

This is a first for me. An open-minded (seemingly, or so he says) individual who has done massive research and plenty of articles, and he has never seen any solid evidence against the Bible?

Well, we have a mind to crack, don't we? What do you guys think? I am going to ask him about 607 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem and see what he says. All evidence points to 586 BCE, but the Bible plainly states that it is 607....

I'm sure you guys have better ones. I am familiar with, "If God is Almighty, can he create a stone which he CANNOT carry?"

I'm sure there are many others, as the Bible is littered with contradictions. :p

I'm emailing him, btw. That's what he emailed me.
 
How about that it's merely a book? I can write a book that claimed things, that doesn't mean it's all true.
 
spidergoat said:
How about that it's merely a book? I can write a book that claimed things, that doesn't mean it's all true.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about evidence, contradictions, etc. Or we could always say it is up to the theists to provide evidence and just crumple up their evidence?
 
gabonzo,

You aren't seriously going to try to argue reality with a guy who has a B.A. in theology and yet is so scholarly (in between running a business and having seven children, while holding church services in his house three times a week) has declared the Bible to be infallible and without even a misstep. He believes in talking snakes for goodness sake.

Go on Don Quiote. :p
 
garbonzo said:
So I've decided to play the numbering game, also. Some of you may remember my challenge to Atheists at which time I was a theist, and you guys helped me see the truth. It went on for like 13 pages I think.

Now this guy, Rusty Entrekin, claims THIS:



This is a first for me. An open-minded (seemingly, or so he says) individual who has done massive research and plenty of articles, and he has never seen any solid evidence against the Bible?

Well, we have a mind to crack, don't we? What do you guys think? I am going to ask him about 607 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem and see what he says. All evidence points to 586 BCE, but the Bible plainly states that it is 607....

I'm sure you guys have better ones. I am familiar with, "If God is Almighty, can he create a stone which he CANNOT carry?"I'm sure there are many others, as the Bible is littered with contradictions. :p

I'm emailing him, btw. That's what he emailed me.
Click to expand...

If He wanted to I'd think He could, but why would He want to? To show some doubting Thomas that He could turn everything including the DT guy to stone? I have never seen anything in the Bible that says God can do "anything" although I've heard quite a few pervert what is actually said in that book to mock Him. I do know that God can do anything He wants to. He has no obligation to take any "follower" into His kingdom. He isn't obligated by anything other than chronology protection to keep His promises, if even that binds Him to be a Good God.

We quote Chrisitain misgivings more than we quote the actual book...
 
He doesn't even seem to care that people have no reason to believe in Him, but apparently he will torture them for disbelief.
 
HectorDecimal said:
If He wanted to I'd think He could, but why would He want to? To show some doubting Thomas that He could turn everything including the DT guy to stone? I have never seen anything in the Bible that says God can do "anything" although I've heard quite a few pervert what is actually said in that book to mock Him. I do know that God can do anything He wants to. He has no obligation to take any "follower" into His kingdom. He isn't obligated by anything other than chronology protection to keep His promises, if even that binds Him to be a Good God.

We quote Chrisitain misgivings more than we quote the actual book...
Click to expand...

If he can create a stone he cannot carry, then he must not be able to so whatever he wants to, because he cant carry the stone!
 
garbonzo said:
So I've decided to play the numbering game, also. Some of you may remember my challenge to Atheists at which time I was a theist, and you guys helped me see the truth. It went on for like 13 pages I think.

Now this guy, Rusty Entrekin, claims THIS:



This is a first for me. An open-minded (seemingly, or so he says) individual who has done massive research and plenty of articles, and he has never seen any solid evidence against the Bible?

Well, we have a mind to crack, don't we? What do you guys think? I am going to ask him about 607 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem and see what he says. All evidence points to 586 BCE, but the Bible plainly states that it is 607....

I'm sure you guys have better ones. I am familiar with, "If God is Almighty, can he create a stone which he CANNOT carry?"

I'm sure there are many others, as the Bible is littered with contradictions. :p

I'm emailing him, btw. That's what he emailed me.
Click to expand...


You're fighting a losing battle. If he were truly open-minded to the fallibility of the bible, he would have come down on the side of reason. It may not have turned him into an atheist, but he would have been required to take a different tact when interpreting the text.

For him to claim there are no contradictions within, and that the bible is completely accurate, then all he has done is learn the skill of rhetoric and how to dodge questions. This means you are both trying to move a mountain as well as well as in way over your head.

But hey, it can't hurt to take a few grenades to get a feel for how educated theist do battle.
 
spidergoat said:
He doesn't even seem to care that people have no reason to believe in Him, but apparently he will torture them for disbelief.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's it SG. Think of it like this: If there's a SpiderGoat fan club, would you want to have a bunch of members in there posting pictures of Hector Decimal all over your posters and making a mockery of the things that inspire your real fans? What if there are only 3 fan clubs to choose from? Those that love your work, those that love my work and those that just love their own work? The headquarters for the self-lovers is falling apart and there's only 2 more places to go. If you have seen my headquarters and it's dinky, dingy and disgusting with child molesters running rampant, but you know your place is big and beautiful and kids are safe there, wouldn't you want to be certain that it was well known about the difference between our HQ's? If I was oh so willing to wreak havoc on anyone I could, wouldn't you let the ones you want in your club the most get a good taste of my passion to destroy? Since the self love club is basically destroying their HQ, wouldn't you just let them go ahead and see if any of them realize it won't work there and end up one place or another saying "We don't have anywhere else to go! Waaaa!"
 
garbonzo said:
If he can create a stone he cannot carry, then he must not be able to so whatever he wants to, because he cant carry the stone!
Click to expand...

Can YOU create a stone that you CAN carry that isn't made from stones created before you were alive?

I know he already HAS created quite a few you can't even think about carrying.

Concrete doesn't qualify as a stone because it is made from stones He created before He created you.
 
garbonzo said:
I'm sure you guys have better ones. I am familiar with, "If God is Almighty, can he create a stone which he CANNOT carry?"
Click to expand...
I'm basically an apatheist... pragmatic non-theist.

But seriously, this is such an illogical statement I'm amazed anyone considers it to be evidence of anything other than not so clever wordplay.
 
HectorDecimal said:
I don't think that's it SG. Think of it like this: If there's a SpiderGoat fan club, would you want to have a bunch of members in there posting pictures of Hector Decimal all over your posters and making a mockery of the things that inspire your real fans? What if there are only 3 fan clubs to choose from? Those that love your work, those that love my work and those that just love their own work? The headquarters for the self-lovers is falling apart and there's only 2 more places to go. If you have seen my headquarters and it's dinky, dingy and disgusting with child molesters running rampant, but you know your place is big and beautiful and kids are safe there, wouldn't you want to be certain that it was well known about the difference between our HQ's? If I was oh so willing to wreak havoc on anyone I could, wouldn't you let the ones you want in your club the most get a good taste of my passion to destroy? Since the self love club is basically destroying their HQ, wouldn't you just let them go ahead and see if any of them realize it won't work there and end up one place or another saying "We don't have anywhere else to go! Waaaa!"
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's a good analogy. If God made himself known, there wouldn't be any other club (except perhaps the God-haters). Don't you think that lack of knowledge of God would be worse than letting people do their worst in ignorance, as some kind of perverse example?

But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
 
Garbanzo said:
I'm sure you guys have better ones. I am familiar with, "If God is Almighty, can he create a stone which he CANNOT carry?
Click to expand...

gmilam said:
But seriously, this is such an illogical statement I'm amazed anyone considers it to be evidence of anything other than not so clever wordplay.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that it's illogical? It seems logically ok to me.

What it suggests to me is the possibility that there might be a logical problem with the idea of omnipotence. If an omnipotent being can create/do anything, then presumably he (she or it) should be able to create a task that's too difficult even for an omnipotent being to perform.

If the being can't create such a task, then there's something that the being can't do, so the being would seem to not be omnipotent after all.

If the being can create such a task, then there's something that the being can't do, so the being would seem to not be omnipotent after all.

It's an interesting conundrum.

I guess that one traditional reply in philosophical theology is that a task that's impossible for an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility. An omnipotent being need only be able to do everything that's logically possible. On this argument, logical impossibilities aren't real possibilities, so inability to do impossible things doesn't count against omnipotence.

A problem with that kind of response is that it seems to imply that God is subject to and limited by logic, suggesting that logic is somehow prior to and superior to God. Traditional theism would probably want to insist instead that logic is one of God's creations and is subject to his will, along with the rest of natural law.
 
Yazata said:
Why do you think that it's illogical? It seems logically ok to me.

What it suggests to me is the possibility that there might be a logical problem with the idea of omnipotence. If an omnipotent being can create/do anything, then presumably he (she or it) should be able to create a task that's too difficult even for an omnipotent being to perform.

If the being can't create such a task, then there's something that the being can't do, so the being would seem to not be omnipotent after all.

If the being can create such a task, then there's something that the being can't do, so the being would seem to not be omnipotent after all.

It's an interesting conundrum.

I guess that one traditional reply in philosophical theology is that a task that's impossible for an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility. An omnipotent being need only be able to do everything that's logically possible. On this argument, logical impossibilities aren't real possibilities, so inability to do impossible things doesn't count against omnipotence.

A problem with that kind of response is that it seems to imply that God is subject to and limited by logic, suggesting that logic is somehow prior to and superior to God. Traditional theism would probably want to insist instead that logic is one of God's creations and is subject to his will, along with the rest of natural law.
Click to expand...

I endorse this post.

Of course, the concept of an omnipotent god never sat right with me. I could never reconcile the idea of everything happening for a reason with the fact that we do animal things, like pooping. Why would a being that could literally do anything create something that must defecate?
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Why do you think that it's illogical? It seems logically ok to me.

What it suggests to me is the possibility that there might be a logical problem with the idea of omnipotence. If an omnipotent being can create/do anything, then presumably he (she or it) should be able to create a task that's too difficult even for an omnipotent being to perform.

If the being can't create such a task, then there's something that the being can't do, so the being would seem to not be omnipotent after all.

If the being can create such a task, then there's something that the being can't do, so the being would seem to not be omnipotent after all.

It's an interesting conundrum.

I guess that one traditional reply in philosophical theology is that a task that's impossible for an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility. An omnipotent being need only be able to do everything that's logically possible. On this argument, logical impossibilities aren't real possibilities, so inability to do impossible things doesn't count against omnipotence.

A problem with that kind of response is that it seems to imply that God is subject to and limited by logic, suggesting that logic is somehow prior to and superior to God. Traditional theism would probably want to insist instead that logic is one of God's creations and is subject to his will, along with the rest of natural law.
Click to expand...

The thing is - all this has nothing to do with God, but merely with our reasoning.


For one, we can say all kinds of things about God - but there are very few of those things (or none) that we can actually test with our human capacities.
And if we cannot test those things - how can we come to any conclusions as to whether they are true about God or not?

How would we test whether God can create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?
Creating and lifting heavy stones is something that is to be empirically tested. So, how are we going to test it?


For two, questions like "Can God create a stone He cannot lift?" are based on an implicit kind of error refering to the sentence itself, a paradox.

More of such, but with the error explicit:
"Can we conceive of something we cannot conceive of?"
"Can you find something that cannot be found?"

and to clarify "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?"
"Can omnipotence do something that omnipotence cannot do?"

the basic formula being
"Can X be non-X?"


For three, since humans enter communication following some interest, to satisfy some need, their verbal utterances are one of the means to accomplish that.

If someone has the desire to defeat a theist at all costs, or to show one's disdain of God, then one has many verbal possibilities to choose from.

The aim of those who make a point of asking "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?" is usually to show that God is not omnipotent - and that therefore, God doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
They do not wish to worship God to begin with, and so they try to come up with rationalizations as to why they are justified not to worship God.
(They could have simply said No - but apparently, that is too plain or something.)
 
JDawg said:
Why would a being that could literally do anything create something that must defecate?
Click to expand...

Because some beings, in order to recognize the folly of opposing God, must be made to do some things that they find really demeaning.



By the way, if you follow modern trends in bathroom and toilette design, there are many people who don't see anything really problematic with defecating. There's plenty of money to be made with it.
 
wynn said:
The thing is - all this has nothing to do with God, but merely with our reasoning.


For one, we can say all kinds of things about God - but there are very few of those things (or none) that we can actually test with our human capacities.
And if we cannot test those things - how can we come to any conclusions as to whether they are true about God or not?

How would we test whether God can create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?
Creating and lifting heavy stones is something that is to be empirically tested. So, how are we going to test it?


For two, questions like "Can God create a stone He cannot lift?" are based on an implicit kind of error refering to the sentence itself, a paradox.

More of such, but with the error explicit:
"Can we conceive of something we cannot conceive of?"
"Can you find something that cannot be found?"

and to clarify "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?"
"Can omnipotence do something that omnipotence cannot do?"

the basic formula being
"Can X be non-X?"


For three, since humans enter communication following some interest, to satisfy some need, their verbal utterances are one of the means to accomplish that.

If someone has the desire to defeat a theist at all costs, or to show one's disdain of God, then one has many verbal possibilities to choose from.

The aim of those who make a point of asking "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?" is usually to show that God is not omnipotent - and that therefore, God doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
They do not wish to worship God to begin with, and so they try to come up with rationalizations as to why they are justified not to worship God.
(They could have simply said No - but apparently, that is too plain or something.)
Click to expand...

It is not to show that God isn't worthy ofvworship if he is not omnipotent, I only what to discount his religion, because if I do that, researching the evidence that show the Bible is wrong. There is no reason not to believe in a God, and there is no reason to. Show me the evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top