Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lack of Evidence / Evidence of Lack

JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

In regards to Zeus, we have proven that there isn't some giant god on top of Mt. Olympus that can throw lightning bolts. We have explored Mt. Olympus and we understand how lightning is created, and it's not from Zeus throwing it.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:18:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:14:51 PM, freedomsquared wrote:

In regards to Zeus, we have proven that there isn't some giant god on top of Mt. Olympus that can throw lightning bolts. We have explored Mt. Olympus and we understand how lightning is created, and it's not from Zeus throwing it.

Obviously Zeus wasn't home - there is a large storm in North America at the moment and his lightning skills are needed there...

But you know perfectly well what I mean - use Russel's Teapot instead.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:21:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This seems to fit...

The Fallacy Fallacy
"...just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true."

http://www.theskepticsguide.org...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:26:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:18:24 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:14:51 PM, freedomsquared wrote:

In regards to Zeus, we have proven that there isn't some giant god on top of Mt. Olympus that can throw lightning bolts. We have explored Mt. Olympus and we understand how lightning is created, and it's not from Zeus throwing it.

Obviously Zeus wasn't home - there is a large storm in North America at the moment and his lightning skills are needed there...

Didn't think of that, better start burning some fat on the altar in tribute.

But you know perfectly well what I mean - use Russel's Teapot instead.

Okay. For me it comes down to a relation between logic and faith. I can logically deduce that it is impossible for there to be teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (based on when Russell made this claim). However, the existence of an almighty, 3-O's God transcends all logic and thus I cannot logically deduce a full-proof argument for his existence. While I do have my own reasons for believing in God, it ultimately comes down to faith.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:49:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:21:24 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
This seems to fit...

The Fallacy Fallacy
"...just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true."

http://www.theskepticsguide.org...

Can you clarify a little what you mean by this? Are you admitting the LoE/EoL argument is erroneous, but saying it doesn't really matter?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:55:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

I guess, given the choices, I'd pick 2. I would like to see another option in there though.

4) Admit the maxim is true, and ask the atheist to simply admit that no matter how low he can make the probability, he can't get it down to 0, therefore the possibility can't be ruled out.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:59:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:49:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:21:24 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
This seems to fit...

The Fallacy Fallacy
"...just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true."

http://www.theskepticsguide.org...


Can you clarify a little what you mean by this? Are you admitting the LoE/EoL argument is erroneous, but saying it doesn't really matter?

Hmmm....no I think the conclusion is right...I just didn't like the arguments you made to conclude that! (that is basically what the "Fallacy Fallacy" is about...having a conclusion that is right, but not having the arguments for it be relevant or lead to it necessarily)

But I have been reading your top part you wrote a bit more...are you saying that there is to be NO evidence of any kind used then? If you are meaning that...I think I would tend towards #2...
but if any evidences were allowed, what kinds would that be?
or maybe you are just going for a philosophical type question w/o any evidence to be used(?)
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:55:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

I guess, given the choices, I'd pick 2. I would like to see another option in there though.

4) Admit the maxim is true, and ask the atheist to simply admit that no matter how low he can make the probability, he can't get it down to 0, therefore the possibility can't be ruled out.

Well I suppose that's a possible answer, but I think for the purposes of what we're talking about here, there's no need to draw a line between different kinds of atheism... at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist just have different opinions about a probability that is neither 0 nor 100. So it doesn't really make a huge difference =)
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:33:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:00:27 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Well I suppose that's a possible answer, but I think for the purposes of what we're talking about here, there's no need to draw a line between different kinds of atheism... at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist just have different opinions about a probability that is neither 0 nor 100. So it doesn't really make a huge difference =)

There is an exception to this statement you made...Some theists actually claim to know 100% that they know God is real. I usually don't see atheists making the claim though that they know 100% that God isn't real.

That is because there is a principle known as "personal revelation"...where God can reveal something directly to a person...then they "know"...also this is the reason I would cite (if you allow ANY evidence in your question) that that is how I know that God is real...because God can and does actually reveal things to a person....so that is why it was difficult to choose one of your arguments because I already understand and know that God is real!

It shouldn't come as a surprise really, since God instructs people in the Bible that He will do that...for ex: Matt. 7:7 and James 1:5

your conclusion you listed is fine though...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 6:48:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:14:51 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

In regards to Zeus, we have proven that there isn't some giant god on top of Mt. Olympus that can throw lightning bolts. We have explored Mt. Olympus and we understand how lightning is created, and it's not from Zeus throwing it.

We have also proved that God did not create us... oh it's allegorial? Why can't the followers of Zeus claim aspects of their faith to be allegorical?

In reference to the OP, isn't this the thread that Izbo has trying to create for three months!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jd6089
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 6:59:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

And the correct ans. is>>>
none of the above. its a combination of 2 and 3.
The first half of 2 and the 2nd half of 3.
so much for trying to get all the options.
jd6089
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 7:00:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 6:59:57 AM, jd6089 wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

And the correct ans. is>>>
none of the above. its a combination of 2 and 3.
The first half of 2 and the 2nd half of 3.
so much for trying to get all the options.

BTW I'm not christian.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 9:19:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:33:23 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:00:27 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Well I suppose that's a possible answer, but I think for the purposes of what we're talking about here, there's no need to draw a line between different kinds of atheism... at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist just have different opinions about a probability that is neither 0 nor 100. So it doesn't really make a huge difference =)

There is an exception to this statement you made...Some theists actually claim to know 100% that they know God is real. I usually don't see atheists making the claim though that they know 100% that God isn't real.

That is because there is a principle known as "personal revelation"...where God can reveal something directly to a person...then they "know"...also this is the reason I would cite (if you allow ANY evidence in your question) that that is how I know that God is real...because God can and does actually reveal things to a person....so that is why it was difficult to choose one of your arguments because I already understand and know that God is real!

It shouldn't come as a surprise really, since God instructs people in the Bible that He will do that...for ex: Matt. 7:7 and James 1:5

your conclusion you listed is fine though...

Sure, and im sure there are psychics who claim to know, 100%, that ghosts are real and talk to them on a regular basis.

Thats because of a principle known as "Personal revelation", where ghosts from the afterlife, have nothing better to do than to fly around and talk to psychics.

Seriously though, if this "Personal revelation" was really a principle, we would have to accept all claims of personal revelation, even if they contradict others.

So in the end, this personal revelation becomes the same as almost all other evidences for the existance of a God; Special pleading. You cherry pick the instances where your specific God has revealed himself, and ignore the instances where contradictory God figures have revealed himself to others. The only people that find this argument convincing are the people who already believe in their deity.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 9:22:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 9:19:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:33:23 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:00:27 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Well I suppose that's a possible answer, but I think for the purposes of what we're talking about here, there's no need to draw a line between different kinds of atheism... at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist just have different opinions about a probability that is neither 0 nor 100. So it doesn't really make a huge difference =)

There is an exception to this statement you made...Some theists actually claim to know 100% that they know God is real. I usually don't see atheists making the claim though that they know 100% that God isn't real.

That is because there is a principle known as "personal revelation"...where God can reveal something directly to a person...then they "know"...also this is the reason I would cite (if you allow ANY evidence in your question) that that is how I know that God is real...because God can and does actually reveal things to a person....so that is why it was difficult to choose one of your arguments because I already understand and know that God is real!

It shouldn't come as a surprise really, since God instructs people in the Bible that He will do that...for ex: Matt. 7:7 and James 1:5

your conclusion you listed is fine though...

Sure, and im sure there are psychics who claim to know, 100%, that ghosts are real and talk to them on a regular basis.

Thats because of a principle known as "Personal revelation", where ghosts from the afterlife, have nothing better to do than to fly around and talk to psychics.

Seriously though, if this "Personal revelation" was really a principle, we would have to accept all claims of personal revelation, even if they contradict others.

So in the end, this personal revelation becomes the same as almost all other evidences for the existance of a God; Special pleading. You cherry pick the instances where your specific God has revealed himself, and ignore the instances where contradictory God figures have revealed himself to others. The only people that find this argument convincing are the people who already believe in their deity.

It is also very arrogant with all the people worse off then them they think god took time out to reveal himself to them. I always love to ask what god did to reveal himself and how it was more important then stopping the child from starving to death.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 9:35:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 9:22:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/29/2011 9:19:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:33:23 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:00:27 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Well I suppose that's a possible answer, but I think for the purposes of what we're talking about here, there's no need to draw a line between different kinds of atheism... at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist just have different opinions about a probability that is neither 0 nor 100. So it doesn't really make a huge difference =)

There is an exception to this statement you made...Some theists actually claim to know 100% that they know God is real. I usually don't see atheists making the claim though that they know 100% that God isn't real.

That is because there is a principle known as "personal revelation"...where God can reveal something directly to a person...then they "know"...also this is the reason I would cite (if you allow ANY evidence in your question) that that is how I know that God is real...because God can and does actually reveal things to a person....so that is why it was difficult to choose one of your arguments because I already understand and know that God is real!

It shouldn't come as a surprise really, since God instructs people in the Bible that He will do that...for ex: Matt. 7:7 and James 1:5

your conclusion you listed is fine though...

Sure, and im sure there are psychics who claim to know, 100%, that ghosts are real and talk to them on a regular basis.

Thats because of a principle known as "Personal revelation", where ghosts from the afterlife, have nothing better to do than to fly around and talk to psychics.

Seriously though, if this "Personal revelation" was really a principle, we would have to accept all claims of personal revelation, even if they contradict others.

So in the end, this personal revelation becomes the same as almost all other evidences for the existance of a God; Special pleading. You cherry pick the instances where your specific God has revealed himself, and ignore the instances where contradictory God figures have revealed himself to others. The only people that find this argument convincing are the people who already believe in their deity.

It is also very arrogant with all the people worse off then them they think god took time out to reveal himself to them. I always love to ask what god did to reveal himself and how it was more important then stopping the child from starving to death.

Yeah, i love miracle stories and the likes. Especially the one i heard in the movie Religulous, where the guy said that when he stuck his hand with an empty glass out the window, it started to rain. Apart from the fact that, as Maher said, it rains all the time and theres nothing special about it, some kid is starving in africa and God doesnt rain food from the skies for him, yet he took the time to make it rain for you?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:53:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 6:59:57 AM, jd6089 wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.


And the correct ans. is>>>
none of the above. its a combination of 2 and 3.
The first half of 2 and the 2nd half of 3.
so much for trying to get all the options.

This would be compelling if it weren't for the fact that no Christian would ever say that lack of evidence IS evidence of lack, but there actually is evidence, because the evidence itself is so weak that it would leave them with a horrible fallback position. I discounted this as a viable response because it's, quite simply, not salient.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:54:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 6:48:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

In reference to the OP, isn't this the thread that Izbo has trying to create for three months!

I have no idea - I can't read the crap he writes... it's nonsense.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 2:57:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 9:22:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:

It is also very arrogant with all the people worse off then them they think god took time out to reveal himself to them. I always love to ask what god did to reveal himself and how it was more important then stopping the child from starving to death.

Actually, I amend my prior post - this is surprisingly on-point.

Unfortunately, most "personal revelationists" tend to discount this objection on the grounds that "we know not the ways of God," which is a position of inconsistent humility when coupled with the notion that they were "chosen."
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:08:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:33:23 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 8/28/2011 10:00:27 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Well I suppose that's a possible answer, but I think for the purposes of what we're talking about here, there's no need to draw a line between different kinds of atheism... at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist just have different opinions about a probability that is neither 0 nor 100. So it doesn't really make a huge difference =)

There is an exception to this statement you made...Some theists actually claim to know 100% that they know God is real. I usually don't see atheists making the claim though that they know 100% that God isn't real.

That is because there is a principle known as "personal revelation"...where God can reveal something directly to a person...then they "know"...also this is the reason I would cite (if you allow ANY evidence in your question) that that is how I know that God is real...because God can and does actually reveal things to a person....so that is why it was difficult to choose one of your arguments because I already understand and know that God is real!

It shouldn't come as a surprise really, since God instructs people in the Bible that He will do that...for ex: Matt. 7:7 and James 1:5

your conclusion you listed is fine though...

In response to both your comments...

On the first issue, I meant to discount all non-natural evidence. The idea being that we cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch God. There is some waffling about whether we can deduce God, but the point is that if there is no "base" evidence, then other forms like the Bible that are derivative (i.e. someone saw an angel and wrote it, or heard a voice in the mountain and told someone).

On the second issue, my problem with personal revelation as a valid source of evidence is twofold. First, it's subjective, and cannot be rebutted with any objective argumentation. So while it may provide compelling evidence for one person, it's not terribly compelling for anyone that has not had the same experience. Bottom line is that it's not terribly useful for convincing other people, and a large part of this stems from the fact that it cannot be tested or repeated, or even appropriately described to someone else. I should qualify "repeated" however, as there is some evidence that religious experiences can be induced by monkeying around with chemicals in the brain, and I think, magnetic fields as well.

Second, and rather simply, it's always more logical to assume that the individual in fact did not have a divine revelation, but rather had a hallucination.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:08:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 2:57:53 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 9:22:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:

It is also very arrogant with all the people worse off then them they think god took time out to reveal himself to them. I always love to ask what god did to reveal himself and how it was more important then stopping the child from starving to death.

Actually, I amend my prior post - this is surprisingly on-point.

Unfortunately, most "personal revelationists" tend to discount this objection on the grounds that "we know not the ways of God," which is a position of inconsistent humility when coupled with the notion that they were "chosen."

Or could it be that God cares more for the ETERNAL well being of people than caring as much about this eyeblink of time of our life on Earth? Innocent children who die will receive salvation and exaltation....whereas if they actually had lived there is no guarantee that they would receive that...

D&C 137: 10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
http://lds.org...#

Those who are on course for "spiritual death" however are on a much more dangerous course...as that involves eternity...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:13:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:08:02 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

Unfortunately, most "personal revelationists" tend to discount this objection on the grounds that "we know not the ways of God," which is a position of inconsistent humility when coupled with the notion that they were "chosen."

Or could it be that God cares more for the ETERNAL well being of people than caring as much about this eyeblink of time of our life on Earth? Innocent children who die will receive salvation and exaltation....whereas if they actually had lived there is no guarantee that they would receive that...

There is no guarantee that they would not, either. The main problem with this position is that it requires the proponent to defend the notion that it's better for God to cause someone's death and grant them eternal life than to let them live. If this is the case, why bother creating people at all? Or more powerfully, why let them live? If we could be killed as babies, and that's best, then by all means, God should kill us before we can sin.

D&C 137: 10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
http://lds.org...#

Again, even if this is the case, is it really an excuse for God to let them suffer? Why couldn't he have appeared to the man with the glass and just said, "You know what, Joe? I'm gonna make it rain for you, but I'm gonna do it over in Africa where they can actually use that water. Here's just a glass of water I magicked up to show you I can really do it. Oh, and next time, thou shalt not tempt the lord thy God."

Those who are on course for "spiritual death" however are on a much more dangerous course...as that involves eternity...

Pascal's wager is certainly a debatable topic, but not for this thread =)
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:35:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:13:23 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Or could it be that God cares more for the ETERNAL well being of people than caring as much about this eyeblink of time of our life on Earth? Innocent children who die will receive salvation and exaltation....whereas if they actually had lived there is no guarantee that they would receive that...

There is no guarantee that they would not, either. The main problem with this position is that it requires the proponent to defend the notion that it's better for God to cause someone's death and grant them eternal life than to let them live. If this is the case, why bother creating people at all? Or more powerfully, why let them live? If we could be killed as babies, and that's best, then by all means, God should kill us before we can sin.

You bring up some good points here...I actually do agree that in some cases it is better for babies to be killed than to be raised up into wickedness and die spiritually for example in the time of Noah...if the babies were allowed to be raised in a fully wicked society that had only 8 righteous people on the Earth...odds are high that the children would have been corrupted...so in essence yeah that was probably a factor God considered...although many people don't seem to consider that, because they are lacking eternal perspective...they will just make an outrageous claim that God murdered babies...when in reality He is doing what is BEST for them.
HOWEVER if the Society is good enough and a person has a reasonable chance to obtain salvation yeah, there are reasons to live also...and that is why we are here. So it seems to me that is something that God takes into consideration.

D&C 137: 10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
http://lds.org...#

Again, even if this is the case, is it really an excuse for God to let them suffer? Why couldn't he have appeared to the man with the glass and just said, "You know what, Joe? I'm gonna make it rain for you, but I'm gonna do it over in Africa where they can actually use that water. Here's just a glass of water I magicked up to show you I can really do it. Oh, and next time, thou shalt not tempt the lord thy God."

the topic "why does God allow people to suffer" is also much talked about...(like Pascal's wager)..I'll drop the PW discussion from the thread like you wanted.
Also a person seeking to know if God is real and asking is not the same as tempting the Lord to perform miracles as a sign.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:36:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

So, is a God of my understanding (or lack there of) more plausible than Zeus. Yes. Since there are far fewer parameters around the nature of God in my understanding, and Zeus is pretty much all accounted for in his nature, I would say that my God is more plausible. Since I make no claim as to the exact nature of God, but rather regard God as the author of purpose for existence, and Zeus is a man with super powers, it would seem to me that my concept of God is more plausible.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:47:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:36:27 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

So, is a God of my understanding (or lack there of) more plausible than Zeus. Yes. Since there are far fewer parameters around the nature of God in my understanding, and Zeus is pretty much all accounted for in his nature, I would say that my God is more plausible. Since I make no claim as to the exact nature of God, but rather regard God as the author of purpose for existence, and Zeus is a man with super powers, it would seem to me that my concept of God is more plausible.

Who says that a man named zeus has any super powers?
Sure it is likely that a man named zeus may exist but it is not AS likely that a man named zeus exists since I KNOW that God exists...therefore #2 was closest for me, but still the loaded question with the correct conclusion has no arguments that I can fully buy in to...now if I personally knew a man named zeus I would know that both would be as likely (meaning they both exist).
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 3:53:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:47:06 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 8/29/2011 3:36:27 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/28/2011 9:01:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I'm curious what Christians have to say about the maxim:

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Let's just do a quick thought experiment where we apply that same maxim to things like Unicorns, Zeus, Russel's Teapot, etc... And let's also say for the moment that I'm not concerned with any other "evidence" like the Bible, prophets, etc - and that I'm just interested in the lack of evidence in the natural world - again, not including any arguments from design, mainly because those are completely idiotic. But that's a different topic.

So... Christians are left with two, well, three options:

1) Admit at the maxim is true, and God is equally as implausible as Zeus.
2) Admit the maxim is true, and Zeus is equally as plausible as God.
3) Admit the maxim is false, and punt to some other evidence.

(the distinction between the first two being 'lowering' God, and 'raising' Zeus)

I'm curious which option Christians take?

So, is a God of my understanding (or lack there of) more plausible than Zeus. Yes. Since there are far fewer parameters around the nature of God in my understanding, and Zeus is pretty much all accounted for in his nature, I would say that my God is more plausible. Since I make no claim as to the exact nature of God, but rather regard God as the author of purpose for existence, and Zeus is a man with super powers, it would seem to me that my concept of God is more plausible.

Who says that a man named zeus has any super powers?
Sure it is likely that a man named zeus may exist but it is not AS likely that a man named zeus exists since I KNOW that God exists...therefore #2 was closest for me, but still the loaded question with the correct conclusion has no arguments that I can fully buy in to...now if I personally knew a man named zeus I would know that both would be as likely (meaning they both exist).

First, by Zeus, i am assuming the OP is referring to the mythical god Zeus, not some guy hanging around Harvard Square named Zeus.

The argument poses our understanding of God, if Zeus is not plausible, why should the Christian God be plausible. - In all honesty, the God that is derrived solely from scripture is only a little more plausible to me; whereas a God that has less confinements of human dictates is far more plausible to me.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 4:23:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:36:27 PM, innomen wrote:

So, is a God of my understanding (or lack there of) more plausible than Zeus. Yes. Since there are far fewer parameters around the nature of God in my understanding, and Zeus is pretty much all accounted for in his nature, I would say that my God is more plausible. Since I make no claim as to the exact nature of God, but rather regard God as the author of purpose for existence, and Zeus is a man with super powers, it would seem to me that my concept of God is more plausible.

Just to clarify, I'm not concerned with accounting for the nature of either - I'm interested in how Christians deal with other mythical beings of equal plausibility to God. It doesn't have to be Zeus - it could be a unicorn or the FSM or Russel's Teapot (or, a Scrivvy) - it doesn't matter. This is mostly because the question IS loaded in that it assumes that when other evidence is cast aside that the plausibility of the two is equal.

I'm just bolding this so it stands out, cause there is apparently some question on the issue...

Basically, I'm asking whether, derivative evidence (i.e. Bible) aside, God's plausibility is downgraded in light of the maxim, or if the plausibility of The FSM is upgraded in light of the maxim.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 4:34:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 3:35:36 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 8/29/2011 3:13:23 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Or could it be that God cares more for the ETERNAL well being of people than caring as much about this eyeblink of time of our life on Earth? Innocent children who die will receive salvation and exaltation....whereas if they actually had lived there is no guarantee that they would receive that...

There is no guarantee that they would not, either. The main problem with this position is that it requires the proponent to defend the notion that it's better for God to cause someone's death and grant them eternal life than to let them live. If this is the case, why bother creating people at all? Or more powerfully, why let them live? If we could be killed as babies, and that's best, then by all means, God should kill us before we can sin.

You bring up some good points here...I actually do agree that in some cases it is better for babies to be killed than to be raised up into wickedness and die spiritually for example in the time of Noah...if the babies were allowed to be raised in a fully wicked society that had only 8 righteous people on the Earth...odds are high that the children would have been corrupted...so in essence yeah that was probably a factor God considered...although many people don't seem to consider that, because they are lacking eternal perspective...they will just make an outrageous claim that God murdered babies...when in reality He is doing what is BEST for them.

Ok, but this just brings to light a horrible inconsistency that has some damning (no pun intended) implications for Christianity's entire view of what "sin" is. You say the children would have been corrupted... This, of course, presumes that God knew they would be corrupted before they actually were, which means that he chose to create (or allow the creation of) these children who would live short lives and be murdered by god, or grow up to be corrupted and cast into hell by god later. What happened to free will??

Second, we are again faced with the confusing issue of whether children are to be punished for the sins of the fathers. Surely the children are not corrupting themselves, so the sin of corruption belongs to the parents. But then should not also the derivative sins of the corrupt children also be the responsibility of the parents?

And if not, meaning that the sins of the corrupted children are their own responsibility, then why bother killing them off ahead of time if they are responsible for acting, even though they are not responsible for the corruption that led them to act?

Third, would it also not fly in the face of everything that Christianity stands for to not allow these Children to grow up corrupt, but still give them at least the opportunity to turn from their corrupt ways and find God?

I think the example of Noah's ark is an exceedingly poor example to illustrate any principle of Christian morality...

HOWEVER if the Society is good enough and a person has a reasonable chance to obtain salvation yeah, there are reasons to live also...and that is why we are here. So it seems to me that is something that God takes into consideration.

So if I may condense your argument into a nutshell... it's better for God to kill babies that have the misfortune of being born in evil societies, and thus, free will matters less the more evil your society is?

D&C 137: 10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
http://lds.org...#

Again, even if this is the case, is it really an excuse for God to let them suffer? Why couldn't he have appeared to the man with the glass and just said, "You know what, Joe? I'm gonna make it rain for you, but I'm gonna do it over in Africa where they can actually use that water. Here's just a glass of water I magicked up to show you I can really do it. Oh, and next time, thou shalt not tempt the lord thy God."

the topic "why does God allow people to suffer" is also much talked about...(like Pascal's wager)..I'll drop the PW discussion from the thread like you wanted.
Also a person seeking to know if God is real and asking is not the same as tempting the Lord to perform miracles as a sign.

Would it matter if the person asked in an attempt to reaffirm their belief? It seems to me that people who believe do not need a sign (unless they are seeking to amuse themselves), but people who do not believe are almost worse off by asking for a sign while expecting none.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 5:53:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 4:34:42 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

You bring up some good points here...I actually do agree that in some cases it is better for babies to be killed than to be raised up into wickedness and die spiritually for example in the time of Noah...if the babies were allowed to be raised in a fully wicked society that had only 8 righteous people on the Earth...odds are high that the children would have been corrupted...so in essence yeah that was probably a factor God considered...although many people don't seem to consider that, because they are lacking eternal perspective...they will just make an outrageous claim that God murdered babies...when in reality He is doing what is BEST for them.

Ok, but this just brings to light a horrible inconsistency that has some damning (no pun intended) implications for Christianity's entire view of what "sin" is. You say the children would have been corrupted... This, of course, presumes that God knew they would be corrupted before they actually were, which means that he chose to create (or allow the creation of) these children who would live short lives and be murdered by god, or grow up to be corrupted and cast into hell by god later. What happened to free will??

let me examine your points here, ok these are my opinions:

the children would have been corrupted--> yes I believe that, don't you? and God surely would know.

the children would either die young and be saved or be corrupted and not saved---> well actually the 2 eventualities you mention ---one or the other will happen to ALL of us...saved or not saved. Timeframes differ though for each of us. And yes there is a chance (unlikely) that some of them may have made it to salvation if they were permitted to tarry.

free will -->free will existed before we came to this Earth, all the spirits (ie all people) got to choose if they want to come or not...1/3 decided not to come actually...but if you chose to come here, you have no guarantees of what will happen. Also that is another thing to consider as well...all the spirits in the premortal spirit world were still needing to come to Earth and get a body...they would have been born into wicked families as well (that would have been the only place available for them to be born into, all were wicked families except Noah's family)...and the cycle of corruption would have continued...more spirits sent to wicked families, then growing up in corruption, then having children and corrupting them...etc...there isn't enough choice to choose good in that situation.

as far as your "murdered by God" reiteration...by your definition is everyone "murdered by God"? I mean is the person who lives to be 100 years old and dies a natural death "murdered by God"...also what if you don't really "die" what if you are just going into another sphere of existence that God knows about? is that "murder" (to Him) or just changing your location?...also what if He is going to give your life back during the resurrection and let you live forever...does bringing you back to life "counter" the alleged "murder"?

Second, we are again faced with the confusing issue of whether children are to be punished for the sins of the fathers. Surely the children are not corrupting themselves, so the sin of corruption belongs to the parents. But then should not also the derivative sins of the corrupt children also be the responsibility of the parents?

You are correct those sins would fall upon the heads of the parents...but just condemning them would not break the cycle of corruption I described above. Also God cares about the parents themselves...even though they were wicked and every thought was evil God perhaps saw that there was no reason for them to heap more sins upon themselves...why let them corrupt more children and have to suffer for MORE sins in hell?

It reminds me of God speaking to the House of Israel, who were totally corrupt, The Lord had tired of cursing them and afflicting them because they would not take correction (their brow was brass so to speak...nothing was sinking in) Verese 5 specifically...
Isaiah 1
4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

5 ¶Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

And if not, meaning that the sins of the corrupted children are their own responsibility, --> n/a (they're not)

Third, would it also not fly in the face of everything that Christianity stands for to not allow these Children to grow up corrupt, but still give them at least the opportunity to turn from their corrupt ways and find God?

I commented on that before, yea, some may survive, I mean Noah did...but then again Noah was particularly strong spiritually, not many are like him...able to stand up against the entire world and not cave in.

I think the example of Noah's ark is an exceedingly poor example to illustrate any principle of Christian morality...

I think Noah's ark is an excellent example in pointing out that God cares more for people's eternal well being than He does about their temporary comfort.

So if I may condense your argument into a nutshell... it's better for God to kill babies that have the misfortune of being born in evil societies, and thus, free will matters less the more evil your society is?

I don't know if I would summarize it that way, but I will comment: I would say that in some instances it is better for a person to die or be killed...especially if it is better for them eternally.

and your other point...hmmm..."free will matters less the more evil your society is"
that is a very interesting idea...that I would like to think about more...

I will say this though...when the majority of society becomes evil, then is the time that the cursings of God fall upon the society.

When the society is fully ripe that is when the judgment of God falls upon it to its destruction.

Ether 2:9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

Micah was shown a basket of ripe fruit...symbolic of the people being fully ripe for destruction because they didn't repent.

Micah 1:
1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and behold a basket of summer fruit.

2 And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the Lord unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them any more.

Would it matter if the person asked in an attempt to reaffirm their belief? It seems to me that people who believe do not need a sign (unless they are seeking to amuse themselves), but people who do not believe are almost worse off by asking for a sign while expecting none.

you are correct. And a person who seeks signs in that way...WILL see signs, but it won't help them.

Doctrine and Covenants 63:7 And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation.

8 Verily, I say unto you, there are those among you who seek signs, and there have been such even from the beginning;

9 But, behold, faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe.

10 Yea, signs come by faith, not by the will of men, nor as they please, but by the will of God.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 6:37:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 5:53:16 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

let me examine your points here, ok these are my opinions:

the children would have been corrupted--> yes I believe that, don't you? and God surely would know.

It's possible either way - maybe they would have been corrupted, but maybe they would have been of such character to be disgusted by their parents and choose to rise above it.

the children would either die young and be saved or be corrupted and not saved---> well actually the 2 eventualities you mention ---one or the other will happen to ALL of us...saved or not saved. Timeframes differ though for each of us. And yes there is a chance (unlikely) that some of them may have made it to salvation if they were permitted to tarry.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that God knew they would all be corrupt...

free will -->free will existed before we came to this Earth

How did free will manage to exist in the absence of a will to use it? God's free will aside (which is a whole different can of worms), how could free will have predated the existence of any wills? At best, it shares concurrent creation.

all the spirits (ie all people) got to choose if they want to come or not...1/3 decided not to come actually...

Where in the world did you get this idea?

but if you chose to come here, you have no guarantees of what will happen. Also that is another thing to consider as well...all the spirits in the premortal spirit world were still needing to come to Earth and get a body...they would have been born into wicked families as well (that would have been the only place available for them to be born into, all were wicked families except Noah's family)...and the cycle of corruption would have continued...more spirits sent to wicked families, then growing up in corruption, then having children and corrupting them...etc...there isn't enough choice to choose good in that situation.

But then, if the only choice was to be born wicked, why bother actually birthing these doomed-to-wickedness children? If they have made the choice to be wicked, God should just send them straight to hell instead of bothering with the facade of letting them live.

The other option would expose an odd happening... suppose they chose to be wicked later, but by being born and killed before they had a chance to make good on their wickedness, they absolved themselves of any responsibility for the choice.

as far as your "murdered by God" reiteration...by your definition is everyone "murdered by God"? I mean is the person who lives to be 100 years old and dies a natural death "murdered by God"

No... just the people drowned deliberately by God were murdered.

...also what if you don't really "die" what if you are just going into another sphere of existence that God knows about? is that "murder" (to Him) or just changing your location?...also what if He is going to give your life back during the resurrection and let you live forever...does bringing you back to life "counter" the alleged "murder"?

Well if we accept the biblical notions of what murder was, as evidenced in the 10 Commandments, clearly the act is able to be committed. I'm not sure that there is any argument for stating that God's actions in killing babies in the flood is *not* a "murder." But the answer the question, God enumerated the wrong (murder), and whether or not he commits that wrong in a "change in location" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the notion of absolution via restorative justice... correcting a wrong later does not remove responsibility for the wrong in the first place.

You are correct those sins would fall upon the heads of the parents...but just condemning them would not break the cycle of corruption I described above. Also God cares about the parents themselves...even though they were wicked and every thought was evil God perhaps saw that there was no reason for them to heap more sins upon themselves...why let them corrupt more children and have to suffer for MORE sins in hell?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of Noah's ark, the concept of purgatory did not exist yet, which means there would have been no concept of proportionality in the remuneration of sins. So it doesn't really matter *how many* sins were committed - an idea supported by the notion that even the deathbed convert could enter the Kingdom. Plus, God removed the wicked parent's chance to repent - another example of removal of free will... and an example of a scenario under which the children may not have been raised wickedly.

It reminds me of God speaking to the House of Israel, who were totally corrupt, The Lord had tired of cursing them and afflicting them because they would not take correction (their brow was brass so to speak...nothing was sinking in)...

Doesn't this point more towards a defect in God's design than to an actual fault in the individual?

I commented on that before, yea, some may survive, I mean Noah did...but then again Noah was particularly strong spiritually, not many are like him...able to stand up against the entire world and not cave in.

Some may survive? As I recall, the world was covered to the tops of the tallest mountains.... for almost 6 weeks. So these babies could have possibly swam constantly for 6 weeks in salt water in the rain?

So if I may condense your argument into a nutshell... it's better for God to kill babies that have the misfortune of being born in evil societies, and thus, free will matters less the more evil your society is?

I don't know if I would summarize it that way, but I will comment: I would say that in some instances it is better for a person to die or be killed...especially if it is better for them eternally.

So you support abortion? Because today's society is pretty damn wicked, right? So we may as well kill the little suckers before they have a chance to be corrupted by anything... in fact - the earlier the better! Let's identify the exact point where life begins, so we can end it ASAP! Cause if it's better for them eternally....