Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Arugment From Non-belief

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 8:05:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If there is a problem or a logical flaw within this syllogism, then please explain it to me. I've used it in two debates, but my opponents didn't know what to do with it. I have read numerous critiques of the argument from non-belief. But I'm more interested in what everyone else thinks of it.

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

Have at it. :)
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 8:21:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It sounds to me like 1b requires God interfering with free will (which for all I know you may already think that the Bible describes God interfering with man's free will, so you wouldn't care about this anyway).

Anyways, define "believe." What if I tell you I have researched evolution thoroughly and completely and that I know everything there is to know about what scientists are saying about evolution, but I don't believe evolution is true? An evolutionist would tell me I am not believing for no good reason, so I am really being ignorant more than anything else.

The same can be applied to believing in God. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to all so that all are without excuse (Rom 1:20). Essentially, all humans have had God revealed to them, so those who don't "believe" are really choosing to be ignorant. Essentially, God doesn't believe in atheists. Those who say they don't believe in God are trying to fool themselves because they would like life much better if they weren't accountable to God after they die. They don't actually "not believe", if "believe" means to agree with something as truth. And you can say the same thing about me about not "believing" in evolution if evolution is what you "believe" in (agree with as true). We're kind of running in circles it seems.

So basically, I disagree with your #3 because of Romans 1:20.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 8:23:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
From dictionary.com:

--verb (used without object)
1.to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2.to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
—Verb phrase
6.believe in,
a.to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.

6a seems to be most applicable.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:29:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 8:21:28 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
It sounds to me like 1b requires God interfering with free will (which for all I know you may already think that the Bible describes God interfering with man's free will, so you wouldn't care about this anyway).

Well, what about the Pharaoh. The pharaoh wanted to let Moses people go, but didnt God come down and deliberately harden his heart so that he would refuse to let Moses and his men free?

Anyways, define "believe." What if I tell you I have researched evolution thoroughly and completely and that I know everything there is to know about what scientists are saying about evolution, but I don't believe evolution is true? An evolutionist would tell me I am not believing for no good reason, so I am really being ignorant more than anything else.

Id define belief as being convinced of accepting a proposition as true or accurate.

The same can be applied to believing in God. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to all so that all are without excuse (Rom 1:20). Essentially, all humans have had God revealed to them, so those who don't "believe" are really choosing to be ignorant. Essentially, God doesn't believe in atheists. Those who say they don't believe in God are trying to fool themselves because they would like life much better if they weren't accountable to God after they die. They don't actually "not believe", if "believe" means to agree with something as truth. And you can say the same thing about me about not "believing" in evolution if evolution is what you "believe" in (agree with as true). We're kind of running in circles it seems.

So basically, I disagree with your #3 because of Romans 1:20.

This is the problem with Romans though. What youre doing is trying to make a differentiation between believing God exists, and accepting him as your lord and saviour. This is why, im sure, Muslims will burn in hell if Christians are correct. Muslims believe in God. And this is fine to make this distinction. However, heres the problem.

If we swap "Believe in God" with "Accept God", your objection is null and void. Argument nullified.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 8:56:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Generally, the theist would argue that 1-b is not feasible without violating free will. Also, they would argue that believing whether or not God exists is more or less irrelevant; what matters is whether the person is willing to come into a loving relationship with him.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 10:58:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 6:29:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/7/2010 8:21:28 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
It sounds to me like 1b requires God interfering with free will (which for all I know you may already think that the Bible describes God interfering with man's free will, so you wouldn't care about this anyway).

Well, what about the Pharaoh. The pharaoh wanted to let Moses people go, but didnt God come down and deliberately harden his heart so that he would refuse to let Moses and his men free?

The Pharaoh example is a favorite of atheists and one I am well familiar with. It can best be illustrated by an example.

Let's say there was an ice cube sitting in the middle of my yard (forget about how it got there or anything). If I told you that the sun melted the ice cube, who is at fault? The sun or the ice cube? Certainly not the sun. The sun was just doing what it always does, so it's not the sun's fault that it melts some things and not others. Is it then the ice cube's fault? Well, maybe. If the ice cube was originally a rock that chose to become an ice cube, knowing full well that it would melt in the presence of the sun, then yes, it is the rock/ice cube's fault that the sun melted it.

So, "the sun melted the ice cube" should really be understood as "the ice cube melted in response to the sun." Similarly, the statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" can be a little confusing. It sounds like it is putting the fault on God for doing the hardening action, when in actuality it was Pharaoh's stubborn nature that caused his heart to harden in response to God's consistent nature.

After the first plague: And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. Neither was his heart moved by this. Ex 7:32

After the second plague: But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said. Ex 8:15

After the third plague: Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had said. Ex 8:19

After the fourth plague: But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go. Ex 8:32

After the fifth plague: Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go. Ex 9:7

After the sixth plague: But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. Ex 9:12

After the seventh plague: So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the Lord had spoken by Moses. Ex 9:35

After the eighth plague: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go. Ex 10:20

After the ninth plague: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go. Ex 10:27

6 times it says that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and 3 times that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart", showing a progession towards the latter. This shows God's consistent nature in comparison to Pharaoh's growing stubbornness. God demanded the same thing every time: to let the Israelites go. Pharaoh was just so stubborn and proud that he continued to become more and more hard as a result of speaking with Moses and Aaron.

And to specifically address this:
Well, what about the Pharaoh. The pharaoh wanted to let Moses people go, but didnt God come down and deliberately harden his heart so that he would refuse to let Moses and his men free?

No, the text never says that Pharaoh wanted, desired, or intended to let the people go until God stopped him from doing so. Pharaoh was stubborn from the beginning and grew more stubborn. A few time he said he would finally let them go but then didn't do so because his stubbornness grew.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 4:54:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 10:58:46 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
The Pharaoh example is a favorite of atheists and one I am well familiar with. It can best be illustrated by an example.

Let's say there was an ice cube sitting in the middle of my yard (forget about how it got there or anything). If I told you that the sun melted the ice cube, who is at fault? The sun or the ice cube? Certainly not the sun. The sun was just doing what it always does, so it's not the sun's fault that it melts some things and not others. Is it then the ice cube's fault? Well, maybe. If the ice cube was originally a rock that chose to become an ice cube, knowing full well that it would melt in the presence of the sun, then yes, it is the rock/ice cube's fault that the sun melted it.

So, "the sun melted the ice cube" should really be understood as "the ice cube melted in response to the sun." Similarly, the statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" can be a little confusing. It sounds like it is putting the fault on God for doing the hardening action, when in actuality it was Pharaoh's stubborn nature that caused his heart to harden in response to God's consistent nature.

After the first plague: And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. Neither was his heart moved by this. Ex 7:32

After the second plague: But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said. Ex 8:15

After the third plague: Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had said. Ex 8:19

After the fourth plague: But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go. Ex 8:32

After the fifth plague: Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go. Ex 9:7

After the sixth plague: But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. Ex 9:12

After the seventh plague: So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the Lord had spoken by Moses. Ex 9:35

After the eighth plague: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go. Ex 10:20

After the ninth plague: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go. Ex 10:27

6 times it says that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and 3 times that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart", showing a progession towards the latter. This shows God's consistent nature in comparison to Pharaoh's growing stubbornness. God demanded the same thing every time: to let the Israelites go. Pharaoh was just so stubborn and proud that he continued to become more and more hard as a result of speaking with Moses and Aaron.

No no, all the times youve mentioned exodus, but not once have you mentined the passage that i am refering to.

Exodus 4:21 (King James Version)

21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

The Pharaoh wasnt stubborn from the beginning, it was God who hardened his heart so that he may become stubborn and refuse to let Moses go. This is the implication of the story, and this verse, which comes early and before all the other verses, explain this point best.

No, the text never says that Pharaoh wanted, desired, or intended to let the people go until God stopped him from doing so. Pharaoh was stubborn from the beginning and grew more stubborn. A few time he said he would finally let them go but then didn't do so because his stubbornness grew.

No no, it is implied. If the pharaoh was already going to refuse to let Moses and his people go, God would not have to harden his heart so that he may refuse.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 5:40:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
one problem is with 1B, saying God "can" does not mean God "will." For example, I may want everyone to like my political beliefs, but I wouldn't dream (even if I had the power) of forcing people to agree with my political beliefs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:46:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 4:54:06 PM, tkubok wrote:

No no, all the times youve mentioned exodus, but not once have you mentined the passage that i am refering to.

Exodus 4:21 (King James Version)

21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

The Pharaoh wasnt stubborn from the beginning, it was God who hardened his heart so that he may become stubborn and refuse to let Moses go. This is the implication of the story, and this verse, which comes early and before all the other verses, explain this point best.

I didn't know this was the particular verse you were talking about, but my point remains the same. The statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" or "I will harden his heart" CAN admittedly be easily confused with what it really means. This particular verse that you quoted has brought nothing new to the table just because it was before the plagues. This verse does not require that Pharaoh wasn't originally stubborn, although you would like it to. "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" should be understood "Pharaoh's heart will become hard naturally due to his stubbornness and My (God's) consistency", exactly the same as "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" should be understood "Pharaoh's heart became hard naturally due to his stubbornness and God's consistency." You only showed an example of the statement in question being posed in the future tense rather than the past tense as I did. It changes nothing and does not address my argument about the understanding of the meaning of the statement itself.

No, the text never says that Pharaoh wanted, desired, or intended to let the people go until God stopped him from doing so. Pharaoh was stubborn from the beginning and grew more stubborn. A few time he said he would finally let them go but then didn't do so because his stubbornness grew.

No no, it is implied. If the pharaoh was already going to refuse to let Moses and his people go, God would not have to harden his heart so that he may refuse.

This is still asserting that the hardening action was on the part of God and not on the part of Pharaoh. You should either address my specific argument about how to understand the statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" or at least acknowledge that both are plausible, and we'll just agree to disagree due to our respective biases (I want to believe the Bible, you want not to believe the Bible). As the Bible gives insufficient information about whether Pharaoh was originally a stubborn person before all this started or not, it is fair to reason that "I will harden his heart" can have two possible meanings.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 2:42:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 8:05:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
If there is a problem or a logical flaw within this syllogism, then please explain it to me. I've used it in two debates, but my opponents didn't know what to do with it. I have read numerous critiques of the argument from non-belief. But I'm more interested in what everyone else thinks of it.

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)


Have at it. :)

Everyone DOES believe in God, but He gives us the option of willfully turning away from Him to betray Him for the 'hear and now' and immediate pleasures of the world.
The Cross.. the Cross.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 3:26:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 2:42:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 2/7/2010 8:05:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
If there is a problem or a logical flaw within this syllogism, then please explain it to me. I've used it in two debates, but my opponents didn't know what to do with it. I have read numerous critiques of the argument from non-belief. But I'm more interested in what everyone else thinks of it.

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)


Have at it. :)

Everyone DOES believe in God, but He gives us the option of willfully turning away from Him to betray Him for the 'hear and now' and immediate pleasures of the world.

Read this.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 7:22:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 2:42:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Everyone DOES believe in God, but He gives us the option of willfully turning away from Him to betray Him for the 'hear and now' and immediate pleasures of the world.

Lol - worst. argument. ever. You believe in God you just don't think you do!!!
President of DDO
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 3:46:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 7:22:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/9/2010 2:42:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Everyone DOES believe in God, but He gives us the option of willfully turning away from Him to betray Him for the 'hear and now' and immediate pleasures of the world.

Lol - worst. argument. ever. You believe in God you just don't think you do!!!

Not quite; you choose whatever you believe about anything, all belief is chosen.
The Cross.. the Cross.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 7:11:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 6:46:20 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
I didn't know this was the particular verse you were talking about, but my point remains the same. The statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" or "I will harden his heart" CAN admittedly be easily confused with what it really means. This particular verse that you quoted has brought nothing new to the table just because it was before the plagues. This verse does not require that Pharaoh wasn't originally stubborn, although you would like it to. "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" should be understood "Pharaoh's heart will become hard naturally due to his stubbornness and My (God's) consistency", exactly the same as "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" should be understood "Pharaoh's heart became hard naturally due to his stubbornness and God's consistency." You only showed an example of the statement in question being posed in the future tense rather than the past tense as I did. It changes nothing and does not address my argument about the understanding of the meaning of the statement itself.

First off, no. The basis of this argument is from the passage of "he hardened his heart", which does not mean that God did not come down and harden his heart. And when the end of the sentence reads "As the lord had said", this means that what the lord said, was infact what had actually happened, that is, the Lord hardened the pharaohs heart. I mean, all of the passages that your argument rely to, support niether position as none of the passages would still be true, even if God came down and tinkered with the Pharaohs heart.

Secondly, no, it should not be understood. Otherwise, all the other passages where God comes down and deliberately does something, can be seen as it naturally occuring, like Soddom and Gommorah. Did Sodom and Gommorah, naturally die off, or did God deliberately and willfully come down and destroy the place? Did Lots wife, die of a natural heart attack, or did God deliberately kill her for looking back at the town?

Thirdly, please explain what you mean by "Gods consistency".

This is still asserting that the hardening action was on the part of God and not on the part of Pharaoh. You should either address my specific argument about how to understand the statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" or at least acknowledge that both are plausible, and we'll just agree to disagree due to our respective biases (I want to believe the Bible, you want not to believe the Bible). As the Bible gives insufficient information about whether Pharaoh was originally a stubborn person before all this started or not, it is fair to reason that "I will harden his heart" can have two possible meanings.

Oh, please provide the bible passages where the bible states that the pharaoh was originally naturally a stubborn person?

And BTW, no, "I will harden his heart" does not have two possible meanings, anymore than "I will kill him" has two possible meanings. What your argument is based on, is the difference between something naturally occuring, and God coming down and doing something deliberately. And if this argument is granted, then congratulations, God essentially does nothing in the bible except talk, which every christian scholar who has ever lived, disagree with.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 1:22:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 7:11:23 AM, tkubok wrote:

First off, no. The basis of this argument is from the passage of "he hardened his heart", which does not mean that God did not come down and harden his heart. And when the end of the sentence reads "As the lord had said", this means that what the lord said, was infact what had actually happened, that is, the Lord hardened the pharaohs heart. I mean, all of the passages that your argument rely to, support niether position as none of the passages would still be true, even if God came down and tinkered with the Pharaohs heart.

Secondly, no, it should not be understood. Otherwise, all the other passages where God comes down and deliberately does something, can be seen as it naturally occuring, like Soddom and Gommorah. Did Sodom and Gommorah, naturally die off, or did God deliberately and willfully come down and destroy the place? Did Lots wife, die of a natural heart attack, or did God deliberately kill her for looking back at the town?

Thirdly, please explain what you mean by "Gods consistency".

God did nothing more but continue to ask for Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. God didn't change His mind. He didn't decide to let Pharaoh off the hook and forget about it. God continued to ask for the same thing, and Pharaoh became more stubborn.

This is still asserting that the hardening action was on the part of God and not on the part of Pharaoh. You should either address my specific argument about how to understand the statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" or at least acknowledge that both are plausible, and we'll just agree to disagree due to our respective biases (I want to believe the Bible, you want not to believe the Bible). As the Bible gives insufficient information about whether Pharaoh was originally a stubborn person before all this started or not, it is fair to reason that "I will harden his heart" can have two possible meanings.

Oh, please provide the bible passages where the bible states that the pharaoh was originally naturally a stubborn person?

I never said that the Bible clearly stated that Pharaoh was originally stubborn. If you read all of what I said, you would see that I said the Bible provides insufficient information about whether Pharaoh was originally a stubborn person or not. You are assuming that Pharaoh was not a stubborn person at all until God made him be stubborn against his will just to support your argument. You are begging the question. I am acknowledging that the statement in question can be understood in two possible ways. Of course I am picking the way that does not contradict the rest of the Bible because I am biased. You are picking the way that does contradict the Bible because of your own bias, but you refuse to acknowledge the TWO logical understandings of the statement. Your bias is worse.

And BTW, no, "I will harden his heart" does not have two possible meanings, anymore than "I will kill him" has two possible meanings. What your argument is based on, is the difference between something naturally occuring, and God coming down and doing something deliberately. And if this argument is granted, then congratulations, God essentially does nothing in the bible except talk, which every christian scholar who has ever lived, disagree with.

Yes it does. You cannot liken the word "harden" to "kill." You have completely ignored my example of "the sun melted the ice." The sun only did what it always did, and it resulted in the ice melting. If the ice willingly became ice, then it is THE ICE'S FAULT that "the sun melted it." The verb and context of the statement matters tremendously. Your blanket statement about killing is fallaciously black and white.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 2:04:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not quite; you choose whatever you believe about anything, all belief is chosen.

Let's try something DATC - I want you to believe that flying unicorns exist. Try to be completely earnest with yourself; succeed in internally convincing yourself they exist.

I bet you can't.

You can lie to everyone that you do, and write books professing your belief but personally I'd be monstrously difficult short of self-hypnosis or trickery to fool yourself. Rather, beliefs are guided by evidence and reasoning (albeit bias does exist, though this comes from other preexisting beliefs).
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 10:22:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 1:22:48 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
At 2/10/2010 7:11:23 AM, tkubok wrote:

First off, no. The basis of this argument is from the passage of "he hardened his heart", which does not mean that God did not come down and harden his heart. And when the end of the sentence reads "As the lord had said", this means that what the lord said, was infact what had actually happened, that is, the Lord hardened the pharaohs heart. I mean, all of the passages that your argument rely to, support niether position as none of the passages would still be true, even if God came down and tinkered with the Pharaohs heart.

Secondly, no, it should not be understood. Otherwise, all the other passages where God comes down and deliberately does something, can be seen as it naturally occuring, like Soddom and Gommorah. Did Sodom and Gommorah, naturally die off, or did God deliberately and willfully come down and destroy the place? Did Lots wife, die of a natural heart attack, or did God deliberately kill her for looking back at the town?

Thirdly, please explain what you mean by "Gods consistency".

God did nothing more but continue to ask for Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. God didn't change His mind. He didn't decide to let Pharaoh off the hook and forget about it. God continued to ask for the same thing, and Pharaoh became more stubborn.

This is still asserting that the hardening action was on the part of God and not on the part of Pharaoh. You should either address my specific argument about how to understand the statement "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" or at least acknowledge that both are plausible, and we'll just agree to disagree due to our respective biases (I want to believe the Bible, you want not to believe the Bible). As the Bible gives insufficient information about whether Pharaoh was originally a stubborn person before all this started or not, it is fair to reason that "I will harden his heart" can have two possible meanings.

Oh, please provide the bible passages where the bible states that the pharaoh was originally naturally a stubborn person?

I never said that the Bible clearly stated that Pharaoh was originally stubborn. If you read all of what I said, you would see that I said the Bible provides insufficient information about whether Pharaoh was originally a stubborn person or not. You are assuming that Pharaoh was not a stubborn person at all until God made him be stubborn against his will just to support your argument. You are begging the question. I am acknowledging that the statement in question can be understood in two possible ways. Of course I am picking the way that does not contradict the rest of the Bible because I am biased. You are picking the way that does contradict the Bible because of your own bias, but you refuse to acknowledge the TWO logical understandings of the statement. Your bias is worse.

And BTW, no, "I will harden his heart" does not have two possible meanings, anymore than "I will kill him" has two possible meanings. What your argument is based on, is the difference between something naturally occuring, and God coming down and doing something deliberately. And if this argument is granted, then congratulations, God essentially does nothing in the bible except talk, which every christian scholar who has ever lived, disagree with.

Yes it does. You cannot liken the word "harden" to "kill." You have completely ignored my example of "the sun melted the ice." The sun only did what it always did, and it resulted in the ice melting. If the ice willingly became ice, then it is THE ICE'S FAULT that "the sun melted it." The verb and context of the statement matters tremendously. Your blanket statement about killing is fallaciously black and white.

Dang tkubok, this happens to you a lot huh? Do you think you might want to give it up. Here I'll try. Nick is making your heart hard with every post. The more he spanks you the worse you get. Every time he slaps your "logic" you become more stubborn and choose to resist even more. And nickthengineer made tkubok's heart hard. If you want to twist Holy Scripture to say what you want there are better verses out there.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 9:30:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 10:22:14 PM, jharry wrote:

Dang tkubok, this happens to you a lot huh? Do you think you might want to give it up. Here I'll try. Nick is making your heart hard with every post. The more he spanks you the worse you get. Every time he slaps your "logic" you become more stubborn and choose to resist even more. And nickthengineer made tkubok's heart hard. If you want to twist Holy Scripture to say what you want there are better verses out there.

Hahahahaha! I think I have a man crush on you jharry. That was brilliant. And true. I didn't forcibly do anything to him but it is true that "I made tkubok's heart hard" because he continued to respond in stubbornness. This is way better than the sun melting the ice cube example because this is an IDENTICAL situation.

I don't care whether you were originally a stubborn person or not tkubok. I made you more stubborn without interfering with your free will in the least. Game. Set. Match.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 11:47:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Who cares about "hardening hearts"?

It says that the all powerful creator of the universe killed thousands of children because he got in a pissing contest with a pharoah. Thats enough for me to know its a giant load of crap.

If God wanted the Pharoah to let his people go, why not just kill the Pharoah? Or maybe the Egyptian army? Or maybe a bunch of adults? Maybe I could buy any of those... but Mr. God is Love Yahweh said "Ill show you" and killed a bunch of kids? Sounds like something a bunch of ancient, barbaric people made up.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 4:05:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2010 11:47:30 AM, Floid wrote:
Who cares about "hardening hearts"?

Well I do. I care about every time I help to dispel another false understanding. Of anyone. It's one more b/s argument taken care of, in my world anyway.

It says that the all powerful creator of the universe killed thousands of children because he got in a pissing contest with a pharoah. Thats enough for me to know its a giant load of crap.

There you go again, you want to play a game of football but you require that I tie my shoes strings together and no pads while you get all the advantages. You want to discuss this as long as you have control of the situation. "It says the all powerful Creator." That is where the discussion changes. Kinda like the "if God exists" discussion. You try and defeat God understanding why we believe what we believe about God. We, I anyway, believe God is all powerful and knows all. I believe He knows the future of every single human ever born. Whether or not you agree with me is a matter of opinion. But in regards to God killing thousands of children and expecting a response you have to be willing to at least understand what a Christian believes about God before you make a decision. If you want your "argument" to mean anything. I believe that God looked into the lives of every child and knew whether or not they would ever turned to Him. And it is stated many times in Holy Scripture that to live without God is to be dead already. Now you have to look at this from the view point of a believer, I know you will disagree about turning to Him but that is besides the point. If you were discussing the existence of God then we could talk about that but this is another topic. You say almighty Creature but don't give Him the attributes of an almighty Creator, instead you act as if He is human. You say almighty Creator to put Him to raise Him so you can judge Him by your standards without giving Him to what you say He is in this argument. And when you judge Him by your standards you then bring Him down to the level you need Him to be so that you can judge Him. That my friend is total b/s. I'm sure there is a "proper" debating term for this but around my way it called b/s.

If God wanted the Pharoah to let his people go, why not just kill the Pharoah? Or maybe the Egyptian army? Or maybe a bunch of adults? Maybe I could buy any of those... but Mr. God is Love Yahweh said "Ill show you" and killed a bunch of kids? Sounds like something a bunch of ancient, barbaric people made up.

You also make another mistake. YOU put the restraints on God. You say that God is merciful and loving, so He is required to LOVE and ALWAYS show mercy? And another mistake is to say that death is ALWAYS punishment. Christians believe that to be without the body (dead, physical) is to be with the Lord. If Heaven is so great then that is a reward. Christians also believe God is all knowing. Let's take this for example. Let's look at this Pharaoh fellow. If you were the Pharaoh would it take more then the water turning to blood to not only believe but to comply? So not only did God know that these children would never turn to Him he also knew that would take the Pharaoh losing his son for him to comply. The different plagues where an example of His mercy when He is not bound by mercy because He isn't a computer or a human, He is the almighty Creature. It was a show mercy so that the ones that understood Him and knew Him would see His mercy. The only ones that would have a problem with God are the hard hearted. So where is your heart?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ryft
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 1:44:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 8:05:51 PM, Freeman wrote:

If there is a problem or a logical flaw within this syllogism, then please explain it to me.

If the assertions in the premises are derived from Christian theology, the flaw is that premise (3) is false. If the assertions in the premises are not derived from Christian theology, the flaw is that premise (3) is fallacious (viz. Straw Man)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:56:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 2:04:36 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Not quite; you choose whatever you believe about anything, all belief is chosen.

Let's try something DATC - I want you to believe that flying unicorns exist. Try to be completely earnest with yourself; succeed in internally convincing yourself they exist.

I bet you can't.

You can lie to everyone that you do, and write books professing your belief but personally I'd be monstrously difficult short of self-hypnosis or trickery to fool yourself. Rather, beliefs are guided by evidence and reasoning (albeit bias does exist, though this comes from other preexisting beliefs).

BUT flying unicorns do not provide a philosophical escape from God/morality/judgment..

Atheism, evolution etc DO..

I want you to at least be open to the suggestion that this is your motivation.
The Cross.. the Cross.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 4:14:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
BUT flying unicorns do not provide a philosophical escape from God/morality/judgment..

Atheism, evolution etc DO..

False. I consider myself a very moral person, and I have my own judgment to subject myself to, if the endless judgments I incur from other peopl were not enough.

Religion provides an escape from reason and personal morality and instead ascribes morality as some ramblings of a voice in the sky that someone else heard. There's no need to justify anything, you can blame it all on God and, in the case of Christians, the devil too. God hates qu33rs, so you should hate them too. The devil makes you do evil, so you can blame your evil acts on the devil anytime you like.