If a god created the universe...

[muhammad_isa]

What was necessary was necessary. It was not as if it was an after thought. We are told that it was planned before the foundation of the earth. God knew what would happen..

Yes, that is correct as G-d is omniscient.

Satan may have thought that he had God in an impossible position. Satan may have figured out what God would need to do and that he could make God look worse by getting Jesus to sin. I don't know..

satan is merely a created being. he knows that he can't beat G-d, and yet he can't help himself. he is filled with hate and wishes to destroy others out of spite.
All humans have a tendency towards evil. That is the meaning of temptation.
G-d is incapable of sin.

 

[firedragon]

What was necessary was necessary.

For GOd? then your conception of God is that he is weak. He cant forgive. Has no power.

Anyway, this discussion has run its course. Thanks Brian. Cheers.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, that is correct as G-d is omniscient.

satan is merely a created being. he knows that he can't beat G-d, and yet he can't help himself. he is filled with hate and wishes to destroy others out of spite.
All humans have a tendency towards evil. That is the meaning of temptation.
G-d is incapable of sin.

Yet God as a man can be tempted to sin.

 

[Brian2]

For GOd? then your conception of God is that he is weak. He cant forgive. Has no power.

Anyway, this discussion has run its course. Thanks Brian. Cheers.

Jesus in His weakness and humanity managed to be obedient to His Father and God and so offer salvation for all who want to accept it.
God can and has forgiven.
One weak man was stronger than everything Satan had to throw at Him, even the pain and shame of death on the cross. He carried the work through to the end.
Thanks firedragon.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yet God as a man can be tempted to sin.

Well, you would have to say that..
In fact the whole doctrine of the trinity relies on a series of inconsistencies that are argued justifiable by some philosophical manipulation.
G-d being G-d, and Jesus being Jesus, is a lot easier to explain.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
There is no objective evidence miracles are possible.

but that does not mean miracles are not possible.

It doesn't mean they are possible either, that would require sufficient objective evidence as well. Until then there is no epistemological reason to believe the claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn't mean they are possible either, that would require sufficient objective evidence as well. Until then there is no epistemological reason to believe the claims.

If everybody in the world had experienced a miracle but you, would you still insist there was no "epistemological reason" to believe them?
I mean, it would be argumentum populum, wouldn't it?

 

[Sheldon]

If everybody in the world had experienced a miracle but you, would you still insist there was no "epistemological reason" to believe them?
I mean, it would be argumentum populum, wouldn't it?

Yes of course, and yes it would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so obviously irrational to believe the claim based on that bare appeal to numbers. Though I might be tempted to keep it to myself of course, as history shows people can very tetchy when others point out their beliefs are irrational or unevidenced. Luckily I live in a part of the world, and an epoch where the worst they can do is insult me, or misrepresent my lack of belief, but that was not always so, and still isn't in some parts of the world. I may find theistic belief uncompellingly, and some of their claims ridiculous, or even childish, but I wouldn't harm another person for that, or even try to force them to relinquish those beliefs. Though I would where possible and practical speak out against bigotry, like the vile homophobia espoused in some threads for example, or the notion that pernicious acts like slavery or FGM were ever morally acceptable. Since my subjective moral worldview cares about avoiding and where possible preventing unnecessary suffering.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes of course, and yes it would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so obviously irrational to believe the claim based on that bare appeal to numbers..

..but can't you see?
You would be condemning everybody but yourself to making an irrational decision.
Has it ever occurred to you that it might be YOU who are being irrational?

 

[Brian2]

Well, you would have to say that..
In fact the whole doctrine of the trinity relies on a series of inconsistencies that are argued justifiable by some philosophical manipulation.
G-d being G-d, and Jesus being Jesus, is a lot easier to explain.

If your ideas are easier to explain I guess that means they are right.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Yes of course, and yes it would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so obviously irrational to believe the claim based on that bare appeal to numbers..

..but can't you see?
You would be condemning everybody but yourself to making an irrational decision.

Nope, that is a straw man fallacy, not believing an irrational claim by you, based on a hypothetical involving a bare appeal to numbers is not irrational, quite the opposite. It is clearly you who does not see, here.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be YOU who are being irrational?

Only if I was the one that had violated a principle of logic, you can't use a known logical fallacy like argumentum ad populum, as you did here again, then try and suggest that anyone who understands your claim, and points it out, are themselves being irrational.

Why is this such a blind spot for you? A bare appeal to numbers is irrational, just because you want to believe the claim, and the numbers support it, does not matter. This has surely been explained enough times by now?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Only if I was the one that had violated a principle of logic, you can't use a known logical fallacy like argumentum ad populum, as you did here again, then try and suggest that anyone who understands your claim, and points it out, are themselves being irrational.

I'm not saying that anybody in particular is being irrational ..
I'm saying that wouldn't it make you WONDER whether the fact that everybody but you witnessed the miracle means that your assumption that miracles are not possible or highly unlikely might be untrue?

A bare appeal to numbers is irrational..

You make it sound as if all those people that witnessed miracles are not rational, as you consider yourself to be.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not saying that anybody in particular is being irrational ..

You implied it here:

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be YOU who are being irrational?

wouldn't it make you WONDER whether the fact that everybody but you witnessed the miracle means that your assumption that miracles are not possible or highly unlikely might be untrue?

Firstly that's an unevidenced claim not a fact, secondly it is a bare appeal to numbers, and therefore a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Lastly I have made no such assumption, it's yet another repetition of your dishonest straw man.

You make it sound as if all those people that witnessed miracles are not rational, as you consider yourself to be.

No I don't, that is another straw man, and I have never claimed to be rational, only to try not to make irrational claims nor hold irrational beliefs, so two straw men fallacies in one sentence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..unevidenced claim .. a bare appeal to numbers .. known logical fallacy .. argumentum ad populum. dishonest straw man.

..another straw man, ..irrational claims .. irrational beliefs.

Well, I learn so much about religion from your posts