Sodom and Gomorrah

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
You can't negate a cop-out by making an even bigger cop-out, which is precisely what you just did.

I'll be honest with you, I don't see that as a cop out. God exists whether one believes He does or not. I don't know what else to tell you. You can choose to believe or not, but God exists regardless.

As I stated previously, much if not all of the non-Bible records on Biblical events have been destroyed by the Roman Empire (by design).

We need FAITH, not PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Why would there still be scars on the earth, exactly?

think about what you are asking

Originally posted by Bat Dude

The Word has been preserved. The same doctrine and meaning of the words has been preserved since they were written down years ago. Translating it faithfully into other languages does not change the meaning of the words. When you translate it incorrectly and change the meaning of the words (like the NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc. did), THAT'S when you pervert God's words and they are no longer preserved. But God won't allow His word to be completely perverted.

Two questions:

Which version of the Bible did God protect from perversion?

Why did God allow some versions to be perverted and not others (or other, if there's only one non molested version)?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I'll be honest with you, I don't see that as a cop out. God exists whether one believes He does or not. I don't know what else to tell you. You can choose to believe or not, but God exists regardless.

As I stated previously, much if not all of the non-Bible records on Biblical events have been destroyed by the Roman Empire (by design).

We need FAITH, not PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM.

You went from a cop-out to a cop-out squared and now you've made it into a cop-out cubed. Sweet Jesus on a stick, my good man.

We need neither. What we need is rationality and actual intellectualism.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is a classic example of a cop out. You literally couldn't make a better example if you tried.

"This is correct because it's correct."

You make me think of a priest who isn't prepared to answer a precocious kid's questions, so just tells him to read the Bible because the "answer is in there somewhere".

Originally posted by Bat Dude
We need FAITH, not PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM.

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

Originally posted by Galan007
I don't believe in God, but I'm still trying to look at this objectively... IF there is a God, his existence cannot be 'proven'. However, his existence cannot be disproven either. Where this argument is concerned, it's all about faith.

it depends on the God you believe in

for instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably false. As in, there are claims made about the God in the holy books which do not come to pass (prayer not having any effect being one of the major ones).

There are logical ways around this (sometimes God says no), but this is not in line with literal interpretations of the bible.

Its only when you introduce such logical-rationalizations, or, if you introduce Gods which are unknowable by definition, that you get into the idea of not being able to disprove God. However, all major religions make claims about God and its relationship with man which are testable, and all have failed to provide evidence in support of God.

Originally posted by Galan007
IF there is a God, his existence cannot be 'proven'.

This is not exactly true. God is only outside of rational inquiry if God is defined that way. In particular once you make claims about God doing things in the world then God is testable. Unless you want to get into Hume-esque "no one can ever really know anything" most gods can be proven or disproven since few people really believe in a demiurge that exists but does nothing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
it depends on the God you believe in

for instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably false.

Depends upon what you want to do.

If you ask questions like: "Do the gospels line up with each other's temporal accounts of the events surrounding Jesus?"

Answer: No. They do not.

Then you conclude that the God of the Bible has to be false based off of that, then, sure, you can conclude that and not really be logically faulted.

However, that does not logically mean the God of the Bible is false (and by extension, the God of the Jews and the God of the Muslims).

That's just one of many different possible conclusions based on a single point of contention.

Originally posted by Oliver North
As in, there are claims made about the God in the holy books which do not come to pass (prayer not having any effect being one of the major ones).

You'd have to cherry pick very specific studies, that also have faults, in order for that to be true.

Originally posted by Oliver North
There are logical ways around this (sometimes God says no), but this is not in line with literal interpretations of the bible.

That's also cherry-picking a very specific kind of group (biblical fundamentalists and very rare kinds of Muslims).

Originally posted by Oliver North
Its only when you introduce such logical-rationalizations, or, if you introduce Gods which are unknowable by definition,

Which is what the Christian God is supposed to be...as well the Jewish, Muslim, and some flavors of Hinduism. By definition, it is literally impossible to know God without becoming omniscient yourself.

Originally posted by Oliver North
that you get into the idea of not being able to disprove God.

Are you familiar with some of the early Christian apologetics and theosophical writings? I believe you are so you know what you just said her easily applies to most Christian religions...as well as Muslim faiths...as well as some perspectives from Jews...as well as some Hindu belief systems.

Originally posted by Oliver North
However, all major religions make claims about God and its relationship with man which are testable, and all have failed to provide evidence in support of God.

This point is similar to the very first point you made. It really depends on how one likes to manipulate conclusions and logic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...most gods can be proven or disproven since few people really believe in a demiurge that exists but does nothing.

Well, let's have a thought experiment from a Mormon perspective.

Only the pure in heart can see God.

Joseph Smith saw God as a lad and was supposedly pure in heart.

You pray and ask to see God. God does not appear. Conclusion: you are not pure in heart.

That's one possible conclusion.

Could be that God doesn't exist. Could be that God only appears to people foreordained to see God in this existence. Or, another possibility, God is a deistic god.

yes ddm, my point about God's testabiliy being related to what you believe about God is entirely dependent of the conclusions one makes about God.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes ddm, my point about God's testabiliy being related to what you believe about God is entirely dependent of the conclusions one makes about God.

Yeah, that's true and is a point you made but probably did not realize you were making it. Your arguments were very weak, honestly.

I don't think you understood what I said

Originally posted by Galan007
Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord [supposedly] preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

They were corrupting innocents...they were inbred swine, their actions hurt children; God was cleaning up, to save.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't think you understood what I said

I did. I don't think you understood why your arguments were weak. Go back and read you post. Then read mine, again. It will make sense, eventually.

I can write another counter-post, in the same manner of words you used, which should help it make more sense. Would you like me to do that?

What point are you making besides what is encompassed by the first line of my post, re: "it depends on the God you believe in"

Originally posted by Oliver North
What point are you making besides what is encompassed by the first line of my post, re: "it depends on the God you believe in"

This should help you better understand what I was talking about since I used your words.

Here you go:

It really does not depend on the God in which you believe.

For instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably true. As in, there are claims made about the God in the holy books and apologetics which come to pass (prayer having an effect being one of the major ones).

There are logical ways around this (sometimes God says nothing), but this is in line with some literal interpretations of the bible as well as symbolic and allegorical interpretations.

When you introduce logical rationalizations (which is what almost any major religion has done or is doing), or, if you introduce Gods which are unknowable by definition, that you get into the idea of not being able to disprove God.

However, all major religions make claims about God and its relationship with man which are testable, and some points of contention have failed whereas others have succeeded making The Question difficult to honestly answer.

lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
Could be that God doesn't exist. Could be that God only appears to people foreordained to see God in this existence. Or, another possibility, God is a deistic god.

Yes, as I said if you define God in a way that makes investigating it impossible then investigating God is impossible. That is a tautology. In practice, however, I don't think many people actually believe in the deistic God needed for this to be the case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In practice, however, I don't think many people actually believe in the deistic God needed for this to be the case.

Except for many of the "Founding Fathers." 🥷

Shhhh. Don't tell the Americans. They think the founding fathers were Evangelical Christians that wanted God to be in everything government.

Originally posted by Oliver North
for instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably false.

Point: the existence of God on a fundamental level cannot be disproven any more than it can be proven. And like I said: I'm trying to overlook my personal religious beliefs(or lack thereof) for the sake of retaining objectivity throughout this argument.